27-03-15 92-96 PDF 233 KB - Meetings, agendas, and minutes

61
27.03.2015
Planning Committee
PLANNING COMMITTEE
Minutes of the proceedings at a meeting of the Planning Committee held in the
District Council Chamber, South Lakeland House, Kendal, on Friday, 27 March
2015, at 10.00 am.
Present
Councillors
Mary Wilson (Chairman)
Sylvia Emmott (Vice-Chairman)
Brian Cooper
Joss Curwen
Sheila Eccles
David Fletcher
Gill Gardner
Brenda Gray
John Holmes
Kevin Lancaster
Apologies for absence were received from
Heidi Halliday, Helen Irving and Janette Jenkinson.
Bharath Rajan
Phil Walker
David Williams
Councillors
Philip Dixon,
Officers
Wendy Clarke
Simon Fawcett
Mark Shipman
Chris Woods
P/92
Planning and Property Solicitor
Planning Officer
Development Management Group Manager
Democratic and Electoral Services Manager
DECLARATIONS OF INTEREST
RESOLVED – That it be noted that Councillor Brian Cooper explained that, whilst
he had no disclosable pecuniary or other registrable interest in the planning
application item (1) SL/14/1231, the applicant was known to him, and that,
following advice, he would be leaving the Council Chamber during discussion and
voting on that item on the basis of pre-determination.
P/93
LOCAL GOVERNMENT ACT 1972 - EXCLUDED ITEMS
RESOLVED – That it be noted that there are no items in Part II of the Agenda.
P/94
PLANNING APPLICATIONS
The Development Management Group Manager submitted a Schedule of Planning
Applications and his recommendations thereon.
RESOLVED – That
(1)
the applications be determined as indicated below (the numbers denote the
Schedule numbers of the application);
62
27.03.2015
Planning Committee
(2)
except where stated below, the applications be subject to the relevant
conditions and advice notes, as outlined in the Schedule; and
(3)
except where stated below, the reasons for refusal be those as outlined in
the Schedule.
P/95
PUBLIC PARTICIPATION
Note - Councillor Brian Cooper left the Council Chamber whilst the following
matter was debated and determined on the ground of pre-determination.
(1) SL/14/1231 – PRESTON PATRICK: Land between A65 and Lancaster
Canal, South of Seven, Milestone Bridge, Crooklands, Milnthorpe (Mr D.
Jackson (Agent) Indigo Planning Limited)
The Planning Officer gave Members a description of the proposal and its
relationship with neighbouring properties. Members’ attention was drawn to the
Late Representations which had been circulated prior to the meeting and he
indicated the changes which had been introduced by amended plans.
Councillor Roger Bingham, District Councillor for the Burton and Holme Ward and
County Councillor for the Lower Kentdale Division, addressed the Committee. He
drew on his experience as a Church of England Lay Reader, who had conducted a
considerable number of funerals, and advised Members that he had noticed that
attendance at funerals had increased. Consequently, the seating capacity of 80 at
Lancaster Crematorium was often inadequate for the number of mourners. That
fact, together with the lengthy travel time to the Crematorium, meant that he could
appreciate why mourners would welcome having a facility which was closer.
However, he pointed out that the journey time could be eased when the
introduction of the new road network around Lancaster was completed. He felt
that the siting of the proposed Crematorium was strategically wrong and would not
address the greater needs of the majority of South Lakeland’s residents. In
addition, the suggestion that only four funerals a day would be allowed would not
be sufficient. He also shared concerns about the siting a Crematorium at the
principal gateway to the Lakes and the impact on the local economy.
Mr Peter Winter, Vice-Chairman of Preston Patrick, spoke on behalf of the Parish
Council. He emphasised three of the objections which the Parish had submitted
regarding the application. These were landscape impact, highway issues, the
suitability of the site for a Crematorium and traffic.
Mr Brian Duckett, a local resident and Funeral Director, addressed the Committee.
He queried the need for a Crematorium when it was reported that the Lancaster
Crematorium was not running at full capacity. In addition, he felt that it was in the
wrong location and needed to be more accessible to the wider community. He
also referred to the new road layout in Lancaster which would shorten the
commute to the existing Crematorium. He felt that there would need to be more
than 4 funerals a day to make the venture viable.
63
27.03.2015
Planning Committee
Mr Martin Robinson objected to the proposal as he and his wife were due to open
a Children’s Day Nursery adjacent to, and less than, 30 metres from the
application site. He queried the level of increased traffic which would result from
the proposal. Mr Robinson also felt that there were strong reasons for refusing
permission to develop a large greenfield site which would only create 4 or 5 jobs.
These included the distance of the Memorial Gardens from residential properties.
Mr Stuart Mack, a local resident also spoke in opposition to the application. He
queried the need for crematorium and the ability to cater for foreseeable demand;
he felt it was strategically unsustainable. He drew attention to the need for an
accessible location which offered tranquillity to mourners. In addition, he also
raised concerns about flooding and the impact on visitors to the Lakes.
Ms Alison Loveland, spoke to the Committee on behalf of her father, Reverend
Bernard Loveland, Deacon at the Holy Trinity and St George Church, Kendal. She
read out his objections to the application which concerned the lack of a peaceful
and quiet environment for mourners.
Mr Colin Redmayne, a local resident, felt that the location was not suitable for any
development, particularly if it generated more traffic. He pointed out that it had not
been included in the Land Allocations Scheme and was liable to flooding. He also
queried the need for a Crematorium and the impact on the nearest neighbours to
the site.
Mr Jeremy Lambe, Lambe Planning and Design Ltd., addressed the Committee on
behalf of Millness Leisure Park, Milnthorpe. He pointed out that the Park was
located directly opposite the site and that this close proximity would have a serious
effect upon the business. There was therefore the potential for a significant
decrease in tourism spending and loss of employment. The nearest holiday lodge
was 30 meters away from the site boundary. He referred to the findings of an
Inspector when an appeal was dismissed for a Crematorium off Gatebeck Lane,
Endmoor. The Inspector had stated that the nearby tourist facilities would become
less attractive because of negative public perceptions, and, that this would offset
any job creation benefits from the new facility. In addition, he referred to Policy
CS5 of the South Lakeland Core Strategy which he felt the application was not in
accordance with.
Mr Andrew Crowe explained that he was concerned about urbanisation of a rural
area at the Gateway to the Lakes. In particular he felt that the number of visitors to
the Crematorium had not been taken into account and that plans to develop and
make changes to the road system would increase run off of waste water.
Mr Stuart Mack read out a statement on behalf of Ms Zoe Mack, a resident of the
area. She had commented on the lack of public transport and drew attention to the
fact that this issue had been used by the applicant as an argument against a
recent proposal for a Crematorium at Beetham. She pointed out that there was
virtually no bus service and a lack of pavements for walkers. A pedestrian had
been in an accident with an HGV on the A65 near the site just recently. She felt
that this lack of accessibility, except by car, was contrary to Policy CS1.1 of the
Core Strategy.
64
27.03.2015
Planning Committee
Ms Mack also drew attention to the proposal to re-open the Canal from Tewitfield
to Canal Head and that it was a designated County Wildlife Site. She felt that the
site location failed to meet modern sustainability requirements.
Mr Daniel Jackson of Indigo Planning Limited responded to the issues raised by
the speakers. He stressed that the application had been submitted on behalf of a
major operator. Need for a Crematorium in the area had clearly been identified
and was supported by the Council. He advised that there were legal requirements
governing distances from adjacent properties which meant that a Crematorium
could not be located on any site. It was felt that the proposal site was well located
and had 7 bus services a day, although most people used a car for transport. He
felt that this was a viable site, sufficient to meet the needs of the District. It was
inevitable that there would be an impact on the landscape, but he felt this could be
minimised. The applicant was happy to include conditions regarding landscaping.
The Planning Officer summarised the main issues and displayed plans and
photographs to Members.
Members were reminded during the debate which followed that restrictions on
distances from adjacent properties was not a planning consideration. The debate
focussed on the lack of tranquillity of the location and impact on adjacent
properties.
REFUSE for the reason as stated in the Schedule with the addition of the following
reasons:(1)
It is considered that the proposed crematorium and its ancillary memorial
gardens, parking, new access, LPG compound and other structures would have a
significant urbanising effect on a rural and agricultural setting. The design of the
building and formalised gardens would introduce jarring and discordant features
into that landscape from both close and distance viewpoints, which fail to protect
and conserve the special qualities and the local distinctiveness of the area. This
would be contrary to Local Plan Policies CS5 The East and CS8.2 Protection and
Enhancement of Landscape and Settlement Character of the South Lakeland
Local Development Framework Core Strategy.
(2)
The proposed siting of the Crematorium immediately opposite the entrance
to Millness Hill Leisure Park, the Lancaster Canal and Longcroft Nursery would
have a detrimental effect on the existing businesses and would, in particular
reference to users of Lancaster Canal and Millness Hill Caravan Park, fail to
maintain and enhance the strength of tourism in the area and fails to address the
diverse social and economic needs of the local resident and visitor community to
the Parish of Preston Patrick. The development as proposed would be contrary to
South Lakeland District Council Local Development Framework Core Strategy
Policy CS1.1 Sustainable Development Principles and Policy CS5 The East .
65
27.03.2015
Planning Committee
Note - The Committee adjourned at 11.35 a.m. and reconvened at 11.50 a.m.
when the same Members were present, with the addition of Councillor Brian
Cooper.
(2) SL/15/0016 - KENDAL: Mill Field, Shap Road (Mr Keith Nutter (Morbaine
Limited))
The Development Management Group Manager gave Members a description of
the proposal and its relationship with neighbouring properties. Members’ attention
was drawn to the Late Representations which had been circulated prior to the
meeting.
Mrs Diana Crewdson, from Beck Mills Farm, Shap Road, Kendal, addressed
Members about the application. She was concerned about the potential impact
that noise emissions would have on nearby residential properties and felt that
there was not enough evidence of potential impact for the application to be
approved. In addition, she felt that the suggested conditions which restricted
evening use of the balcony were not specific and would be impossible to police.
Mr Joss Crewdson, of Riverside, Beck Mills, Kendal also spoke on the application.
He supported the statement given by the previous speaker. He also felt that the
concerns of the Highway’s authority needed to be addressed before the
application could be considered.
Mr Keith Nutter, the applicant, responded. He explained that there were no sites
within the settlement boundary which could accommodate the size of the site
needed for the proposal. He had, therefore, looked for suitable sites as close as
possible to the development boundary and conceded that some impact on
residents would be unavoidable. He was content to have conditions on the use of
the balcony and hours of operation and felt that the impact on residents had been
mitigated as far as possible. It was also stated that the Club had written to
residents to address concerns.
The Development Management Group Manager reported that a further letter of
opposition had been received that morning from an Appleby Road resident and
read this out to Members. In addition, he summarised the main issues and
displayed plans and photographs to Members.
GRANT subject to the conditions as set out in the Schedule, with amendments to
Conditions 2 and 14 as set out in the Late Representations Report.
P/96
REPORT OF THE DIRECTOR PEOPLE AND PLACES
(3) KENDAL: Land off Oxenholme Road, Kendal, LA9 7HG (Mr Keith Nutter)
Members’ attention was also drawn to the Late Representations which had been
circulated prior to the meeting.
66
27.03.2015
Planning Committee
Subject to a satisfactory conclusion to negotiations over the highway details, the
Director People and Places be authorised to GRANT the application, subject to the
conditions as set out in the Schedule, with an amendment to Condition 14 as set
out in the Late Representations Report.
The meeting ended at 1.00 pm.