RESOLVED – That the Agenda be agreed as circulated.
That the applications referred to in the Schedule of Applications under A be approved/refused/deferred, subject to the conditions as set out in the Schedule of Decisions attached to these Minutes.
Paragraph 6.20 of the Main Schedule detailed a Freedom of Information request (FOI) which had been submitted and that the findings had not been provided to the Council. On Friday of 15 October 2021, a document dated 22 July was emailed to the Council and the Ward Councillor had subsequently confirmed that this was the FOI in questions and the respondent was content that the findings be discussed by the Committee.
The third party who requested the FOI specifically wanted to draw attention to point 3 of the FOI. The FOI sought clarification on the status of California Lane and whether the county had acted with due diligence to ascertain land ownership either side of the highway.
The response from Cumbria County Council highlighted that California Lane was part unadopted highway and part Public Right of Way with the Council attaching a Notice under the Highways Act 1980. The Notice illustrated a proposed 18 metres section of adoptable highway crossing between numbers 47 and 76 Newfield Park into the proposed residential development to the east of California Lane. Although land ownership was a civil matter no landowner had come forward in response to the Notice.
The Planning Officer recommended that the application be approved subject to the conditions detailed in the report. Councillor Dr Davison (Ward Member) sought confirmation that the Committee had been provided with a copy of the FOI requested. The Head of Development Management advised that the submission had been made too late for it to be circulated to Members, however, it pertained to highways issues which were fully considered in the report. Councillor Dr Davison addressed the Committee in the following terms: the scheme required the loss of a significant parcel of hedgerow and habitat; open space was important to the health and wellbeing of residents; the Committee needed to be mindful of further narrowings of public space; the site was part of a walking and cycling route; California Lane had a lot of potential, the application should not restrict that; it was possible that the site contained historic artefacts; Dr Davison gave an overview of the history of California Lane in relation to its various designations as highway and Public Right of Way, the need for a Stopping Up Order and the uncertainty about its ownership; were the footpath to be classed as highway the current proposal was not in accordance with its use. In response the Planning Officer advised that: a definition of a highway was provided under the Highways Act, however, California Lane was registered as a public footpath; the Countryside Access Officer had not proposed the use of a Stopping Up Order; the Historic Environment Officer had been on site and had not identified any areas where potential artefacts may be sited; the proposed scheme would increase biodiversity. Councillor Brown noted that she had not been present at the Committee's earlier consideration of the application and indicated that she would not take part in the discussion nor determination of the application. The Committee then gave consideration to the application. In response to questions from Members, Officers confirmed: - The proposed fence would be sited 3 - 5 metres from the outer edge of the footpath; - It was not known who had undertaken maintenance to the footpath verge, however, it was a responsibility of Cumbria County Council as the Local Highway Authority. A Member moved the Officer's recommendation which was seconded and following voting it was: RESOLVED: That the application be approved, subject to the imposition of relevant conditions as indicated in the Schedule of Decisions attached to these minutes. The Committee adjourned at 11:22 and reconvened at 11:28
Cumbria County Council as Local Highway Authority and Lead Local Flood Authority had unresolved concerns about the technical details with regards to both highway matters, in particular Road Safety Audit and drainage regarding surface water treatment, requiring more information. It had not objected to the Reserved Matters aspect of the application which included access, therefore the principle of access at this point resulting in a new junction arrangement was accepted. Further information relating to kerb alignment, dropped kerbs, construction details would have to be resubmitted with additional information. The Head of Development Management noted that there was also a separate S278 Highway agreement required from the County Council which was running in parallel to the planning application process.
The Head of Development Management recommended that the application be approved subject to the conditions detailed in the report. Councillor Betton (Ward Member) stated that a resident of his ward, Mr Nash had requested that he make a representation to the Committee on his behalf, therefore he requested that the time allocated to a member of the public be added to the time allocated to himself to make a submission as Ward Member. The Chair sought clarification as to when Councillor Betton had received that request, Councillor Betton indicated Mr Nash had made the request the previous day. The Head of Development Management confirmed that Mr Nash had registered his Right to Speak in advance of the deadline of 5pm on 20 October. The Chair responded that as Councillor Betton was making representations on behalf of residents, he did not consider it necessary for him to be allocated any additional time to address the Committee. Councillor Betton read out a submission on behalf of Mr Nash containing the following points: a letter had been submitted to the Town Clerk and Chief Executive regarding the detrimental impact on landscaping of the application in February 2021, as yet no response had been received; the report on the earlier application was flawed, therefore the principle of development was not confirmed; the objections submitted in relation to the Victoria Place / Warwick Road junction required detailed consideration; the traffic census was conducted at a time when, due to water pipe replacement works traffic on Warwick Road was severely disrupted: car parking proposals needed serious consideration; the report did not consider the relocation of nearby bus stops; 50% of the provided car parking should include electric charging points; surface water was likely to run-off on to the highway exacerbating existing flooding issues in the area; the proposal was not in accord with government thinking on CO2 output; approving the application was likely to result in the closure of two local sub-post offices, therefore the proposed store should include a post office; permitting development on a flood plain amounted to poor decision making, Members needed to protect the safety of residents and businesses. Councillor Betton made his representation to the Committee in the following terms: it was unclear whether a green man crossing on the highway or appropriate disabled access would be provided by the applicant; a number of conditions imposed as part of the Outline permission had not been enacted; an overview of an issue relating to a river outlet was given along with a description of activities undertaken as a result of previous flood events in areas near the application site; a Stage 2 Road Safety Audit was required. The Chair asked Councillor Betton to begin winding up his speech to the Committee. Councillor Betton continued to describe actions taken in response to earlier flood events. The Chair stated that Councillor Betton had exceeded his allocated time for making verbal representations and requested that he cease his address to the Committee. Councillor Betton continued to address the Committee until such time as his speech was concluded. The Chair commented that Councillor Betton had registered a Right to Speak to represent his ward residents, unfortunately, his conduct at the meeting had let them down. The Head of Development Management, in response to the points made by Councillor Betton, made the following points: the correspondence from Mr Nash had been replied to in May 2021; many of the issues raised pertained to conditions imposed on the Outline Permission and as such were not relevant matters in the determination of the current application; United Utilities comments were contained in the report. Mr Koszyczarek (Agent) responded in the following terms: the approval of the Outline application established the principle of development; detailed drawings had been submitted with the current application setting out the scale and appearance of the store; the store would be powered by 468 solar panels; the applicant intended to provide as many 30 minute electrical vehicle charging points as was feasible; bicycle parking would be provided; the car park surface would be constructed from permeable materials; soft landscaping, ecological and biodiversity measures were incorporated into the scheme; the proposal was in line with national and local planning policy. The Committee than gave consideration to the application. In response to questions from Members, Officers confirmed: - Conditions relating to drainage imposed on the Outline Permission would be addressed by the Lead Local Flood Authority; - The proposals for surface water management took into account the installed flood defences and sought to provide a betterment to the existing condition; - The Highway Authority's assessment of the proposal had not led to a request for the imposition of any further measures than those proposed by the applicant; - The Sequential Test had indicated no adverse impact from the proposal nor that there was a similar or better site for the scheme. A Member moved the Officer's recommendation which was seconded, and following voting it was: RESOLVED: That the application be approved, subject to the imposition of relevant conditions as indicated in the Schedule of Decisions attached to these minutes. The Committee adjourned at 12:12 and reconvened at 14:15
Proposal: Change of Use from hairdressers to hot food takeaway.
The Planning Officer submitted the report on the application. Slides were displayed on screen showing: location plan; block plan; structural details; and, photographs of the site an explanation of which was provided for the benefit of Members. The Planning Officer recommended that the application be refused for the reasons set out in the report. Mr Seenarine (Applicant) addressed the Committee in the following terms: the application was in accordance with Local Plan guidelines; the proposal would allow for the provision of a new type of takeaway cuisine; traffic and noise in the area around the site was reduced due to the closure of the nearby Thai takeaway and a bakery; parking would not be an issue; no concerns in respect of the backyard had been raised by adjacent property owners; refuse would be stored in the yard prior to collection; the proposed opening hours may be amended to make them more sociable; the ambient noise associated with the development would decrease through the evening time; the Highway Authority had not objected to the proposal. In response the Planning Officer noted that the applicant had indicated a willingness to amend the proposed opening hours which had not previously been offered in the assessment of the application. There was a domestic flat above the application site therefore noise and disturbance issues needed to be considered. The Committee then gave consideration to the application.
A Member stated that she considered the reasons for refusing the application to be weak as the site was already in commercial use and noted that a hairdressers can be very busy establishments. She proposed that the application be approved. The Planning Officer responded that comparing the proposal to the existing use was a subjective matter. He noted that the building itself was small and confined, and that a takeaway use would operate at different hours and would, in addition to customers entering the premises, also have deliveries. The Corporate Director of Economic Development explained that hairdresser and food takeaway establishments had differing use classes in national planning policy, with takeaways being viewed as more detrimental to their surroundings. A Member seconded the proposal to approve the application with the imposition of relevant conditions, particularly those related to extraction being delegated to the Corporate Director of Economic Development. Another Member noted the applicant's offer to revise the proposed opening hours. The Planning Officer responded that, were the application to be approved, the matter would be explored with the applicant. The proposal to approve the application was put to the vote and it was: RESOLVED: That the application be approved subject to the imposition of relevant conditions determined by the Corporate Director of Economic Development, as indicated in the Schedule of Decisions attached to these minutes. The Committee adjourned at 15:25 and reconvened at 15:32.
The current application was a resubmission with revisions to the supporting information to address a number of concerns raised by Members during the debate on the previous application and seeking to address the refusal reason.
Mr Mallinson (Objector on his own behalf and on behalf of Messrs Credie, Thompson and Liverick) spoke against the application on the following terms: a condition of the existing Holme Meadow development had required the planting of native hedge and trees species along the southern boundary of the application site which the Council had confirmed had been imposed to define the edge or the limit of the village, beyond which was open countryside; the developer’s contention that a key objective of the proposed scheme was to ‘provide the edge of the village which reinforces its form and put definite limits on development’ was then fallacious as the existing landscaping provided that function; permitting development beyond the existing defined limit would set a precedent and provide for further such applications thus continuing the march of the village into open countryside; the Officer’s report recognised the issue (paragraph 6.26), noting any expansion into open countryside was not in accordance with Local Plan policy HO2, specifically criterion 1 and 3; two dozen local residents had objected to the proposal along with the Parish Council, local MP, the Friends of the Lake District, and the Campaign for the Protection of Rural England (CPRE); the mitigation measures put forward in the Officer’s report were not sufficient, for example, the proposed landscaping screening would take decades to be effective, regardless of the height or location of individual dwellings; the proposed location of the self-build dwellings at the southern boundary would have a strong visual impact as that was the highest point of the site; the ecological impacts of the development would not be positive as the scheme would necessitate the displacement of wildlife from both the existing landscaping features and through the development of the site; the canopy of trees at the boundary of the Holme Meadow development overhung the application site, as such it was likely branches may be lopped in future creating a detrimental impact on both the appearance and viability of the trees along the length of the boundary; since 2014 the village of Cumwhinton had, due to permitted development, doubled in size, the village’s proximity to Carlisle city should not mean its character and form were not protected as that would not be in accordance with Local Plan policies HO 2 and SP 2 – Strategic Growth and Distribution; the Officer’s report grossly underestimated the scale and impacts on the existing village; the application site was prominent and the proposed scheme’s dwelling types and locations would have maximum impact on the settlement and open countryside; the St Cuthbert’s Garden Village project (SCGV) was conceived as a mechanism for protecting villages in the district from overdevelopment and its associated harms, there was no reason that the dwellings proposed in the current scheme may not be provided there particularly given permissions for the Garden Village were now able to be provided.
Mr Mallinson read out a representation to the Committee on behalf of Councillor Higgs who was not able to attend the meeting: Residents of Cumwhinton did not support the development; the additional housing was not needed in the village; the site contributed to the setting of the village by providing an open aspect and expansive views to open countryside, development thereon was then contrary to Local Plan policy GI 1 - Landscapes; Cumbria Constabulary recognised there was a speeding issue in the village, other recent applications had been required to make contributions towards traffic calming measures but no such levy had been applied to the proposed scheme; no Green Spaces contribution had been secured to enable compensatory provision either on or off-site; there was no low cost housing provision associated with the application; the road network in the village was already busy, drainage was struggling to cope, the local school was oversubscribed, thus approving the application would over burden the community in ways there were contrary to Local Plan policy SP 2; the application site was not well contained within existing landscape features nor was it well integrated with the existing settlement, instead it constituted an unacceptable intrusion into open countryside and so was not in accord with Local Plan policy HO 2; the SCGV project was conceived as a mechanism for protecting villages in the distract from overdevelopment and its associated harms, there was no reason that the dwellings proposed in the current scheme may not be provided there.
Mr Hutchinson (Agent) responded in the following terms: there was a local need for self and custom build plots which the Council had a legal duty to provide, the previous application (19/0871) had been submitted as a model for self and custom build development in the district and extensive discussion had taken place between the applicant and Officers to identify a site plan, basic road layout and the concept of providing a mixture of market and self build units; in response a planting schedule, infrastructure plan, biodiversity plan had been submitted; following the refusal of application 19/0871, the applicant commissioned a Chartered Landscape Architect to conduct a Landscape and Visual Assessment (LVA) of the proposal with a view to making relevant recommendations; whilst not part of the formal reason for refusal, the Committee had highlighted concerns in relation to proposed structural planting, infrastructure design, and biodiversity benefits associated with the scheme; Mr Hutchinson set out the amended proposal in relation to planting and landscaping noting that they would enhance the key attributes of the existing site; in July 2020 the Ministry for Homes, Communities and Local Government published an assessment of the district and the SCGV project that showed 2,803 people were looking for a self or custom build plot; the Housing Development Officer had provided confirmation that a specific duty to grant permission for service plots was in force and that the Council was not making sufficient delivery, therefore more plots were required, the current proposal would make a positive contribution in respect of the Council's self and custom build duty; it was evident that the Council needed to do more to comply with the duty for self and custom build housing provision; the village of Cumwhinton had services and was sustainable; SCGV would accommodate significant housing development in the future, windfall housing remained permissible; no Statutory Consultee had objected to the proposal, subject to the imposition of relevant conditions. The Committee then gave consideration to the application. In response to questions from Members, Officers confirmed: - The initiation of the landscaping scheme would be managed as part of legal agreement, as yet there were no examples of how best to manage that aspect of the development over the long term; - The woodland would be a community woodland rather than being managed by self maintenance; - The national planning policy landscape had changed significantly in the two decades since the Holme Meadow development was approved, it had become much less restrictive and local authorities now had duties in relation to self and custom builds as well as new homes targets to meet; - An appeal had been lodged with the Planning Inspectorate in respect of the refusal to grant permission for application 19/0871; - A condition requiring the use of swift bricks was able to be included in the permission. A Member stated that he could not distinguish any material change in the current application that mitigated the concerns raised by Members regarding the proposed scheme's intrusion into open countryside which had been the basis of the Committee's refusal of application 19/0871. Moreover, he did not consider the site was suitable for self and custom build development which may take many years to complete, the Member indicated he was minded to refuse the proposal. Another Member supported the concerns outlined above and considered the duty to provide self and custom build plots did not justify the use of the Windfall Housing policy as a means to justify the development. Furthermore, he expressed concerns in relation to the existing drainage in the settlement which was subject to flooding and the proposal was likely to exacerbate that issue. A Member moved the Officer's recommendation which was seconded. Another Member proposed that the application be refused on the grounds that it was not in accordance with Local Plan policies HO 2(3) and CM 5. The proposal was seconded. The Head of Development Management requested that those Members who had proposed and seconded the motion to refuse the application provide further detail as to why the changes in the current scheme were not satisfactory. The Members further outlined their concerns, however, it was determined that they did not amount to sufficient grounds on which to justify refusing the application, resultantly, the proposal was withdrawn. The Chair put the proposal to accept the Officer's recommendation to the vote and it was: RESOLVED: That 1) Authority to Issue approval be given to the Corporate Director of Economic Development subject to the completion of a Section 106 agreement regarding: a) limiting defined units to self-build and custom build dwellings; b) maintenance and management of on-site open space, amenity space and strategic landscaping areas. 2) Should the legal agreement not be completed, delegated authority be given to the Corporate Director of Economic Development to refuse the application. Councillor Shepherd left the meeting at 4:28pm
-NIL-
Conservative – Christian, Mrs Finlayson, Meller (Vice Chair), Morton (Chair), Nedved, Shepherd, Mrs Bowman (sub), Collier (sub), Mrs Tarbitt (sub)
Labour – Alcroft, Mrs Glendinning, Southward, Miss Whalen, Birks (sub), Brown (sub), Dr Tickner (sub)
Independent - Tinnion, Paton (sub)
Enquiries, requests for reports, background papers etc to: committeeservices@carlisle.gov.uk To register a Right to Speak at the meeting please contact: DCRTS@carlisle.gov.uk