Venue: District Council Chamber, South Lakeland House, Kendal. View directions
Contact: Adam Moffatt Legal, Governance and Democracy Specialist
To authorise the Chairman to sign, as a correct record, the minutes of the meeting of the Committee held on 24 February 2022. (Marked to follow.)
RESOLVED – The Chairman authorised to sign, as a correct record, the minutes of the meeting held on 24 February 2022, at 10.00 a.m.
Declarations of Interest
To receive declarations by Members of interests in respect of items on this Agenda.
Members are reminded that, in accordance with the revised Code of Conduct, they are required to declare any disclosable pecuniary interests or other registrable interests which have not already been declared in the Council’s Register of Interests. (It is a criminal offence not to declare a disclosable pecuniary interest either in the Register or at the meeting.)
Members may, however, also decide, in the interests of clarity and transparency, to declare at this point in the meeting, any such disclosable pecuniary interests which they have already declared in the Register, as well as any other registrable or other interests.
If a Member requires advice on any item involving a possible declaration of interest which could affect his/her ability to speak and/or vote, he/she is advised to contact the Monitoring Officer at least 24 hours in advance of the meeting.
RESOLVED – That it be noted that the following declarations of interest were made:
(1) Councillors Pete McSweeney and Rupert Audland with regards to Minute No. P/55 (Planning Application No. SL/2021/0161 Land at Viver Green, Viver Lane, Hincaster, Milnthorpe)
In the interests of transparency, the Chairman requested that any other Members who had received any emails or held any other relevant conversations which they believed to be lobbying, in respect to any application to be determined, that they declare them openly at this time. None were received.
Local Government Act 1972 - Excluded Items
To consider whether the items, if any, in Part II of the Agenda should be considered in the presence of the press and public.
RESOLVED – That it be noted that there are no excluded items on the Agenda.
Any member of the public who wishes to ask a question, make representations or present a deputation or petition at this meeting should apply to do so by no later than 0:01am (one minute past midnight) two working days before the meeting. Information on how to make the application can be obtained by viewing the Council’s Website www.southlakeland.gov.uk or by contacting the Committee Services Team on 01539 733333.
(1) Planning Applications
Planning applications for which requests to speak have been made.
(2) Agenda Items
Agenda items for which requests to speak have been made.
RESOLVED – That it be noted that applications to speak under the Council’s public participation scheme have been received in respect of the following items:
(1) Minute No. P/55 (Planning Application No. SL/2021/0161 – Land at Viver Green, Viver Lane, Hincaster, Milnthorpe)
(2) Minute No. P/57 (Planning Application No. SL/2021/1077 – Cark Manor, Cark-in-Cartmel, Grange-over-Sands)
To consider an application for the variation of a Section 106 agreement relating to a reserved matters approval (reference SL/2015/0497) and an outline approval (reference SL/2013/0594). This application was deferred from the February committee in order to seek an update from the Councils independent consultant.
Please note Part I/Part II appendices to follow.
NOTE – In the interests of transparency; Councillors Pete McSweeney and Rupert Audland declared that they were approached by Cllr Helen Chaffey in communications in respect of the possible options for this site, however, both confirmed they were not predetermined, biased, or predisposed to consider the following Application.
The Principal Specialist - Development Management provided a report on the Application. The historical background and review of the site was provided.
The Application was deferred from the February committee in order to seek an update from the Councils independent consultant from Lambert Smith Hampton.
The proposal, as stated within the report, was relayed. The location of the site and layout plan was described. An explanation of the site as it currently stands and the varying stages of completion was explained. Photographs of the properties already approved were illustrated. The Officer described how the first few units have been occupied. The rest of the site is currently left in a state of incomplete construction. Slides illustrating the properties boarded up and in a mixed state of construction were displayed. The viability report from Bailey Venning Associates was referenced as was the later Financial Viability Review Addendum report submitted from Lambert Smith Hampton.
Details of the late representation received from a resident who lives in one of the occupied dwellings on the development was noted. The uncompleted part of the site was described as an ‘eye sore’. The letter from the resident is set out in full within Item No. 6 Late Representations for Committee Page 3.
The questions raised previously by members were addressed. The LSH report comments in response followed.
The Officer discussed the revenues, costs, and value of the land. Extensive remedial action is needed for the remaining plots to be rectified or demolished depending on the state of the degradation of the plots. The issues with drainage were explained and how they plan to be undertaken.
An assessment of need for affordable housing in the area was relayed. The viability of affordable housing in the area was discussed. The data for Hincaster doesn’t indicate a significant demand for affordable housing.
Following an analysis of the reports the Officer concluded that the development is currently unviable using standard industry inputs, it is LSH’s view that a developer might proceed with the development at risk of an underperformance on profit, as the scheme is not likely to make a loss. The recommendation was to approve the application: the revocation and variation of the S106 agreements, resulting in the provision of no affordable housing on-site and no off-site financial contribution for affordable housing.
Paul Tunstall (Agent) spoke in support of the proposal.
The Planning Officer responded questions raised by Members.
Concerns were expressed by Members that a precedent would be set if the application was allowed.
The Officer confirmed that this was an unusual case. The Officer confirmed that each application needs to be weighed up on its own merits and comply with Policy.
The Officer confirmed that there was a S73 ... view the full minutes text for item P/55
To consider an application for essential repairs and refurbishments at Abbot Hall Art Gallery, Kendal (superseding planning permission SL/2019/0182 and listed building consent SL/2019/0183).
NOTE – Cllr Janette Jenkinson requested that it be recorded that in light of SLDCs role as land owner and potential funder of the scheme, and for transparency, that it be noted Members were not biased or pre-determined and upon Members being asked to confirm if they had any declaration of interest, none was forthcoming.
The Senior Specialist - Development Management delivered a report explaining the general maintenance works proposed. Essentially these are upgrades and adjustments that require consent. The works planned utilise the existing fabric of the building, with nothing structurally invasive.
The removal and disposal of the storage shed has already been agreed as outlined within the report.
The Officer drew Members’ attention to consider the aesthetic value of the coping stones using slides illustrating the restoration works planned. The Officer informed Members that the environment agency is being collaborated with on the issue of flooding. They were reassured that there are no concerns reported or issues raised.
Images of the shed which is planned to be demolished were shown.
The proposal was described as a relatively straightforward application akin to ‘TLC to the Abbot Hall’.
The Planning Officer responded to questions raised by Members.
Members raised the flooding issue of Peppercorn Cottages. The Officer reassured Members that the EA was collaborating on the measures to protect the Abbott Hall development to ensure the drainage should not interfere with these properties. The Officer clarified that this a proposal for works to a listed building not a planning application. The flooding issue cannot in fact be applied to this application.
Members noted the above and requested that Officers notify the Peppercorn Cottage residents to reassure them and let them know that the EA will be informing this flood defence plan and that it should not affect residents.
A motion to approve the application was proposed and seconded and a vote was taken on the application and it was:
RESOLVED: - That the application be approved subject to the following:-
Condition (1) The works hereby permitted shall begin not later than three years from the date of this decision.
Reason: To comply with the requirements of Section 18 of the Planning (Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas) 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:
- Location plan, 519/LP01 received 10 January 2022
- Proposed site plan, 519/SP01 received 10 January 2022
- Proposed Museum elevations, 519/21 received 10 January 2022
- Proposed Hall elevations, 519/20 received 10 January 2022
- Proposed Stores and Blind Beck, 519/12 received 10 January 2022
- Proposed Museum/Store Floor Plans, 519/11 received 10 January 2022
- Proposed Main Hall Floor Plans, 519/10 received 10 January 2022
- Design, Access and Heritage Statement
Reason: For the avoidance of doubt and in the interests of proper planning.
a) No construction or repair shall commence until details of the materials to be ... view the full minutes text for item P/56
To consider an application for retrospective consent for the erection of a gazebo building at Cark Manor, Cark-In-Cartmel.
The Senior Specialist - Development Management presented an outline of the retrospective planning application for a ‘bandstand’ style gazebo. The site location plan was illustrated with photographs. A visual description of the gazebo was provided. A range of photographs were displayed with a diagram of the plan showing the position of the gazeebo. Images of the Cark Manor building juxtaposed against the terrace and stairs which have been approved previously were shown. These developments were described as being in a different style and not in keeping with the style or period of the manor, but were nevertheless previously approved. Photographs from the road were shown.
The Officer drew Members’ attention to a late representation from a local resident detailing that further works had taken place. An additional wall was reported to have been built around the gazebo.
The Officer requested Members to consider the recent addition of the gazebo in context of original building.
The Officer detailed the neighbours’ concerns. The gazebo is a covered outdoor seating area in close proximity to residents’ properties. The distance measurements were relayed to Members. This property is to be a holiday let. It was therefore detailed that a condition should be attached to any approval to restrict any external lighting and hours of use, in order to minimise any disruption to neighbouring occupiers. It was noted that the property had a caretaker living on site, so this would not be unreasonable or unenforceable.
The Chairman confirmed the fact that the application was a retrospective application and that this is not a material planning condition.
Andy Robinson – Spoke in objection to the application
Rachael Leather – Applicant’s Agent – Spoke in support of the application.
The Planning Officer responded to questions raised by Members.
Members raised concerns about retrospective planning applications. The Officer confirmed that the planning system is pro-development and it is not an offense to carry out works without planning permission. However Enforcement action could make the Applicant take it down again. The development is at the Applicant’s own risk.
Members were reminded to consider the application as it appeared before them; the application was in respect to a holiday let.
The Officer weighed up that, on balance, independently, this is an acceptable proposal however Members were made aware of the objections in the report which were discussed.
The Chairman confirmed that Members should consider this proposal as it appears before them and not base this decision on retrospective historical builds and applications or any concerns that may have been raised about future potential usage of the site.
Members noted in particular the objection of the Councils’ Conservation Officer and referenced sections 1.6 and 1.7 of the report, at page 31 within the agenda pack.
A motion to refuse the application was proposed and seconded and a vote was taken on the application and it was:
RESOLVED: - That the application seeking retrospective consent for the erection of the gazebo building be refused on the following grounds:
Members ... view the full minutes text for item P/57