Agenda, decisions and draft minutes

Development Panel
Tuesday 13th November, 2018 1.00 pm

Venue: Council Chamber, Allerdale House. View directions

Contact: Gayle Roach  01900 702502

Items
No. Item

231.

Minutes pdf icon PDF 121 KB

To sign as a correct record the minutes of the meeting held on 16 October 2018.

 

Minutes:

Councillor T Annison moved an amendment to minute number 209,

 

‘Following member discussion and the questions raised to the speakers, Councillor M Jenkinson moved refusal on the grounds that the application for the development was contrary to policy S25 of the Allerdale Local Plan Part 1, 2014.

 

To

 

‘Following member discussion and the questions raised to the speakers, Councillor T Annison moved refusal on the grounds that the application for the development was contrary to policy S25 of the Allerdale Local Plan Part 1, 2014. This was seconded by Councillor Wilson.

 

A vote was taken, 11 voted in favour, 0 against, 0 abstentions. The motion was carried.

 

Resolved

 

The minutes of the meeting held on 16th October 2018 were then signed as a correct record, subject to the agreed amendment.

 

232.

Declaration of Interests

Councillors/Staff to give notice of any disclosable pecuniary interest, other registrable interest or any other interest and the nature of that interest relating to any item on the agenda in accordance with the adopted Code of Conduct.

Minutes:

None Declared

233.

Questions

To answer questions from Councillors and members of the public – submitted in writing or by electronic mail no later than 5.00pm, 2 working days before the meeting.

Minutes:

None Received

234.

Development Panel- 2/2018/0397 Land adjacent to Rigg Top, Coldgill Avenue, Gt Broughton- Erection of detached dwelling with detached glass house pdf icon PDF 2 MB

Minutes:

Representations

 

Mr Roger Elliott spoke against the application

 

Mr Ken Thompson spoke in support of the application.

 

Application

 

The report recommended granting permission subject to conditions.

 

The report outlined the application and detailed the main issues within the report as follows:

 

·  Principle of the development and application of the tilted balance

·  Highways

·  Design

·  Visual Impact

 

The application site related to a corner plot off Coldgill Avenue which is located on the south western edge of Broughton village.

The site is Greenfield but it is fenced off from the adjoining field. Coldgill Avenue comprises as a series of terraced houses on its northern side which occupies an elevated position above the highway. On the southern side two modern properties have been constructed and a further outline consent has been granted for an additional dwelling on the intervening vacant plot.

The site is located outside the designated settlement limit and, as with the three dwellings previously approved, would constitute a departure.

 

However, with the housing supply position explained in the report and weight afforded to housing supply policies, members were asked to apply the tilted balance in paragraph 11 of the National Planning Policy Framework.

 

Members noted the representations received in respect of the application, the main grounds of which were set out in the report.

 

Questions were asked of the speakers and the officers and debate followed relating to the settlement boundaries and the local plan.

 

In the ensuing debate, Councillor Cockburn suggested that the tilted balance could be concluded differently and opined that there were significant and demonstrable adverse impacts that outweighed the benefit of providing just a single dwelling. Officers confirmed that it was possible for members to reach a different conclusions based upon the assessment against the development plan policies that retained full weight and the provisions of the NPPF. However, officers reiterated that meaningful weight should not be applied to the 1999 Local Plan settlement limits or the provisions of the untested draft Part 2 Local Plan.

 

Councillor Cockburn then moved a motion to refuse on the grounds that the application constituted non-essential development, that the site was on a greenfield site, outside settlement limits and that there would be an adverse visual effect to the local landscape. This motion was seconded by Councillor Wilson.

 

A vote was taken on the motion for refusal, 6 voted in favour, 4 voted against and 1 abstention.

 

The motion was carried.

 

Resolution

 

Refused

 

Reason for Refusal

 

“The dwelling constitutes non-essential development outside of the settlement limits in the 1999 Allerdale Local Plan as referred to in the Allerdale Local Plan Part 1 2014 and the Pre-submission Draft of the Allerdale Local Plan Part 2 2018 and is on a site that is greenfield and relates more to open countryside. Policy S33 “Landscape” of the Allerdale Local Plan Part 1 2014 also requires landscape character and local distinctiveness to be protected, conserved and, where possible, enhanced. It will neither enhance nor restore the existing open landscape character. The scheme is considered to have a significant adverse effect on the landscape by reason of its siting, creating urban creep into the countryside causing an adverse visual impact.”

 

 

 

235.

Development Panel- 2/2018/0454 Pear Tree Farm, Bowness on Solway- Change of use of utility and storage rooms into a small tea room pdf icon PDF 3 MB

Minutes:

Representations

 

Mr Richard Cuckson, and the applicant Mr Steve Marshall spoke in support of the application.

 

Councillor Vaughan Hodgson spoke in support of the application.

 

Application

 

The report recommended that the panel refuse the application.

 

The report outlined the application and detailed the main issues within the report as follows:

 

·  Principle

·  Parking and Turning

·  Design and Material

·  Historic Environment and Conservation area

·  Economic Benefits

 

The application site is located within the centre of Bowness. Due to the nature of the proposal, officers considered that the primary planning consideration was the economic benefits of the proposed land use against any environmental harm deriving from highway issues.

Officers accepted that there would be economic benefits to the proposed scheme, and that it would act as a tourist facility within the village and a destination for walkers and cyclists using the Hadrian’s Wall recreational routes, thus contributing to the tourist economy. It was accepted that the scale of activity had been reduced through the omission of the bunk barn. Consideration had been given to the 12 covers extent of the proposal.

Officers acknowledged that the type of land use itself was compatible with its residential surroundings subject to securing environmental health conditions. 

 

Officers advised that was targeting the walkers/cyclists along the route of the wall, this was not guaranteed and there would remain the potential for its use by people visiting the area by car. Members were referred to the concerns of the County Highways Officer.

The merits of this individual scheme were finely balanced especially given the limited scale of the works. However, despite the reduced scale of the operation the highway authority maintain their objections. In the light of these comments, although officers had explored options to alleviate the concerns, the scheme remained unacceptable and therefore was recommended for refusal.

 

Members then asked questions of the speakers in relation to access, car parking and the highway access.

 

In the ensuing debate, members discussed the weight afforded to the economic benefits of the proposal and its harm to the conservation area. Of specific consideration was whether the balance changed if the proposal was limited to 12 covers.

 

Officers sought clarification that members considered it necessary to limit the use to 12 covers.

 

Councillor Markley then moved a motion to approve the application on the grounds that the creation of a small tea room will benefit tourism, boost the local economy and enhance the Solway AONB subject to a condition limiting to use to 12 covers.

The motion was seconded by Councillor Annison.

 

Officers and members then discussed the local plan, the local economy and the impact on the highway.

 

A vote was taken on the motion, 8 voted in favour of the motion, 3 voted against the motion and 0 abstentions.

 

The motion was carried.

 

Resolution

 

Approve

 

Reason for granting permission

 

“The development will provide significant benefits to the economy specifically in relation to tourism and the Solway Coast AONB. The impact to heritage assets will be less than substantial, including Hadrian’s Wall World Heritage Site and the Bowness on Solway Conservation Area. The benefits outweigh the less than substantial impacts and the proposal is considered in all respects to accord with policies S1, S14 and S17 of the Allerdale Local Plan Part 1 2014, the provisions of the National Planning Policy Framework and has been considered against the duties in the Listed Buildings Act 1990.”