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

02/11/2020 - Review of Licensing Fees and Charges 2021/2022 and Draft Budget ref: 4410    Recommendations Approved

Decision Maker: Licensing Committee

Made at meeting: 02/11/2020 - Licensing Committee

Decision published: 20/11/2020

Effective from: 02/11/2020

Decision:

The Operational Lead Case Management Services informed Members that Officers had proposed a 2% increase to the majority of locally controlled license fees, in line with the Medium Financial Plan. She highlighted that a significant proportion of licenses issued had been based on cost recovery. She informed Members that due to the pandemic, current data had been used to set the 2021/22 charges and emphasised the impact of both the current pandemic and the potential impact of Brexit.

 

The Operational Lead Case Management Services stated that officers had committed to a full review of fees and charges before 2022/23 budget setting. She highlighted the future Licensing working group, led by officers with Member oversight that would report back to both Licensing and Licensing Regulatory Committees on a regular basis.

 

Members raised questions relating to taxi and private hire fees that had not been due to change as a result of the report and requested information relating to the total number of officers that were involved in the licensing process. The Principle Specialist (Health & Environment) informed Members that the consultation process linked to raising or lowering the Taxi and Private Hire License fees was disproportionate to the amount that had been proposed and highlighted the intention to review these fees when the full review is undertaken before 2022/23 budget setting. He stated that the expectation was that a full breakdown of all officers involved in the licensing process throughout the authority would be produced as part of ongoing works over the next 12 months.

 

RESOLVED – That:-

 

(1)        the recommended fees for the financial year 2021/22 as set out in Appendix 1, and subject to approval by Council as part of the final budget setting process be endorsed;

 

(2)        the Licensing Committee note the nationally-set fees for 2021/22 as set out in Appendix 2; and

 

(3)        the Licensing Committee note and refer the latest draft budget estimates including the fees and charges for 2021/22 in Appendix 4 to Council for approval as part of the final budget report.


24/09/2020 - Planning Application No. SL/2019/0735 - Plot of land adjacent to The Langdales, Levens ref: 4407    Recommendations Approved

Decision Maker: Planning Committee

Made at meeting: 24/09/2020 - Planning Committee

Decision published: 16/11/2020

Effective from: 24/09/2020

Decision:

Erection of a dwelling including access, design landscaping, layout and scale (revised scheme SL/2018/0938) on a plot of land adjacent to The Langdales, Levens, Kendal LA8 8PJ (Dawn Osliff)

 

Note – The Planning Officer’s presentation had been circulated to Members and displayed on the Council’s Website on the day before the meeting.

 

Councillor John Holmes declared a non-pecuniary interest in the item and explained that he had been contacted by the applicant regarding a committee procedural matter. He confirmed, however, that he was not biased or predetermined and he remained connected to the virtual meeting and took part in the discussion and voting on the item.

 

The Planning Officer presented Planning Application No. SL/2019/0735 which sought reserved matters approval for one dwelling on an unallocated site in the village of Levens. The site had outline planning permission with all matters reserved. The Planning Officer reminded Members that the application had been presented to the 30 January 2020 Planning Committee, at which time Members resolved to defer the application to enable the applicant and planning officers to renegotiate the application and submit a more acceptable proposal which would lessen the overbearing impact of the development on the neighbouring property Applegarth.

 

The Planning Officer displayed plans and photographs which outlined the amended application. He drew Members’ attention to the 45-degree visibility line from the rear window of the neighbouring property Applegarth and informed Members that the applicant had removed the proposed rear projection to the west and had also moved the south corner of proposed dwelling by one metre which had achieved a reduction in the massing on the southern gable by three metres.

 

The Planning Officer explained that the main issue for consideration was whether the amended proposal would have an overbearing impact on Applegarth. He went on to inform Members that the owners of Applegarth had objected to the proposal, stating that their property would be overshadowed by the nine metre high dwelling and that the hedge would offer limited screening particularly in the winter months. In addition Levens Parish Council had objected and stated that the proposal was inappropriate and overbearing on Applegarth. The Parish Council had also raised concerns regarding the parking provision and access onto the road. The Planning Officer informed Members that the highway authority was satisfied that the proposal provided adequate space for parking and turning and did not consider that the proposal would have any adverse impact on highway safety.

 

The Planning Officer concluded his presentation by informing Members that the site was served by Underhill which was a narrow lane with a mixture of two storey and single storey dwellings and that the proposed dwelling would relate well to the existing dwelling The Langdales.

 

Note – at this point in the proceedings the Chairman requested that public participant Katherine Morris, speaking in opposition to the application, be dialled into the meeting to make her representation. The Chairman welcomed Mrs Morris and informed her that she had three minutes in which to make her address.

Mrs Morris addressed the Committee in opposition to the application.

Note – at this point in the proceedings the Chairman requested that public participant David Parry, speaking in support of the application, be dialled into the meeting to make his representation. The Chairman welcomed Mr Parry and informed him that he had three minutes in which to make his address.

Mr Parry addressed the Committee and stated that he had nothing he wished to say.

Note – at this point in the proceedings the Chairman requested that public participant Dawn Osliff, the applicant, be dialled into the meeting to make her representation. The Chairman welcomed Ms Osliff and informed her that she had three minutes in which to make her address.

Ms Osliff addressed the Committee in support of the application.

The Planning Officer responded to questions raised by Members and confirmed that following consultation, Levens Parish Council had objected to the original application and were also in objection to the revised proposal. Members sought clarity regarding the height and footprint of the new proposal in comparison to the original application and the Planning Officer stated that it was the same, with the exception of the removal of the rear projection and he confirmed that the existing boundary hedge would be retained, by condition.

Members gave consideration to the revised proposal and whether they felt it was acceptable. They considered if the proposal related well to The Landgales and if the amended application was overbearing to the neighbouring property Applegarth. A number of Members agreed that the applicant had worked well with officers to mitigate the concerns raised and highlighted the fact that it was a self-build property.

A motion to approve the application was proposed and seconded and a vote was taken on the motion, during which all Planning Committee Members confirmed that they had, without interruption heard the full presentation and discussion on the item and it was

RESOLVED – that the application be approved subject to the following conditions:-

Condition (1)   The development hereby permitted shall be carried out in accordance with the following approved plans: Site/Block Plan Revision 3, Principal Elevation and Internal Layout Revision 3 & Proposed Elevations Revision 3.

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

Condition (2)   Notwithstanding the provisions of the Town and Country Planning (General Permitted Development) Order 1995 (or any order revoking and re-enacting that Order with or without modification), no development of the type described in Class A-E of Part 1 of Schedule 2 of that Order shall be undertaken without the express permission of the Local Planning Authority.

Reason            In order to protect neighbouring residential amenity.

Condition (3)   a) No development shall commence until samples and details of the materials to be used in the construction of the external surfaces of the development hereby approved have been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. B) Development shall be carried out in accordance with the approved details of materials unless otherwise agreed in writing with the Local Planning Authority.

Reason            To ensure the development is of a high quality design in accordance with Policy CS8.10 of the South Lakeland Core Strategy, and Policy DM1 of the Councils Development Management Policies.

Condition (4)   The boundary hedge situated on the southern boundary of the site shall be retained and shall not be removed or reduced in height unless written approval is given by the Local Planning Authority.

Reason            In order to preserve the neighbours living conditions.

Condition (5)   Notwithstanding the approved plans, the proposed access shall comprise a minimum width of 4.7 metres and there shall be provision for two car parking spaces and a turning area within the site in order for vehicles to enter and leave the site in forward gear.

Reason            In the interests of highway safety.


24/09/2020 - Planning Application No. SL/2020/0407 - Kendal Town Hall, Kendal ref: 4409    Recommendations Approved

Decision Maker: Planning Committee

Made at meeting: 24/09/2020 - Planning Committee

Decision published: 16/11/2020

Effective from: 24/09/2020

Decision:

Advertisement consent to hang a public safety message (COVID-19) banner for a temporary period (12 months) (Ms Jacki Robinson on behalf of South Lakeland District Council)

 

Note – The Planning Officer’s presentation had been circulated to Members and displayed on the Council’s Website on the day before the meeting.

 

The Planning Officer presented Planning Application No. SL/2020/0407 which sought permission for advertisement consent to display a temporary banner for a period of up to 12 months, for a public safety messaging associated with COVID-19. She displayed plans and photographs which outlined the proposal explained that the banner would be displayed in a prominent location between Kendal Town Hall and 44 Highgate. The Planning Officer informed Members that Kendal Town Hall was a Grade II listed building and the site was located within the Kendal Conservation Area in Kendal Town Centre. However, it was not located within a designated Special Advertisement Control Area. The banner, which would be held in place using existing fixings which had been in place since 1997, would be displayed for up to a maximum of 12 months and would be taken down if no longer required.

 

The Planning Officer went on to outline the size and dimensions of the banner and explained that banner slides had previously been displayed in the location. She informed Members that the proposal was considered to meet the legislative requirements of the Town and Country Planning (Control of Advertisements) (Regulations) 2007, together with Development Management Policies DPD Policy DM3 and DM20. The Planning Officer highlighted that the location, although in a conservation area next to a listed building, was considered to be a commercial area and therefore there would be no adverse impact or concealment of architectural features. She explained that the banner had been in situ since June 2020 and would be retained for a maximum 12 month period until 30 June 2021.

 

In concluding her presentation the Planning Officer explained that Cumbria County Council, as the highways authority, had been consulted and confirmed that the proposal was not considered to affect highway safety.

 

The Planning Officer responded to questions raised by Members. In response to a query regarding how robust the banner would be in high winds the Planning Officer undertook to provide a written response.

 

Members gave consideration to the application and the importance of the safety message being displayed in a prominent position. Members discussed the possibility of the banner being replaced, on a temporary basis, by other advertising banners. The Interim Development Management Team Leader advised Members that the advertising regulations were not concerned about the content of the banner, the regulations considered the effect on public safety and public amenity.

 

A motion to approve the application was proposed and seconded and a vote was taken on the motion, during which all Planning Committee Members confirmed that they had, without interruption heard the full presentation and discussion on the item and it was

RESOLVED – That the application be granted subject to the following conditions:-

  

Condition (1)   The development hereby permitted shall be carried out in accordance with the following approved plans:

           Site Location Plan (received 19 June 2020)

           Banner Detail (received 22 June 2020)

 

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

 

Condition (2)   No advertisement is to be displayed without the permission of the owner of the site or any other person with an interest in the site entitled to grant permission.

 

Reason            Required to be imposed by Regulation 2(1) of the Town and Country Planning (Control of Advertisements) (England) Regulations 2007.

 

Condition (3)   No advertisement shall be sited or displayed so as to:

 a)  Endanger persons using any highway, railway, waterway, dock, harbour or aerodrome (civil or military);

 b)  Obscure, or hinder the ready interpretation of, any traffic sign, railway signal or aid to navigation by water or air; or

 c)  Hinder the operation of any device used for the purpose of security or surveillance or for measuring the speed of any vehicle.

 

Reason            Required to be imposed by Regulation 2(1) of the Town and Country Planning (Control of Advertisements) (England) Regulations 2007.

 

Condition (4)   Any advertisement displayed, and any site used for the display of advertisements, shall be maintained in a condition that does not impair the visual amenity of the site.

 

Reason            Required to be imposed by Regulation 2(1) of the Town and Country Planning (Control of Advertisements) (England) Regulations 2007.

 

Condition (5)   Any structure or hoarding erected or used principally for the purpose of displaying advertisements shall be maintained in a condition that does not endanger the public.

 

Reason            Required to be imposed by Regulation 2(1) of the Town and Country Planning (Control of Advertisements) (England) Regulations 2007.

 

Condition (6)   Where an advertisement is required to be removed under the Town and Country Planning (Control of Advertisements) (England) Regulations 2007 (as amended), the site shall be left in a condition that does not endanger the public or impair visual amenity.

 

Reason            Required to be imposed by Regulation 2(1) of the Town and Country Planning (Control of Advertisements) (England) Regulations 2007.

 

Condition (7)   The banner sign hereby approved shall only be retained in situ for a maximum 12 month period until 30 June 2021. The advertisement shall be removed after that time, or earlier, should the public messaging associated with COVID-19 no longer be required. No further advertisement shall be affixed to the Town Hall and 44 Highgate without advertisement consent.

 

Reason            To ensure that the special appearance and characteristics of the Conservation Area and the Listed Building are not adversely affected in accordance with Policy CS8.6 of the Core Strategy and Policies DM3 and DM20 of the Development Management Policies Development Plan Document.


24/09/2020 - Planning Application No. SL/2020/0387 - Town View Fields, Kendal ref: 4408    Recommendations Approved

Decision Maker: Planning Committee

Made at meeting: 24/09/2020 - Planning Committee

Decision published: 16/11/2020

Effective from: 24/09/2020

Decision:

Replacement of existing timber casement windows with rosewood timber grain effect uPVC windows (Mr Scullion on behalf of South Lakeland District Council)

 

Note – The Planning Officer’s presentation had been circulated to Members and displayed on the Council’s Website on the day before the meeting.

 

The Planning Officer presented Planning Application No. SL/2020/0387 which sought permission for the installation of replacement uPVC windows in a purpose built hostel for vulnerable individuals and families. He displayed plans and photographs which outlined the proposal. He informed Members that the property was built in the 1990’s and was a split level rendered building with timber casement windows and a slate roof. The Planning Officer explained that the proposal was for the installation of replacement casement style uPVC windows finished in a rosewood timber grain effect which would replicate the existing windows.

 

The Planning Officer went on to explain that the Kendal Conservation Area Character Appraisal Document noted that the building made a largely neutral impact on the special architectural or historical character of the area and that any perceived harm could be offset against the public benefit of thermal efficiency and security.

 

Members gave consideration to the application.

 

A motion to approve the application was proposed and seconded and a vote was taken on the motion, during which all Planning Committee Members confirmed that they had, without interruption heard the full presentation and discussion on the item and it was

RESOLVED – that the application be granted subject to the following conditions:-

 

Condition (1)   The development hereby permitted shall be commenced before the expiration of THREE YEARS from the date hereof.

 

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:

 

Location Plan, Scale 1:1250, Received 7 May 2020

Elevations, Drawing No. 01

 

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

 

Condition (3)   The materials to be used for the external surfaces of the development hereby approved shall be:

 

Windows – uPVC finished in rosewood timber grain effect, side hung casement.

 

Reason            To ensure the development is of a high quality design in accordance with Policy DM2 of the Development Management Policies Development Plan Document and Policy CS8.10 of the South Lakeland Core Strategy.


24/09/2020 - Planning Application No. SL/2018/0806 - Land at High Sparrowmire, Kendal ref: 4406    Recommendations Approved

Decision Maker: Planning Committee

Made at meeting: 24/09/2020 - Planning Committee

Decision published: 16/11/2020

Effective from: 24/09/2020

Decision:

Hybrid application for the erection of 24 affordable dwellings (Full Planning Application) and one dwelling (Outline) (amended scheme) (South Lakes Housing)

 

Note – The Planning Officer’s presentation displayed at the meeting had been circulated to Members and displayed on the Council’s Website on the day before the meeting.

 

Councillor John Holmes declared a pecuniary interest in this item by virtue of the fact he was a Director of South Lakes Housing and he was disconnected from the virtual meeting for the item.

 

Councillor Brian Cooper by virtue of being pre-determined and having regard to bias and/or predetermination was disconnected from the virtual meeting for the item.

 

The Planning Officer presented Planning Application SL/2018/0806 which was a hybrid application and which sought part full and part outline permission for 25 dwellings on a site north of High Sparrowmire, Kendal. The full element of the application proposed 24 units which were all affordable and the outline element was for a single, proposed self-build dwelling. The Planning Officer drew Members’ attention to an update to his report regarding the recorded delivery of affordable housing for the entire district and confirmed that the recently published Housing Land Annual Position Statement recorded an additional 34 units. In addition he drew Members’ attention to a correction within the report, which related to the minimum separation distance between the existing properties on Moorefield Close and unit 24, which should have read 16.6m and not 16.2m as stated in the report.

 

The Planning Officer referred to the site visit, which some Members had attended in 2019. He drew Members’ attention to the late representations which had been circulated prior to the meeting and explained that they were a response, from the drainage engineers, to a communication which had been circulated by local residents directly to members of the Planning Committee on Monday, 21 September 2020.

 

The Planning Officer informed Members that the site had been allocated for housing development by policy LA1.3 of the Land Allocations Development Plan Document and he displayed plans and photographs which outlined the proposals. The Planning Officer outlined the mix of detached, semi-detached units and flats. He went on to outline the landscape impact and informed Members that the site was currently an open field with open views to the north and north west. He explained that in the long term the development would be obscured, in part, by more extensive development of land to the west of High Sparrowmire, which was allocated for housing by policies LA1.3 and LA2.1 of the Land Allocations DPD.

 

The Planning Officer highlighted the concerns raised in written representations received, in particular what had been described by residents as a tortuous access route which included a sharp bend. The Planning Officer reminded Members that the sharp bend had been highlighted to those present at the site visit in 2019 and reiterated that the local highway authority had raised no objections. This was confirmed by the local highway authority representative present at the meeting.

 

The Planning Officer displayed further photographs and highlighted a number of trees, adjoining the entrance to the site, which would be removed. He drew Members’ attention to a hawthorn tree which was in the back garden of 14 Moorefield Close and explained that in the original plans the tree had been shown for removal, as the arboricultural report had assumed the tree would not survive the associated below ground engineering works. The Planning Officer informed Members that the applicant had made amendments to the plans, the site access and adjoining ground levels, which had previously been within the root protection area of the hawthorn tree. The amended plans included the removal of the footway formerly proposed on the west side of the of the site entrance. The Planning Officer informed Members that there was now a reasonable chance of the survival of the hawthorn tree in the garden of 14 Moorefield Close.

 

The Planning Officer outlined the surface water drainage proposals which included five geocellular attenuation tanks with outflows being channelled, via infiltration trenches, towards an existing shallow valley which would follow the natural topography before discharging onto the adjoining railway embankment. He drew Members’ attention to the photographs which had been circulated directly to members of the Planning Committee by local residents and which included a photograph, taken in February 2020, of a flooded area of the site following a significant flooding event. The Planning Officer explained that the residents had attempted to superimpose the photograph on to the site plan to demonstrate that units 9 and 10 would be flooded. The Planning Officer informed Members that the drainage engineers had responded to the residents’ concerns regarding the on-site surface water flooding to the land, and the response was included within the late representations, which had been circulated prior to the meeting. The drainage engineer’s report had assessed that the water level of the flooded area was approximately 67.00m AOD (Above Ordnance Datum) and concluded that it was improbable that ponding water would exceed a level much greater than 67.00m AOD and in addition units 9 and 10 were set at a finished floor level of 68.50m AOD and the amended proposal also included retaining walls.

 

The Planning Officer concluded his presentation by reiterating the details of the robust landscaping proposals and planting plan which had been submitted by the applicant in August 2020 and which included a mixed native species hedge along the north and north west boundary, specimen tree planting in the amenity area and woodland planting. 

 

Note – at this point in the proceedings the Chairman requested that the public participants, speaking in opposition to the application, be dialled into the meeting to make their representations.

Rachel Burles; Richard Smith (speaking on his own behalf and on behalf of Paul Naylor); Amena Cassagne; Jo Miller (speaking on her own behalf and on behalf of Alison Norris); and Lee Gillies addressed the Planning Committee in opposition to the application.

Note – at this point in the proceedings the Chairman requested that the public participant, speaking in support of the application, be dialled into the meeting.

Chris Garner, the applicant’s agent, addressed the Planning Committee in support of the application.

Note – at this point in the proceedings, Members were advised that Colin Parkes and Doug Coyle, representing Cumbria County Council’s Local Highway Authority and Lead Local Flood Authority, were present in the meeting in order to answer any questions Members may have.

The Planning Officer, Colin Parkes and Doug Coyle responded to concerns raised during public participation. The Planning Officer advised Members that Network Rail had raised no objections to the proposals; he refuted the claim that the allocation of the site was a mistake and informed Members that the allocation of the site had followed public consultation and the local plan had been ratified by a government inspector. He commended the applicant for the adjustment to the scheme to protect the hawthorn tree in the garden of 14 Moorefield Close and added that the tree was not protected and from a planning point of view the tree was of low quality. Doug Coyle reiterated that the Lead Local Flood Authority had no concerns regarding the proposed surface water drainage plan. Colin Parkes advised Members that the radius of the sharp bend on the proposed site entrance was below the recommended guidelines, he explained however, there was an element of flexibility regarding the guidelines so long as there were no safety issues.  

 

The Planning Officer, the Housing Strategy and Delivery Specialist the Legal, Governance and Democracy Lead Specialist, Doug Coyle and Colin Parkes responded to questions raised by Members. Members sought clarity regarding the affordable housing in perpetuity, the attenuation tanks and the surface water drainage scheme.

 

Members gave consideration to the application and acknowledged the concerns raised by local residents. Members considered the provision and mix of affordable housing on the allocated site, the surface water drainage plan and the risk of flooding associated with extreme storm events. Members referred to the fact that there had been no objections from statutory consultees.

 

A motion to approve the application was proposed and seconded and a vote was taken on the motion, during which all Planning Committee Members confirmed that they had, without interruption heard the full presentation and discussion on the item and it was

RESOLVED – That authority be delegated to the Director of Customer and Commercial Services to grant planning permission subject to:

a.         A section 106 agreement to ensure that all 24 units proposed as part of the full application (96% of the total) are provided as affordable accommodation on the basis of the following tenure split:

i.          10 units social rent;

ii.         14 units to be shard ownership.

All successors in title, including mortgagees in possession, are to be bound to maintain the affordable accommodation in perpetuity, except where statutory provisions provide otherwise. 

b.         The following conditions:

Condition (1)   Development on that part of the site relating to plots 1 – 24 identified on SKETCH SITE LAYOUT, SK05revP is hereinafter referred to as “the Full Permission”.

Development on that part of the site relating to the “SB PLOT” identified on SKETCH SITE LAYOUT, SK05revP is hereinafter referred to as “the Outline Permission”.

The Full Permission

Condition (2)   The development to which the Full Permission relates 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 (3)   The development to which the Full Permission relates shall be carried out in accordance with the following approved plans:

           SKETCH SITE LAYOUT, SK05revP

           SKETCH SITE LAYOUT, Coloured, SK06revP

           Streetscene, SS-01B

           NDSS + Part M Category 2 Compliant 2Bed / 4Person Bungalow Planning Drawing, N1-01

           NDSS + Part M Category 2 Compliant 2Bed / 4Person Housetype Planning Drawing, N1-02

           Nationally Described Space Standard Compliant 3Bed / 5Person Housetype Planning Drawing, N1-03

           Nationally Described Space Standard Compliant 3Bed / 5Person Housetype Planning Drawing, N1-04

           NDSS + Part M Category 2 Compliant 1Bed / 2Person & 2Bed / 3Person Tyneside Flat, N1-06

           Proposed Highway Levels & Finished Floor Levels, K34416/A1/200 F

           Proposed Sections Through Site, K34416/A1/201 Revision C

           Proposed Foul & Surface Water Drainage Plan, K34416/A1/210 E

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

Materials

Condition (4)   The roofs, doors and windows to be constructed/installed in the dwellings hereby approved by the Full Permission shall be constructed/installed in accordance with details that shall first have been submitted to, and approved in writing by, the local planning authority.

Reason            To ensure compliance with South Lakeland Core Strategy Policy CS8.10 (Design) and policies DM1 (General Requirements for all development) and DM2 (Achieving Sustainable High Quality Design) of the South Lakeland Development Management Policies Development Plan Document.

Highways and parking

Condition (5)   No development associated with the Full Permission shall commence until a specification for the design, drainage and lighting of carriageways, footways, footpaths and cycleways has been submitted to, and approved in writing by, the local planning authority. The specification shall accord with the standards laid down in the Cumbria Design Guide and shall include longitudinal cross-sections. Thereafter, none of the houses hereby approved shall be first occupied until carriageways, footways, footpaths and cycleways have been constructed to base course level and street lighting, where it is to form part of the estate road, has been provided and brought into full operational use. 

Reason            To ensure a minimum standard of construction in the interests of highway safety.

Condition (6)   No individual dwelling approved by the Full Permission shall be first occupied until its dedicated parking provision shown on SKETCH SITE LAYOUT SK05revP has been constructed and made available for use. No more than ten dwellings shall be first occupied until the five visitors parking spaces shown on SKETCH SITE LAYOUT SK05revP has been constructed and made available for use.

Reason            To ensure the timely provision of car parking in accordance with policy DM9 (Parking Provision, new and loss of car parks) of the South Lakeland Development Management Policies Development Plan Document.

Landscaping

Condition (7)   No development associated with the Full Permission shall commence until a hard landscaping scheme has been submitted to, and approved in writing by, the local planning authority. The scheme shall include details of: (i) proposed finished levels or contours; (ii) means of enclosure; (iii) finishes for car parking areas, and other vehicle and non-adopted pedestrian access and circulation areas; and (iv) incidental structures (e.g. refuse or other external storage units etc.). No individual dwelling shall be first occupied until those elements of the approved hard landscaping scheme within its curtilage, or meeting its parking or non-adopted requirements, have been completed in accordance with the approved details.

Reason            To safeguard and enhance the character of the area in accordance with policy LA1.3 of the South Lakeland Land Allocations Development Plan Document and policy DM4 (Green and Blue Infrastructure, Open Space, Trees and Landscaping) of the South Lakeland Development Management Policies Development Plan Document.

Condition (8)   The new planting forming part of the soft landscaping detailed on approved Planting Plan 1572-2-51 C shall be implemented in the planting season November – March immediately following first occupation of the first house approved by the Full Planning Permission.

Reason            To safeguard and enhance the character of the area in accordance with policy LA1.3 of the South Lakeland Land Allocations Development Plan Document and policy DM4 (Green and Blue Infrastructure, Open Space, Trees and Landscaping) of the South Lakeland Development Management Policies Development Plan Document.

Condition (9)   No development associated with the Full Permission shall commence until a maintenance plan for the soft landscaping competed in accordance with Planting Plan 1572-2-51 C, lasting for the lifetime of the development approved by the Full Planning Permission, has been submitted to, and approved in writing by, the local planning authority. Thereafter, the soft landscaping shall be maintained in accordance with the approved plan.

Reason            To safeguard and enhance the character of the area in accordance with policy LA1.3 of the South Lakeland Land Allocations Development Plan Document and policy DM4 (Green and Blue Infrastructure, Open Space, Trees and Landscaping) of the South Lakeland Development Management Policies Development Plan Document.

Condition (10)Plots 1, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 12, 16 and 18 hereby approved (or such other equivalent number of plots as shall first have been agreed in writing by the local planning authority) shall not be first occupied until provided with a functioning electric vehicle (EV) charging point. Thereafter, the EV charging points shall be retained for the lifetime of the development.

Reason            To safeguard the amenity of the proposed dwellings in accordance with policy DM7 (Addressing Pollution, Contamination Impact, and Water Quality) of the South Lakeland Development Management Policies Development Plan Document and to contribute towards the “List of measures that support and enhance habitat creation, urban greening and respond to the effects of climate change” identified in Appendix 1 of the South Lakeland Development Management Policies Development Plan Document.

Tree protection

Condition (11)No development associated with the Full Permission shall commence until those trees shown to be retained in the Pre-development Arboricultural Report (“the Report”) prepared by Treescapes Consultancy Ltd. (Report reference No. AH/AIA/160518 – 1, dated 21 February 2020) have been protected from construction impacts in accordance with the recommendations of the Report. Thereafter, the implemented protection measures shall be retained for the duration of the construction period and work around the protected trees shall proceed in the manner prescribed by the Report.

Reason            To protect existing trees in accordance with policy DM4 (Green and Blue Infrastructure, Open Space, Trees and Landscaping) of the South Lakeland Development Management Policies Development Plan Document.

The Outline Permission

Condition (12)For the Outline Permission, approval of access (save for the agreed point of access to the County Road), details of the scale, layout and appearance of the building(s), and the landscaping of the site (hereinafter called the Reserved Matters) shall be obtained from the Local Planning Authority in writing before any development is commenced.

Reason            To ensure a satisfactory standard of development on site.

Condition (13)The development to which the Outline Permission relates must be begun not later than whichever is the later of the following dates:

a.         FIVE YEARS from the date of this permission; or

b.         the expiration of TWO YEARS from the final approval of the reserved matters, or, in the case of approval on different dates, the final approval of the last such matters to be approved.

Application for the approval of the reserved matters must be made not later than THREE years from the date of this permission.

Reason            To comply with the requirements of Section 92 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990.

Condition (14)The development to which the Outline Permission relates shall be carried out in accordance with the following approved plans (insofar as they relate to matters not reserved for further approval by condition 11:

           SKETCH SITE LAYOUT, SK05revP

           SKETCH SITE LAYOUT, Coloured, SK06revP

           Proposed Foul & Surface Water Drainage Plan, K34416/A1/210 E

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

Highways and parking

Condition (15)In respect of access, the reserved matters for the Outline Permission required by condition 11 shall include a specification for the design, drainage and lighting of carriageways, footways, footpaths and cycleways. The specification shall accord with the standards laid down in the Cumbria Design Guide and shall include longitudinal cross-sections. Thereafter, the house hereby approved shall not be first occupied until carriageways, footways, footpaths and cycleways serving it have been constructed to base course level and street lighting, where it is to form part of the estate road, has been provided and brought into full operational use. 

Reason            In the interests of highway safety.

Condition (16)The reserved matters for the Outline Permission required by condition 11 shall include details of dedicated parking provision. Thereafter, the approved house shall not be first occupied until the approved parking provision has been constructed and made available for use.

Reason            To ensure the timely provision of car parking in accordance with policy DM9 (Parking Provision, new and loss of car parks) of the South Lakeland Development Management Policies Development Plan Document.

Landscaping

Condition (17)In respect of landscaping, the reserved matters for the Outline Permission required by condition 11 shall include details of both hard and soft landscaping. An overall objective of the scheme must be to establish robust landscaping to the north west boundary to meet the requirements of policy LA1.3 of the Land Allocations DPD.

The hard landscaping scheme shall include details of: (i) proposed finished levels or contours; (ii) means of enclosure; (iii) finishes for car parking areas, and other vehicle and pedestrian access and circulation areas; (iv) incidental structures (e.g. refuse or other external storage units etc.); and (v) an implementation timetable. The soft landscaping scheme shall include details of: (i) planting plans; (ii) existing vegetation to be retained; (iii) written specifications and schedules of proposed plants noting species, planting sizes and proposed numbers/densities; (iv) an implementation timetable; and (v) a schedule of landscape maintenance proposals for the lifetime of the development. Thereafter, the approved landscaping scheme shall be implemented and maintained in accordance with the agreed details and timetables.

Reason            To safeguard and enhance the character of the area in accordance with policy LA1.3 of the South Lakeland Land Allocations Development Plan Document and policy DM4 (Green and Blue Infrastructure, Open Space, Trees and Landscaping) of the South Lakeland Development Management Policies Development Plan Document.

Condition (18)No development associated the construction of the single dwelling subject to the Outline Permission, including any associated works back to the proposed junction with Moore Field Close if those have not already been competed through implementation of the Full Permission, shall commence until those trees shown to be retained in the Pre-development Arboricultural Report (“the Report”) prepared by Treescapes Consultancy Ltd. (Report reference No. AH/AIA/160518 – 1, dated 21 February 2020) have been protected from construction impacts in accordance with the recommendations of the Report. Thereafter, the implemented protection measures shall be retained for the duration of the construction period and work around the protected trees shall proceed in the manner prescribed by the Report.

Reason            To protect existing trees in accordance with policy DM4 (Green and Blue Infrastructure, Open Space, Trees and Landscaping) of the South Lakeland Development Management Policies Development Plan Document.

Conditions applying to the development as a whole:

The following conditions relate to the entire site identified by the red line on approved drawing SKETCH SITE LAYOUT, SK05revP

Foul and surface water

Condition (19)None of the houses hereby approved shall be first occupied until the foul and surface water drainage proposals detailed on approved drawing K34416_A1_210 E have been completed and made operational.

Reason            To promote the use of a sustainable surface water drainage scheme in accordance with policy DM6 (Flood Risk Management and Sustainable Drainage Systems) of the South Lakeland Development Management Policies Development Plan Document.

Condition (20)Once operational, the approved surface water drainage proposals shown on approved drawing K34416_A1_210 E shall be maintained for the lifetime of the development in accordance with the “Operation & Maintenance Plan for Surface Water Drainage Systems” (report ref. K34416/02/O&M/TM, Revision B, February 2020) submitted by R G Parkins.

Reason            To promote the use of a sustainable surface water drainage scheme in accordance with policy DM6 (Flood Risk Management and Sustainable Drainage Systems) of the South Lakeland Development Management Policies Development Plan Document.

Condition (21)No development shall commence until a construction surface water management plan has been submitted to, and agreed in writing by, the local planning authority. Thereafter, development shall proceed in accordance with the agreed plan.

Reason            To safeguard against flooding to surrounding sites and to safeguard against pollution of surrounding watercourses and drainage systems during the course of construction.

Condition (22)No individual house shall be first occupied until it has been provided with a water butt, installed in a manner that facilitates the recycling of roof water. Thereafter, the water butts shall be retained for the lifetime of the development.

Reason            To contribute towards the “List of measures that support and enhance habitat creation, urban greening and respond to the effects of climate change” identified in Appendix 1 of the South Lakeland Development Management Policies Development Plan Document.

Noise

Condition (23) No individual dwelling hereby approved shall be first occupied until a Validation Report confirming its compliance with the conclusions of the Acoustic Design Statement prepared by Northburn Acoustics and dated 26 June 2018 (Report number 18-51-595) has been submitted to, and approved in writing by, the local planning authority. Compliance must be demonstrated by ambient noise levels in living rooms and bedrooms not exceeding 35dB LAeq 16hour, and ambient noise levels in bedrooms alone not exceeding 30dB LAeq 8hour (23:00 – 07:00).

Reason            To safeguard the amenity of the proposed dwellings in accordance with policy DM7 (Addressing Pollution, Contamination Impact, and Water Quality) of the South Lakeland Development Management Policies Development Plan Document.

Controls on construction activity

Condition (24)Construction work shall not occur on Bank Holidays nor otherwise outside the hours of 0800 – 1800 Monday to Friday or 0900 – 1300 on Saturdays.

Reason            To safeguard the amenity of existing dwellings in accordance with policy DM7 (Addressing Pollution, Contamination Impact, and Water Quality) of the South Lakeland Development Management Policies Development Plan Document.

Condition (25)No development shall commence until a Construction Management Plan (CMP) has been submitted to, and approved in writing by, the local planning authority. The CMP shall provide for:

           defined areas for the parking of vehicles of site operatives and visitors;

           defined areas for loading and unloading of plant and materials;

           defined areas for storage of plant and materials;

           measures to control the emission of dust and dirt during construction;

           no burning of waste material to take place;

           measures to avoid excess dirt on adjacent roads including wheel washing facilities;

           a scheme for recycling / disposing of waste resulting from excavations;

           measures to control noise and vibration from plant, equipment and procedures – this to include any rock pecking and excavations;

           construction site lighting designed to negate light spillage from the site boundary

Thereafter, development shall proceed in accordance with the agreed CMP.

Reason            To safeguard the amenity of existing dwellings in accordance with policy DM7 (Addressing Pollution, Contamination Impact, and Water Quality) of the South Lakeland Development Management Policies Development Plan Document.

Land contamination

Condition (26)None of the dwellings hereby approved shall be first occupied until a Validation Report detailing the nature of any land contamination found during the course of development, and the relevant remediation undertaken, has been submitted to, and approved in writing by, the local planning authority.

Reason            To safeguard the amenity of the proposed dwellings in accordance with policy DM7 (Addressing Pollution, Contamination Impact, and Water Quality) of the South Lakeland Development Management Policies Development Plan Document.

Accessible and Adaptable Homes

Condition (27)The dwellings hereby approved shall be constructed to meet the Building Regulations M4(2) standards for accessible and adaptable homes.

Reason            To comply with policy DM11 (Accessible and Adaptable Homes) of the South Lakeland Development Management Policies Development Plan Document.

Broadband

Condition (28)None of the dwellings hereby approved shall be first occupied until connected to the necessary infrastructure to enable access to high speed (superfast) broadband, unless this is unfeasible in the terms set out in policy DM8 (High Speed Broadband for New Developments) of the South Lakeland Development Management Policies Development Plan Document.

Reason            To comply with policy DM8 (High Speed Broadband for New Developments) of the South Lakeland Development Management Policies Development Plan Document.

Biodiversity

Condition (29)No dwelling shall be first occupied until a scheme for the installation of at least 15 bird and bat boxes has been submitted to, and approved in writing by, the local planning authority. No individual dwelling that is to be provided with a bird and/or bat box shall be first occupied until t have been installed in accordance with the approved scheme. The scheme shall include manufacturers’ details of each bird and bat box together with a plan identifying their proposed locations and evidence that those locations have been selected by a qualified ecologist. Thereafter, the approved bird and bat boxes shall be retained for the lifetime of the development, replaced on a like-for-like basis as necessary.

Reason            To meet the requirements of: (1) policy DM4 (Green and Blue Infrastructure, Open Space, Trees and Landscaping) of the of the South Lakeland Development Management Policies Development Plan Document; (2) paragraph 170 of the National Planning Policy Framework.; and (3) section 40 of the Natural Environment and Rural Communities Act 2006.

P&P Statement

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.

Note – at this point in the proceedings Councillor Brian Cooper and Councillor John Holmes were reconnected to the meeting and Councillors Cooper and Holmes confirmed that they were able to see (where practicable) and hear all Members participating in the meeting.

 

Note – The Committee voted to adjourn for a break at 12.13 p.m. and reconvened at 12.25 p.m. when a roll call was taken, all Members confirming that they were present, that they were able to see (where practicable) and hear all Members participating in the meeting.


05/11/2020 - Purchase of Fleet Vehicle (1 No. 24T Refuse Collection Vehicle) - Award of Contract ref: 4404    Recommendations Approved

Decision Maker: Delegated Executive Decisions

Made at meeting: 05/11/2020 - Delegated Executive Decisions

Decision published: 09/11/2020

Effective from: 17/11/2020

Decision:

(Director of Customer and Commercial Services)

 

Summary

 

Consideration was given to the purchase of 1 No. 24T Streetscene fleet vehicle, which was in line with South Lakeland District Council’s current capital replacement vehicle programme. The vehicles would be used to help reduce maintenance and servicing costs for the service and provide a reliable fleet of vehicles and an effectively run service.

 

Note – The tender analysis report was provided within the Part II Appendix 1 to the report which was excluded from inspection by members of the public in accordance with Section 100 (B) of the Local Government Act 1972, as amended by the Local Government (Access to Information) (Variation) Order 2006, and, in all the circumstances of the case, it was considered that the public interest in maintaining the exemption outweighed the public interest in disclosing it.  Copies of the document were excluded, as it contained information as described in Schedule 12A of the Act as follows:-

 

- Information relating to the financial or business affairs of any particular person (including the authority holding that information).  (Paragraph 3)

 

Decision

 

(1)        The contract for purchase of the 1 No. 24T refuse wagon for Streetscene is awarded to the recommended bidder as noted in Part II Appendix 1 to the report.

 

(2)        The Director of Customer and Commercial Services in conjunction with the Case Management officer and Legal, Governance and Democracy Lead Specialist enter into the appropriate contract on behalf of the Council with the successful bidder.

 

Reasons for Decision

 

The proposal ensures that the delivery of the service will continue and it will help reduce the maintenance and service costs for the service and provide a reliable fleet of vehicles to help the service run effectively.

 

Alternative Options Considered and Rejected

 

To not purchase new vehicles and to run the existing fleet. This will inevitably lead to increase in maintenance and servicing costs and will provide an ageing fleet which will be less reliable. Reliability of vehicles is key to the streetscene department with collections expected on set days.

 

To lease as opposed to buy new vehicles. This is not recommended with the increase pressure on the revenue budget that this will likely bring. It also means that any servicing and maintenance would not be undertaken in house which again can lead to issues in terms of vehicles being available for set rounds on set days.

 

Another alternative option is to not award a contract to the recommended bidder in this procurement exercise. This is not considered a preferred option because the recommended bidder met the necessary criteria to proceed as set out in the analysis in the Part II Appendix to the report.

 


05/11/2020 - Purchase of Fleet Vehicle (1 No. 26T Refuse Collection Vehicle) - Award of Contract ref: 4405    Recommendations Approved

Decision Maker: Delegated Executive Decisions

Made at meeting: 05/11/2020 - Delegated Executive Decisions

Decision published: 09/11/2020

Effective from: 17/11/2020

Decision:

(Director of Customer and Commercial Services)

 

Summary

 

Consideration was given to the purchase of 1 No. 26T Streetscene fleet vehicle, which was in line with South Lakeland District Council’s current capital replacement vehicle programme. The vehicle would be used to help reduce maintenance and servicing costs for the service and provide a reliable fleet of vehicles and an effectively run service.

 

Note – The tender analysis report was provided within the Part II Appendix 1 to the report which was excluded from inspection by members of the public in accordance with Section 100 (B) of the Local Government Act 1972, as amended by the Local Government (Access to Information) (Variation) Order 2006, and, in all the circumstances of the case, it was considered that the public interest in maintaining the exemption outweighed the public interest in disclosing it.  Copies of the document were excluded, as it contained information as described in Schedule 12A of the Act as follows:-

 

- Information relating to the financial or business affairs of any particular person (including the authority holding that information).  (Paragraph 3)

 

Decision

 

(1)        The contract for purchase of the 1 No. 26T refuse wagon for Streetscene is awarded to the recommended bidder as noted in Part II Appendix 1 to the report.

 

(2)        The Director of Customer and Commercial Services in conjunction with the Case Management officer and Legal, Governance and Democracy Lead Specialist enter into the appropriate contract on behalf of the Council with the successful bidder.

 

Reasons for Decision

 

The proposal ensures that the delivery of the service will continue and it will help reduce the maintenance and service costs for the service and provide a reliable fleet of vehicles to help the service run effectively.

 

Alternative Options Considered and Rejected

 

To not purchase new vehicles and to run the existing fleet. This will inevitably lead to increase in maintenance and servicing costs and will provide an ageing fleet which will be less reliable. Reliability of vehicles is key to the streetscene department with collections expected on set days.

 

To lease as opposed to buy new vehicles. This is not recommended with the increase pressure on the revenue budget that this will likely bring. It also means that any servicing and maintenance would not be undertaken in house which again can lead to issues in terms of vehicles being available for set rounds on set days.

 

Another alternative option is to not award a contract to the recommended bidder in this procurement exercise. This is not considered a preferred option because the recommended bidder met the necessary criteria to proceed as set out in the analysis in the Part II Appendix to the report.

 


05/11/2020 - Purchase of Fleet Vehicle (1 No. 12T Refuse Vehicle) for the Council - Award of Contract ref: 4403    Recommendations Approved

Decision Maker: Delegated Executive Decisions

Made at meeting: 05/11/2020 - Delegated Executive Decisions

Decision published: 09/11/2020

Effective from: 17/11/2020

Decision:

(Director of Customer and Commercial Services)

 

Summary

 

Consideration was given to the purchase of 1 No. 12T streetscene fleet vehicle, which was in line with South Lakeland District Council’s current capital replacement vehicle programme. The vehicle would be used to help reduce maintenance and servicing costs for the service and provide a reliable fleet of vehicles and an effectively run service.

 

Note – The tender analysis report was provided within the Part II Appendix 1 to the report which was excluded from inspection by members of the public in accordance with Section 100 (B) of the Local Government Act 1972, as amended by the Local Government (Access to Information) (Variation) Order 2006, and, in all the circumstances of the case, it was considered that the public interest in maintaining the exemption outweighed the public interest in disclosing it.  Copies of the document were excluded, as it contained information as described in Schedule 12A of the Act as follows:-

 

- Information relating to the financial or business affairs of any particular person (including the authority holding that information).  (Paragraph 3)

 

Decision

 

(1)        The contract for purchase of the 1 No. 12T refuse wagon for Streetscene is awarded to the recommended bidder as noted in Part II Appendix 1 to the report.

 

(2)        The Director of Customer and Commercial Services in conjunction with the Case Management officer and Legal, Governance and Democracy Lead Specialist enter into the appropriate contract on behalf of the Council with the successful bidder.

 

Reasons for Decision

 

The proposal ensures that the delivery of the service will continue and it will help reduce the maintenance and service costs for the service and provide a reliable fleet of vehicles to help the service run effectively.

 

Alternative Options Considered and Rejected

 

To not purchase new vehicles and to run the existing fleet. This will inevitably lead to increase in maintenance and servicing costs and will provide an ageing fleet which will be less reliable. Reliability of vehicles is key to the streetscene department with collections expected on set days.

 

To lease as opposed to buy new vehicles. This is not recommended with the increase pressure on the revenue budget that this will likely bring. It also means that any servicing and maintenance would not be undertaken in house which again can lead to issues in terms of vehicles being available for set rounds on set days.

 

Another alternative option is to not award a contract to the recommended bidder in this procurement exercise. This is not considered a preferred option because the recommended bidder met the necessary criteria to proceed as set out in the analysis in the Part II Appendix to the report.


05/11/2020 - Purchase of Fleet Vehicles (4 No. 7.5T Refuse Vehicle) for the Council - Award of Contract ref: 4402    Recommendations Approved

Decision Maker: Delegated Executive Decisions

Made at meeting: 05/11/2020 - Delegated Executive Decisions

Decision published: 09/11/2020

Effective from: 17/11/2020

Decision:

(Director of Customer and Commercial Services)

 

Summary

 

Consideration was given to the purchase of 4 No. 7.5T Streetscene fleet vehicles, which was in line with South Lakeland District Council’s current capital replacement vehicle programme. The vehicles would be used to help reduce maintenance and servicing costs for the service and provide a reliable fleet of vehicles and an effectively run service.

 

Note – The tender analysis report was provided within the Part II Appendix 1 to the report which was excluded from inspection by members of the public in accordance with Section 100 (B) of the Local Government Act 1972, as amended by the Local Government (Access to Information) (Variation) Order 2006, and, in all the circumstances of the case, it was considered that the public interest in maintaining the exemption outweighed the public interest in disclosing it.  Copies of the document were excluded, as it contained information as described in Schedule 12A of the Act as follows:-

 

- Information relating to the financial or business affairs of any particular person (including the authority holding that information).  (Paragraph 3)

 

Decision

 

(1)        The contract for purchase of the 4 No. 7.5T refuse wagons for Streetscene is awarded to the recommended bidder as noted in Part II Appendix 1 to the report.

 

(2)        The Director of Customer and Commercial Services, in conjunction with the Case Management Officer and Legal, Governance and Democracy Lead Specialist, enter into the appropriate contract on behalf of the Council with the successful bidder.

 

Reasons for Decision

 

The proposal ensures that the delivery of the service will continue and it will help reduce the maintenance and service costs for the service and provide a reliable fleet of vehicles to help the service run effectively.

 

Alternative Options Considered and Rejected

 

To not purchase new vehicles and to run the existing fleet. This will inevitably lead to increase in maintenance and servicing costs and will provide an ageing fleet which will be less reliable. Reliability of vehicles is key to the streetscene department with collections expected on set days.

 

To lease as opposed to buy new vehicles. This is not recommended with the increase pressure on the revenue budget that this will likely bring. It also means that any servicing and maintenance would not be undertaken in house which again can lead to issues in terms of vehicles being available for set rounds on set days.

 

Another alternative option is to not award a contract to the recommended bidder in this procurement exercise. This is not considered a preferred option because the recommended bidder met the necessary criteria to proceed as set out in the analysis in the Part II Appendix to the report.


05/11/2020 - Affordable Housing - Suggested Approach to Mortgagee in Possession Clauses ref: 4400    For Determination

Decision Maker: Cabinet

Made at meeting: 05/11/2020 - Cabinet

Decision published: 09/11/2020

Effective from: 17/11/2020

Decision:

Note – The Legal, Governance and Democracy Lead Specialist (Monitoring Officer) drew attention to paragraph 7 of the report relating to legal implications and advised that it would be noted within the minutes that Members present who were also Members on the Planning Committee would reserve their position, with, as outlined at paragraph 7.7, a number of applications having already obtained approval and which had subsequently requested inclusion of a mortgagee in possession clause due to be taken back through Planning Committee or delegation sought for officers to deal with outstanding matters, when each case would be considered on planning merits.

 

Summary

 

The Housing and Innovation Portfolio Holder presented a report which referred to development proposals where affordable housing delivery was being secured by Section 106 Agreements in those parts of South Lakeland District Council outside the Lake District and Yorkshire Dales National Parks (i.e. the area for which South Lakeland District Council was the local planning authority).  In the National Parks, Section 106 Agreements were negotiated with the relevant national park authority, although still advised by South Lakeland District Council as Housing Authority.

 

Mortgagee in possession clauses were currently being sought on a number of sites affecting the delivery of affordable homes.

 

The report explained in detail what a mortgagee in possession clause was.  A mortgagee in possession was a lender (person or body) which had entered into a mortgage in respect of a dwelling constructed on the proposed development site or part of the proposed development site and had taken action, in the form of taking possession of the said dwelling, following a default by the borrower in respect of the repayment due under that mortgage.

 

In the context of Affordable Housing, as defined at Annex 2 of the National Planning Policy Framework June 2019, mortgagee in possession clauses were increasingly being sought in Section 106 Agreements by Housing Associations (Registered Providers) – both in new Section 106 Agreements and via modifications to existing Section 106 Agreements.  Most Mortgagee in Possession clauses sought to nullify requirements in Section 106 Agreements related to restrictions on sale price, rental, occupancy, income eligibility and local needs requirements in the event of ownership of the property transferring to a mortgagee from the housing association (Registered Provider, or owner of shared ownership or discounted sale property) through the inclusion of mortgagee in possession clauses.

 

The argument being put forward by applicants and housing associations (Registered Providers) as regards seeking mortgage in possession clauses was that lenders and (in the case of schemes supported by grant aid) Homes England were either making support for schemes conditional on mortgagee in possession clauses or development finance was being made available on less favourable terms.  It was, therefore, argued that the absence of mortgagee in possession clauses was preventing the delivery of affordable housing.

 

The mortgagee in possession clause issue related to the (very rare) circumstance in which a Housing Association (Registered Provider) failed and its assets had to be disposed of.  Assets might include affordable homes for rent and shares in shared ownership properties.  Under Section 96 of the Planning and Housing Act 2015, when a Housing Association went into administration, in addition to the normal administration objectives, the administrator also had a duty to keep social housing within the regulated sector.  Generally when a Housing Association failed, it was taken over by another Housing Association.  Housing Association failure resulting in the disposal of assets was rare.

 

The mortgagee in possession issue was not unique to South Lakeland.  The Greater London Authority had produced a standard Mortgagee in Possession clause for use by all Greater London Authorities.  The issue had been considered in the Cumbrian Model Section 106 Agreement produced in 2012, although a cross-Cumbria standard approach had not been agreed.  The National Housing Federation produced a standard clause that was being used widely.

 

Standard mortgagee in possession clauses such as the National Housing Federation model and the Greater London model mitigated the risk with the inclusion of a cascading clause to the effect that before a mortgagee in possession clause was triggered, there was a period (normally 3 months) during which the property had to be offered for sale to another housing association or a local authority.

 

The report examined the Council’s policy.  Affordable housing delivery in South Lakeland (outside National Parks) was regulated by Policy 6.3 of the Council’s Local Plan - Core Strategy (adopted in 2010).  In addition to seeking an on-site affordable housing contribution of 35% for sites over a certain size, it required that affordable housing provided was made available solely to people in housing need at an affordable cost for the life of the property. Policy 6.3 applied predominantly to market housing schemes and these were predominantly on sites allocated in the Local Plan.

 

A small number of schemes were also delivered as exceptions sites. These were sites which would not normally be granted consent but were approved on an exceptional basis because they were all or predominantly affordable.  Policy DM14 of the Local Plan Development Management Policy regulated schemes of this type and required that affordable housing provided in this way be affordable in perpetuity.

 

However small the risk of affordable properties being lost in this way, mortgagee in possession clauses were contrary to the letter of both policies in that, in the event of the mortgagee in possession clause being triggered, the properties would cease to be available to people in need at an affordable cost and would not be affordable in perpetuity.

 

The report examined how a flexible approach might be applied.  Planning policy could only be changed through the preparation of a new Development Plan Document.  This was a long process requiring informal and formal consultation and independent examination by a planning inspector.  All planning policies were currently being examined through the Local Plan review.  If the proposals proposed in the Government’s Planning White Paper were implemented on the timescale envisaged, the whole planning landscape, including matters currently dealt with through Section 106 Agreements, matters dealt with through local plan policy and matters dealt with in national policy and mechanisms for delivering affordable housing, may look very different.

 

Councils could produce supplementary planning documents which provided guidance on the interpretation and implementation of policy.  However these could not change policy.

 

Under Section 38 of the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004 planning applications were considered against the Council’s Development Plan and other material considerations of each individual planning application on a case by case basis.  Each application had to be determined on its own merits.  The inclusion of a mortgagee in possession clause in a Section 106 Agreement meant that affordable housing affected by it was contrary to the letter of Policy 6.3. Therefore, upon a strict reading of the policy it would indicate that the proposal to include mortgagee in possession clauses should be refused unless other material considerations justified an exceptional approach.

 

However, in many cases the policy requirement for affordable housing for the lifetime of the property needed to be balanced against impacts on the wider policy objective of affordable housing delivery, the very low risk of the clause being triggered and the mitigating measures in place to ensure that other solutions are explored before it happens.

 

Cases for exceptional approvals needed to be supported by evidence and were likely to have greater weight if the risk of harm (the loss of affordable housing) was mitigated by the inclusion of cascading or other appropriate risk mitigation.

 

Paragraph 3.17 of the report suggested that, whilst judgments on individual planning applications could not be fettered, the following approach was felt to be of relevance in considering planning applications seeking mortgagee in possession clauses:-

 

Policy

 

·         The clear policy requirement that new dwellings should be made available in perpetuity.

 

The scale and quality of the affordable housing offer

 

·         Issues might include the scale of any non-delivery including how many affordable homes would be delivered with or without the mortgagee in possession clause. Also of relevance would be how such provision relates to evidenced local housing needs identified in the Strategic Housing Market Assessment and other reputable evidence sources. Consideration may need to be given to the proportion of affordable housing for rent, whether provision is optimal in terms of size and design and whether any would be fully disabled accessible.

 

The degree to which the proposal is supported by evidence

 

·         Another issue may be the potential threat to the wider objective of affordable housing delivery and the degree to which this is supported with evidence. Direct evidence in the form of a letter from the lender or from Homes England carries the greatest weight. It needs to be shown that the clause will prejudice the delivery of affordable housing on the scheme in question. Wider impacts on the finances of the Housing Association asset base and the capacity to deliver elsewhere are not relevant.

 

The extent to which the risk of the clause being triggered can be mitigated

 

·         Consideration will also be needed of the degree to which the risk of loss of affordable units can be mitigated. Strong means of achieving this include:-

 

o   By the inclusion of a cascading clause requiring that the mortgagee in possession clause be triggered only after a period during which the property must be offered for sale to a Housing Association or South Lakeland District Council (and any successor authority). The longer such a period is, the greater effect it will have in mitigating the risk and minimising policy conflict; or

 

o   By the limitation of mortgagee in possession clauses to mortgagees of housing associations. This would obviate the greater risk to the affordable housing stock of defaults on mortgages by purchasers of shared ownership or discounted sale.

 

The Customer and Commercial Services and People Portfolio Holder expressed support for the proposal, thanking officers for their work to ensure that these homes which had been built for the benefit of local occupancy remained so for future generations of local people.  Councillor John Holmes pointed out that this situation was rare, the risk being negligible, and pointed out that the Regulator monitored Housing Associations carefully.  On behalf of South Lakes Housing and other housing associations, he welcomed the paper and proposal which was felt to be a reasonable solution to the present problem.

 

The Leader and Promoting South Lakeland Portfolio Holder thanked the Deputy Leader and Housing and Innovation Portfolio Holder and officers for their work involved in addressing various competing concerns.

 

The Leader asked the meeting if the motion was agreed.  There was no dissent.

 

Decision

 

RESOLVED – That

 

(1)        the report be noted; and

 

(2)        the principles of the approach set out at paragraph 3.17 of the report and outlined above be approved.

 

Reasons for Decision

 

The mortgagee in possession issue relates directly to the delivery of affordable homes to rent and the Council’s target of 1,000 new homes to rent between 2014 and 2025.

 

Alternative Options Considered and Rejected

 

Planning Policy can only be changed through the preparation of a new Development Plan Document.  This is a long process requiring informal and formal consultation and independent examination by a planning inspector.  All planning policies are being examined through the current Local Plan review.  If the proposals proposed in the Government’s Planning White Paper are implemented on the timescale envisaged, the whole planning landscape including matters currently dealt with through Section 106 agreements, matters dealt with through local plan policy and matters dealt with in national policy and mechanisms for delivering affordable housing may look very different.  Whilst planning policy can be changed in the longer term, this is of no assistance with current proposals.

 

Councils can produce Supplementary Planning Documents which provide guidance on the interpretation and implementation of policy.  However these cannot change the substance of local plan policy.


05/11/2020 - Local Government Reform - Proposal for Bay Area ref: 4397    For Determination

Decision Maker: Cabinet

Made at meeting: 05/11/2020 - Cabinet

Decision published: 09/11/2020

Effective from: 17/11/2020

Decision:

Summary

 

Copies of Appendix 1 to the report, which had been marked “to follow” on the agenda, had been circulated to Members and published on the Council’s Website on 2 November 2020.

 

The Leader and Promoting South Lakeland Portfolio Holder reported that, at its meeting on 6 October 2020, Council had authorised himself and the Chief Executive to work with Barrow Borough and Lancaster City councils to explore devolution, including the development of a high level case for a new unitary council for the area comprising the three districts.  It had also been noted that the Secretary of State may then invite the Council to put forward a formal proposal which would be subject to future agreement.

 

Prior to consideration of a high level case, on the 9 October 2020, the Secretary of State for Housing, Communities and Local Government, in exercise of his powers under Part 1 of the Local Government and Public Involvement in Health Act 2007, had invited any principal authority in the area of the county of Cumbria to submit a proposal for a single tier of local government, in accordance with the following criteria:-

 

·         by 9 November 2020, authorities must at least submit an outline proposal, and if a full proposal had not been submitted by that date, the full proposal must be submitted as soon as practicable thereafter and by no later than 9 December 2020;

·         authorities must have regard to the guidance from the Secretary of State; and

·         an authority may either make its own proposal or make a proposal jointly.

 

In exploring devolution around the Bay area, Barrow, Lancaster and South Lakeland Councils had now developed the initial work to prepare an outline proposal to meet the guidance set out by the Secretary of State in responding to an invitation.

 

The draft Outline Proposal formed Appendix 1 to the report.  The Outline Proposal set out the rationale for developing a new unitary council.  The proposal indicated the opportunities, strengths and strategic needs of the area’s communities and economy and how they may best be addressed through the leadership and resources of local government based on the geography of the functioning economic area and health services footprint.

 

In addition to structural change, the proposal indicated the benefits which could be realised through public service reform, within local government and collaboratively with other service providers.  The area offered the population scale envisaged by the Government’s invite, with a population circa 320,000.

 

The proposal acknowledged the historic and current associations between places and communities across the Morecambe Bay area.  This strengthened the rationale for the organisation of local government at a scale and footprint readily identified by residents and businesses.  This enabled locally based, accessible and engaged local government.

 

The development of further information, proposal and detail would be identified and set out in an action plan to establish the Full Proposal.  This would include, for example, further assessment of:-

 

·         the degree of local support for the proposal;

·         functions currently performed by the County Councils and modelling their delivery in the unitary arrangement;

·         proposals regarding Police, Fire and Rescue services;

·         opportunities for service reform with regards to health and care services;

·         options for complementary arrangement of Combined Authorities and powers and resources which may be devolved to them;

·         financial modelling:-

o   The operational costs of the new council, including comparison with alternative proposals and implications for costs to Council Tax payers; and

o   The costs and funding of transition from the existing to future arrangements; and

·         proposals with regard to the structure of local government in the remainder of Cumbria should the Proposal be implemented.

 

Members were being asked to consider and agree the outline proposal for submission to Government by 9 November 2020.

 

Subject to Council approval, work would continue on the full proposal, with a report to be presented back to Cabinet and Council prior to the deadline date of 9 December 2020.

 

It was expected that Cumbria County Council would submit a proposal for a single unitary council for Cumbria.  As an alternative to the single unitary proposal, it was likely that options would be proposed by other district councils for two unitary councils based on combinations of the geographic footprints of the existing district councils.  The range of the other proposals would not become clear until 9 November.

 

In presenting the report, the Leader and Promoting South Lakeland Portfolio Holder informed Members that the same report would be discussed by full Council at its meeting in the evening, with Barrow and Lancaster’s councils also today considering the matter.  Following these meetings, engagement would continue to take place with parish and town council and key stakeholders.  The short timescale prescribed necessitated a shorter period of consultation than normally undertaken by the Council and consultants were, therefore, being appointed to assist in this task, as detailed within the next item of business on the Agenda.

 

The Leader and Promoting South Lakeland Portfolio Holder referred to the County Council’s proposal for a single unitary Cumbia and to potential submissions from the other districts for other combinations.  He believed, however, that the option of a unitary authority based on the footprint of Morecambe Bay was vital for the residents of South Lakeland and drew attention to the shared and functioning economy, similar cultural history, the shared health trust and the LA postcode.  He referred to the suggestion that substantial savings and efficiencies could be made by a single unitary Cumbria with which he disagreed, pointing out that independent research showed no conclusive evidence of this.  Independent research, which he hoped Members had seen, also indicated that in large authorities, voter turnout reduced, there was less trust in councillors and less engagement.  He also pointed out that a number of the Members of Parliament in the area were in favour of smaller unitaries.

 

The Leader and Promoting South Lakeland Portfolio Holder turned to questions raised previously around, for example, social care, child services, assets, care homes and finances.  He explained that work was being carried out in relation to these areas and that he did not see any implications for a Morecambe Bay unitary authority in this regard.

 

The Leader and Promoting South Lakeland Portfolio Holder stressed the fact that all possible was being done to keep to the Government short timescale in putting together a professional submission and reiterated that it was essential to provide South Lakeland’s residents the option of a Bay unitary authority.

 

Members expressed support for the proposal.  The Economy, Culture and Leisure Portfolio Holder spoke from an economic perspective and referred to informal discussions he had had with a number of businesses where strong concerns had been raised at the short timeframe imposed and to the timing, particularly in the light of the current Covid-19 pandemic.  He said that opinions were divided across the business community, however, pointed out that the Bay was a functioning economic region which would be of increasing importance emerging from the pandemic.  The Deputy Leader and Housing and Innovation Portfolio Holder stressed that this was an important decision and that it was incumbent on councillors, as leaders in their communities, to try to engage with residents in this process.  The Council had been seeking to do this in a variety of fora, through community groups, parish councils and business leaders.  With little time remaining, he stressed that it was key to get input from residents.  He referred to the independent analysis of people views being commissioned by the Council, explaining that this could only be a limited exercise given the time and resources available.  All of these inputs will feed in ultimately to the final proposals going forward, hopefully towards the end of November for the final December submission date.  He strongly endorsed the direction of travel and looked forward to further engagement and clarity.

 

The Leader and Promoting South Lakeland Portfolio Holder thanked the Deputy Leader and Housing and Innovation Portfolio Holder for his work in the process, as well as other Member of the Cabinet who were engaged in different aspects in preparation of the submission and business case.  He further expressed gratitude to those officers involved who had worked hard to get to this point and who continued to develop the business case, and asked the Chief Executive to pass on these thanks.

 

The Leader asked the meeting if the motion was agreed.  There was no dissent.

 

Decision

 

RESOLVED - That

 

(1)        the outline proposal as attached at Appendix 1 to the report be agreed for submission to the Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government by 9 November 2020;

 

(2)        the Chief Executive and Leader be authorised to approve any minor amendments that may arise following consideration by Barrow Borough and Lancaster City councils prior to submission and to continue with the work on the final proposal; and

 

(3)        a final Proposal be submitted to a future meeting of Cabinet and Council prior to the requested deadline from Government of 9 December 2020 and it be noted that a date of 8 December has been scheduled for this purpose.

 

Reasons for Decision

 

If approved the councils will present the option to Government demonstrating how a unitary council will be an effective driver of economic, social and environmental benefits for the area’s residents, businesses and visitors, realise the strategic potential of the area and enable transformation of public services.

 

Exploring the case for devolution will consider the benefits a change to local government could deliver for economic growth within a highly valued environment with opportunity to improve and maximise the wellbeing of residents.  This accords with the Council’s priorities of working across boundaries to deliver economic growth, delivering a balanced community, reducing income and health inequalities and responding to climate change and enhancing biodiversity.

 

Alternative Options Considered and Rejected

 

There is an option not to submit a proposal.  This would mean that the opportunity and benefits of a unitary council, based on the footprint of the three councils, would not be considered by Government alongside other proposals submitted.  The draft Outline Proposal indicates the benefits and opportunities which could be realised for residents and businesses.  These would be foregone if a proposal were not submitted.  By not submitting a proposal, the Council would significantly reduce its influence in the reorganisation of local government.  This option is not recommended.

 

There is an option to consider some other combinations of district footprints within Cumbria, including the single unitary proposal.  It is very likely that these alternative options will be submitted by other councils for consideration by Government.  The draft Outline Proposal provides an initial commentary on the benefits of the proposal for a unitary council based on the footprint of our three authorities.  To ensure that a full range of options is considered by Government, this option is not recommended.


05/11/2020 - Local Government Reform (building a case for change) ref: 4398    Recommendations Approved

Decision Maker: Cabinet

Made at meeting: 05/11/2020 - Cabinet

Decision published: 09/11/2020

Effective from: 17/11/2020

Decision:

Note - The Constitution stated that the call-in procedure should not apply where a decision being taken by the Cabinet was urgent and any delay likely to be caused by the call-in process would, for example, seriously prejudice the Council’s or the public’s interests.  In accordance with paragraph 16(j) of the Constitution, the Chairman of the Council had been consulted and had agreed that the decision proposed was reasonable in all the circumstances and for it to be treated as a matter of urgency and that the call-in process should be waived.

 

Summary

 

The Leader and Promoting South Lakeland Portfolio Holder presented a report seeking additional funding to support the work required to consider and submit a proposal to Government for a single tier of local government.

 

Council, on 6 October 2020, had approved exploring Local Government Reform and devolution, including the development of a high level case for a new Unitary Council for the area comprising Barrow Borough, Lancaster City and South Lakeland councils.  It had also been noted that the Secretary of State may then invite the Council to put forward a formal proposal which would be subject to future agreement.

 

Prior to consideration of a high level case, the Secretary of State for Housing, Communities and Local Government, in exercise of his powers under Part 1 of the Local Government and Public Involvement in Health Act 2007, had now invited any principal authority in the area of the county of Cumbria to submit a proposal for a single tier of local government, in accordance with the following criteria:-

 

·         by 9 November 2020, authorities must at least submit an outline proposal, and if a full proposal had not been submitted by that date, the full proposal must be submitted as soon as practicable thereafter and by no later than 9 December 2020;

·         authorities must have regard to the guidance from the Secretary of State; and

·         an authority may either make its own proposal or make a proposal jointly.

 

In exploring devolution around the Bay area, Barrow, Lancaster and South Lakeland Councils had started work to prepare a high level case.  This work would be considered in terms of the Outline Proposal required to meet the guidance set out by the Secretary of State in responding to an invitation to make a proposal.  If the Outline Proposal was approved for submission, work would continue in developing a Full Proposal for consideration by Cabinet and Council prior to the submission deadline of 9 December 2020.

 

The three Councils were equally sharing the costs of developing the proposal.  Additional resources would be required to support this and extra funds of £65,000 were requested to be set aside from existing budgets (GTH Other Items budget) to help develop the proposal for submission.

 

A decision on whether to submit a proposal would be presented to a future meeting of the Cabinet and Council prior to submission to the Secretary of State.

 

In presenting the report, the Leader and Promoting South Lakeland Portfolio Holder stressed the importance of appointing consultants with expertise in this field.

 

The Finance and Resources Portfolio Holder explained that he was keen in his role to avoid expenditure where there was no direct and immediate impact on the lives of the residents of South Lakeland, adding that he was of the opinion that this was not the right time for focussing of Local Government Reform when resources could be better used to fight the current pandemic.  However, with the tight timescale involved and with Council having voted to explore a Morecambe Bay Unitary, he believed that the many different issues which needed to be addressed could only currently be done so through the appointment of external consultants.

 

The Leader asked the meeting if the motion was agreed.  There was no dissent.

 

Decision

 

RESOLVED - That

 

(1)        approval be given for additional funding of £65,000 from existing budgets for external consultancy services and related costs related to preparing a proposal for Government;

 

(2)        contract procedural rules with regards to the appointment of consultants be waived and the Chief Executive be authorised to agree and appoint consultants for the purpose of developing a proposal for submission prior to the deadlines set by the MHCLG; and

 

(3)        it be noted that further reports will be brought back to Cabinet and Council to agree any proposal prior to submission to Government.

 

Reasons for Decision

 

The additional funding is to support the work required to consider and submit a proposal for a single tier of local government.

 

Alternative Options Considered and Rejected

 

The Council may choose not to submit a proposal for a single tier authority.  This option is not recommended.


05/11/2020 - Planning White Paper - Planning for the Future ref: 4401    Recommendations Approved

Decision Maker: Cabinet

Made at meeting: 05/11/2020 - Cabinet

Decision published: 09/11/2020

Effective from: 17/11/2020

Decision:

Summary

 

The Deputy Leader and Housing and Innovation Portfolio Holder presented the report, explaining that in July, the Government had produced a white paper proposing a comprehensive redesign of the planning system, replacing the current system of local plans and development management with a rules-based system based on zoning, design codes, nationally set development management policies, nationally set housing requirements and permissions in principle, increased permitted development rights and technical approvals based on rules based policies with most community engagement to take place at the local plan stage.  The White Paper called ‘Planning for the Future’ was attached to the report in the supporting documents and was had been out for consultation until the end of October 2020.  Because the date of the Cabinet meeting had moved from 28 October to 5 November, due to competing priorities around Local Government Reform, a response to this significant White Paper had had to be submitted ahead of the Cabinet meeting which had originally been scheduled to take place on 28 October.  Endorsement of that response, attached as Appendix 1 to the report, was, therefore, being requested.

 

The implementation of the new system would require primary legislation and, as an interim measure, a number of measures were also proposed to amend the existing system.  These included:-

 

·         changes to the Standard Method used by Government for calculating local housing need;

·         changes to Affordable Housing including the introduction of a requirement for a proportion of ‘first homes’ (essentially discounted homes for sale) as part of affordable housing contributions;

·         a temporary increase in the minimum size of site required to provide affordable housing from ten to 40-50 for a limited period of 18 months (not applicable in designated rural areas); and

·         extending the right to apply for Permission in Principle to major development.

 

These were considered within the report and the detailed response attached as Appendix 2.

 

The report further outlined details relating to delivery and information on the timetable for delivery.

 

A lengthy discussion ensued.  Concern was raised with regard to the impact on rurality and communities, and at the lack of detail on the future and protection of the environment.  Concern was further raised regarding the provision of affordable houses and the proposal that Section 106 agreements be substituted with a development levy.  A problem already existed with developers raising arguments around viability and seeking reductions in the percentage of affordable housing on developments.  It was felt that the same argument could be used with regard to a development levy.  This could result in problems for housing associations that depended on acquiring additional properties through Section 106 agreements and, if this opportunity disappeared, this raised the question of how the development grant was worked and provided back to them to fund new building.  This could lead to housing associations developing their own estates, which was very costly, given the value of land, which would make it increasingly difficult for affordable housing to be developed.  Also raised was the need to raise building regulations and increase the efficiency and sustainability of houses at a national level.  It was felt that the current planning system was impracticable, that something needed to be done, and it was hoped that appropriate compromises could be made.  A further concern was raised in relation how the proposals fitted in with the Localism Act.

 

The Leader and Promoting South Lakeland Portfolio Holder believed that the proposals were seriously deficient, taking power away from local areas, reducing affordable homes and reducing democracy and local accountability.  The proposals did nothing to address climate change, changed Section 106 requirements and deferred payments.  Not addressed, he said, was the impact on councils’ housing’s targets.  He also felt that co-operation between councils could be damaged and environmental impacts on neighbouring authorities ignored.  He also questioned the way in which the proposals were to be implemented through zoning.  He pointed out that the concerns raised had been addressed with in the response to the White Paper and urged Members to use their channels of communication to express their concerns to Government.

 

The Strategy Lead Specialist provided clarity on the proposals around delivery of affordable housing, with the replacement of Section 106 agreements by a single levy and the potential impact.

 

The Deputy Leader and Housing and Innovation Portfolio Holder thanked Members for their comments, welcoming broad cross-party support.  He stressed the need, where possible, for engagement with Government in seeking the best outcome.  If enshrined in law, these proposals would have a significant and long lasting impact on South Lakeland’s communities and on the built environment.

 

Thanks were expressed by all to the Strategy Lead Specialist and his Team and to all involved.

 

The Leader asked the meeting if the motion was agreed.  There was no dissent.

 

Decision

 

RESOLVED – That the following be endorsed:-

 

(1)        the comments in Appendix 1 to the report as South Lakeland District Council’s response to the consultation on the Planning White Paper; and

 

(2)        the comments made to the related consultation on changes to the current planning system attached as Appendix 2 to the report.

 

Reasons for Decision

 

The planning system is a key means by which the Council Plan is delivered.  The proposals in the White Paper, if implemented, will significantly affect the Council’s ability to deliver economic growth, affordable housing, sustainable development and healthy communities, as well as the carbon reduction and biodiversity issues.

 

Alternative Options Considered and Rejected

 

The Council does not have to respond to the consultation.  However, the White Paper raises major concerns and, whilst it cannot be guaranteed that Government will respond to those concerns, it is vital that these are conveyed to Government.


05/11/2020 - Council Plan Performance Monitoring Report Quarter 2 2020/21 ref: 4399    For Determination

Decision Maker: Cabinet

Made at meeting: 05/11/2020 - Cabinet

Decision published: 09/11/2020

Effective from: 17/11/2020

Decision:

Summary

 

Copies of the tourism data which had been missing from page 145 of Appendix 2 to the report had been circulated to Members and published on the Council’s Website on 2 November 2020.

 

The Leader and Promoting South Lakeland Portfolio Holder presented an update report on progress with the current Council Plan for Quarter 2 of 2020/21.  Monitoring the success of the Council Plan demonstrated improvements and ensured that Council services addressed the needs of residents in an open and transparent way.  The Council was committed to delivering high quality, cost-effective services that met the needs of residents and improved quality of life.  The performance management process helped the Council to demonstrate how well it was doing.

 

The measures listed within the report showed very good performance, demonstrating that South Lakeland was a very desirable place to live, work and explore.  However, in line with the national trend and the influence of Covid-19, the number of homeless households living in temporary accommodation was increasing.

 

The report also included the Council’s Strategic Risk Register at Appendix 1.  Following a review of the Strategic Risks for Quarter 4 2019/20, it could be seen that 65% of risks were now above tolerance.  The Leader and Promoting South Lakeland Portfolio Holder expressed strong concern at this significant change which was due to the pressures brought about by Covid-19 which had completely changed the outlook for the Council and its residents and, in particular, the most vulnerable.  He pointed out that the report demonstrated that these were difficult times for  the Council and its residents.  This was not likely to change soon and, until a vaccine for Covid-19 arrived, there would be risks to address and manage.

 

The Leader and Promoting South Lakeland Portfolio Holder drew attention to a new and dedicated Appendix 2 which had been produced in light of the current situation regarding Covid-19 and which provided sight of business and economic health for the District.

 

The Finance and Resources Portfolio Holder referred to Risk 6 – Medium Term Financial Planning – delivery of a balanced budget.  He drew attention to the latest round of Government funding to councils for Covid-19 which, he said, was highly disadvantageous to South Lakeland.  This funding for Covid-19 was based on the levels of deprivation in a district in 2019 and, as a consequence, he said, took no recognition of the specific pressures faced by South Lakeland.  The district had experienced above average cases and deaths within the vulnerable and older population, there had been a huge impact on the hospitality business, the area had had amongst the highest rates of furlough in the country and had been hit hard in terms of poverty, with massive increases in Universal Credit.  He hoped that Members would continue to campaign to urge Government to recognise South Lakeland’s specific needs in relation to Covid-19 and to work to try to get proper support from Government without which there was a major financial risk both this year and in the long term.  The Economy, Culture and Leisure Portfolio Holder referred to a gloomy set of figures and stressed the need not to underestimate the challenges faced by residents and businesses, the most significant fact being that there were circa 46,000 residents who had been put into furlough.  This was the highest figure in the UK which reflected the importance of the visitor economy, which had been so badly impacted, to the district.  He praised officers’ performance which was demonstrated within the statistics in the report and referred to the positive figures provided around work on business grants, small business relief, discretionary business grants and assistance for the self-employed.  He thanked officers for their work, however, recognising the seriousness of the situation and the impact on the economy of South Lakeland.

 

The Leader asked the meeting if the motion was agreed.  There was no dissent.

 

Decision

 

RESOLVED – That the following be noted:-

 

(1)        the Summary of Performance as detailed in the report; and

 

(2)        the detailed risks information contained within Appendix 1 to the report; and

 

(3)        the detailed Business and Economy Statistics within Appendix 2 to the report.

 

Reasons for Decision

 

The report is directly linked to the Council Plan commitment to ensure that the Council is equipped to provide the best, most cost effective services.  Details regarding performance monitoring are published in line with the Council’s latest Performance Management Framework.

 

Alternative Options Considered and Rejected

 

None – the purpose of the report is to receive a performance update.  The Council must note successes, monitor progress and take action where appropriate.

Wards affected: (All Wards);

Lead officer: John Davies