Decisions

Use the below search options at the bottom of the page to find information regarding recent decisions that have been taken by the council’s decision making bodies.

Only decisions taken after 5th March 2012 will be included in this search

Alternatively you can visit the officer decisions page for information on officer delegated decisions that have been taken by council officers.

Decisions published

06/12/2018 - Nomination to list Asset of Community Value ref: 3885    For Determination

A decision is to be made on whether the United Reformed Church, Sedbergh be listed as an Asset of Community Value.

Decision Maker: Delegated Executive Decisions

Made at meeting: 06/12/2018 - Delegated Executive Decisions

Decision published: 07/12/2018

Effective from: 15/12/2018

Decision:

(Director People and Places)

 

Summary

 

An application had been received from Sedbergh Town Band to list the building owned by the United Reformed Church in Sedbergh as an asset of community value.  Until recently, the building had functioned primarily as a church, but also hosted various local groups and events.  Religious services at the church had ceased on 6 October 2018.

 

Section 88 of the Localism Act 2011 set out those uses of land which may result in a property being considered an asset of community value.  They were uses that furthered either the social wellbeing or social interests of the local community.  It went on to say that such use could not be an “ancillary use”.

 

The applicant had stated that the building was used by Sedbergh Town Band for practice, concerts and storage.  The applicant had further pointed out that the building was also used by a number of other local groups as a meeting and events space.  The various events held at the church could be considered to further social wellbeing and social interest.

 

The nomination had to provide evidence that the asset could realistically continue to be used for this or another qualifying community purpose (or that his could be achieved within the next five years).  As the asset had only very recently ceased to be used for religious services, further evidence had been requested from Sedbergh Town Band to assess whether it would be realistic to think that non-ancillary use, furthering the social wellbeing or social interests of the local community, could continue.  Due to the very recent change of use of the church occurring so close to the nomination date, it was difficult to establish at this stage whether this would be realistic based upon the evidence provided by Sedbergh Town Band.

 

Further evidence had been requested to confirm the actual extent of the nomination due to the situation of a private residence (The Manse) within the grounds of the church.  The location plan provided by the applicant showed that the private residence had not been included in the nomination.   However, its location in relation to the private residence meant that the church could be considered to be “land connected with a residence” according to the relevant legislation. The Assets of Community Value (England) Regulations 2012 set out that, as a general rule, a residence, together with land connected with a residence, could not be listed.  However, there was an exception that a residence (and connected land) might be listed if the residence was a building that was only partly used as a residence and that would otherwise be eligible for listing.  In the circumstances, this exception appeared to apply in this case and, therefore, in principle, the building would be eligible for listing if the Council was satisfied that the other statutory tests were met.

 

In summary, due to the cessation of religious activity before the nomination had been submitted and the proof that the various events held at the church furthered social wellbeing and social interest, it could be considered that the asset may be listed as an asset of community value.  However, it was considered that there was insufficient proof that Sedbergh Town Band and the other groups that used the asset could realistically continue the effective running of the building in the future.  It could also be seen that Sedbergh People’s Hall was within close proximity of the Church (300m), and offered similar facilities that would not only minimise the negative effects on the local community but could also impact upon the ability of the nominated asset to realistically continue operating in the manner described.

 

Decision

 

RESOLVED – That the United Reformed Church in Sedbergh be entered onto South Lakeland District Council’s list of unsuccessful nominations of Assets of Community Value.

 

Reasons for Decision

 

The assessment considered that the proposal did not meet the requirements for listing.

 

Alternative Options Considered and Rejected

 

Listing the building as an asset of community value.  However, it is likely that it could be proven on appeal that the listing would be contrary to the requirements of the Legislation.

Wards affected: Sedbergh & Kirkby Lonsdale;

Lead officer: Tom Dugdale


28/11/2018 - Property and Land Management Strategy 2019- 2024 ref: 3881    For Determination

Decision Maker: Cabinet

Made at meeting: 28/11/2018 - Cabinet

Decision published: 30/11/2018

Effective from: 28/11/2018

Decision:

Summary

 

The Economy and Assets Portfolio Holder introduced the report.  The current corporate property strategy needed updating in line with the Council Plan and the overall Customer Connect Strategy. Lambert Smith Hampton, the Council’s current property service provider, had completed the asset review of the Council’s building and land estate in December 2017. The asset review was a summary of each asset setting out what options there might be for future change and recommending a mechanism whereby future plans and programmes of work/investment could be informed and viewed collectively across the portfolio and help identify and avoid conflicts between budget expenditure.

 

The new strategy would help guide the Council on a more holistic, inclusive approach to the management of its property and land estate following on from the asset review. The overall aim was to ensure that investment was prioritised in the right areas given the increasing financial pressure on local authorities and to ensure that the Council had a balanced estate having regard to its medium and long term commitments, to ensure that there was an appropriate governance structure in place to allow the estate to flex with ease and consistency and that decisions were balanced between the need for capital receipts, investment and revenue income generation.

 

It was being proposed that a Strategic Asset Management Plan (SAMP) board be set up which would be made up of a variety of officers across finance, procurement and assets alongside Members to give a corporate view on decisions to be taken.

 

Members gave detailed consideration to the draft Strategy which was attached at Appendix 1 to the report.

 

The draft Strategy had been considered by the Overview and Scrutiny Committee at its meeting on 26 October 2018.

 

In response to a query raised with regard to consultation with local members in relation to assets within their wards, the Economy and Assets Portfolio Holder explained that this Strategy provided an appropriate, formalised and comprehensive means of dealing with assets.

 

Whilst the proposal for a SAMP board was welcomed, attention was drawn to the fact that the membership did not include a councillor from the opposition.

 

Decision

 

RESOLVED – That the Property and Land Management Strategy 2019-2024, as attached at Appendix 1 to the report, be adopted, including the creation of a Strategic Asset Management Plan Board as detailed within the report.

 

Reasons for Decision

 

The proposed Property and Land Management Strategy itself focuses heavily on the Council Plan and its priorities and this is key in aligning the Council Plan with any decisions made on investment, acquisition or disposals for our property and land estate.

 

Alternative Options Considered and Rejected

 

Continue to use the existing Asset Management Strategy – it is felt that the existing approach to asset management does not provide a sufficiently corporate approach, whether that be disposal, investment or acquisition, and is not in line with the new Customer Connect Strategy approved by Council in July 2018.

Lead officer: Sion Thomas


28/11/2018 - Abbot Hall Capital Redevelopment ref: 3884    For Determination

Consideration of a capital funding investment by the Council in the redevelopment of Abbot Hall site in Kirkland Kendal.

Decision Maker: Cabinet

Made at meeting: 28/11/2018 - Cabinet

Decision published: 30/11/2018

Effective from: 28/11/2018

Decision:

Summary

 

The Culture and Leisure Portfolio Holder expressed thanks to Gordon Watson and his Team for their excellent work – Lakeland Arts had achieved a great deal during Gordon’s time as Chief Executive Officer.

 

The Culture and Leisure Portfolio Holder reported that Lakeland Arts Trust had ambitious plans to carry out a £8.5 million redevelopment of the Abbot Hall site. The proposed redevelopment would bring improvements that were wide-ranging and transformative and create a world-class cultural destination in the heart of South Lakeland.

 

In rejuvenating this landmark site, the Trust intended to create a social hub for local communities, with a broad cultural programme and an exciting range of activities for local and district-wide communities to engage with.  Redevelopment of Abbot Hall would enable the Trust to work with communities in new and innovative ways, to grow and sustain important partnerships and develop new ones in a way that was not currently possible due to inadequate facilities.  The project would improve the sustainability of Abbot Hall and care of the buildings and site, which Lakeland Arts had leased from the Council since the Trust was formed in 1957.

 

Lakeland Arts had been successful in a competitive first round of Arts Council England’s (ACE) Large Scale Capital Grants in June 2017 with development funding to progress the initial development stages of the scheme and had secured progress to the next stage to submit a Stage 2 application to ACE by December 2018.

 

For the £8.5 million project to go ahead, Lakeland Arts had to secure the £5m investment from ACE and £3.5 million match funding.  ACE investment was predicated on £3.5m match funding. Lakeland Arts had 22% of the match funding secured, including £495,000 from the Northern Cultural Regeneration Fund supported by the Cumbria Local Enterprise Partnership.  Lakeland Arts Trust had a funding plan in place to secure the remainder of the match funding.

 

To secure a pledge of £5m from ACE, it is critical the Trust could demonstrate the support of the Council before submitting the full Stage 2 application. Lakeland Arts had submitted a request to the Council to consider making a funding contribution of £125,000 towards the redevelopment project as a commitment towards the redevelopment scheme and demonstration to ACE of the Council’s strategic support for the project at Stage 2 and acting as a catalyst to attract further investment from other funding sources. Officers had considered the proposed scheme and were recommending support of £100,000 towards the project.

 

Throughout its history, Abbot Hall had built a reputation nationally for curating major new exhibitions and showing art and artists of the highest quality and range, and bringing great art to South Lakeland.  Today, Abbot Hall’s collection was one of the largest and most significant of its kind in the region.  Whilst the site was one of the foremost cultural drivers in the region, it had not been subject to significant refurbishments since opening in 1962.  The Trust’s ability to display works was constrained and the character of the magnificent riverside estate diminished.  Abbot Hall was a Grade 1 listed building and Council-owned asset.  There was an urgent need to make Abbot Hall more resilient and sustainable by investing in improvements to the buildings and the site that supported the Lakeland Arts Trust’s ambitions, artistic programming, learning and engagement, community and audience development, retail and other income earning capacity.

 

The redevelopment scheme aimed to address key needs that had been identified in the Abbot Hall redevelopment feasibility study of 2016.

 

The scope of the project has been split into two phases.  In Phase 1 the scope would continue to deliver key outcomes for Lakeland Arts, details of which were provided within the report.  The ACE funding bid would be for Phase 1 and the proposed Council funding contribution would be towards Phase 1. This was the total amount of funding that the Council would contribute over the life of the scheme.

 

Phase 2 was to be fully scoped and would see a later phase of redevelopment which would be more heritage focused with a strategic approach to the relocation and development of the Museum of Lakeland Life and Industry and the sympathetic development of the Old Grammar School.

 

The Abbot Hall Capital Redevelopment project would be transformative making a significant contribution to the Council's priorities and the lives of local people. This exciting project would allow the Trust to extend its commitment to local people, providing further opportunities for engagement; developing new and extending existing community partnerships and create greater engagement of young people.

 

Following a period of closure, the ambition was to re-launch the new Abbot Hall in 2022, Abbot Hall’s 60th anniversary year.

 

In closing, the Culture and Leisure Portfolio Holder said that this was a unique and exciting opportunity to invest in a project in terms of both the Kendal Town Centre Master Plan and the Council Plan.

 

The Leader commended the Culture and Leisure Portfolio Holder for his effective advocacy and work in relation to culture.

 

Reference was made to the delay in the opening of the Windermere Jetty Museum of Boats, Steam and Stories, and the fact that the funding for the Abbot Hall scheme would not be made available until it had been funded and had progressed to construction phase was welcomed.  The Culture and Leisure Portfolio Holder explained that the delay in the opening of Windermere Jetty Museum was as a result of flooding.  He also believed that the match funding shortfall would be met.  He welcomed a suggestion with regard to the need for more details of the history of Abbot Hall to be incorporated within the new development.

 

Members welcomed and supported the project and proposal, which was in line with the ambitions of the Council, and commented that Abbot Hall was a tremendous asset for Kendal and South Lakeland and one of the finest provincial art galleries in the country.  The Leader expressed thanks for Lakeland Arts’ important work and in particular the outreach work within the community.

 

Decision

 

RESOLVED – That

 

(1)        approval be given for a commitment of £100,000 capital funding towards Lakeland Arts’ redevelopment of the Abbot Hall site, as set out in the report and within the Budget report elsewhere on the Agenda; and

 

(2)        the Director People and Places be delegated authority, in consultation with the Solicitor to the Council, to negotiate the terms of, and enter into, a funding agreement with Lakeland Arts for the capital sum to be invested by the Council.

 

Reasons for Decision

 

There are many ways in which this transformational project delivers against the Council’s priorities:-

 

Economy

 

The redevelopment directly supports the Council’s economic ambitions for South Lakeland.

 

The project will create opportunities for economic growth. It will support the delivery of the Kendal Masterplan and the Lancaster and South Cumbria Economic Partnership ambition for business growth.

 

It will further develop the critical mass of heritage and tourist attractions in South Lakeland, growing visits and encouraging staying visitors who will spend in the local economy. Forecast growth in visitor numbers is at least an additional 10,000 visitors per annum.

 

In creating a quality destination, retail and cafe offer, the Trust will expand the offer of locally sourced products and drive spend from residents and visitors to the area.

 

New employment, including graduate level posts, will be created in Programming, Front of House and Visitor Engagement Teams. Lakeland Arts will select the main contractor through the Official Journal of the European Union process which enables local companies to compete for the construction work.

 

The £8.5million project will result in new cultural investment in the district attracting additional inward investment.

 

Environment

 

The project will act to protect and preserve the heritage of the listed buildings in the Kendal Conservation Area including the Grade I listed Abbot Hall, and Grade II Listed Coach House and Stables and Old Grammar School which is in urgent need of conservation investment. South Lakeland District Council agreed in 2012 to extend the area of the site leased by Lakeland Arts and to return the lease to 99 years to secure the long-term future of the historic site.

 

An important part of the project is to improve the environment around and between buildings. The proposed landscaping scheme will improve access and promote connectivity to the wider public realm. Lakeland Arts will engage people in the environment through interpretation and involving people in outdoor activity including festivals, externally sited sculpture and children's Summer Art Camp.

 

Lakeland Arts will overhaul building systems to reduce their carbon footprint and introduce sustainable forms of energy and promote sustainable travel through provision of cycle racks.

 

The new Abbot Hall site will be of the highest design quality. The design team includes award-winning Architects MUMA, Julian Harrap Conservation Architects, Sarah Price Landscapes, Ove Arup Mechanical and Electrical Engineers and Eckersley O’Callaghan Structural Engineers, as well as specialist advisers and business planners. MUMA will develop a scheme of exceptional quality given their previous experience.

 

Culture and Wellbeing

 

The project will greatly enhance the District's culture and wellbeing offer and build on the Council's continuing support for Lakeland Arts as one of the Council's key strategic cultural organisations. Lakeland Arts will further develop the artistic programme, increasing high quality cultural output both independently and in partnership throughout the year.

 

The capital redevelopment of Abbot Hall will further promote South Lakeland and sustain the District’s reputation as the leading rural cultural destination in the UK.

 

Proactive contribution to the community is a significant part of Lakeland Arts charitable objectives and Lakeland Arts Strategic Plan which aims to, "involve all in arts and heritage in new and inspiring ways and contribute to the development of local communities."

 

Lakeland Arts have a track record in delivering broad and high quality engagement activity for schools, community groups, families and adult learners. The investment programme will grow this activity. They will grow their partnerships with local groups and key agencies, including programmes for disadvantaged audiences. They will further the success of existing programmes such as with Manna House and the 'In the Moment' scheme for people living with dementia and their carers. The formal learning programme will support the National Curriculum and help raise educational attainment in local schools and colleges.

 

Through the provision of a new, dedicated space for learning Lakeland Arts will further enhance their distinctive and innovative offer, enabling communities to learn new skills and gain confidence. The programmes will run all year and focus on families, children and young people and older people.

 

With an improved and enhanced overall site including the outdoor spaces, Lakeland Arts will increase their contribution to wellbeing, in response to the needs of their users, from the local communities of South Lakeland, and visitors.

 

The Trust will extend their volunteering scheme with a range of opportunities to get involved and acquire new skills, from conservation and collections maintenance to interpretation and activities.

 

The Trust will undertake local community consultation to inform detailed engagement and activity plans for the new Abbot Hall.

 

Alternative Options Considered and Rejected

 

An alternative option would be not to provide investment in the proposed Abbot Hall capital redevelopment scheme and for Lakeland Arts to lose the opportunity to submit a capital bid to ACE to secure the £5m investment from ACE and for the £8.5m scheme not to progress.

 

This option has been rejected on the basis that it would be a loss of opportunity to promote economic growth and for the communities of South Lakeland to have a world class cultural facility, programme and activities contributing to the quality of life in the district which in turn helps make South Lakeland the best place to live, work and explore.

 

It would be a loss of opportunity to improve the Grade 1 listed Council-owned Abbot Hall and the overall site in the Kirkland Conservation Area of Kendal. It would have a negative impact on Lakeland Arts organisational resilience and the ability to develop creatively and operate effectively on the site.

Wards affected: Kendal Town;

Lead officer: Imelda Winters-Lewis


28/11/2018 - Review of the Local Delivery of the Property Level Flood Resilience Grant Scheme ref: 3878    For Determination

Decision Maker: Cabinet

Made at meeting: 28/11/2018 - Cabinet

Decision published: 30/11/2018

Effective from: 28/11/2018

Decision:

Summary

 

The Environment Portfolio Holder introduced the report, which informed Members that, in December 2015, the Prime Minster had announced the roll out of the flood resilience grant up to the value of £5,000 to all householders flooded by Storm Desmond.  This had later been opened up to businesses. With limited guidance, clarity and any resources from central government, South Lakeland District Council had had to roll out a grant project, which had continued to evolve and had had the potential value of £12m.

 

Previous schemes had been administered by South Lakeland District Council, so there was expertise and knowledge lying with those officers who had formed the flood grant team.

 

The flood grant project had operated over two years, with 1,397 applications having been made, resulting in a total of £3.4m in flood resilience works having been carried out.

 

Members were being provided an opportunity to comment on the report which reflected on the flood grant project and provided recommendations to Central Government on any future roll outs.

 

Members of the Overview and Scrutiny Committee, at its meeting on 26 October 2018, had welcomed the report, acknowledged the lessons learnt and commended the work which had been carried out to date in relation to the flood resilience grant process.

 

The Leader reiterated thanks to those officers involved in the administration of the Flood Resilience Grant Scheme - Councillor Chris Hogg who had been the Mayor of Kendal at the time; former district councillor Sue Sanderson, then Deputy Leader and Portfolio Holder for Environment and People; and the Waste Management Team and Councillor Peter Thornton, then Leader and Promoting South Lakeland Portfolio Holder, who took the decision to collect the flood waste.

 

The Leader drew attention to the issue of climate change, the damage being caused to the world by greenhouse gases and a recent Met Office report highlighting increasing rainfall.  He stressed the need for the Council to be aware of its responsibility to help in mitigating the devastating effects.

 

Councillor Chris Hogg reflected on the devastation caused by Storm Desmond and again commended the exceptional work carried out by officers, above and beyond the call of duty.

 

Decision

 

RESOLVED – That the report be received and circulated to key organisations to highlight the Council’s learning from this process and to help influence future delivery of such grants.

 

Reasons for Decision

 

To assist in the delivery of the Council Plan, making South Lakeland the best place to work and live.

 

Alternative Options Considered and Rejected

 

Not to receive the report or make recommendations.  The recommendation set out ensures that the learning is shared to help influence future delivery of such grants.

Lead officer: Fiona Inston


28/11/2018 - Arnside and Silverdale AONB Management Plan Review Consultation ref: 3879    For Determination

A report recommending Cabinet to note and endorse an officer co-ordinated response to the Draft Arnside & Silverdale Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty Partnership Management Plan consultation.

Decision Maker: Cabinet

Made at meeting: 28/11/2018 - Cabinet

Decision published: 30/11/2018

Effective from: 28/11/2018

Decision:

Summary

 

The Housing, People and Innovation Portfolio Holder reported that the current Arnside and Silverdale Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty (AONB) Management Plan covered the period 2014-19 and had to be reviewed and a new plan adopted by 31 March 2019.  The new Plan would cover the period 2019-24.

 

The Arnside and Silverdale AONB Partnership had committed to undertake the review on behalf of the four principal local authorities in the AONB area – Cumbria County Council, Lancashire County Council, Lancaster City Council and South Lakeland District Council.  The Partnership aimed to conserve and enhance the AONB and was made up of the local authorities, statutory agencies, landowners, conservation organisations, local communities and interest groups, working together.

 

The AONB Management Plan was a statutory plan which set out a shared vision for the next 20 years.  It described the broad range of issues and challenges faced in the AONB, and explained how the Partnership would manage them to conserve and enhance the area for future generations.  It highlighted the special qualities of the AONB, provided a long term vision for the area, and identified the principal issues and challenges affecting the area.  It defined the outcomes that the Partnership would seek to deliver and set out how decisions, land management activity and project delivery in the AONB would help achieve them.  The Plan formed a key part of the strategic framework for action by the many organisations working in partnership around the AONB, including the local authorities that were jointly responsible for the area.  The Council and the AONB team had worked closely to ensure that both the management and the AONB Development Plan Document (DPD), which was now nearing adoption and would soon form part of the Council’s Local Plan, were complementary and mutually beneficial.

 

Details of the preparation and consultation processes were detailed within the report.  The review had now progressed to a formal six week consultation (22 October to 3 December 2018) on a draft Management Plan which was attached at Appendix 1 to the report.  The responses to the consultation would be considered by the AONB Partnership and used to inform the final version of the Plan which would then be subject to a final public consultation period in early 2019.  Following the final consultation, the Plan would be finalised and presented to the local authorities for adoption.

 

Members were asked to consider a proposed response which welcomed the draft Management Plan and acknowledged the engagement that had taken place to date with a broad range of stakeholders. The proposed response also welcomed the alignment between the management plan and the AONB Local Plan and noted that, for the first time, there would be a development plan with the explicit objective of conserving the special character of the AONB and a suite of policies which would ensure a consistent approach to achieving this across the whole AONB. The proposed response supported the vision and objectives of the management plan and the actions that had been identified to deliver the outcomes.  It noted that the Council had been engaged in the management plan review from the outset, and had contributed to earlier iterations of the draft plan and objectives.  The Council’s response to this formal public consultation, therefore, largely comprised of general expressions of support for the Management Plan and minor comments and suggestions.

 

Members welcomed the report although it was suggested that the Government should be persuaded to consider the introduction of running management plans instead of the current five year review cycle.  Attention was drawn to the potential for individuals to raise this through the consultation on new National Parks and AONBs.

 

Decision

 

RESOLVED – That

 

(1)        the Arnside and Silverdale AONB Draft Management Plan 2019-24 be welcomed and supported, subject to the minor changes recommended in the Council’s proposed response; and

 

(2)        the draft response to the Arnside and Silverdale AONB Draft Management Plan 2019-24 public consultation, as attached at Appendix 2 to the report, be noted and endorsed.

 

Reasons for Decision

 

The AONB makes a significant contribution to making South Lakeland the best place to live, work and explore due to its special qualities including its outstanding landscape and seascape, rare and diverse habitats and species, rich history and distinctive character, and its strong communities and culture.

 

The refreshed AONB Management Plan, like its predecessor, addresses issues around housing, economy, culture and wellbeing as well as environmental and landscape issues. As such, it will help to deliver on the priorities of the Council Plan, as well as having a mutually beneficial relationship with the AONB DPD which will guide future development in the area.

 

Alternative Options Considered and Rejected

 

Alternative options include not submitting a Council response to the draft AONB management plan public consultation, or submitting an amended response. Not submitting a response would mean the Council would miss out on this opportunity to influence the management plan and is not considered to be an appropriate option given that the Council is a principal authority and is in the Review Working Group.  The AONB Partnership prepares the AONB management plan on behalf of the principal authorities and the process benefits from co-operation and collaborative working.

Wards affected: Arnside & Milnthorpe;

Lead officer: Laura Chamberlain


28/11/2018 - 2019/20 to 2023/24 Draft Budget ref: 3882    For Determination

2019/20 Five-year draft budget and capital programme

Decision Maker: Cabinet

Made at meeting: 28/11/2018 - Cabinet

Decision published: 30/11/2018

Effective from: 28/11/2018

Decision:

Summary

 

The Finance Portfolio Holder presented a first draft Budget for 2019/20 to 2023/24.  The budget projections had been updated to reflect the ending of the Second Homes Agreement with the County Council, which reduced income across all years from 2019/20 by approximately £700,000.  A number of additional budget pressures, growth bids and savings proposals had been identified that were outlined in the Appendices to the report.  The Capital Programme had been adjusted to reflect projects where there was a well-developed business case, where work was unavoidable or where a degree of outline approval had already been indicated or was shortly expected.  There were, additionally, a number of schemes where the business cases were not yet sufficiently advanced to include within the Medium Term Financial Plan capital budget.  There was one change to the 2018/19 capital budget as, due to high demand, it was necessary to increase the Disabled Facilities Grant funding budget through the transfer of £192,000 of unallocated budget from the Affordable Homes budget.  The resulting revised Capital Programme was presented in detail at Appendix 6 to the report.  The report presented a draft position and work would continue to incorporate further changes into subsequent budget reports, such as the government grant position which was not yet known.  The position set out in the report formed the basis of consultation that would ensue subject to approval by the Council at its meeting on 18 December 2018.  The final Draft Budget Report would incorporate the consideration of the internal and external consultation and be presented to Cabinet on 23 January 2019, prior to final recommendations being made to Council on 26 February 2019.

 

In response to a query raised, the Finance Portfolio Holder informed Members that the current plan was for an increase in Council Tax of £5 per annum which was below the maximum of 3% set by Government.

 

The Leader thanked the Finance Portfolio Holder and officers for their work in managing the Council’s finances during times of uncertainty and austerity.  He emphasised the importance of the Customer Connect Programme which would assist in fulfilling the Council’s promises to the community.

 

Decision

 

RESOLVED – That

 

(1)        it be noted that the development of the Budget is an iterative process between now and Council on 26 February 2019.  The assumptions, proposals and calculations included within it will be subject to change as more information from internal and external sources is provided and decisions around the final proposals can be made;

 

(2)        the proposals contained in the report to achieve a balanced budget in 2019/20 be noted;

 

(3)        the projected deficit position of circa £610,000 in 2020/21 rising to circa £2.6m by 2023/24 (this is after the Customer Connect savings have been included) be noted; and

 

(4)        Council be requested to approve the amended 2018/19 Capital Programme as presented in Appendix 6 to the report, noting that the future years Programme is still under development.

 

Reasons for Decision

 

The report sets out the first draft Budget to enable the consideration of how the Council’s priorities will be delivered. Setting a sound framework for budget preparation assists in the delivery of all corporate outcomes. This strategy has been developed within the context of the Medium Term Financial Plan.

 

Alternative Options Considered and Rejected

 

The report presents alternative options in relation to potential budget pressures and savings, new capital programme bids, one off revenue growth bids and fees and charges. The proposals together aim to meet the Council’s statutory duty to set a balanced Budget for 2019/20.

Wards affected: (All Wards);

Lead officer: Lee Hurst, Helen Smith


28/11/2018 - Equality, Diversity and Inclusion Strategy ref: 3880    For Determination

Decision Maker: Cabinet

Made at meeting: 28/11/2018 - Cabinet

Decision published: 30/11/2018

Effective from: 28/11/2018

Decision:

Summary

 

The Leader and Promoting South Lakeland Portfolio Holder introduced the report, stressing the importance for all to be treated equally, with fairness and respect.

 

The draft South Lakeland District Council Equalities, Diversity and Inclusion (EDI) Strategy 2019-22 attached as Appendix 1 to the report set out how the Council was meeting the requirements of the public sector equality duty under the Equality Act 2010. This included setting out specific equality objectives, as well as containing useful statistics about the Council’s communities to illustrate the different needs of people in South Lakeland.

 

The draft EDI Strategy included definitions of the terms Equality, Diversity, and Inclusion.  It was being recommended to adopt this updated terminology into the title of the new document, and for this document to supersede the current Equality Scheme 2016-19 which sat within the Council’s Policy Framework.

 

It was also being proposed that the draft EDI Strategy would have its performance reviewed annually by the Overview and Scrutiny Committee. This would make it a dynamic document allowing responses to emerging needs, such as changing population or rates of digital inclusion.

 

The Overview and Scrutiny Committee had given to consideration to the report at its meeting on 26 October 2018.  Members had acknowledged the need to embed equality and diversity, not only within the organisation but throughout the community, as well as the need to seek potential ways of passing on its message.  They had welcomed the new Strategy and in particular the opportunity for its annual review by the Overview and Scrutiny Committee.

 

Decision

 

RESOLVED – That Council be recommended to adopt the draft South Lakeland District Council Equality, Diversity and Inclusion Strategy 2019-2022 to replace the existing Equality Scheme within the Council’s Policy Framework.

 

Reasons for Decision

 

This policy update is a Policy Framework Decision that supports good performance with the Council Plan.

 

The draft Equality, Diversity and Inclusion Strategy 2019-22 links to the health and wellbeing section of the Council Plan.

 

Alternative Options Considered and Rejected

 

There is no credible alternative to publishing new equality objectives to comply with the Equality Act 2010 (Specific Duties) Regulations 2011.  The consequences of not approving new objectives would be the increased risk of legal challenge.

Lead officer: Inge Booth


28/11/2018 - Housing Loans Scheme Update ref: 3883    For Determination

Sets out next steps in developing Housing Loans

Decision Maker: Cabinet

Made at meeting: 28/11/2018 - Cabinet

Decision published: 30/11/2018

Effective from: 28/11/2018

Decision:

Note – Councillor John Holmes declared a non-pecuniary interest in this item of business by virtue of the fact that he was a Director on the Board of South Lakes Housing.  He remained in the meeting during the discussion and voting on the item, although with no voting rights as a Member of the Shadow Cabinet.

 

Summary

 

The Housing, People and Innovation Portfolio Holder referred to Minute CEX/93 of the Cabinet meeting held on 13 December 2017, when it had been resolved, “to approve in principle and recommend to Council that the Council develop a loan facility, initially of a maximum £6m, to be made available to South Lakes Housing and other housing associations to support proposals delivering new affordable housing with detailed arrangements to be reported to a future Cabinet for approval.”

 

Cumulative receipts to 2017/18 (in the order of £3m) and future year receipts (dependent on right to buy sales but normally in the order of £600K-£1m) formed part of a £6m loan facility available for housing associations to draw down on a scheme by scheme basis. The scheme would facilitate delivery, generate revenue for the Council through repayments and ensure that resource put into housing enabling could be recycled to promote further delivery.

 

The December 2017 report stated that, subject to approval in principle, the detail of the scheme’s operation would be developed and reported to Cabinet for approval. At that time, the loans facility had not been specific to any particular housing association.  Despite publication of the loans facility, the only housing association or social housing provider that has contacted the Council seeking to enter into discussions regarding the terms for such a loan was South Lakes Housing.

 

Since December 2017, South Lakes Housing had, in discussion with the Council, been developing a programme for delivering housing in more constrained areas such as the Lake District National Park. The proposed programme had been submitted to the Council for consideration and, in principle, the Council was content that the proposals would assist in boosting the supply of affordable housing in areas where there was an identified need. The Council had also supported the allocation of a number of potential housing sites through the Lake District Local Plan process. It was seeking to promote the delivery of these through its housing enabling role. The loans scheme was an important tool to help to bring this about.

 

Discussions with South Lakes Housing had included dialogue regarding draft Heads of Terms which provided security and comfort to both parties.  Although they had not yet been agreed, discussions were reasonably advanced, and there were just a small number of points where agreement remained outstanding.

 

The Portfolio Holder outlined the proposal from South Lakes Housing.

 

To deliver the full programme proposed by South Lakes Housing, the initial facility of £6m would require additional funding of £9m (total of £15m). Further funding would depend on the success of early pilot schemes. If Members wished to support further lending over and above the £6m, this would need to be done either through reserves or through on-lending (the Council is able to access finance through the Public Works Loan Board).  Further approvals from Cabinet and Council would be required to proceed with additional lending.  At this stage, there was no evidence as to the capacity of any housing provider to deliver the full programme, and it was, therefore, proposed that progress regarding any loan facility above £6m would be subject to further discussions and agreement.  It was reasonable to say that any loan facility will be offered to the wider social housing market although, once funds have been committed, such opportunity would no longer exist.

 

South Lakes Housing had identified a total of 21 sites with a potential capacity to deliver 294 dwellings. Of these sites, 18 had been confirmed as available. All were either allocated or proposed for allocation in the Lake District National Park Local Plan. South Lakes Housing had stated that they were confident that from this list of sites, a programme of 120 new affordable homes, primarily focused on towns and villages in the South Lakeland part of the Lake District National Park, could be delivered. Approximately three quarters of the homes will be for affordable rent and a quarter for shared ownership, however, the tenure split would be refined and agreed as the programme was developed. The aim was to deliver in areas where there were high affordable housing needs and where conventional means of affordable housing delivery – through market housing schemes –might not deliver because of viability and planning policy issues. This effectively meant outside the main urban centres of Kendal and Ulverston.

 

The Portfolio Holder provided details on the operation of the scheme.

 

From the information provided by South Lakes Housing, the initial £6m approved in December 2017 would support delivery of approximately 48 new affordable dwellings. In principle approval was already in place for the initial £6m following the Council decision in December 2017.  The scheme would be used to support affordable housing delivery outside the main settlements of Kendal and Ulverston and the schemes supported would be expected to supplement the housing provider’s main development programme.

 

In order to reduce the risk to the Council, it was intended that the £6m would not be advanced in one lump sum but, rather, would be advanced in smaller sums following receipt of a drawdown request from a housing association.  Such drawdown request would only be approved in relation to any completed schemes (effectively freeing up other funding for the housing provider to invest in other schemes) where a practical completion certificate had been issued.  In addition, the Council would seek security by way of a charge over those properties to which the loan related.

 

The intention was that the loan would be repaid on an annuity basis with semi-annual payments (6 monthly).  In addition, it was intended that further repayments would be made using any capital receipts received by the housing provider from the schemes delivered/partially delivered by the loan facility.  For example, if any shared ownership properties were “staircased”, then the capital receipts will be applied to repay some of the loan.  Likewise, if any properties delivered by the loan facility were sold subject to the Right to Acquire, the capital receipts would be used to repay part of the loan.  The loan term was anticipated to be 30 years, with any outstanding balance being repaid by no later than the end of that term.

 

Drawdowns would be for a minimum of £250,000 per scheme.  It was currently proposed that the interest rate applying to the loan would be at the fixed rate of 2% per annum and would be paid semi-annually in arrears.  This applied to the initial £6m loan which was anticipated to be expended within two years from the date of first draw down.  The tenure mix of each scheme would be agreed on a scheme by scheme basis, with each scheme being scrutinised for viability, deliverability (including timetable of securing appropriate consents) and value for money (including funding from other sources such as Homes England).  Each drawdown would be made subject to a legal agreement.

 

Any loan sum over and above the in principle approval given in December 2017 would be subject to further Member approval.  Should the scheme be successful, a report would be presented to Members to consider increasing the loan facility to £15m to further increase delivery of affordable housing.

 

The Housing, People and Innovation Portfolio Holder, in closing, thanked officers and Members for their involvement with officers from South Lakes Housing in constructing such a positive deal.  The Leader, in response, thanked the Portfolio Holder for his work.

 

In response to queries raised, the Housing, People and Innovation Portfolio Holder acknowledged the fact that the money, if provided as grant funding, may have enabled South Lakes Housing to build houses, however, stressed the fact that the loan would be recycled and would deliver housing into the future.  He also advised of the proactive steps being taken to ensure the delivery of sites allocated within the Yorkshire Dales National Park area.

 

Members welcomed the scheme which would make a generous contribution towards mitigating the housing pressures within the area.

 

Decision

 

RESOLVED - That

 

(1)        approval in principle be given for the commencement of the South Lakeland Affordable Housing Loan facility in accordance with the principles set out in the report for the sum of up to £6m previously agreed by Cabinet in December 2017;

 

(2)        approval be given for the Council to indicate its willingness to increase the amount of the available loan facility from £6m to £15m, subject to delivery of the £6m programme, the submission of satisfactory and robust evidence of the potential to significantly increase the scale and pace of delivery of new affordable housing through the scheme, and further approval from Cabinet and Council;

 

(3)        the Director People and Places be authorised, in consultation with the Assistant Director Resources (Section 151 Officer) and Portfolio Holders for Housing, People and Innovation and Finance, to approve drawdowns from the £6m facility in accordance with the agreement between the parties; and

 

(4)        officers be requested to provide Cabinet with regular progress reports on the scheme and associated delivery.

 

Reasons for Decision

 

To assist in the delivery of the key element in the Council Plan of delivering 1,000 affordable homes for rent target.

 

Alternative Options Considered and Rejected

 

The option exists to commit to a full programme of £15m of support for a programme delivering approximately 120 houses without a requirement for scheme by scheme drawdown. This would give greater certainty for the housing provider(s) but would result in less control over delivery and pose a greater risk to the Council.

 

The option exists to not proceed with the loans facility. This would free up the £6m to be spent on other priorities. However it would impact significantly on affordable housing delivery, particularly in rural parts of the District with high affordable needs and limited opportunities to address these through conventional means of affordable housing delivery.

Wards affected: (All Wards);

Lead officer: Dan Hudson


05/11/2018 - Review of Licensing Fees and Charges 2019/2020 and Draft Budget ref: 3875    For Determination

Decision Maker: Licensing Regulatory Committee

Made at meeting: 05/11/2018 - Licensing Regulatory Committee

Decision published: 27/11/2018

Effective from: 05/11/2018

Decision:

The Principal Environmental Protection Officer presented a report which outlined the review of the Licensing Fees and Charges 2019/20 and the draft budget for the service area.

 

RESOLVED – That

 

(1)        the recommended fees for the financial year 2019/20, as set out in Appendix 1 to the report, and subject to approval by Council as part of the final budget-setting process, be endorsed; and

 

(2)        the following be noted:-

 

(a)        the nationally-set fees for 2019/20 as set out in Appendix 2 to the report; and

 

(b)        the latest draft budget estimates including the fees and charges for 2019/20 as set out in Appendix 1 to the report, prior to submission to Council for approval as part of the final budget report.

Lead officer: Hardeep Burnley


05/11/2018 - Changes to South Lakeland District Council Hackney Carriage and Private Hire Licensing Policy ref: 3876    For Determination

The revised Hackney Carriage and Private Hire Licensing Policy 2018 (known as the Taxi policy), which has been reviewed in line with national changes to the DVSA driving standard test, changes to taxi ranks (as introduced by Cumbria County Council) and changes to mandatory training of drivers on safeguarding of vulnerable individuals.

Decision Maker: Licensing Regulatory Committee

Made at meeting: 05/11/2018 - Licensing Regulatory Committee

Decision published: 27/11/2018

Effective from: 05/11/2018

Decision:

The Principal Environmental Protection Officer presented a report which outlined the changes to South Lakeland District Council’s Hackney Carriage and Private Hire Licensing Policy. He informed Members that the Policy had been adopted by South Lakeland District Council (SLDC) in December 2015. However, since that date there had been significant changes in the way agencies and organisations delivered the Driver and Vehicle Standards Agency (DVSA) taxi driver standards test and, following a number of high profile cases in the North West, there was now an emphasis on the safeguarding of vulnerable individuals. He explained that, as a result of the DVSA’s decision to no longer deliver the taxi driver standards test, SLDC had been working with an external agency to develop an approved test which would be delivered to all new applicants. It was proposed that drivers would be required to undertake mandatory safeguarding training, by attending an in-house training course or via the knowledge test. In addition, on 3 September 2018, SLDC had received a letter from Cumbria County Council which advised that there had been changes to parking and taxi ranks in Kendal. The letter from Cumbria County Council had been included at Appendix 2 to the report, and SLDC’s Hackney Carriage and Private Hire Licensing Policy had been amended to reflect the changes.

 

The Principal Environmental Protection Officer brought Members’ attention to the sections of the Policy which had been amended to reflect the changes and he also proposed a number of further amendments to the Policy which included:-

 

1)    Page 29 - ‘Drivers should’ – to be replaced with ‘Drivers shall’;

 

2)    Page 32 - Appendix F: Testing of Applicants – (2.0) Local Geography - the following sentence to be added ‘The Local Authority will also include some questions on safeguarding’; and

 

3)    Page 33 - (8.0) General – the following sentence to be added ‘If any safeguarding questions are failed, irrespective of overall pass rate, the test result will be a fail’.

 

The Principal Environmental Protection Officer answered questions from Members and provided further clarity regarding the report and the proposed revisions to the Policy. In response to a query on how the Council would control those who come into the area to operate, the Principal Environmental Protection Officer undertook to provide a written response.

 

RESOLVED - That

 

(1)        the report be noted; and

 

(2)        subject to the amendments raised at the meeting and outlined above, the revised Hackney Carriage and Private Hire Licensing Policy, at Appendix 1 to the report, be adopted.

Wards affected: (All Wards);

Lead officer: Hardeep Burnley


05/11/2018 - Introduction of the Animal Welfare (Licensing of Activities involving animals) (England) Regulations 2018 ref: 3877    For Determination

Informing the Committee of forthcoming changes to the way in which animal boarding establishments, dog breeding establishments, pet shops and riding establishments are licensed. This includes the introduction of responsibilities relating to the licensing of the keeping animals for exhibition and informing members of the new fee structure relating to this regime.

Decision Maker: Licensing Regulatory Committee

Made at meeting: 05/11/2018 - Licensing Regulatory Committee

Decision published: 27/11/2018

Effective from: 05/11/2018

Decision:

The Environmental Protection Officer presented the report which introduced the Animal Welfare (Licensing of Activities Involving Animals) (England) Regulations 2018, and its associated fees. He advised Members that the Regulations had come into force on 1 October 2018 and had changed the way animal boarding establishments, dog breeding establishments, pet shops and riding establishments were licensed. The Regulations had also introduced responsibilities which related to the licensing of keeping animals for exhibition. The Environment Protection Officer highlighted the types and number of licences currently issued by South Lakeland District Council. He outlined the changes to the licensing and inspection process and advised Members that during the transitional period for the new legislation, existing licences would continue to their stated expiry date and then be renewed under the new Regulations.

 

The Environmental Protection Officer and the Solicitor to the Council responded to questions from Members.

 

RESOLVED – That

 

(1)        the report be noted; and

 

(2)        the fees payable in connection with animal licensing applications for the period 1  October 2018 onwards, as detailed in Appendix 2 to the report, be agreed and included as part of the normal budget setting process.

Wards affected: (All Wards);

Lead officer: Hardeep Burnley


05/11/2018 - Review of Licensing Fees and Charges 2019/2020 and Draft Budget ref: 3874    For Determination

Review of Licensing fees and charges and draft budget for 2019/2020

Decision Maker: Licensing Committee

Made at meeting: 05/11/2018 - Licensing Committee

Decision published: 27/11/2018

Effective from: 05/11/2018

Decision:

The Principal Environmental Protection Officer presented a report which outlined the review of the Licensing Fees and Charges 2019/2020 and the draft budget for the service area.

 

The report also having been considered at the meeting of the Licensing Regulatory Committee held immediately prior to the meeting of the Licensing Committee, when the same Members were present, it was

 

RESOLVED – That

 

(1)        the recommended fees for the financial year 2019/20, as set out in Appendix 1 to the report, and subject to approval by Council as part of the final budget-setting process, be endorsed; and

 

(2)        the following be noted:-

 

(a)  the nationally-set fees for 2019/20 as set out in Appendix 2 to the report; and

 

(b)  the latest draft budget estimates including the fees and charges for 2019/20 as set out in Appendix 1 to the report, prior to submission to Council for approval as part of the final budget report.

Wards affected: (All Wards);

Lead officer: Hardeep Burnley


19/10/2018 - Application for Premises Licence: 5 Cavendish Street, Ulverston ref: 3873    For Determination

Application for grant of a premises licence - 5 Cavendish Street, Ulverston

Decision Maker: Licensing Sub-Committee

Made at meeting: 19/10/2018 - Licensing Sub-Committee

Decision published: 27/11/2018

Effective from: 19/10/2018

Decision:

The Licensing Officer presented a report which requested consideration of an application for a premises licence in respect of 5 Cavendish Street, Ulverston, in the light of representations which had been submitted by interested parties. Members’ attention was drawn to the late representation regarding a sound insulation and external noise report, which had been circulated prior to the meeting.

 

Mr Mark Bates, the joint applicant, presented his case. He informed Members that the ethos of a micropub was to serve a limited selection of alcohol, mainly cask ales, to a small customer base and he confirmed that they would not be serving spirits, alcopops or strong lager. He stated that he and his wife were not part of a faceless multi-national brand and they were passionate about this venture and had spent six months planning it. He felt they were part of the community and had been deeply upset by the representations and the suggestion that there would be debauchery and drunken behaviour. He informed the Members that the micropub would use Cumbrian brewers and local suppliers for the small selection of bar snacks which would be on offer and he highlighted the proposed opening hours. He stated that he felt it was noteworthy that no representations had been received from responsible authorities and that only nine residents had submitted representations. He went on to address a number of concerns which had been raised within the representations particularly in regard to noise generation. He informed the Members that deliveries would not be made by large dray lorries, the premises licence application had not included live or recorded music, there would be no mechanical ventilation or extraction used and refuse collection arrangements would be the same as those of the previous occupier, the World Peace Cafe. He went on to explain that the size of the smoking area would limit the number of smokers it would hold and therefore it would be unlikely to cause a noise nuisance and there would be no access from the smoking area to Rack Alley at the rear of the property.

 

The applicant answered questions from the Members and highlighted the noise report which had been included in the agenda pack. He stated that he did not feel that the addition of accommodation at the premises would cause additional nuisance to the neighbouring properties and that there was ample free parking within the vicinity. He clarified that small delivery vans would deliver casks of beer and there would be no large kegs delivered to the premises.

 

The Solicitor to the Council advised Members that the bed and breakfast accommodation and parking provision were not for consideration as part of the application for a premises licence.

 

Mr John Blackmore-Tucker, a local resident, addressed the Sub-Committee and made reference to the noise report and highlighted his concerns regarding the noise nuisance which could be caused to local residents particularly from those congregating in the smoking area. He informed the Members that the properties in the vicinity were in a conservation area and consequently the windows of these properties were single glazed. He requested permission from the Chair of the Sub-Committee to distribute photographs which showed the general street scene and the smoking area and its proximity to neighbouring properties. Members of the Sub-Committee took a moment to study the photographs.

 

The applicant answered further questions in relation to noise from the smoking area and explained how he would address the concerns of local residents, particularly those with young children. He confirmed that the smoking area would be closed at 22.00hrs, the area would be monitored and prominent notices would be placed to ask patrons to be considerate of neighbours. 

 

The applicant answered questions directed through the Chair of the Sub-Committee from Mr Ramsey Barker, a local resident and Councillor Mark Wilson, Ward Councillor for Ulverston East. The applicant stated that he anticipated that the micropub would attract a small customer base but he would be happy to serve larger groups of people visiting the area. He explained that he was familiar with the BarWatch Scheme in Ulverston but had not attended any meetings of Ulverston Town Council.

 

Councillor Wilson went on to inform the Sub-Committee that areas of Ulverston were becoming a densely populated residential areas and that the residents he was representing felt that the micropub was in the wrong area. He made reference to the photographs which had been distributed earlier and explained that situated to the back of the premises was Rack Alley, which was an old rope walk less than six feet wide, and that having a bar there was too close to where local residents and children would be sleeping and that smells and noise would carry. He stated that on festival days he had witnessed people urinating in Queen Street and Rack Alley and this was not an area to introduce more people to.

 

Christina Balmer, a local resident, addressed the Sub-Committee. She stated that her greatest concern was that of the outside smoking area and the noise disruption this would cause. She explained that having a micropub open from 10.00hrs to 23.00hrs everyday would have a massive negative impact on local residents.

 

Mr Ramsey Barker addressed the Sub-Committee and informed them that the premises licence application had been displayed on a side window of the property and not the front window and a number of residents had questioned why they had not been notified of the application by the local authority. Mr Barker stated that Cavendish Street was a main thoroughfare to and from Ulverston train station and that the proposed micropub would be the first and last port of call for train users drinking in Ulverston.

 

Mr Blackmore-Tucker reiterated his concerns regarding the rear smoking area and its proximity to local residents’ gardens and windows. In addition he voiced his concerns regarding the congregation of patrons in the large open doorway of the premises and the potential of children being at risk of hearing inappropriate conversations and potential disturbances at closing time.

 

Mr Kevin Silver, a local resident, informed the Sub-Committee that most of his concerns had been raised in the representations which had already been made. However, he wished to reiterate his main concerns which were the rear smoking area and the impact this would have on his living conditions and that he felt the applicant did not realise the impact on the area caused by the volume of people who attended festivals in the town.

 

Mr Kevin Silver, in his closing statement to the Sub-Committee, stated that many of the neighbours did not want a licenced premises on the street and that a coffee house would be more appropriate.

 

Mr Blackmore-Tucker, in his closing statement, informed the Sub-Committee that he echoed the comments made by Mr Silver and he stated that a bar on Cavendish Street would have a negative impact on his way of life and undermine the quality of his home life.

 

Mr Ramsey Barker, in his closing statement to the Sub-Committee, urged the Members to consider the photographs which had been submitted and the possibility of people congregating in the large doorway within the curtilage of the premises.

 

Mrs Christina Balmer, in her closing statement to the Sub-Committee, asked the Members to consider the residents who had made representations and the impact the premises would have on their lives.

 

Councillor Wilson made a closing statement to the Sub-Committee and stated that he felt micropubs and breweries seemed to be making alcohol stronger than ever which was contrary to health and wellbeing voluntary agreements.  He concluded by informing the Sub-Committee that he supported the residents and objectors.

 

Mrs Cheryl Bates, the joint applicant made a closing statement to the Sub-Committee. She wished to assure all parties who had made representations, that she and her husband had thought carefully about their premises licence application, particularly as the premises was within an residential and business area and that they had carried out extensive research to enable them to make an informed decision about what could and just would not work in the area.

 

Mrs Bates went on to confirm that loud music, sports TV, games machines would never be present in the micropub and she reiterated that a micropub was not about the size of the pub but it was about the range and quality of alcoholic beverages which would be served. The micropub would sell real ale, real cider, wine and prosecco with soft drinks and tea and coffee also being available. The clientele would be reminded to respect the neighbours whilst entering and leaving the premises and when using the outdoor smoking area. The outdoor area would be closed at 22.00hrs and Rack Alley would never be accessible from the rear smoking area. Deliveries to the premises would be in small vans and refuse collection would be no different to existing arrangements. She explained that for clientele using taxis to leave the premises they would recommend that pick-ups would be made away from Cavendish Street and further down into the town area. She concluded by stating that by opening up the empty building they hoped to add to the area in offering a friendly addition to the night scene. In addition there would be economic growth as people came into the area. They would use local tradesmen to refurbish the property and produce from local suppliers. They anticipated, that as members of CAMRA (Campaign for Real Ale), the micropub would attract educated drinkers and clientele.

 

Note – The Sub-Committee passed a resolution to adjourn the meeting to exclude the press and public in making its decision, pursuant to Schedule 12A of the Local Government Act 1972 as amended by the Local Government (Access to Information) (Variation) Order 2006 by virtue of the paragraph indicated:-

 

Paragraph 5 – Information in respect of which a claim to legal professional privilege could be maintained in legal proceedings.

 

The Sub-Committee, supported by the Solicitor to the Council, then withdrew to consider the circumstances put forward.

 

The meeting reconvened at 1.09 p.m. and the Chair of the Sub-Committee asked the Solicitor to the Council to communicate the Sub-Committee’s decision.

 

The Solicitor to the Council stated that the Sub-Committee had considered all of the evidence provided both orally and in writing. This included all representations made by all parties at the hearing. Full consideration had been given to the location of the premises, the written objections received and the oral representations relating to the possible effect the grant of the licence may cause to public nuisance and increased noise and disturbance.

 

RESOLVED – That the application be approved for the following activities:-

 

Supply of alcohol:-

Sunday to Thursday 10:00 to 22:00

Friday & Saturday 10:00 to 23:00

New Year’s Eve 10:00 to 01:00 the following day.

Subject to the mandatory conditions together with the conditions outlined below:-

 

(1)        An incident book to be kept to record refusals to serve alcohol, age related incidents and anything else that may undermines the licensing objectives.

 

(2)        The establishment shall ensure that CCTV is in place, operational and recording whenever the premises are open for business.  CCTV recordings shall be retained for at least 7 days and provided to any Responsible Authority requesting them.

 

(3)        No deliveries or waste collections shall take place between 19.00 and 08:00.

 

(4)        No access to the smoking area shall be permitted after 22:00 Sunday to Saturday or after 01:00 the following day on New Years’ Eve.

 

(5)        All doors and windows are to be kept closed except for access and egress after 21:00.

 

(6)        No open drinking receptacles or containers to be permitted outside the premises (save for the outdoor smoking area).

 

(7)        The establishment shall ensure that it displays clear signage in visible points throughout the premises, and at all access and egress points, addressing the following:-

a.         That the outside smoking area is not to be used as a beer garden;

b.         That customers should exit the premises quietly; and

c.         That customers should have regard to the premises’ situation within a residential area.

 

(8)        The establishment shall operate a 'Challenge 25' policy.

 

(9)        The policy will require any person who appears to be under the age of 25 to provide identification that proves they are over the age of 18 before they are permitted to purchase alcohol. The only forms of acceptable identification will be:

-           A Passport; -

-           A UK Photocard Driving Licence;

-           Official ID card issued by HM Forces or EU bearing a photograph and the date and birth of the holder; or

-           Any other forms of identification agreed with a representative of the Police Licensing Unit.

 

(10)      All staff who are involved in the sale of alcohol will be trained in relation to the "Challenge 25" policy upon the commencement of their employment, following which they will undertake refresher training at suitable intervals. Said training will be documented and will be made available to an authorised officer upon request.

 

Note – The Parties were informed of their right to appeal to the Magistrates Court within 21 days of notification of the decision.

Lead officer: Patrick Cantley


02/11/2018 - Planning Application No. SL/2018/0388 - Old Hutton and Homescales - Land directly to the north of the existing Old Hutton Substation ref: 3869    Recommendations Approved

Decision Maker: Planning Committee

Made at meeting: 02/11/2018 - Planning Committee

Decision published: 27/11/2018

Effective from: 02/11/2018

Decision:

Gas Fired Electricity Generating Station to deliver electricity during times of peak demand of up to 49.99 MW, ancillary equipment, access and landscaping (Miss Kirsty Cassie, Statera Energy Ltd).

 

Note – at this point in the proceedings Councillors Anne Hutton and Rupert Audland left the meeting.

 

Note – Councillor Janette Jenkinson declared a non-pecuniary interest in this item by virtue of the fact she knew Chris Nelson, one of the public participants, through her work on Ulverston BID. She remained in the meeting during discussion and voting on the item.

 

The Planning Officer presented Planning Application No. SL/2018/0388 which sought permission for the development of a 49.9 MW gas fired electricity generating station. The Planning Officer advised Members that a previous scheme for a gas fired electricity peaking plant and battery storage facility had been refused by the Planning Committee on 4 January 2018 (Minute P/123 refers). The Planning Officer informed Members that the Planning Application before them was a revised scheme which deleted the battery storage element. He displayed photographs and plans which detailed the proposals.

 

Note – The Committee voted to adjourn for a break at 10.54 a.m. and reconvened at 11.07 a.m. when the same Members were present.

 

Tim Farron, Member of Parliament for Westmorland and Lonsdale addressed the Committee. He stated that he was deeply concerned regarding the risks associated with the development and that he felt Statera had tried to appease local residents by proposing a 20% reduction in the height of the chimneys which would moderately reduce the visual impact. In addition the reduction of the chimney height, from 15 metres to 12 metres, would have an impact on the dispersal of fumes and there would be a radical increase in the threat to public health. The dispersal mode readings presented in the report had been carried out at Shap which was much windier than Old Hutton. He concluded by highlighting his concerns regarding the proximity of the local school to the application site and that there had been no evidence of essential requirement for the development in the open countryside. He urged the Committee to say no to this dangerous proposal.

 

Anthony Fitzherbert addressed the Committee and stated that this was the second application by Statera to construct a power station in Old Hutton, only 800 metres from the local primary school. The application had been rejected in January 2018 because it was an inappropriate development in a rural area and because of its visual impact. Those issues had not changed. He went on to state that to build a power station on the site was contrary to the principles for industrial development in South Lakeland and that nitrous oxide fumes would be emitted, which would pollute the atmosphere and cause acid rain. He concluded his address by highlighting the risks related to fire and security and the negative impact on future of the community.

 

Councillor Pat Bell, Kendal Rural District Ward Member, addressed the Committee. She referred to Core Strategy CS1.2 and asked for the Committee to consider if it was totally convinced that the application was essential in this location. Councillor Bell went on to state that the Highways Authority had described the access as ‘very tight indeed’ and that the residents of Eskrigg End could be massively inconvenienced for the duration of the construction period. She concluded by highlighting the potential repercussions for subsequent decisions relating to developments in the open countryside if the application were to be approved and she urged the Members to reject the application.

 

Dr Arthur Robinson addressed the Committee. He informed the Members that the application had been supported by a sequential test which had assessed 505 substations. However, no criteria had been provided as to how the 505 substations had been selected and he suspected that it was the willingness of the landowners to agree to development. He concluded by stating that the sequential test had failed to show why it was essential that the proposed substation should be sited in a rural location. Therefore the application failed to comply with policy CS1.2 and approval of the application could not be justified.

 

Alan Jenkins addressed the Committee and informed Members that, in South Lakeland District Council’s Core Strategy, the parishes of Old Hutton and New Hutton were recognised as rural. He made reference to the visual impact of cumulative industrial development in the area which included two quarries, the national grid substation and a solar farm and hydro scheme. In addition, he referred to the previous refusal, by the Planning Committee, of several visually obtrusive wind turbines. He stated that this application would have a harmful visual impact and that although the chimneys would be lower than the previous application, they would still be visible from most directions and the planting of trees and shrubs would offer little cover. He concluded by stating that the cumulative impact would be both extensive and profound and would affect generations. He urged the Members to decline the application.

 

Victoria Middlebrook addressed the Committee and informed the Members that Statera had claimed that it was unlikely that a visible exhaust plume would be created by the substation when it was in operation. Throughout her representation Ms Middlebrook cast doubt on a number of claims which had been made by the applicant and she concluded by stating that, not only would there be a significant industrial impact on the rural landscape, the formation of plumes would also represent significant visual impacts.

 

Jo Wilmott addressed the Committee and displayed photographs which illustrated the visual impact of the proposed application. She highlighted the open countryside and the drumlins which offered an attractive space to live and work in and for recreation. She dismissed the applicant’s exhaust dispersal modelling and stated that it had been carried out at Shap which had significantly different wind speeds. She highlighted concerns regarding exhaust emissions effecting the local primary school and the impact of the substation firing up multiple times a day. She concluded by asking the Members to evaluate the application on real evidence and to refuse it.

 

Jayne Nelson addressed the Committee and stated that the National Planning Policy Framework imposed a duty on local planning authorities to ensure that, with new developments, flood risk was not increased elsewhere. She highlighted her concern regarding the weather data provided by the applicant and queried why Shap weather station had been used and not the local weather station at Levens. She referred to major flooding incidents in Middleshaw in 2013 and 2015 and stated that the installation of the substation would cause a huge impermeable area which would create the risk of increased water runoff and flooding downstream. In addition, the underground tank, which would temporarily store storm water, would fill more quickly because the development would steepen the field. She concluded by stating that Statera had not fulfilled their National Planning Policy Framework duty to avoid flood risk to people and property elsewhere and their application had dismissed the flooding risk of Middleshaw. 

 

John Shorrock, a resident of Middleshaw, addressed the Committee and explained that he and other residents had noticed a greater volume of water in the beck next to their properties during the enlargement of the existing substation.  He went on to explain that, as a consequence of a partial collapse of a road culvert by Middleshaw Head Barn, water was currently being held back which was beneficial to the Hamlet. He went on to state that the proposal to use Middleshaw Lane as the access route for all traffic would mean that the culvert would need to be repaired which would lead to faster and greater waterflow which would put Middleshaw properties at further risk of flooding. Mr Shorrock explained that, in heavy rain, the proposed site floods, and this had not been addressed within Statera’s application. He concluded by emphasising the poor quality of life and worry which would be caused to Middleshaw residents every time there was heavy rain and he urged the Committee to refuse the Planning Application.

 

Anne Winders addressed the Committee, on behalf of Middleshaw Flood Action Group, and displayed photographs which showed water surges, flooding in the area and an illustration of the proposed power station. She highlighted the significant impact there would be on residents during the six month construction phase and the increased flood risk caused by the proposed power station’s surface water drainage. Residents feared that flash flooding could overwhelm the proposed mitigation system and the proposal to deepen and increase the downhill roadside ditch would only increase the flow downstream. She highlighted concerns regarding construction traffic and referred to a report by Burgess Roughton Structural Engineers which stated that heavy traffic would damage basement walls of properties which support Middleshaw Lane. Further concerns related to the possibility, if permission were granted, of a further application for battery storage. She concluded by stating that the application would bring greater risks to residents and an irreversible lasting legacy and she urged Members to stand up for the residents of Middleshaw.

 

Jamie Normington addressed the Committee and informed them that he was a resident of Old Hutton and worked for Cumbria Wildlife Trust. He stated that the proposed site contained valuable hedgerows which would be disconnected and desecrated by the application. The hedgerows were havens for butterflies, bird and hedgehogs and supported breeding populations of rare birds such as the tree sparrow, which was a priority species for Cumbria. He went on to explain that the waterways were also home to some of the rarest wildlife in the UK, and there had been sightings of eels, otters, crayfish and water voles. He stated that the site had received a minimum survey in which the surveyor noted a number of reservations and potential future problems but these were outside the constraints of the token survey. He concluded by urging the Members to consider the wildlife, alongside the other objections, and to reject the plan.

 

Ann Hinchcliffe addressed the Committee, on behalf of Old Hutton Action Group. She explained she had lived alongside the beck in Middleshaw for 26 years and was delighted to have such a variety of wildlife including dippers, grey wagtails and endangered species such as eels and water voles. She highlighted concerns regarding the damage to the healthy ecosystem of the beck which would be caused by industrialisation in the upper watercourse of the beck and could include construction site sludge, run-off from the finished site such as lubricants and cleaning fluids and exhaust fumes which would spread over the fields which formed the catchment area of the beck. She concluded by quoting from the Wildlife and Countryside Act guidance and asked the Members not to give consent to the application.

 

Councillor Hazel Hodgson, a Kendal Rural District Ward Member, addressed the Committee. She raised the question if there was a need to site the power station in Old Hutton and went on to inform the Members that, of the gas that would be used to produce electricity, only 44% would be used in the production and the remainder would add to global warming as pollutants. Councillor Hodgson highlighted concerns regarding the accessibility of the proposed site to fire and safety services and the addition of a manifold to the national gas network which would add a weakness. She went on to highlight the impact on the community from previous green energy constructions such as the two windfarms, the large solar farm and hydro schemes and that, for the next five years, Old and New Hutton would have the impact of the Haweswater Aqueduct renovation project. Councillor Hodgson concluded by stating that, in New Hutton, holiday lodges and touring parks, which contributed 60 occupations per week to the local economy, looked directly at the proposed site; Bendrigg Lodge, which provided clean air activities for disabled children, was 1500 metres to the east; and Old Hutton School was just 800 metres away.

 

Ann Airey addressed the Committee and informed them that she owned a farm and land to the west running 250 metres alongside the proposed site. She explained that she farmed approximately 100 acres, which was split into two sections, on one end was the existing substation and on the other end the M6 motorway and the junction between was her farm and buildings. She stated that, during previous construction work her cattle had been frightened from her field and that on the evening of 3 August 2015 there had been a massive explosion which had shaken her farm three-quarters of a mile away. The proposed substation was too big and unsafe and there would be no personnel on site to look after safety. She concluded by stating that there would be an impact on wildlife in the area and that the local roads were unfit for heavy goods vehicles. 

 

Stephen Hinchliffe addressed the Committee on behalf of Friends of Eden, Lakeland and Lunesdale Scenery (FELLS). He informed the Committee that FELLS had been founded in 1999 to assess planning applications and to oppose those that it considered inappropriately sited.  He stated the FELLS objected to the proposal on the grounds of landscape and visual impact on the locality and the drumlin fields in South Lakeland and the high ground between Kendal and Kirkby Lonsdale known as Kendal Low Fells. He stated that South Lakeland District Council (SLDC) and County Council policy documents had described the landscape as intimate and small scale and vulnerable to inappropriate development. Several wind turbine applications in the area had been refused by SLDC and the Planning Inspectorate. The proposal had acknowledged the landscape character and had suggested there were advantages in ‘grouping’ however, it was felt that adding more industrial structures up the valley side would be a step too far. He concluded by stating that FELLS considered that the drumlin landscape deserved continued protection and was not an appropriate location for a power station.  

 

Lorayne Wall addressed the Committee on behalf of Friends of the Lake District. She informed the Members that the proposal remained contrary to the Local Development Plan and she referred to the application avoiding the NSIPs (Nationally Significant Infrastructure Projects) consents process, due to it being 0.1MW below the threshold. She stated that the development was inappropriate in open countryside, between two National Parks and it would have unacceptable landscape character and cumulative visual impacts. She went on to make reference to SLDC’s Local Plan core strategy policies CS8.2, CS1.1, CS7.7, CS1.2 and CS10.2 and emerging policies DM1, DM2 and DM21. She concluded by stating that, if the Council Plan ambitions were to be met industrialisation and urbanisation of valued open countryside should not be permitted and that the original reasons for refusal remained relevant to this proposal and it should be refused.

 

Nick Liley addressed the Committee and explained that he was the principal of the charity Bendrigg Lodge which offered life changing experiences to a range of people, often with severe and complex disabilities and medical needs. He outlined the outdoor activities which were available at the centre and stated that it was the location and surrounding area which attracted groups to Bendrigg Lodge. He highlighted his concerns which included the visual impact and the impact on the local infrastructure, particularly during the construction phase, the implications on the day to day operations of Bendrigg Lodge and having to navigate past articulated lorries on narrow lanes. He also highlighted the medical needs of many of the Lodge’s visitors and the requirement for access for rapid response emergency service vehicles. He concluded by stating his concerns regarding the environmental impact, specifically pollution, due to the close proximity of the site to Bendrigg Lodge, the village and the primary school and that it was vital that the local area was protected.

 

Michael McGlynn addressed the Committee and explained he was speaking as one of the many young people from Old Hutton. He described Old Hutton as a place where the younger generation stayed and wanted to be part of the community and bring up their own families in the future. He stated that the power station would be a huge mistake and would have a damaging effect on the area’s environment, farms and families. He anticipated that the younger generation would have to think carefully about whether the risk to health was worth it and many young families would move away. He concluded by stating that he had been apprehensive about addressing the Committee but he felt it was too important an issue for him to stay quiet.

 

Peter Aylward addressed the Committee and explained that, in autumn 2017, following sight of the ‘stop Old Hutton Power Station’ banner, he and his wife had dismissed plans to move to Old Hutton. However, following the refusal of the application in January 2018, he had purchased a cottage and moved to Old Hutton in April 2018. He stated that it had not just been the rejection of the planning application which had renewed his confidence to move to Old Hutton but the Council’s planning polices for managing development in the South Lakeland area, in particular the fact that an applicant had to demonstrate a requirement for a development to be located in a rural area. He concluded by stating that the planning application being considered today did nothing to counter the Committee’s reasons for their rejection of the previous application and he asked the Committee to honour the core strategy policy and reject the application.

 

Helen Loney addressed the Committee and explained that she was a parent governor of Old Hutton primary school. She highlighted that OFSTED had rated the school as outstanding and that as a National-Support School it had been a role model to other schools in Cumbria and beyond. Parents were attracted to the school because of its countryside location, family atmosphere and strong teaching record and the school ran at full capacity, with a thriving pre-school. She stated that a gas fired power station constructed within 800 metres of this outstanding school would be devastating and the emission of noxious fumes from four 12 metre high exhaust towers would result in parents moving their children to other schools, as no parent would send their child to a school close to a power station which produced nitrogen dioxide. The development would kill the school and the pre-school and consequently kill the village. She went on to say that the children were happy, they cared about each other, the environment and countryside, without the school the village would lose its ‘beating heart’. She concluded by informing the Members that there was a moral duty to protect and conserve a thriving school.

 

Note – The Committee voted to adjourn for a break at 12.12 p.m. and reconvened at 12.25 p.m. when the same Members were present.

 

Suzanne Gray addressed the Committee and explained that Old Hutton pre-school and toddler group was run from the village hall and provided friendship and support from birth to five years. Some families were local and others travelled from Kendal, Sedbergh, Kirkby Lonsdale and beyond, and they were attracted by the close links with the primary school and the fabulous outdoor provision. She informed Members that the grounds of the village hall were situated 800 metres from the site and downwind of the proposed chimneys which would pump out nitrogen dioxide and other pollutants. She highlighted concerns as to where the emissions would go when the area was covered by low cloud and she referred to the applicant’s site at Creyke Beck, Hull, where the plant’s active hours were 8.00 a.m. to 10.00 a.m., which was exactly the time when the pre-school would be playing outdoors. She highlighted the applicant’s claim of the special circumstances of the site and the essential need for the development.  She stated that there would be no benefit to the local area and there was additional concern regarding the connection to the high pressure gas line. She concluded by informing the Members that prospective parents, who shared unanswered concerns, would choose to send their children elsewhere and that a rapid decline would affect the primary school and the people of Old Hutton had worked hard to make Old Hutton stand out as a centre for education rather than generation. She urged the Committee to protect the landscape and the air that their children breathed.

 

Jean Robinson addressed the Committee and began her address by quoting from page 13 of the 2018 edition of the National Planning Policy Framework “Good quality application discussion enables better coordination between public and private resources” and that whilst Planning Authorities “cannot require that a developer engages with (other parties) before submitting a planning application” the National Planning Policy Framework clearly indicates that this is desirable. She went on to explain that the current application was not the same as that which was refused in January and that there had been no consultation with the public before the present application had been submitted. However, the company had claimed, in their Design and Access Statement, that, in addition to consultation which had been held for the original application, two consultations had taken place for the current application. In fact, these had taken place in June 2017 and had been in relation to the original application. She concluded by stating that this misleading approach raised the question of whether other parts of the application were less accurate than they seemed to be.

 

Kate Waddington addressed the Committee and stated that of the speakers present today and the 600 plus written representations submitted, not all highlighted material planning considerations and she requested that, as elected representatives, the Members be their voice and find a way to refuse the application. She informed the Members that Statera’s independent consultee, RPS, who had produced many of the documents for the application, was far from an independent consultee, as Andrew Troup from Statera had been a director of RPS for 18 years. In addition there had been no public consultation for this application. She stated that Statera had no significant experience of this type of operation, having only commissioned one peaking plant. She highlighted concerns regarding the Air Quality Report referring to as Site A and whether or not this indicated an intention, on the part of the applicant, to build further sites and turn the area into a brownfield site.

 

Parish Councillor John Heap addressed the Committee on behalf of Old Hutton and Homescales Parish Council. He commenced his address by informing the Members that he lived at Eskrigg End, a small hamlet of nine properties, 300 metres away from the proposed development. He referred to the public meeting, which had been held when the original application had been submitted, and highlighted the concerns which had been raised by 97 parishioners at that meeting. He stated that serious concerns had been raised regarding security, particularly as the site was to be unmanned and monitored by CCTV, and access for emergency vehicles. He went on to explain that each concern had been subject to healthy debate and every parishioner present at the meeting had objected to the application. He then explained that all parishioners were aware of the revised plan and, of those he had spoken to, all were still of the view that the proposed development was undesirable and unnecessary. The Parish Council had resolved to continue to strongly oppose the application. He informed the Members that there were also serious concerns in respect of the visual impact of the site and the   proposed landscaping. He concluded by urging the Planning Committee to refuse the application.

 

Parish Councillor Martyn Welch addressed the Committee on behalf of New Hutton Parish Council. He explained that the proposed development was not in New Hutton but the people of New Hutton were concerned about the long-term effect that the development would have over a very wide area for a very long time. He highlighted concerns regarding flooding, access and pollution and stated that the site would not bring any local jobs or help with housing needs. In addition there were concerns regarding visual impact and wildlife. He concluded by stating that it was an inappropriate development in a rural setting which would have a devastating impact on the rural landscape.

 

Mike Adams addressed the Committee and informed Members that Statera’s justification for the power station had been based on national demand for electricity. However, demand was falling and projected to fall further. He went on to quote National Grid figures for winter 2018/19 and explained that the trend was for further reductions in demand. He said that Statera’s claim that Kendal was a load centre was a gross overstatement and that their claim that there were no other suitable sites should be seriously questioned. He concluded by stating if peaking power stations were needed, that they should be close to major demand centres and not Old Hutton.

 

David Stephenson addressed the Committee and explained that he was an oil and gas professional of 31 years’ experience. He stated that the application followed the rejection of the previous plan and that the applicant continued to gloss over major risk factors. He explained that Statera planned to draw gas directly from a high pressure main which was a high risk undertaking and would involve the installation of a manifold system. He further stated that the failure of pipelines was not uncommon and the proposed manifold on an unmanned site in a farmer’s field would increase the vulnerability to damage. He went on to quote statistics relating to failures of high pressure lines and stated that the applicant had not addressed the risks. He concluded by informing the Members that the fire and rescue service had declared that the road access was severely restricted and he urged the Planning Committee to reject the application.

 

Alison McGlynn addressed the Committee and informed the Members that South Lakeland District Council’s Core Strategy listed several economic policies, none of which were satisfied by the planning application. She quoted from policies CS1.1 and CS7.4 and went on to explain that the proposed power station was distant from existing service centres and offered no employment opportunities as it would be controlled and monitored remotely. In the construction phase there would be little benefit to local companies because specialist labour would be brought in from elsewhere.  She concluded by stating that the development would be alien to the surrounding area, would harm the amenity of the residential area, during construction there would be a high level of heavy traffic on unsuitable roads and that all these harmful impacts would negatively affect the tourist economy of the local area.

 

John Hurren addressed the Committee and informed the Members that NOx was the generic term for nitrogen oxides which were the principal components of air pollution and which would significantly impact the future health of everyone in the area. He stated that Statera’s model calculations were misleading; the weather data had been taken from Shap where, due to higher wind speed, pollution would disperse more quickly. The peaking plant would be used more in autumn and winter and dispersal of pollutants would be affected by temperature inversions which formed over fog and cold air in the valleys. The height of the chimneys had been reduced from 15 metres to 12 metres but the same volume of pollutants would be emitted at a slower speed from the wider chimneys. He concluded by stating that air pollution was contrary to South Lakeland District Council’s environmental and planning policies and Statera’s calculations and conclusions about air pollution were misleading.

 

Councillor Giles Archibald addressed the Committee and stated that climate change was by far the most serious threat faced. It would make millions of people homeless and cause worldwide water and food shortages and if the planet was to be protected, green energy must be insisted upon. Councillor Archibald informed the Members that the substation, with a lifespan of 30 years, could emit 30,000 tonnes of CO2 per annum and that nitrous oxide was particularly damaging to the environment and had three times the impact of CO2. He highlighted that there had been no mention of the carbon footprint during the construction phase and concluded his address by stating that South Lakeland District Council had just published its plans to reduce greenhouse gases and that, if the decision today was to approve the application, the plan to reduce greenhouse gases would be swamped in one decision.

 

Simon Gray addressed the Committee and informed the Members that the application had acknowledged that ambient noise levels would increase slightly but it was considered that the noise level increases would not yield any adverse impacts. He stated that it was likely that the noise would be much louder if the analysis had used pressure power rather than sound power. He went on to explain that the installation of a concrete enclosure was planned to reduce the engine noise, however, the stated decrease in decibels was very unlikely and the conclusion that noise would only slightly increase was based on poor modelling. The noise report had been written by RPS which had directorial links with Statera and, therefore was not an independent consultancy. He went on to inform Members that Statera had applied for permission to operate for up to 2750 hours which would mean 15 hours every day during the winter and that, therefore, the noise impact would be heard long into the night. He concluded by stating that Statera’s data grossly underestimated the intensity of the noise which would be heard at neighbouring houses.

 

Major Dave Nelson addressed the Committee and explained that for a quarter of a century, he had specialised in HGV (Heavy Goods Vehicle) operations through Europe for the invasion of Kosovo and he had commanded the British Forces Heavy Vehicle Battle Group in Afghanistan. In addition, he had been a Ministry of Defence strategic planner for outsized vehicle moves across the UK and Europe. He stated that the applicant had no transport plan and the document ‘Traffic Management during Construction’ dated 4 May was a duplicate of their proposed tracking plan for the crane, that no proper route-proving had been carried out and the true impact of traffic was far from clear. He went on to highlight the number of vehicle passes which would all cause pollution, congestion, noise and structural damage and the safety risk for cyclist, horse riders and pedestrians was considerable. He stated that Middleshaw and Greenmoor Bank Lanes had not been constructed to accommodate, and were not fit to support, the estimated volume of heavy traffic. He referred to the letter from Burgess Roughton Engineers which reported that the passage of any HGV would damage the main supporting walls of adjacent properties and the road culverts which stem flooding would also be damaged. The tracking plan provided details of dimension for clearance but it did not address the weight issues of a 65 tonne crane. None of these issues had been satisfactorily addressed by Highways. He concluded by stating that information in the transport plan was either missing or inaccurate and he asked Members to refuse this polluting industrial onslaught which had been orchestrated purely for reasons of corporate greed. 

 

John McGlynn addressed the Committee and stated that the Planning Officer’s report was fatally flawed and did not critically assess the central planning issue. One of the reasons that the previous applications had been refused was because they were contrary to Core Strategy Policy CS1.2. He went on to explain that this application was different but the site and the main planning issues were still the same and he referred to Core Strategy Policy CS8.1 which sought to protect the countryside from inappropriate development. Statera’s sequential test stated that they had analysed 505 sites, and only seven had been viable. However, this had not been supported by evidence. Therefore the Planning Officer’s report failed because it accepted the figures as true without question. He went on to explain that the power station would generate 132KV which was for the regional grid and that there were many 132KV substations on business estates throughout the north-west. He concluded by informing the Members that the Planning Officer’s report did not prove that the Old Hutton site was exceptional nor that a rural location was essential and the recommendation for approval was not justified.

 

Chris Nelson addressed the Committee and stated that the Planning Officer’s report had failed to delve into the detail of the application. He advised the Members that Ofgem wanted to shut down this costly market which charged up to £1,000 per kwh and that industry insiders were now saying that up to half the peaking plants contracted may not be built. He went on to explain that every other power station in Cumbria had been on a site zoned for industrial use which had the infrastructure and road system designed to support and sustain industrial development. He went on to quote from Core Strategy Policy CS1.2 which was reinforced by CS8.1 and stated that there was no essential requirement and the Core Strategy protected the countryside from inappropriate development. He referred to Statera’s admission that the emission plumes would be visible during start-up and he stated that this could be three or four per day and could be up to eight hours every day. He informed the Members that Middleshaw Lane was signposted ‘unsuitable for heavy goods vehicles’ yet hundreds of huge construction vehicles would use the lane for six months. Statera claimed that they would mitigate flooding but, despite the evidence, they did not accept that flooding was an issue. He referred to the weather data from Shap, the blight on the lives of the people, air pollution, noise, traffic and an industrial eyesore in a green space between two National Parks. He concluded by stating that if the plan were to be approved it would set a dangerous precedent for development in rural locations and that Members simply needed to say no.

 

Beryl Jenkinson addressed the Committee and informed the Members that the main reasons for the refusal of the application were linked to South Lakeland District Council’s Core Strategies. She referred to CS1.2 and stated that Statera had not shown that the power station must have a rural location. The proposal failed CS7.4 as it did not increase employment or aid the rural economy, it was counter to CS1.1, CS7.7 and CS8.7 as it was not sustainable and did not support renewable energy and a low carbon economy. The power station did not satisfy CS8.1 and CS8.2 as it did not protect the countryside and landscape and in addition CS10.2 was also a concern as the nature and volume of traffic generated during construction would be detrimental to Middleshaw. She concluded by stating that there were mistakes in the Officer’s report; no environmental and rural economic benefits had been demonstrated and the emergent Development Management Policies were not applicable as they had not yet been adopted by South Lakeland District Council. She urged the Planning Committee to disregard the officer recommendation and refuse the application.

 

Cynthia Hurren addressed the Committee and advised Members that the capacity market had been introduced by the Government in 2014 to maintain sufficient levels of energy and security of electricity supply with companies making formal bids to supply to the National Grid. The capacity market auction in February 2018 had over 800 sites vying to provide capacity. If successful, these sites would receive payment for delivering electricity at times of system stress. The auction had been seeking capacity of 49.2GW of energy and the bidders had offered 74.2GW which was 50% more than the Government had asked for. She listed the current sites in Cumbria and Lancashire, many of which were on brownfield sites, which had applied to take part in the auction. In addition she listed the names and locations of other sites which gave an indication of the nature of the surrounding land. She concluded by stating that the sites she had named were just a few of the 408 locations across the UK where schemes were proposed. Many were situated in close proximity to major roads in industrialised areas. Old Hutton was not a critically needed site.

 

Dr Henry Adams addressed the Committee on behalf of South Lakes Action on Climate Change (SLACC) and displayed a chart during his presentation. He explained that he would be focusing on the climate change aspects especially the carbon emissions of the proposal. SLACC was objecting to the gas reciprocating engines because research showed that they were a very high carbon option for balancing the grid at times of peak demand and demand could be better fulfilled by batteries. He drew Members’ attention to the projected chart which showed the carbon intensities in grams CO2 equivalents emitted per KW hour of electricity generated by a variety of generator types. He went on to explain that gas reciprocating engines had a carbon intensity of around 60% of coal power stations, five times higher than the 2030 target, and had over double the carbon intensity of our grid in 2017 and, in magnitude, around 100 times the carbon intensity of wind and solar. Gas peaking plants were a high carbon option an incompatible with the UK’s need for grid carbon intensity to be zero by 2050. In contrast the battery alternative generated no carbon emissions when in use. He referred to the 2015 Paris Agreement on climate change and although the UK had signed up to the Agreement it had yet to update its policies to comply with the temperature goals of the Paris Agreement, which were to keep the increase in global average temperatures well below 2 degrees centigrade. He stated that the climate risks of adding more fossil gas infrastructure would compromise the lives of future generations. He concluded by stating that he strongly recommended that Councillors vote against Statera’s proposal as it did not comply with the Paris Agreement temperature goals statement and there were better options without high carbon emissions.

 

Lesley Williams addressed the Committee and explained she was speaking on behalf of Cumbria County Councillor Stan Collins, who represented Old Hutton within the Kent division. Councillor Collins, who was unable to attend the meeting, was against the application. His representation explained that he was the Chair of Cumbria County Council’s Highways and Transportation working group for the South Lakeland area. He was certain that the local roads were unsuited to heavy and intensive traffic and he had considerable experience of the damage that heavy vehicles caused to infrastructure of roads and underlying drainage, culverts and bridges. His address highlighted that the County was not sufficiently staffed to look seriously at the impact of developments on its infrastructure and consequently it was landed with costs or liabilities it could ill afford. He stated that Cumbria County Council’s Development Department had not engaged fully with the issues raised by the development and the local highways team were not consulted. Members of the local team had doubts regarding the suitability of roads. In addition his address stated that fire officers were concerned about the access and distance to the site with fire tenders and there had been no reassurance regarding the availability of an adequate water supply in the event of a major incident and he had been advised that it would fall to South Lakeland District Council to enforce appropriate safety requirements.

 

Carl Crompton addressed the Committee and spoke in support of the application. He explained that he was a director at Gilkes, which was a major local employer of 200 people. Gilkes manufactured hydro turbines, however, two years ago it had been identified that the subsidies for hydro energy had seen a downturn and it was vital for Gilkes to diversify. The decision had been made to move into the flexible generator industry. He explained that following the refusal of the application in January 2018, he had contacted the applicant to offer Gilkes’ skills and expertise in project management. He stated that the claims that the application would not bring benefits to the local economy were not true. Gilkes had agreed a contract, if the application was approved, which would enable Gilkes to diversify into a new long term business. He concluded by asking the Committee to support the application as it would directly support local jobs and would encourage investment in local businesses and help Gilkes to diversify and grow the business.

 

Matthew Hard of Indigo Planning addressed the Committee on behalf of the applicant. He explained that he had first become aware of the application when it had been refused in January 2018. Statera had amended their proposal and instructed Indigo Planning to review the revised application and liaise with the planning department. Mr Hard highlighted the importance of a low carbon economy and stated that the NPPF encouraged low carbon energy and there was a need to counter green energy intermittency.  The application adopted cutting edge technology which would replace more expensive diesel generators and ensure the grid would be more resilient and the rapid response engines would result in carbon savings. The requirement for a connection to high pressure gas and electricity networks meant that there were very few locations where a peaking plant substation could be located. He concluded by stating that the Planning Officer had left no stone unturned; the scheme was governed by an environmental permit; there had been no objections raised by statutory consultees and there was an essential requirement for greener energy.

 

Note – The Committee voted to adjourn for a break at 1.31 p.m. and reconvened at 14.17 p.m. when the same Members were present.

 

Note – following a proposal from Councillor Lancaster, Members voted to move into Part II to obtain legal advice from the Solicitor to the Council.

Decision Maker: Planning Committee

Made at meeting: 02/11/2018 - Planning Committee

Decision published: 27/11/2018

Effective from: 02/11/2018

Decision:

Planning Application No. SL/2018/0388 (Minute No. P/48 refers).

 

Gas Fired Electricity Generating Station to deliver electricity during times of peak demand of up to 49.99 MW, ancillary equipment, access and landscaping (Miss Kirsty Cassie, Statera Energy Ltd).

 

The Solicitor to the Council addressed all present and provided an explanation for the adjournment.

 

The Planning Officer referred to the late representations which had been circulated prior to the meeting and an additional late representation, a letter of objection from the Head Teacher of Old Hutton School, which had been received that morning.

 

In further presenting the report the Planning Officer informed the Members that the key issues and material planning considerations included the principle of the development, landscape and visual impacts, residential amenity, noise and pollution impacts, access roads and flood risk and drainage. He referred to the Government target to transition from fossil fuel based economy to a low carbon economy and that the reliance on renewables had to be balanced with the need for supply. He went on to explain that the energy environment was changing and that, as part of the transition from the current mix of energy uses and sources to a full low carbon economy, there would still be a role for fossil fuels in the mix particularly for meeting peak demand. He explained that that there was a need for peaking generators to respond quickly and although gas powered peaking generator plants were not considered to be low carbon, they had the advantage that they reached maximum operating efficiency within five minutes of starting up. The National Grid viewed these plants as an essential part of the generating mix and if there was exceptional demand, back up capacity must be available.

 

The Planning Officer highlighted the visual impact of the development and explained that it was considered that the impact on long distance views would sit alongside the existing substation, the medium distance views would be broken up by the topography and that the impact on close distance views would be more visible. However, the proposed landscaping and the site being cut into the sloping landforms would mitigate the impact.

 

The Planning Officer informed the Members that the noise impact on properties in the locality had been assessed by South Lakeland District Council Public Protection Officers and no objection to the proposals had been raised. The Public Protection Officers had been satisfied that, if the plant was operated in accordance with the mitigation measures set out in the noise assessment, there was no technical reason to object. In addition the noise impact during the construction phase could be satisfactorily covered by the Construction Management Plan. The Planning Officer advised Members that the Public Protection Officer had confirmed that the emissions from the plant would be in line with relevant air quality standards and modelling, which had been used to predict the impacts of the emissions and the Environment Agency had raised no comments or concerns.

 

The Planning Officer stated that once the plant was operational it would be unmanned. The main access impact would be during the construction phase, and Cumbria County Council, as Highway Authority, had raised no objection to the development being served by the public road. He explained that the largest abnormal vehicle would be a multi axle Liebherr Crane and the Highway Authority had raised no objection in regard of the tracking plan, in addition this aspect had been fully conditioned.

 

The Planning Officer explained that the site was entirely within Flood Zone 1 with the existing run-off draining into Peasey Beck. The Drainage Scheme included the use of permeable surfaces and a retention storage tank. Cumbria County Council had not objected to the proposed drainage strategy. He went on to advise Members that the Construction Management Plan would ensure that surface water from the site would not get into the local drainage network and pollution and contaminants during and post construction would be dealt with as part of the Construction Management Plan.

 

The Planning Officer concluded by stating that the proposed development would meet the aims of the National Policy Statement EN–1 in providing electricity during peak demands and increasing the reliability of supply. The design was functional and the long and medium distance views would be largely screened by existing and proposed planting. There was no significant impact in terms of visual amenity, noise or air quality and the application was acceptable in terms of highway safety. The application complied with National Policy and was recommended for approval, subject to the conditions as set out in the report and the additional conditions as outlined in the late representations.

 

The Planning Officer, the Interim Development Management Team Leader and Solicitor to the Council responded to questions from Members in regard to an emergency services action plan, air quality assessment national guidelines ADMS 5 modelling, the siting of the development on a greenfield site, flooding and drainage concerns, highways access and the impact on the highways infrastructure, the requirement for sequential testing and ongoing air quality assessment.

 

Note – Members requested to read the late representation letter from the Head Teacher of Old Hutton School. The letter was distributed and the Members were given sufficient time to consider its contents.

 

Members gave consideration to the public presentations and the late representation presented by the Planning Officer. Members discussed the rural location and the visual impact of the proposed development and the need for rapid delivery of back-up power during periods of peak demand. They considered the vehicular access and traffic management proposal, the impact on the landscape, environment and air quality, the flood risk and the impact on the local residents and the primary school. They considered the advice given to them by the Solicitor to the Council and acknowledged that there had been no technical objections from statutory consultees.

 

A motion to approve the application was put to the vote and, an equality of votes being received, the Chair used his casting vote. The motion was lost.

 

It was subsequently moved that the application be refused on the grounds of landscape encroachment and the adverse impact of air pollution and traffic. After receiving advice from Officers it was

 

RESOLVED – That the application be refused for the following reasons:-

 

The development of this green field site for a gas fired power station and associated

development would introduce very substantial development of a predominantly urban character into the open countryside. By virtue of its scale, design and appearance, the proposals would appear incongruous and intrusive to the detriment of the rural setting of the locality and which would have a detrimental impact upon the intrinsic character and beauty of the countryside. The proposal would thereby be contrary to Policies CS8.2 of the adopted South Lakeland Core Strategy and DM1 of the South Lakeland Local Plan Development Management Policies (Publication Document - November 2017) and the provisions of the National Planning Policy Framework.


02/11/2018 - Planning Application No. SL/2018/0274 - Kendal - Part of the former Lancaster Canal ref: 3868    Recommendations Approved

Decision Maker: Planning Committee

Made at meeting: 02/11/2018 - Planning Committee

Decision published: 27/11/2018

Effective from: 02/11/2018

Decision:

Formation of a public car park for 30 car park spaces including two disabled parking bays (Mr Sion Thomas, South Lakeland District Council).

 

The Planning Officer presented application SL/2018/0274 which sought permission for the formation of a public car park for 30 car parking spaces, including two disabled parking bays. She displayed photographs and plans which detailed the proposals and drew Members’ attention to the Late Representations which had been circulated prior to the meeting and which set out revised recommendations and conditions from Officers.

 

Councillor Graham Vincent, Economy and Assets Portfolio Holder, addressed the Committee. He stated that he was in favour of the application, as it would encourage a park and walk culture and it would be a pleasant walk into Kendal town centre for those visiting Kendal. For those working in the town, it would be easy parking incorporated with exercise in the working day. In addition there would be a reduction in vehicle movement in the town which would support South Lakeland District Council’s Clean Air Policy. Councillor Vincent concluded by informing Members that the current site was untidy and unmanaged, and by creating a new car park, the site would be managed and maintained. If successful, there could be the option to develop further park and walk sites in the area.

 

In further presenting the report the Planning Officer highlighted the addition of a further condition from Cumbria County Council which stated that there would be no raising of levels within the area identified as at risk of surface water flooding.

 

The Planning Officer answered questions raised by Members of the Committee. Members agreed that it had been an interesting site visit and felt that the proposed car park and the promotion of a park and walk scheme was an excellent use of the land.

 

RESOLVED – That the Director People and Places be authorised to GRANT planning permission subject to the following conditions:-

 

Condition (1)   The development hereby permitted shall begin not later than three years from the date of this decision.

 

Reason:           To comply with the requirements of Section 91 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 as amended by Section 51 of the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004.

 

Condition (2)   The development hereby permitted shall be carried out in accordance with the following approved plans:

 

K35085/A1/03 Rev A;

K35085/A1/04 Rev B;

K35085/A1/102 Rev B;

K3085/A1/06

All above received by the Local Planning Authority 30 August 2018

 

Document Titled: 'Location Plan - South Lakeland District Council Land off Parkside Road'. Received by the Local Planning Authority 28 March 2018.

 

Reason:           For the avoidance of doubt and in the interests of proper planning.

 

Condition (3)   a)         No development shall take place until full details of hard landscape works have been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority.  The details shall include:-

•hard surfacing materials;

•surface paint;

 

b)         Development shall be carried out in accordance with the approved details of materials and paint and retained as such thereafter unless otherwise agreed in writing with the Local Planning Authority.

 

Reason:           These details are required to be approved before the commencement of development to safeguard and enhance the character of the area and secure high quality landscaping in accordance with saved Policy S3 of the South Lakeland Local Plan.

 

Condition (4)

a)  No development shall begin unless and until a scheme for the provision of lighting has been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority.  The scheme shall include full details of the location, design, luminance levels, light spillage and hours of use of all lighting within the site.

 

b)  The approved lighting scheme shall be implemented in full prior to first use of the development hereby approved and retained as such thereafter unless otherwise agreed in writing with the Local Planning Authority.

 

Reason:           These details are required to be approved before the commencement of development to safeguard and enhance the character of the area and to minimise light pollution in accordance with saved Policy C5 of the South Lakeland Local Plan.

 

Condition (5)   The development hereby permitted shall not be brought into use until the ‘Access Barrier’ shown on drawing number K35085/A1/03 Rev A has been implemented and brought into operation.  The ‘Access Barrier’ shall be closed, in the down position, between the hours of 8pm and 7am to prevent vehicular access.  It shall be retained in accordance with the approved plans and operated in accordance with this condition at all time thereafter.

 

Reason:           To ensure that access to the site is controlled to safeguard the amenity of the neighbouring residents in accordance with National Planning Policy Framework para 17 Core Principles and para 123.

 

Condition (6)   The development hereby permitted shall not be brought in to use until the fence shown on drawing number K35085/A1/04 Rev B has been implemented

 

Reason:           To protect users of the canal path/cycleway in accordance with policy CS10.2 of the South Lakeland Core Strategy.

 

Condition (7)   The development hereby permitted shall not be brought into use until details of soft landscape works to be planted in the areas coloured green on drawing number K35085/A1/04 Rev B shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority.  These details shall include:-

Planting plans; written specifications (including cultivation and other operations associated with plant and grass establishment); schedules of plants, noting species, plant sizes and proposed numbers / densities; and an implementation programme.

 

Reason:           To safeguard and enhance the character of the area and secure high quality landscaping in accordance with saved Policy CS8.1 of the South Lakeland Core Strategy and S3 of the South Lakeland Local Plan.

 

Condition (8)   The fence shown on drawing number K35085/A1/04 Rev B shall be retained in accordance with the approved plans at all times thereafter. 

 

Reason:           To protect users of the canal path/cycleway in accordance with policy CS10.2 of the South Lakeland Core Strategy.

 

Condition (9)   The agreed landscaping scheme shall be carried out as approved to the agreed timetable.  Any trees / shrubs which are removed, die, become severely damaged or diseased within five years of their planting shall be replaced in the next planting season with trees / shrubs of similar size and species to those originally required to be planted unless the Local Planning Authority gives written consent to any variation.

 

Reason:           To safeguard and enhance the character of the area and secure high quality landscaping in accordance with saved Policy CS8.1 of the South Lakeland Core Strategy and S3 of the South Lakeland Local Plan.

 

Condition (10)The use hereby permitted shall not take place other than between the hours of 07:00 to 20:00 hours.

 

Reason:           To safeguard the amenity of the neighbouring residents in accordance with National Planning Policy Framework para 17 Core Principles and para 123.

 

Condition (11)The construction works hereby permitted, including site preparation, earthworks, start-up of machinery, deliveries and unloading of equipment and materials shall not take place outside the hours of 08:00 to 18:00 hours Mondays to Fridays and 08:00 to 13:00 hours on Saturdays and at no time on Sundays or Public or Bank Holidays.

 

Reason:           To safeguard the amenity of neighbouring occupiers in accordance with National Planning Policy Framework paragraph 17 Core Principles and para 123.

 

Condition (12)In the event that contamination is found at any time when carrying out the approved development that was not previously identified it must be reported immediately to the Local Planning Authority.  Development on the part of the site affected must be halted and a risk assessment carried out and submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority.  Where unacceptable risks are found remediation and verification schemes shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority.  These shall be implemented prior to the development (or relevant phase of development) being brought into use.  All work shall be undertaken in accordance with current UK guidance, particularly CLR11.

 

Reason:           To prevent harm to human health and the environment in accordance with National Planning Policy Framework para 17 Core Principles and paragraphs 121 - 122.

 

Condition (13)The drainage for the development hereby approved, shall be carried out in accordance with principles set out in submitted Proposed Drainage Layout, ref: K35085/A1/102 Revision B, received by the Local Planning Authority 30 August 2018 proposing surface water max 5l/s discharging into surface water sewer. For the avoidance of doubt and unless otherwise agreed in writing by the Local Planning Authority, surface water must drain to the surface water sewer at the restricted rate of 5l/s for any storm event. The development shall be completed in accordance with the approved details.

 

Reason:           To ensure surface water is managed in a sustainable way in accordance with Policy CS8.8 of the South Lakeland Core Strategy.

 

Condition (14)There shall be no raising of levels within the area identified as at risk of surface water flooding.

 

Reason:           To safeguard the amenity of the neighbouring residents in accordance with National Planning Policy Framework and to ensure surface water is managed in a sustainable way in accordance with Policy CS8.8 of the South Lakeland Core Strategy.

 

NOTE ON THE EFFECT OF PLANNING PERMISSION (Right of Way):

 

The grant of planning permission does not entitle developers to obstruct a public right of way.  Development so far as it affects a right of way, should not be started and the right of way should be kept open for public use until the relevant order for the diversion or extinguishment of the right of way has been obtained.

 

NOTE (2)        ADVICE FROM CONSULTEE TO BE SENT WITH THE DECISION NOTICE:

 

The applicant’s attention is drawn to the advice contained within the letter attached to the decision from Electricity North West.

 

NOTE (3)        ADVICE FROM CONSULTEE TO BE SENT WITH THE DECISION NOTICE:

 

The applicant’s attention is drawn to the advice contained within the letter attached to the decision from United Utilities dated 01/10/2018.

 

NOTE (4)        ADVERTISEMENTS:

 

This permission does not grant consent under the Town and Country Planning (Control of Advertisements) 2007 (as amended) for advertisement(s). If advertisements are required the applicant should seek advice from the Local Planning Authority.

 

In the exercise of its judgement in determining the appropriate balance of considerations, the Local Planning Authority has acted positively and proactively in determining this application proposal, taking into account all material considerations. Material considerations include planning policies and any representations that may have been received preceding the determination to grant planning permission in accordance with the presumption in favour of sustainable development as set out in the National Planning Policy Framework.  The Local Planning Authority is satisfied that its processes and practices are compatible with the Human Rights Act and the decisions of the European Court of Human Rights.


02/11/2018 - Planning Performance and Appeals Update ref: 3872    Recommendations Approved

Decision Maker: Planning Committee

Made at meeting: 02/11/2018 - Planning Committee

Decision published: 27/11/2018

Effective from: 02/11/2018

Decision:

The Planning and Performance and Appeals Update was presented by the Interim Development Management Team Leader.

 

RESOLVED – That the report and contents of Appendix 1 to the report be noted.


02/11/2018 - A Report on Monthly Enforcement Activity ref: 3871    Recommendations Approved

Decision Maker: Planning Committee

Made at meeting: 02/11/2018 - Planning Committee

Decision published: 27/11/2018

Effective from: 02/11/2018

Decision:

The Interim Development Management Team Leader introduced the Monthly Enforcement Report and provided an update which related to the Government appointed inspector’s appeal decision for Monton, Cart Lane, Grange-over-Sands, against a planning enforcement notice issued by South Lakeland District Council. He advised Members that the enforcement notice had been upheld and the box dormer window extension would have to be removed within six months.

 

RESOLVED – That

 

(1)        the contents of Appendix 1 to the report and the delegated actions of officers in closing cases as set out in Appendix 2 to the report be noted; and

 

(2)        the Government appointed inspectors appeal decision for Monton, Cart Lane, Grange-over-Sands as set out in Appendix 3 to the report be noted.