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

17/12/2020 - Planning Application No. SL/2019/0758 - Age Concern UK, Lindale Road, Grange over Sands ref: 4465    Recommendations Approved

Decision Maker: Planning Committee

Made at meeting: 17/12/2020 - Planning Committee

Decision published: 16/02/2021

Effective from: 17/12/2020

Decision:

Demolition of existing buildings and erection of convenience store, petrol filling station including underground fuel storage tanks, works to the existing culvert and associated access, car parking and landscaping (James Hall & Company)

 

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.

 

The Planning Officer presented Planning Application No. SL/2019/0758 which sought permission for the demolition of existing buildings and the erection of a convenience store, a petrol station and canopy with six pumps, underground fuel tanks and 19 car parking spaces. He displayed plans and photographs which outlined the proposals and he drew Members’ attention to the partially culverted watercourse which ran along the northern and eastern boundary of the site and to the structures which were to be demolished and which included the existing Age Concern building. The Planning Officer informed Members that the site was within the Development Boundary for the town and was also within the Town Centre Boundary as identified in the Land Allocations Development Plan Document (LADPD). He went on to outline the planning history which included an application for the erection of a large convenience store on the junction.

 

The Planning Officer further outlined the proposals and displayed the detailed site layout for the convenience store; the petrol station and car park; the dedicated vehicular entrance and exit; and the delivery area. He displayed further slides which outlined the elevation of the proposals and informed Members that there would be a number of solar panels installed on the flat roof and the petrol station canopy would be finished with natural slate. The Planning Officer stated that the canopy would be prominent and incongruous. However, the applicant’s Heritage Assessment had concluded an overall neutral impact on the significance of heritage assets, due to the mix of buildings of different quality in the area. 

 

The Planning Officer stated that the flood risk was the most significant issue for consideration and informed Members that the site was located within Flood Zone 3, which was the highest risk for sea or river flooding. He displayed two photographs, which had been provided by neighbours, and which showed evidence of a significant flooding event in 2015. The Planning Officer went on to state that the proposed development would not make the risk of flooding any worse and went on to provide further details of the watercourse and the existing subterranean floodwater storage tank under the parking area at the northern end of the site, into which surface water from the car park above also currently drained. He explained that the proposal included a modification to the existing subterranean floodwater storage tank, which would provide it with a capacity of 372cu.m, and the addition of an attenuation tank under the retail unit which would provide capacity for surface water, which would then drain through a hydrobrake to the adjoining watercourse. Furthermore the installation by the applicant, on the recommendation of the Local Lead Flood Authority, of a replacement culvert, with a wider diameter, along the eastern boundary of the site, would contribute to and improve the wider drainage problems in the area.

 

The Planning Officer went on to display further photographs which demonstrated the established character of the area, and in particular the relationship with existing properties in Riggs Close to the east. He explained that the applicants had employed Noise Consultants to carry out a Noise Impact Assessment and the installation of a 2m high acoustic barrier was proposed as part of the application. He informed Members that the application had a detailed external lighting scheme which showed very little light spillage.

In regard to access, the Planning Officer explained that the Highway Authority had acknowledged that, due to the compact nature of the forecourt, there could be times when there could be traffic congestion but it was considered that this scenario was likely to occur relatively infrequently and the Highway Authority did not consider this to be a serious traffic concern.

 

The Planning Officer concluded his presentation by drawing Members’ attention to the recommendation which included a planning obligation to secure a £20,000 contribution towards the construction of a new footbridge which would connect the application site to the adjoining South Lakeland District Council (SLDC) car park on Windermere Road.

 

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

Andrew Baxter, on behalf of Windermere Road Flood Action Group, addressed the Planning Committee and highlighted a number of concerns in relation to the flood risk assessment of the proposed application.

 

Deborah Smith, the Applicant’s Agent, addressed the Planning Committee in support of the application.

 

The Planning Officer and Shamus Giles, representing Cumbria County Council, Local Lead Flood Authority, responded to concerns raised during public participation.

 

The Planning Officer and Shamus Giles responded to questions raised by Members.

 

Members gave consideration to the application and acknowledged the need for a petrol station in the location. The installation of the Electric Vehicle charging points was welcomed and it was considered that as petrol needs declined there would be a need for the installation of more Electric Vehicle charging points.

 

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:

a)         adoption of the Shadow Habitat Regulations Assessment, ERAP (Consultant Ecologists) Ltd., Report Ref. 2020-133, August 2020;

b)         (i) a planning obligation to secure a £20K contribution towards the construction of a new footbridge connection to the adjoining SLDC car park and (ii) a planning obligation and/or Grampian conditions to secure the necessary rights of access across the application site to allow the bridge to be constructed; and a right of access in perpetuity across the application site connecting the footbridge to Windermere Road; and

c)         the following conditions:

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

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.

Approved plans

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

Plan Title                                                                                Date Received

Location Plan, Ex01 Revision A                                             12 September 2019

 

Site Plan – Existing, Ex02, Revision A                                   12 September 2019

 

Existing Site Layout, TRI-2739-01                                          12 September 2019

 

Existing Site Rear Car Park Construction Layout &

Sections, 219/023/001, Revision P2                                      06 April 2020

 

Site Demolition & Temporary Works For Ground

Improvement Works, 219/023/002, Revision P2                   06 April 2020

 

Proposed New Below Ground Water Storage Volumes,

219/023/003, Revision P5                                                      06 April 2020

 

Formation Base Slab & Foundations, 219/023/004,

Revision P3                                                                             06 April 2020

 

Cast In-Situ Wall Setting Out Layout, 219/023/005,

Revision P2                                                                             06 April 2020

 

Ground Floor Plan Showing Intermediate Slab Structure

Above, 219/023/006, Revision P4                                          06 April 2020

 

Retail Space Ground Floor Slab Layout, 219/023/007,

Revision P3                                                                             06 April 2020

 

Sub-Structure Details (Sheet 1), 219/023/008,

Revision P1                                                                             06 April 2020

 

Sub-Structure Details (Sheet 2), 219/023/009,

Revision P2 (Contained within Flood Risk Assessment,

EPG, Report Ref. EPG-9120-FRA-01, V1.8, 24.11.20)

           

Sub-Structure Details (Sheet 3), 219/023/010,

Revision P2                                                                             06 April 2020

 

Existing Foul & Surface Water Drainage Layout,

219/023/101, Revision P4                                                      06 April 2020

 

Outline Surface Water Drainage Layout, 219/023/102,

Revision P6                                                                             06 April 2020

 

Fuel Tank Installation Layout & Details, 219/023/106,

Revision P2                                                                             06 April 2020

 

Fuel Forecourt Separator Layout & Details, 219/023/107,

Revision P2                                                                             06 April 2020

 

Ex. Site Layout Indicating Ground Water Levels

Based on Historic Information, 219/023/108, Revision P2    06 April 2020

 

Exceedance Drawing For Storms Above

The 1 In 100 Year + 40% C/C Event, 219/023/113,

Revision P3                                                                             06 April 2020

 

Existing Culverted Watercourse Defects, 219/023/114,

Revision P2                                                                             21 July 2020

 

Proposed Dim Plan, BR-001                                                  06 April 2020

 

Proposed Elevations, BR-002, Revision B                            20 November 2020

 

Proposed Fitout Plan, BR-003                                                06 April 2020

 

Section A-A, BR-004                                                              06 April 2020

 

Section B-B, BR-005                                                              06 April 2020

 

Section C-C & D-D, BR-006                                                   06 April 2020

 

Mezzanine Floor Details, BR-007                                          06 April 2020

 

Proposed Roof Plan, BR-008, Revision A                             06 April 2020

 

Proposed Site Plan, BR-100, Revision L                               10 November 2020

 

Tracking Plan, BR-101, Revision G                                       10 November 2020

 

Proposed Levels, BE-102, Revision B                                   12 September 2019

 

Proposed Canopy Elevations, BR-103, Revision B               06 April 2020

 

Underground Services Plan, BR-104, Revision B                 06 April 2020

 

Hazard Zone Plan, BR-105, Revision B                                 06 April 2020

 

Setting Out Plan, BR-106, Revision B                                   06 April 2020

 

External Works Details, BR-107, Revision A                         06 April 2020

 

Proposed Boundary treatment, BR-108                                 06 April 2020

 

Site Section, BR-109, Revision B                                          20 November 2020

           

External Lighting Lux Plot, P1                                                01 October 2019

 

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

 

Materials

 

3.                     The finish of external walls and roofs of the buildings/structures hereby approved shall be completed in accordance with: (1) the details shown on the Proposed Elevations drawing BR-002 Revision B and Proposed Canopy Elevations drawing BR-103 Revision B; and (2) specifications for the use of natural stone and natural slate that shall first have been submitted to, and approved in writing by, the local planning authority. The specification for the natural stone shall include the source of the material and details of coursing and the depth and colour of mortar joints. The specification for the natural slate shall include the source of the material (it must be a local pale green/grey Westmorland roofing slate) and details confirming that the slate will be laid traditionally in diminishing courses.

 

REASON:        To ensure compliance with: (1) policies CS8.6 (Historic Environment) and CS8.10 (Design) of the South Lakeland Core Strategy; and (2) policies DM1 (General Requirements for all development), DM2 (Achieving Sustainable High Quality Design) and DM3 (Historic Environment) of the South Lakeland Development Management Policies Development Plan Document.

 

4.                     No work on the glazed canopies to the south elevation of the approved convenience store shall commence until working drawings, including full details of the “cast posts, Grange-over-Sands traditional style” have been submitted to, and approved in writing by, the local planning authority. Thereafter, the development shall be completed in accordance with the approved working drawings.

 

REASON:        To ensure compliance with: (1) policies CS8.6 (Historic Environment) and CS8.10 (Design) of the South Lakeland Core Strategy; and (2) policies DM1 (General Requirements for all development), DM2 (Achieving Sustainable High Quality Design) and DM3 (Historic Environment) of the South Lakeland Development Management Policies Development Plan Document.

 

5.                     The convenience store hereby approved shall not be first opened for trade until the external bin store and plant area shown on Proposed Site Plan, BR-100, Revision L have been completed, made available for use and screened in accordance with the fencing details shown on drawings BR-002  Revision B (Proposed Elevations) and BR-107 Revision A (External Works Details).

 

REASON:        To ensure compliance with: (1) policies CS8.6 (Historic Environment) and CS8.10 (Design) of the South Lakeland Core Strategy; and (2) policies DM1 (General Requirements for all development), DM2 (Achieving Sustainable High Quality Design) and DM3 (Historic Environment) of the South Lakeland Development Management Policies Development Plan Document.

Parking and access

 

6.                     No development shall commence until a Construction Traffic Management Plan (CTMP) has been submitted to and approved in writing by the local planning authority. The CTMP shall include details of:

           proposed crossings of the highway verge;

           retained areas for vehicle parking, manoeuvring, loading and unloading for their specific purpose during the development;

           cleaning of site entrances and the adjacent public highway;

           proposed wheel washing facilities;

           the sheeting of all HGVs taking spoil to/from the site to prevent spillage or deposit of any materials on the highway;

           construction vehicle routing;

           the management of junctions to and crossings of the public highway and other public rights of way/footway;

           any proposed temporary access points (vehicular / pedestrian) if applicable.

Thereafter, construction shall proceed in accordance with the CTMP.

REASON:        In the interests of ensuring highway safety and to safeguard the amenity of the existing area in accordance with: (1) policy CS10.2 (Transport impact of new development) of the South Lakeland Core Strategy; and (2) policy DM7 (Addressing Pollution, Contamination Impact, and Water Quality) of the South Lakeland Development Management Policies Development Plan Document.

 

7.                     The convenience store hereby approved shall not be first opened for trade until the pedestrian and vehicular entrance and exit points shown on Proposed Site Plan, BR-100, Revision L have been constructed and made available for use in accordance with a scheme that shall first have been submitted to, and approved in writing by, the local planning authority. Any structures within the visibility splays shown on Proposed Site Plan, BR-100, Revision L, either existing or proposed as part of the development or proposed at any time during the lifetime of the development, shall be maintained at a height not exceeding 1.05m above the carriageway level of the adjacent highway.

 

REASON:        To maintain highway safety in accordance with policy CS10.2 (Transport impact of new development) of the South Lakeland Core Strategy.

 

8.                     The convenience store hereby approved shall not be first opened for trade until the off-site footway improvements shown on Proposed Site Plan, BR-100, Revision L have been constructed and made available for use in accordance with a scheme that shall first have been submitted to, and approved in writing by, the local planning authority.

 

REASON:        To maintain highway safety in accordance with policy CS10.2 (Transport impact of new development) of the South Lakeland Core Strategy.

 

9.                     The convenience store hereby approved shall not be first opened for trade until the car and cycle parking provision shown on Proposed Site Plan, BR-100, Revision L, including the provision of two electric charging points, have been constructed and made available for use. Thereafter, the car and cycle parking shall be maintained for the lifetime of the development.

 

REASON:        To ensure the timely and adequate provision of parking in accordance with policy CS10.2 (Transport impact of new development) of the South Lakeland Core Strategy and policy DM9 (Parking Provision, new and loss of car parks) of the South Lakeland Development Management Policies Development Plan Document.

 

10.                   The convenience store hereby approved shall not be first opened for trade until the internal footways shown to be finished with Marshall Conservation X Block paving on Proposed Site Plan, BR-100, Revision L have been completed and made available for use.

 

REASON:        To maintain highway safety in accordance with policy CS10.2 (Transport impact of new development) of the South Lakeland Core Strategy.

 

Surface water

 

11.                   No development shall commence until full details of a surface water drainage scheme have been submitted to, and approved in writing by, the local planning authority. The scheme shall be based upon the principles established in: (1) the Flood Risk Assessment prepared by EPG (Report Ref. EPG-9120-FRA-01, V1.8, dated 24.11.20); (2) the Culvert Replacement Design Report prepared by R G Parkins & Partners Ltd. (Report Ref.  K37263/01/DDR Revision A, dated 22.09.20); and (3) the Non-Statutory Technical Standards for Sustainable Drainage Systems (March 2015), or any subsequent replacement national standards. The scheme must also include a maintenance schedule identifying the responsible parties. The convenience store hereby approved shall not be first opened for trade until the approved surface water drainage scheme has been fully implemented. Thereafter, the surface water drainage scheme shall be maintained in accordance with the approved maintenance schedule for the lifetime of the development.

 

REASON:        To reduce the risk of flooding and to promote the use of a sustainable surface water drainage scheme in accordance with policy CS8.8 (Development and Flood Risk) of the South Lakeland Core Strategy and policy DM6 (Flood Risk Management and Sustainable Drainage Systems) of the South Lakeland Development Management Policies Development Plan Document.

 

Biodiversity

 

12.       The convenience store hereby approved shall not be first opened for trade until bird and bat boxes have been installed in accordance with a scheme that shall first have been submitted to, and approved in writing by, the local planning authority. 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.

 

13.                   No development shall commence until a soft landscaping scheme has been submitted to, and approved in writing by, the local planning authority. The 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 a period of not less than five years from the date of completion of the scheme. 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.

 

Trees

 

14.                   No development shall commence until the tree protection measures specified in the Arboricultural Method Statement (AMS) contained within the Arboricultural Survey Report prepared by Smeeden Foreman (Report Ref: 2968, dated August 2019) have been fully installed. Thereafter, the tree protection measures shall be retained for the duration of all construction work and that work shall proceed in accordance with the other requirements of the AMS.

 

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.

 

Construction management

 

15.                   Development shall proceed in accordance with the submitted Construction and Demolition Method Statement (CEMP) dated 24 September 2019, or such other modified version of this document as shall first have been submitted to, and approved in writing by, the local planning authority. 

 

REASON:        In the interests of ensuring highway safety and to safeguard the amenity and ecological interest of the existing area in accordance with: (1) policies CS8.4 (Biodiversity and geodiversity) and CS10.2 (Transport impact of new development) of the South Lakeland Core Strategy; and (2) policies DM4 (Green and Blue Infrastructure and Open Space) and DM7 (Addressing Pollution, Contamination Impact, and Water Quality) of the South Lakeland Development Management Policies Development Plan Document.

 

Living conditions

 

16.                   The convenience store shall not be open for trading outside the hours of 0600 – 2300 on any day. The petrol filling station is not subject to this restriction.

 

REASON:        In the interests of safeguarding the amenity of the area in accordance with policy DM7 (Addressing Pollution, Contamination Impact, and Water Quality) of the South Lakeland Development Management Policies Development Plan Document.

 

17.                   All external lights other than those marked “B” on the External Lighting Lux Plot drawing submitted with this application shall be turned off outside the hours of 0530 – 2330 on any day. No external lights other than those shown on Lighting Lux Plot drawing shall be installed within the application site without the prior written approval of the local planning authority.

 

REASON:                    In the interests of safeguarding the amenity of the area in accordance with policies DM2 (Achieving Sustainable High Quality Design) and DM7 (Addressing Pollution, Contamination Impact, and Water Quality) of the South Lakeland Development Management Policies Development Plan Document.

 

18.                   Deliveries of goods and fuel shall not shall take place outside the hours of 0700 to 2100 on any day.

 

REASON:        In the interests of safeguarding the amenity of the area in accordance with policy DM7 (Addressing Pollution, Contamination Impact, and Water Quality) of the South Lakeland Development Management Policies Development Plan Document.

 

19.                   The convenience store hereby approved shall not be first opened for trade until a 2m high, imperforate acoustic barrier (with a minimum surface mass of 10kg/m2) has been erected in the position shown in Figure 10 of the Noise Impact Assessment (Report Ref. J002622/3967/RDC/6P) undertaken by PDA Acoustics, dated 23 September 2020 and in accordance with a specification that shall first have been submitted to, and approved in writing by, the local planning authority. Thereafter, the acoustic barrier shall be maintained for the lifetime of the development.

 

REASON:        In the interests of safeguarding the amenity of the area in accordance with policy DM7 (Addressing Pollution, Contamination Impact, and Water Quality) of the South Lakeland Development Management Policies Development Plan Document.

 

20.                   All external plant and mechanical equipment (air conditioning units, chillers etc.) shall be installed in accordance with a specification that shall first have been submitted to, and approved in writing by, the local planning authority. The specification must demonstrate that the installed plant and mechanical equipment will operate within the noise limits assumed within the Noise Impact Assessment (Report Ref. J002622/3967/RDC/6P) undertaken by PDA Acoustics, dated 23 September 2020. Thereafter, all external plant and mechanical equipment shall be maintained, or replaced as necessary, in accordance with the agreed specification.

 

REASON:        In the interests of safeguarding the amenity of the area in accordance with policy DM7 (Addressing Pollution, Contamination Impact, and Water Quality) of the South Lakeland Development Management Policies Development Plan Document.

 

Land contamination

 

21.                   The development hereby approved shall proceed in accordance with the recommendations of: (1) the Remediation Statement Report prepared by Geo2, (Report ref no. 20/0916.2.2, dated March 2020); (2) the Ground Gas Monitoring Assessment prepared by Geo2, (Report ref no. 20/0916.3.2, March 2020); and (3) the Phase 1 and 2 Environmental Assessment prepared by Geo2, (Report ref no. 19/0916.1.1, August 2019). Any unsuspected contamination found as a consequence of the Watching Brief recommended by the Remediation Statement Report shall be reported to the local planning authority within 5 working days, along with details of any further mitigation as necessary.

 

REASON:        In the interests of safeguarding the amenity of the area in accordance with policy DM7 (Addressing Pollution, Contamination Impact, and Water Quality) of the South Lakeland Development Management Policies Development Plan Document.

 

22.                   Demolition of the buildings on the site shall proceed in accordance with the recommendations a demolition asbestos survey that shall first have been submitted to, and approved in writing by, the local planning authority. 

 

REASON:        In the interests of safeguarding the amenity of the area in accordance with policy DM7 (Addressing Pollution, Contamination Impact, and Water Quality) of the South Lakeland Development Management Policies Development Plan Document.

 

23.                   The convenience store hereby approved shall not be first opened for trade until a Verification report produced in accordance with Table 4 of the Remediation Statement Report prepared by Geo2, (Report ref no. 20/0916.2.2, dated March 2020) has been submitted to, and approved in writing by, the local planning authority. 

 

REASON:        In the interests of safeguarding the amenity of the area in accordance with policy DM7 (Addressing Pollution, Contamination Impact, and Water Quality) of the South Lakeland Development Management Policies Development Plan Document.


17/12/2020 - Planning Application No. SL/2019/0343 - Allotment Land north of Hare and Hounds Pub, Church Road, Levens ref: 4464    Recommendations Approved

Decision Maker: Planning Committee

Made at meeting: 17/12/2020 - Planning Committee

Decision published: 16/02/2021

Effective from: 17/12/2020

Decision:

Erection of three dwellings (Mr Martin Curry (Clerk to Levens Parish Council))

 

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.

 

The Planning Officer presented planning application No. SL/2019/0343 which sought approval for: access; appearance; landscaping; layout; and scale, for three dwellings which were those matters reserved in the extant outline planning permission for the site, granted under planning application SL/2015/0260. He displayed plans and photographs which outlined the proposals and explained that the development of the site was one of a number of schemes considered as part of the wider Levens Community Project. It had been decided to bring the reserved matters application to the Planning Committee, for determination, because it raised some challenging issues, particularly in respect of the relationship with existing neighbours.

 

The Planning Officer drew Members’ attention to the topography of the land and the relationship of the properties to the existing properties known as Causeway End. He   highlighted that all three properties would be prominent, when viewed from lower levels, and explained that the finished floor levels had been lowered since the application was first submitted, in order to limit the impact on adjoining properties. However, consequently, the driveway gradients would not be fully compliant with policy DM11 (Accessible and Adaptable Homes), although he explained that policy DM11 did recognise that full compliance may not always be practically achievable due to physical characteristics of a site.

 

The Planning Officer concluded his presentation by drawing Members’ attention to an additional condition included within the Late Representations, which had been circulated prior to the meeting, and highlighted that it was inevitable, given the constrained size of the site and the dramatic change in levels, that the living conditions of those properties in the immediate vicinity would be impacted by the development.

 

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.

Martin Curry, Clerk to Levens Parish Council addressed the Planning Committee in support of the application.

 

Members thanked the Planning Officer for the well written report, photographs and illustrative plans and gave consideration to the application. Members agreed that the site was challenging and one Member raised concerns regarding the disposal of allotment land for housing.

 

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:

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

           Proposed Site Plan, P208 Revision A

           Floor Plans Elevations, P209 Revision A

           House 3 and Street Elevations, P210 Revision A

 

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

 

2.         The external walls of the dwellings hereby approved shall be finished in a combination of natural stone and render, in the proportions indicated on the approved plans and in accordance with a further specification that shall first have been submitted to, and approved in writing by, the local planning authority. The required specification shall detail: (1) the coursing of the natural stone and the depth and colour of mortar joints; and (2) the colour and finish of the proposed render. The roofs of the dwellings hereby approved shall be finished in natural slate from a source that shall first have been agreed in writing by the local planning authority.

 

REASON: To ensure compliance with: (1) policy CS8.10 (Design) of the South Lakeland Core Strategy; and (2) policies DM1 (General Requirements for all development) and DM2 (Achieving Sustainable High Quality Design) of the South Lakeland Development Management Policies Development Plan Document.

 

3.         The internal configuration of 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.

 

4.         No individual dwelling shall be first occupied until it has been provided with one or more swift bricks in accordance with a scheme that first have been submitted to, and approved in writing by, the local planning authority. The scheme shall include manufacturers’ details of each bird and bat box together with a plan identifying their proposed locations. Thereafter, the approved swift bricks 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

 

5.         No individual dwelling hereby approved shall first be occupied until the parking and associated access to the highway shown on the approved plans have been constructed and made available for use. The first 5m of the access drive to each dwelling measured from carriageway edge of the adjacent highway shall be surfaced in bituminous or cement bound materials, or such other finish as shall first have been submitted to, and approved in writing by, the local planning authority. Thereafter, the approved parking and access arrangements shall be maintained for the lifetime of the dwelling concerned.

 

REASON: To ensure the timely and adequate provision of parking in accordance with policy CS10.2 (Transport impact of new development) of the South Lakeland Core Strategy and policy DM9 (Parking Provision, new and loss of car parks) of the South Lakeland Development Management Policies Development Plan Document.

 

6.         Neither of the two new vehicular accesses onto Church Road shall be first brought into use until they have been provided with visibility splays giving clear visibility of 60 metres measured 2.4 metres down the centre line of the access drive and the nearside channel line of the carriageway edge. Notwithstanding the provisions of the Town and Country planning (General Permitted Development) (England) Order 2015 (or any Order revoking and re-enacting that Order) no structure, vehicle or object of any kind shall be erected, parked or placed, and no trees, bushes or other plants shall be planted or permitted to be planted, within the visibility splays in a manner which obstructs the limits of clear visibility defined above.

 

REASON: To maintain highway safety in accordance with policy CS10.2 (Transport impact of new development) of the South Lakeland Core Strategy.

 

7.         No individual vehicular access shall be first brought into use until it has been provided with measures to prevent surface water discharging onto or off the highway in accordance with details that shall first have been submitted to, and approved in writing by, the local planning authority. Thereafter, the approved measures shall be maintained for the lifetime of the associated dwelling concerned.

 

REASON: To maintain highway safety in accordance with policy CS10.2 (Transport impact of new development) of the South Lakeland Core Strategy.

 

8.         No individual dwelling shall be first occupied until the means of enclosure to its

curtilage has been completed in accordance with a scheme that shall first have been submitted to, and approved in writing by, the local planning authority.

 

REASON: To ensure compliance with: (1) policy CS8.10 (Design) of the South

Lakeland Core Strategy; and (2) policies DM1 (General Requirements for all

development) and DM2 (Achieving Sustainable High Quality Design) of the South Lakeland Development Management Policies Development Plan Document.


17/12/2020 - Planning Application No. SL/2018/0898 - Phase 2 - Land South of Allithwaite Road, Kents Bank, Grange over Sands ref: 4463    Recommendations Approved

Decision Maker: Planning Committee

Made at meeting: 17/12/2020 - Planning Committee

Decision published: 16/02/2021

Effective from: 17/12/2020

Decision:

Mixed use development comprising extra care apartments and standalone dwellings (Use Class C3) (up to 90 units), and commercial space (Use Classes E (Shops, Restaurants and Cafes and Non-residential institutions) and Sui Generis (Hot food takeaways) (up to 495 sq metres gross floor space) – Phase 2 (Lancet Homes)

 

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.

 

The Planning Officer presented Planning Application SL/2018/0898 which sought outline consent, with all matters reserved, in relation to Phase 2 of an overall scheme to develop land south of Allithwaite Road, Grange. He displayed plans and photographs which outlined the proposal. The Planning Officer explained that the application sought permission for up to 90 Extra Care Units (use class C3) which were currently indicated as partially stand-alone bungalows and partly extra-care apartments. The proposal also included a separate retail unit comprising up to 495m² commercial space for use classes E and Sui generis. The Planning Officer advised Members that the final layout would be determined at the reserved matters stage. He highlighted that the layout plan had a slight overlap with the Phase 1 plan, on the western part of the site, which was the location of the proposed commercial units. However, the layout plan for Phase 2 was purely indicative and the precise layout would be determined in the reserved matters application.

 

The Planning Officer highlighted the issues regarding the proposed development. He informed Members that concerns had been raised about the provision of a care unit on the site, when Policy LA3.2 of the Land Allocations DPD had allocated the site for mixed housing and B1 and B2 employment development, and that the proposal would also introduce a range of uses that were not specified in Policy LA3.2. The Planning Officer informed Members that the applicant had provided an account of the marketing activities associated with the site and had confirmed that there had been no reasonable offers in relation to the employment use. The marketing had been carried out over a three year period and had only received one positive line of enquiry from a veterinary practice, which did not fall within B1 or B2 us class, as required by the proposed allocation.

    

The Planning Officer drew Members’ attention to paragraph 3.3.8 of the Council’s Development Brief of the site, which stated that it was considered that the development could be a suitable location for the provision of Extra Care Housing, which could be delivered in association with the site’s affordable housing contribution. However, the Planning Policy Team had raised concerns regarding the provision of a care unit on the site and paragraph 89 of the Planning Framework stated that when assessing applications for retail and leisure development, which were not in accordance with the current plan, an impact assessment could be required. However, as the proposal was below the policy limit of 500m² an impact assessment was not required. The Planning Officer explained that he had concluded that the employment allocation of the site was based on a mature policy which did not accurately reflect the current market reality and the proposal was a viable market opportunity which would provide an alternative use for a recognised need and for employment.

 

The Planning Officer advised Members that the proposal included 35% affordable housing which complied with policy CS6.3 and this had been further outlined in Condition 5 of the recommendation.

 

The Planning Officer concluded his presentation by responding to a number of objections which had been raised, which he had detailed in his report. These included concerns regarding public transport links; commercial use; flood risk; and landscape impact.

 

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.

Valerie Kennedy (speaking on her own behalf and on behalf of 47 residents); Frank McCall (on behalf of Grange over Sands Civic Society); and Robin Le Mare 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.

Allen Gibb, Chief Executive of Holker Estates and Tom Whitehead, the applicant’s agent, addressed the Planning Committee in support of the application.

 

The Planning Officer responded to concerns raised during public participation.

 

The Planning Officer responded to questions raised by Members.

 

Members gave consideration to the application and acknowledged that it was for outline consent, with all matters reserved and also the difficulties associated with the take up of the site for industrial use. In addition Members agreed that the proposal met the need for Extra Care housing and affordable housing.

 

A motion to approve the application was proposed and seconded and a vote was taken on the application, 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)   Approval of the details of the siting, design and external appearance of the building(s), the means of access thereto 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.

Plans and particulars of the reserved matters referred to above, relating to the siting, design and external appearance of any building to be erected, the means of access to the site and the landscaping of the site, shall be submitted in writing to the local planning authority and shall be carried out as approved.

Reason:           To comply with the requirements of Section 91 (1) of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 (as amended).

Condition (2)   a) Application for approval of the reserved matters shall be made to the Local Planning Authority before the expiration of three years from the date of this permission.

b) The development hereby permitted shall be begun before the expiration of two years from the date of this permission, or before the expiration of three years from the date of approval of the last of the reserved matters to be approved, whichever is the later

Reason: To comply with the requirements of Section 92 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 (as amended)

Condition (3)   The development hereby permitted shall be carried out in accordance with the following approved plans:

4824_SK001_E Existing Site Plan

4824_SK002_M Indicative Site Plan

4824_SK010_B Location Plan

Design and Access Statement Rev B

10-877-r1 Phase 1 Geo-Environmental Assessment

K32662-04_A Preliminary Ground Investigation Report

Flood risk assessment and drainage strategy report K32662/05/FRA/RH ISSUE A 3RD OCTOBER 2018

K32662-06 Operation & Maintenance Plan for Sustainable Drainage Systems

K32662/A1/21_A Indicative Drainage Layout Phase 2

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

Condition (3)   At the submission of an application for the reserved matters for the extra-care facility, a statement setting out the on-site amenities and services intended to be provided by the extra-care operator shall be submitted to and approved by the Local Planning Authority. The development shall be fully implemented in accordance with the approved details.  In the event that a separate standalone commercial unit to be run by another operator is proposed, then the statement should also indicate an expected timeframe for the construction and operation of that commercial facility.” 

Reason:           In order that, should the extra-care facility be delivered first, prospective users of the extra-care facility will understand what facilities will be on offer on the site before they commit to live at the development.

Condition (4)   The dwellings hereby approved shall be constructed to meet the Building Regulations M4(1) M4(2) and M4(3) standards for accessible and adaptable homes as per the Design and Access Statement.

Reason:           To ensure the approved dwellings are fully accessible in accordance with Policy DM11 of the Councils Development Management Policies. 

Condition (5)   No development shall take place until a scheme for the provision of affordable housing as part of the development has been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The affordable housing should be provided in accordance with the approved scheme and shall meet the definition of affordable housing in Annex 2: Glossary of National Planning Policy Framework or any future guidance that replaces it. The scheme shall include:

i. The numbers, type, tenure and location on the site of the affordable housing provision to be made, which shall consist of not less than 35% of residential  units, unless otherwise agreed in writing with the LPA.

ii. The timing of the construction of the affordable housing and its phasing in relation to the occupancy of the market housing;

iii. The arrangements for the transfer of affordable housing to an affordable housing provider or the arrangement of the management of the affordable housing if no RSL is involved;

iv. The arrangements to ensure that such provision is affordable for both first and subsequent occupiers of the affordable housing;

v. The occupancy criteria to be used for determining the identity of occupiers of the affordable housing and the means by which such occupancy criteria should be enforced.

The affordable housing shall be retained in accordance with the approved scheme.

Reason: In order to ensure affordable housing is provided as part of this scheme and in accordance with Policy CS6.3 of the Councils Core Strategy 

Condition (6)   Prior to the erection of any superstructure plans shall be submitted to the Local Planning Authority for written approval to the proposed biodiversity net gains in respect of Swift bricks / bird and bat boxes. The approved details shall be fully implemented and retained thereafter.

Reason:          To ensure the development meets its objective to accord with the DM DPD Policy DM4, and in accordance with the National Planning Policy Framework paragraphs 174(b).

Condition (7)   As part of the submission of the first reserved matter a sustainable surface water drainage scheme shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The surface water drainage scheme shall be in accordance with the principles within the submitted flood risk assessment and drainage strategy report K32662/05/FRA/RH ISSUE A 3RD OCTOBER 2018 and:

(i) shall be designed to meet the requirements of the non-statutory technical standards for sustainable drainage systems (March 2015) or any subsequent replacement national standards;

(ii) no surface water, highway drainage or land drainage shall discharge to the public sewerage system either directly or indirectly;

(iii) shall include a timetable for its implementation; and

(iv) shall include a strategy for any temporary arrangements during construction of the development.

The development hereby permitted shall be carried out only in accordance with the approved drainage scheme and retained thereafter for the lifetime of the development.

Reason:           To promote sustainable development, secure proper drainage and to manage the risk of flooding and pollution.

Condition (8)   As part of the submission of the first reserved matter a foul water drainage scheme shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The foul water drainage scheme shall include the following as a minimum:

(i) Full details of any connections to the foul sewer network and any necessary infrastructure;

(ii) Ground and finished floor levels in AOD;

(iii) Identify any parts of the site where foul pumping is necessary. Thereafter the scheme shall minimise the number of pumping stations throughout the site;

(iv) The timing arrangements, storage requirements and rate of discharge for any pumped foul discharge; and

(v) A strategy for any temporary arrangements during construction of the development.

The development hereby permitted shall be carried out only in accordance with the approved drainage scheme and retained thereafter for the lifetime of the development.

Reason:           To promote sustainable development, secure proper drainage and to manage the risk of flooding and pollution. This condition is imposed in light of policies within the NPPF and NPPG.

Condition (9)   All foul and surface water shall be drained on separate systems.

Reason:           To secure proper drainage and to manage the risk of flooding and pollution.

Condition (10)All private paths, private driveways and other private hardstanding areas shall be constructed of permeable surfaces. The details for these permeable surfaces shall be submitted to the Local Planning Authority and approved in writing prior to the commencement of development. The development shall be constructed in accordance with the approved details and the permeable surfaces shall be retained thereafter for the lifetime of the development.

Reason:           To promote sustainable development and to reduce the risk of flooding and pollution.

Condition (11)The carriageway, footways, footpaths, cycle ways etc. shall be designed, constructed, drained and lit to a standard suitable for adoption and in this respect further details, including longitudinal/cross sections, shall be submitted to the Local Planning Authority for approval before work commences on site. No work shall be commenced until a full specification has been approved. These details shall be in accordance with the standards laid down in the current Cumbria Design Guide. Any works so approved shall be constructed before the development is complete.

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

Condition (12)The development shall not commence until the second (eastern) access off Allithwaite Road, as per drawing reference 4824_SK002 M, has been constructed providing visibility splays of 60 metres measured 2.4 metres down the centre of the access road and the nearside channel line of the major road. Notwithstanding the provisions of the Town and Country Planning (General Permitted Development) (England) Order 2015 (or any Order revoking and re-enacting that Order) relating to permitted development, no structure, vehicle or object of any kind shall be erected, parked or placed and no trees, bushes or other plants shall be planted or be permitted to grown within the visibility splay which obstruct the visibility splays. The visibility splays shall be constructed before general development of the site commences so that construction traffic is safeguarded.

Reason:           In the interests of highway safety.

Condition (13)Full details of the surface water drainage system (incorporating SUDs features as far as practicable) and a maintenance schedule shall be submitted to the Local Planning Authority for approval prior to development being commenced. Any approved works shall be implemented prior to the development being completed and shall be maintained thereafter in accordance with the schedule.

Reason:           To promote sustainable development, secure proper drainage and to manage the risk of flooding and pollution. To ensure the surface water system continues to function as designed and that flood risk is not increased within the site or elsewhere.

Condition (14)No construction work for this development should take place on the site, except between the hours 08.00 - 18.00 Monday to Friday and 09.00 – 13.00 on Saturdays. In particular, no work should be carried out on Sundays or officially recognised public holidays without the prior agreement in writing of the Local Planning Authority.

Reason:          To safeguard future residents and protect amenity of nearby residents from noise disturbance.

Condition (15)Prior to the commencement of development a Construction Phase Traffic Management Plan (CTMP) shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the local planning authority. The CTMP shall include details of:

       pre-construction road condition established by a detailed survey for accommodation works within the highways boundary conducted with a Highway Authority representative; with all post repairs carried out to the satisfaction of the Local Highway Authority at the applicants expense;

       details of proposed crossings of the highway verge;

       retained areas for vehicle parking, manoeuvring, loading and unloading for their specific purpose during the development;

       cleaning of site entrances and the adjacent public highway;

       details of proposed wheel washing facilities;

       the sheeting of all HGVs taking spoil to/from the site to prevent spillage or deposit of any materials on the highway;

       construction vehicle routing;

       the management of junctions to and crossings of the public highway and other public rights of way/footway;

       the sustainable use of soil during construction in accordance with the Defra Construction Code of Practice.

       the control of noise during construction,

       a scheme which specifies the provisions to be made for the control of noise emanating from any plant, machinery, odour control or ventilation equipment

       a scheme for the installation of equipment to control the emission of odours from the premises

       a scheme to demonstrate how refuse and recycling will be stored and managed within the site

       a scheme showing the proposed lighting plan for external building lights and car park lighting for the development

Reason:           To safeguard future residents and protect amenity of nearby residents from noise disturbance.

Condition (16)No development commence within the site until the applicant has secured the implementation of a programme of archaeological work in accordance with a written scheme of investigation which has been submitted by the applicant and approved by the Local Planning Authority.

This written scheme will include the following components:

1)         An archaeological evaluation

2)         An archaeological recording programme the scope of which will be dependent upon the results of the evaluation.

3)         Where significant archaeological remains are revealed by the programme of archaeological work, there shall be carried out within one year of the completion of that programme on site, or within such timescale as otherwise agreed in writing by the Local Planning Authority a post-excavation assessment and analysis, preparation of a site archive ready for deposition at a store approved by the Local Planning Authority, completion of an archive report and submission of the results for publication in a suitable journal.

Reason: To afford reasonable opportunity for an examination to be made to determine the existence of any remains of archaeological interest within the site and for the preservation, examination or recording of such remains.

Note – The Committee voted to adjourn for a break at 12.15 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.


17/12/2020 - Planning Application No. SL/2018/0897 - Phase 1 - Land South of Allithwaite Road, Kents Bank, Grange over Sands ref: 4462    Recommendations Approved

Decision Maker: Planning Committee

Made at meeting: 17/12/2020 - Planning Committee

Decision published: 16/02/2021

Effective from: 17/12/2020

Decision:

Erection of 87 dwellings and associated infrastructure (Phase 1) (Lancet Homes)

 

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.

 

The Planning Officer presented Planning Application No. SL/2018/0897 which sought permission in relation to Phase 1 of a residential development which comprised of 87 dwellings. He displayed plans and photographs which outlined the proposal and summarised the application, full details of which were included within his report. The Planning Officer drew Members’ attention to the principal issues which were: the principle of the development; the impact upon the character of the settlement and landscape; the impact upon the residential amenity of existing and future residents; ecology; surface water drainage; and highway safety.

 

The Planning Officer informed Members that the site formed part of an allocated site within the Council’s Land Allocations Development Plan Document (LADPD) and the proposal would contribute to the five year housing supply. In addition the site had previously been identified as representing a sustainable location for housing, given its proximity to a range of key services, and stated that the proposal was acceptable in land use and sustainable development terms as the scheme had significant economic, environmental and social benefits. He drew Members’ attention to paragraph 11 of the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) which outlined the presumption in favour of sustainable development.

 

The Planning Officer outlined the applicant’s proposal for nine affordable units (10.3%) which would comprise of five for social rent and four for shared ownership. He highlighted that policy CS6.3 required, on all schemes of three or more dwellings in local service centres, not less than 35% of the total number of dwellings proposed to be affordable. However, the policy also stated that exceptionally, a lower requirement for affordable housing would be acceptable where there was clear evidence that it would make the development unviable. He explained that the applicant had submitted a viability assessment which demonstrated that the 35% level was not achievable. Furthermore the applicant had amended the layout of the dwellings and reduced the number of proposed dwellings from 92 to 87 in order to be Policy DM11 compliant.

 

The Planning Officer went on to address a number of areas of concern which had been highlighted in the neighbour responses received and advised Members that the proposal included the retention of a green gap, which would provide a degree of separation between Grange and Allithwaite. The site had been assessed by the Council’s Landscape Officer and Natural England and it had been concluded that the green gap was sufficient and would provide significant bio-diversity gain. United Utilities and the Local Lead Flood Authority had raised no objection to the proposals and had provided final comments and observations in respect of Phase 1 and Phase 2 of the scheme, although it was noted that there was lack of detail regarding the proposals for Phase 3. The Planning Officer advised Members that Shamus Giles, representing Cumbria County Council, Local Lead Flood Authority, was present in the meeting to respond to any questions Members may have and he confirmed that details of the Phase 3 development were currently unknown. The Planning Officer informed Members that the proposal would see 24 dwellings per hectare and the dwellings were mainly two storey and had a good separation distance of 30 metres from neighbouring properties. There were good links to the train station at Kents Bank with the southern end of the site within easy walking distance.

 

The Planning Officer concluded his presentation by highlighting concerns raised by Councillor Robin Ashcroft, who was unable to attend the meeting, in particular that of foul water drainage and the adequacy of the green gap. In addition Grange Town Council had, following a meeting on Monday, 14 December 2020, reaffirmed their objections, particularly regarding the lack of affordable housing and the proposed travel plan.

 

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.

Valerie Kennedy (speaking on her own behalf and on behalf of 47 residents); Sonia Whittaker; Frank McCall (on behalf of Grange over Sands Civic Society); and Robin Le Mare 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.

Allen Gibb, Chief Executive of Holker Estates addressed the Planning Committee in support of the application.

 

The Planning Officer responded to concerns raised during public participation.

 

The Planning Officer, the Interim Development Management Team Leader and Shamus Giles responded to questions raised by Members.

 

Members thanked the Planning Officer for a well written report and gave consideration to the application. Members agreed that the site was on allocated land and was in accordance with the Development Plan, it was a high quality development of moderate density and had raised no objections from statutory consultees. However, concerns were raised by a number of Members regarding the reduction in the affordable housing provision.

 

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

(1)        Completion of a S106 agreement with regard to:

a)     delivery of affordable housing,

b)     the management of the open space,

c)     the improvement of a footpath/bridleway in the form of a contribution of £65,000 for improving the routes surface condition to provide a crushed stone surface route to improve the amenity value and provide a sustainable transport link [walking and riding] to the promenade area for the new development.

d)     and to fund the provision of a Traffic Regulation Order to the value of £6,500; and

(2)        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: 

 

Architecture:

17070_00_P1 Site Location Plan

17070_01_P1 Proposed Site Layout

17070_02_P1 Site Sections

17070_03_P1 Boundary Treatments Layout

17070_04_P1 Illustrative Street Scenes

17070_05_P1 Character Areas Plan

17070_06 P1 Existing Site Plan

17070_D01_P1 Boundary Treatments Details

HT_P1_DM11 DM11 Compliance Statement

HT_P1_Amended Housing Type Package

 

Landscape:

Green Infrastructure & Landscape Concept Plan for Phase 1 ATH-01 Rev F

Green Infrastructure & Landscape Concept Plan for Phase 1 ATH-02 Rev E

Green Infrastructure & Landscape Concept Plan for Phase 1 ATH-03 Rev E

Green Infrastructure & Landscape Concept Plan for Phase 1 ATH-04 Rev E

Green Infrastructure & Landscape Concept Plan for Phase 1 ATH-05 Rev E

Green Infrastructure & Landscape Concept Plan for Phase 1 ATH-06 Rev E

Green Infrastructure & Landscape Concept Plan for Phase 1 ATH-07 Rev E

Green Infrastructure & Landscape Concept Plan for Phase 1 ATH-08 Rev E

 

Engineering:

K32662/A1/04_E External Works Layout_1 of 3

K32662/A1/05_E External Works Layout_2 of 3

K32662/A1/06_E External Works Layout_3 of 3

K32662/A1/07_A External Works Details_1 of 2

K32662/A1/08_A External Works Details_2 of 2

K32662/A1/25A Surface Water Drainage Longitudinal 1 of 4

K32662/A1/26 Surface Water Drainage Longitudinal 2 of 4

K32662/A1/27 Surface Water Drainage Longitudinal 3 of 4

K32662/A1/28 Surface Water Drainage Longitudinal 4 of 4

K32662/A1/100_D Proposed Levels and Retaining Walls_1 of 3

K32662/A1/101_D Proposed Levels and Retaining Walls_2 of 3

K32662/A1/102_E Proposed Levels and Retaining Walls_3 of 3

K32662/A1/104 Highway Longitudinal Sections_1 of 3

K32662/A1/105 Highway Longitudinal Sections_2 of 3

K32662/A1/106 Highway Longitudinal Sections_3 of 3

K32662/A1/110 S278 Works layout

K32662/A1/119A Section Infiltration Basin

K32662/A1/120_E Proposed Drainage Layout Phase 1

K32662/A1/122_B Proposed Soakaway Construction Details

K32662/A1/124 Typical Soakaway Construction Details

K32662/A1/125 Catchment Plan

 

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

 

Condition (3)   The landscaping scheme shall be implemented fully in accordance with the following plans:

 

Green Infrastructure & Landscape Concept Plan for Phase 1 ATH-01 Rev F

Green Infrastructure & Landscape Concept Plan for Phase 1 ATH-02 Rev E

Green Infrastructure & Landscape Concept Plan for Phase 1 ATH-03 Rev E

Green Infrastructure & Landscape Concept Plan for Phase 1 ATH-04 Rev E

Green Infrastructure & Landscape Concept Plan for Phase 1 ATH-05 Rev E

Green Infrastructure & Landscape Concept Plan for Phase 1 ATH-06 Rev E

Green Infrastructure & Landscape Concept Plan for Phase 1 ATH-07 Rev E

Green Infrastructure & Landscape Concept Plan for Phase 1 ATH-08 Rev E

 

a)         Prior to the commencement of development a phasing and delivery plan setting out the relative phases of development, together with a timetable for the implementation of the approved landscaping scheme shall be submitted to and approved by the Local Planning Authority. The phasing and delivery plan and timetable for the landscaping scheme shall be fully implemented in accordance with the approved details.

 

b)         All trees, shrubs and hedge plants supplied shall comply with the requirements of British Standard 3936, Specification -for Nursery Stock. All pre-planting site preparation, planting and post-planting maintenance works shall be carried out in accordance with the requirements of British Standard 4428(1989) Code of Practice for General Landscape Operations (excluding hard surfaces).

 

c)         All new tree plantings shall be positioned in accordance with the requirements of Table A.1 of BS5837:2012 Trees in Relation to Design, Demolition and Construction (Recommendations)

 

d)         All trees to be planted in this development are to be planted in accordance with the recommendations contained within BS8545 Trees: from nursery to independence in the landscape – Recommendations.

 

e)         Any trees, shrubs or hedges planted in accordance with this condition which is removed, die, become severely damaged or become seriously diseased within five years of planting shall be replaced within the next planting season by trees, shrubs or hedging plants of similar size and species to those originally required to be planted.

 

Reason:          To ensure the successful establishment of the trees in the landscape as part of the green infrastructure elements of the development.

 

Condition (4)   No trees, shrubs or hedges within the site which are shown as being retained on the approved plans shall be felled, uprooted, wilfully damaged or destroyed, cut back in any way or removed without the prior written consent of the Local Planning Authority. Any trees, shrubs or hedges removed without such consent, or which die or become severely damaged or seriously diseased with five years from the completion of the development hereby permitted shall be replaced with trees, shrubs or hedge plants of similar size and species until the Local Planning Authority gives written consent to any variation.

 

Reason:          To ensure the continued well-being of the trees in the interests of the amenity and environmental quality of the locality.

Condition (5)   Before the commencement of the superstructures samples panels of the materials to be used for the external surfaces of the dwellings hereby approved shall be erected at the application site and no external walling shall be erected until written approval for the materials has been given by the Local Planning Authority. The approved details shall be fully implemented.  

 

Reason:          In the interests of visual amenity.

 

Condition (6)   Prior to the erection of any superstructure plans shall be submitted to the Local Planning Authority for written approval to the proposed biodiversity net gains in respect of Swift bricks / bird and bat boxes. The approved details shall be fully implemented and retained thereafter.

 

Reason:          To ensure the development meets its objective to accord with the DM DPD Policy DM4, and in accordance with the National Planning Policy Framework paragraphs 174(b).

 

Condition (7)   No construction work for this development should take place on the site, except between the hours 08.00 - 18.00 Monday to Friday and 09.00 – 13.00 on Saturdays. In particular, no work should be carried out on Sundays or officially recognised public holidays without the prior agreement in writing of the Local Planning Authority.

 

Reason:          To safeguard future residents and protect amenity of nearby residents from noise disturbance.

 

Condition (8)   The dwellings hereby approved shall be constructed to meet the Building Regulations M4(1) M4(2) and M4(3) standards for accessible and adaptable homes.  as per the Policy DM11 Compliance Statement submitted to the Local Planning Authority on 13th February 2020.

 

Condition (9)   No development shall commence until a foul and surface water drainage scheme based upon sustainable development principles has been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority.

The surface water drainage scheme shall be in accordance with the principles within the submitted flood risk assessment and drainage strategy report K32662/02/FRA/RH ISSUE C dated 8th OCTOBER 2018 and shall be designed to meet the requirements of the non-statutory technical standards for sustainable drainage systems (March 2015) or any subsequent replacement national standards.

The foul and surface water drainage scheme shall include the following:

 

(i) the proposed foul connection points to the existing public sewerage infrastructure;

(ii) no surface water, highway drainage or land drainage shall discharge to the public sewerage system either directly or indirectly;

(iii) a timetable for its implementation;

(iv) a strategy for any temporary arrangements for foul and surface water drainage during construction of the development;

(v) ground and finished floor levels in AOD; and

(vi) identify any parts of the site where foul pumping is necessary. Thereafter the scheme shall minimise the number of pumping stations throughout the site.

The development hereby permitted shall be carried out only in accordance with the approved drainage scheme and retained thereafter for the lifetime of the development.

Reason: To promote sustainable development, secure proper drainage and to manage the risk of flooding and pollution.

 

Condition (10) The foul and surface water shall be drained on separate systems.

 

Reason:          To secure proper drainage and to manage the risk of flooding and pollution.

 

Condition (11) All private paths, private driveways and other private hardstanding areas shall be constructed of permeable surfaces. The details for these permeable surfaces shall be submitted to the Local Planning Authority and approved in writing prior to the commencement of development. The development shall be constructed in accordance with the approved details and the permeable surfaces shall be retained thereafter for the lifetime of the development.

 

Reason:          To promote sustainable development and to reduce the risk of flooding and pollution.

 

Condition (12) Notwithstanding the provisions of the Town and Country Planning (General Permitted Development) Order 1995 (or an Order revoking or re-enacting that Order, with or without modification), no hard surfaces shall be constructed within the curtilages of the dwelling houses at any time, other than those expressly authorised by this permission.

 

Reason:          To secure proper drainage, promote sustainable development and to reduce the risk of flooding and pollution.

 

Condition (13) Prior to the commencement of development details for the adoptable carriageway, footways, footpaths, cycleways, lighting etc shall be shall be submitted to the Local Planning Authority for approval. These details shall be in accordance with the standards laid down in the current Cumbria Design Guide. Any works so approved shall be constructed before the development is first occupied and shall be retained thereafter.

 

Reason: In the interests of highway safety.

 

Condition (14) Unless otherwise agreed in writing by the Local Planning Authority, the development shall not commence until the access off Allithwaite Road has been constructed in accordance with the approved drawings providing visibility splays of 60 metres measured 2.4 metres down the centre of the access road and the nearside channel line of the major road. Notwithstanding the provisions of the Town and Country Planning (General Permitted Development) (England) Order 2015 (or any Order revoking and re-enacting that Order) relating to permitted development, no structure, vehicle or object of any kind shall be erected, parked or placed and no trees, bushes or other plants shall be planted or be permitted to grown within the visibility splay which obstruct the visibility splays. The visibility splays shall be constructed before development of the site commences so that construction traffic is safeguarded and the visibility splays shall be retained thereafter.

 

Reason:           In the interests of highway safety.

 

Condition (15) Prior to the commencement of development a Construction Phase Traffic Management Plan (CTMP) shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the local planning authority. The CTMP shall include details of:

• pre-construction road condition established by a detailed survey for accommodation works within the highways boundary conducted with a Highway Authority representative; with all post repairs carried out to the satisfaction of the Local Highway Authority at the applicants expense;

• details of proposed crossings of the highway verge;

• retained areas for vehicle parking, manoeuvring, loading and unloading for their specific purpose during the development;

• cleaning of site entrances and the adjacent public highway;

• details of proposed wheel washing facilities;

• the sheeting of all HGVs taking spoil to/from the site to prevent spillage or deposit of any materials on the highway;

• construction vehicle routing;

• the management of junctions to and crossings of the public highway and other public rights of way/footway;

·  the sustainable use of soil during construction in accordance with the Defra Construction Code of Practice.

Condition (16) No development shall commence until a construction surface water management plan has been submitted and agreed in writing with the local planning authority. The approved construction surface water management plan shall be fully implemented.  

 

Reason:           To safeguard against flooding to surrounding sites and to safeguard against pollution of surrounding watercourses and drainage systems.

 

Condition (17) No development commence within the site until the applicant has secured the implementation of a programme of archaeological work in accordance with a written scheme of investigation which has been submitted by the applicant and approved by the Local Planning Authority.

 

This written scheme will include the following components:

 

An archaeological evaluation

An archaeological recording programme the scope of which will be dependent upon the results of the evaluation.

Where significant archaeological remains are revealed by the programme of archaeological work, there shall be carried out within one year of the completion of that programme on site, or within such timescale as otherwise agreed in writing by the Local Planning Authority a post-excavation assessment and analysis, preparation of a site archive ready for deposition at a store approved by the Local Planning Authority, completion of an archive report and submission of the results for publication in a suitable journal.

 

Reason: To afford reasonable opportunity for an examination to be made to determine the existence of any remains of archaeological interest within the site and for the preservation, examination or recording of such remains.


17/12/2020 - A Report on Monthly Enforcement Activity ref: 4466    Recommendations Approved

Decision Maker: Planning Committee

Made at meeting: 17/12/2020 - Planning Committee

Decision published: 16/02/2021

Effective from: 17/12/2020

Decision:

The Planning Enforcement Officer introduced the Monthly Enforcement Report which outlined the enforcement activity and fees generated from 1 July 2020 to 31 September 2020.

 

The Enforcement Officer responded to questions raised by Members and undertook to provide a response outside of the meeting regarding Reference No 19102 Haverflatts Lane, Milnthorpe. Members thanked the Enforcement Officer for his continued hard work in difficult circumstances.

 

RESOLVED – That the contents of Appendices 1 and 2 to the report be noted.


15/12/2020 - Corporate Financial Update Quarter 2, 2020/21 ref: 4460    For Determination

To consider the corporate financial update Quarter 2, 2020/21 and approve requests for budget virements and re-profiling of budgets between years.

Decision Maker: Council

Made at meeting: 15/12/2020 - Council

Decision published: 11/02/2021

Effective from: 15/12/2020

Decision:

Councillor Andrew Jarvis, Finance and Resources Portfolio Holder presented the Corporate Financial Monitoring report which summarised the position of the Council at the end of Quarter Two of 2020/21.  He reminded Members that the financial reports were more complicated than usual this year due to the by the Covid-19 crisis and the amendments that were made to the budget earlier in the year.

 

Councillor Jarvis focussed first on the latest view of the impact of Covid-19 on the Council’s budget drawing attention to a net cost to the Council of £1.67m and although higher than initially expected, the increase would be more than offset by the 75% compensation for lost income.  He further referred to the fact that since preparation of the report, a combination of additional grants and strong car-parking income had further improved the outlook and, consequently, the cost of Covid-19 for this year presented to Cabinet in the last version of the Medium Term Financial Plan was closer to £1.3m.

 

Councillor Jarvis informed Members as regards the “business as usual” performance of the Council and a forecast overspend on this year’s activities of approximately £216,000, with a further £75,000 to be carried forward to next year.  He provided details regarding specific requests in respect of the revenue budget.  The report also provided an update on the Capital Programme, the full year budget for capital for 2020/21 being a little over £22m.  Councillor Jarvis explained how the pandemic had impacted on many of the projects being worked on, resulting at the end of Quarter 2 in just under £2m in capital being spent.  Capital expenditure had, therefore, been reviewed for the remainder of the year, with a proposal for just over £10m to be reprofiled.  He stressed, however, that at this stage no capital expenditure had been cancelled although projects’ timing and feasibility would need to be further reviewed in the light of Covid-19 and he expected to provide more information on this during the Medium Term Financial Plan cycle.

 

Councillor Jarvis referred to Sundry Debts, the report highlighting that collection of Council Tax, Business Rates and sundry debts was running well below last year.  Until recently, enforcement of recovery had not been possible due to the closure of the courts.  The Council was also very aware of individual and corporate difficulties due to lockdowns.  A recovery specialist had recently been employed and the Council was trying to approach this issue in a very sensitive manner.  However, Councillor Jarvis pointed out that the Council had a duty to all tax payers and had to ensure that those who could pay did so.  He drew attention to help on offer through the local Council Tax Reduction Scheme and the related hardship scheme.  Importantly, he explained that any deficit on Council Tax and Non-Domestic Rates would not hit this year’s budget, but would exacerbate the financial situation in future years.

 

Councillor Jarvis acknowledged that the Council’s staff were under great pressures at the moment with the Covid-19 crisis and a huge workload.  He was particularly grateful to the Finance Team for the work being done to continue to ensure proper running of processes and to provide timely information on the financial position of the Council.

 

Councillor Jarvis moved the recommendations contained within the report and was seconded by Councillor Giles Archibald, Leader and Promoting South Lakeland Portfolio Holder.

 

Councillor Robin Ashcroft, Economy, Culture and Leisure Portfolio Holder, prior to commencement of the debate, provided Members with an overview in relation to regarding Kendal Vision funding towards the development and delivery of agreed activities for which had been discussed by Cabinet on 8 December 2020 at CEX/04.  He drew attention to the significant challenges faced by the Town as a result of an increase in online shopping and decline in high street retail, also exacerbated to the Covid-19 pandemic.  In addition, he pointed out the challenge as a result of the aging population in South Lakeland and the need to attract young people to live and work in the area.  Councillor Ashcroft felt that there was an opportunity for positive change, the Council and the Kendal Futures Community Interest Company, in collaboration with local stakeholders and community groups, having developed an ambitious vision and strategy to transform Kendal.

 

In response to a Point of Order raised by Councillor Archibald who felt that Councillor Archibald, in his role as portfolio holder, should remain connected to the meeting during discussion, the Legal, Governance and Democracy Lead Specialist (Monitoring Officer) explained that she had, prior to the meeting, discussed the matter with both Councillor Ashcroft and Councillor Susanne Long, who both shared the view that they did not wish to potentially influence the debate by remaining in the meeting.

 

Note – At this point in the proceedings, Councillors Ashcroft and Long disconnected from the meeting for the remainder of the discussion and voting on the item, for the reason outlined within C/76 above.

 

In response to a query regarding variances and the £212,000 adjustment following the audit of Housing Benefit Subsidy Claims for 2017/18 and 2018/19 to be offset by use of reserves, Councillor Jarvis explained that these minor adjustments related to prior year adjustments and were made each year and by all councils.  The problem was that they had been taken through the accounts in the wrong manner in the prior two years and then discovered during the audit process this year.  Rather than correct last year’s accounts, they had been adjusted in this year’s.  The balance sheet was correct but there had been a need to put them through the revenue account.  The figures had nothing to do with current issues.  In response to a further query as to whether there was likely to be an additional burden on reserves into the future, Councillor Jarvis explained that 2019/20 would be the same as each year, with some degree of truing up at the end of the year.  The Finance Lead Specialist (Section 151 Officer) expanded, explaining that the Subsidy Claim was currently being audited and that there would be some final figures, probably by January 2021 which would be reported to the Audit Committee in either February or April.  She explained that the overall adjustment was on two claims that together covered £33m and was a relatively small adjustment in terms of the total amount.  She further informed Members that these adjustments were becoming smaller each year, with more specialist staff now being dedicated to the process.

 

Note – At this stage in the proceedings, Councillor Janette Jenkinson, seeking advice from the Legal, Governance and Democracy Lead Specialist (Monitoring Officer), declared an Other Registrable Interest by virtue of being a Trustee of the Coronation Hall.  Whilst she had no financial interest, for the sake of transparency, she would disconnect from the meeting following raising a question on reprofiling of the Capital Programme in relation to the Hall.

 

Attention was drawn to Capital Programme reprofiling and the sum of £39,900 shown for Coronation Hall queried.  Attention was drawn to the fact that a sum of around £70,000 had been left over following Ulverston Town Council having moved offices, that money having been promised for refurbishments at the Coronation Hall.  Councillor Jarvis undertook to ensure that a written response was provided by officers and copied to all Members.

 

Note –Councillor Jenkinson disconnected from the meeting for the remainder of the discussion and voting on the item, for the reason outlined above.

 

The report was welcomed and support expressed in particular for the proposals for Kendal Town Centre which, it was felt, were vital in terms of the wider economy of the area.  Reference was made to the need to build back following Covid-19 and to the golden age of playgrounds within South Lakeland and of their importance during the pandemic.  Pride was expressed with regard to the hard work of officers during the pandemic, assisting individuals and businesses.  The need for the Government to properly fund councils in the north of the country was stressed, particularly in the light of Covid-19.

 

Councillor Archibald, as seconder for the proposals, referred to an earlier question and explained that there was still an amount of £79,800 in the budget for the Coronation Hall alterations and that the £39,000 was simply regarding reprofiling.   He referred to the impact of Covid-19 on the Council’s finances, however, explained that the Authority was in a fairly good position due to the excellent work which had been carried out by officers and portfolio holders.  Although there would be a budget gap, Councillor Archibald remained confident that this would be filled.  He made particular reference to infrastructure projects and explained that the Council was determined, where possible, to push ahead with ambitious projects such as Ulverston Leisure Centre, Grange Promenade and Lido, enhanced flood defences, Swarthmoor Roundabout and Disablity Toilets.  The Council still had to push ahead with plans to regenerate, maintain and update its assets.  He thanked Councillor Jarvis and officers for their work on the report.

 

No Member having raised concern when asked by the Chairman, it was

 

RESOLVED – That

 

(1)        the contents of the report and Appendices 1 to 4 be noted;

 

(2)        the re-profiling of the Capital Programme as shown in section 3.2.3 of the report  and Appendix 3 to the report be approved; and

 

(3)        further to Cabinet’s decision on 8 December 2020, the following be approved:-

 

(a)        the carry forward of unspent estimates, as set out in section 3.1.2 of the report and Appendix 5 to the report;

 

(b)        the virement of £92,800 from the Community Housing Fund in section 3.1.3; and

 

(c)        the use of £150,000 from the NNDR Pooling Reserve, £135,294 from the Kendal Town Centre Masterplan and up to £246,000 of Section 106 funding, as set out in section 3.1.4.

Wards affected: (All Wards);

Lead officer: Claire Chouchoulas, Claire Read, Helen Smith


15/12/2020 - Request for Authorised Absence from Council and Council Committee Meetings – Councillor D Khan ref: 4461    For Determination

South Lakeland District Council
Council
15 December 2020
Request for Authorised Absence from Council and Council Committee Meetings – Councillor D Khan

Decision Maker: Council

Made at meeting: 15/12/2020 - Council

Decision published: 11/02/2021

Effective from: 15/12/2020

Decision:

Councillor Philip Dixon, Customer and Commercial Services and People Portfolio Holder, asked Members to support a request from Councillor Dave Khan for his absence from Council and committee meetings in accordance with Section 85(1) of the Local Government Act 1972 due to having to care for a family member who was unwell.  Councillor Dixon informed Members that Councillor Robin Ashcroft, also a District Ward Member for Grange, had undertaken to take on board Councillor Khan’s work, as necessary.  In addition, Council Dixon explained that it was Councillor Khan’s wish for his Members allowance during this time to be added to the Personal Financial Resilience Reserve as per other allowances which were not taken up by Members.

 

Councillor Dixon having moved the proposal was seconded by Councillor Helen Irving.  Councillor Ashcroft confirmed that he would be able to deal with any matters raised by residents in the Grange Ward.  Whilst attention was drawn to the fact that Grange was a three Member Ward now being run by a one single councillor, warm support was expressed for the proposal and for Councillor Khan and his family.

 

No Member having raised concern when asked by the Chairman, it was

 

RESOLVED – That, in accordance with Section 85(1) of the Local Government Act 1972, Councillor Dave Khan’s absence from Council and committee meetings until and including 27 July 2021, for the reasons set out in the report, be authorised.

Wards affected: Grange;

Lead officer: Cat Brumwell


15/12/2020 - Report from the Independent Remuneration Panel for 2021/2022 to 2024/2025 ref: 4459    For Determination

Report from the Independent Remuneration Panel
For 2021/2022, 2022/2023, 2023/2024 and 2024/2025

Decision Maker: Council

Made at meeting: 15/12/2020 - Council

Decision published: 11/02/2021

Effective from: 15/12/2020

Decision:

Mrs Sally Parnaby, Chairman of the Independent Remuneration Panel (IRP) was connected to the meeting via audio, having been invited by the Chairman to present the Panel’s report to Council.

 

The IRP had recommended the following:-

 

·        a four year term of the Members’ Allowances Scheme (the Scheme) subject to any request to review as outlined in the Scheme;

·        for the period from 1 April 2021 to 31 March 2025 that uplift for Basic Allowances be in line with the agreed public sector staff pay award for each year of the Scheme;

·        a detailed review and report by the Independent Remuneration Panel will be presented to the Council meeting in December 2024 for implementation for the next 4 years effective from 1 April 2025;

·        to reduce the number of Independent Remuneration Panel members from 5 to 4 effective from 1 April 2021 and that the Chairman of the Panel be given power to exercise the casting vote if ever required; the Independent Remuneration Panel Terms of Reference are amended accordingly;

·        co-optees Allowance is uplifted in line with the agreed public sector staff pay award for each year of the Scheme;

·        Planning Committee Substitute Members continue to receive £250 allowance;

·        to agree the draft advert and job description for recruiting IRP members;

·        the IRP Panel will continue to meet at least once each year to review the index levels used in calculating the Scheme in each year.  Council Members, Officers and IRP Panel members will be able to request a review of the Scheme during the Term of the Scheme if there are reasonable grounds for doing so. Reasonable grounds include changes to Members’ roles, creation of additional Members’ Portfolio roles or external factors such as Local Government re-organisation;

·        no amendments to current Special Responsibility Allowances (SRAs) (however, planning substitute to continue to receive £250.00);

·        other than the Group Leader’s Allowance, Members should receive no more than one SRA;

·        out of County Mileage Allowance to remain as part of the single travel allowance scheme as per the previous year;

·        travel expenses to be in accordance with the maximum rates set by HMRC without attracting a tax charge (currently 45p per mile), this to apply to the first 150 miles of a return journey regardless of the destination and 25p per mile thereafter;

·        subsistence expenses to increase by RPI as at 1 April 2021 and each year as applicable; and

·        no change to Childcare/Dependant Carers’ Allowance.  Payments to remain at a maximum allowance of £15 per hour.  The Allowance to be paid from the time the recipient leaves home to time of return.

 

In presenting the report, Mrs Parnaby thanked those Members who had responded to the invitation for comments for their valuable input.  She informed Members that the IRP had carried out a light touch review this year, mindful of the additional demands being placed on officers and the challenges of remote and virtual working.  Mrs Parnaby drew particular attention to the proposal for a four year term of the Members’ Allowances Scheme which had been supported by those Members who had responded.  In addition, she referred to the recommendation for the Panel to meet at least once in each year in order to review the index levels used in calculating the Scheme in each year and, in addition, for Council Members, officers and Panel members to be able to request a review of any aspect of the Scheme if there were reasonable grounds for so doing.  Furthermore, Mrs Parnaby pointed out the recommendation for an uplift for basic allowances in line with the agreed public sector staff pay award for each year of the scheme during the four year period.  Mrs Parnaby explained that this was in line with arrangements introduced in other local authorities and that it was felt that this constituted a more prudent and cost-effective way of reviewing the Members’ Allowances Scheme moving forward.  Mrs Parnaby referred to the fact that two Members of the Panel were shortly to end their four year terms and that, therefore, the Panel had reviewed and modified the recruitment and selection arrangements, in particular to try to attract applicants from across the community and especially from younger people who met the criteria.

 

Mrs Parnaby closed, thanking those officers involved for their time and support and, on behalf of the IRP, she asked Council to consider the recommendations contained within the report

 

In moving the adoption of what he felt to be a very sensible set of proposals, Councillor Giles Archibald, Leader and Promoting South Lakeland Portfolio Holder, thanked the Panel members for their service on the Panel.  He expressed particular thanks to Michael Duff who was coming to the end of an eight-year term and wished him well for the future.  Councillor Archibald pointed out to Members that because of the public sector pay freeze this coming year, this meant that Member allowances would also be frozen, which corrected what had been said, he believed, by the public participant.  Councillor Archibald thanked all who had participated for their involvement.

 

Councillor Jonathan Brook, Deputy Leader and Housing and Innovation Portfolio Holder seconded the motion.

 

Discussion took place during which thanks were expressed to the Panel and, in addition, to Mr Ian Kell for his address under Minute C/75 above, some feeling that there was some truth in his comments.  In response to a query, the Legal, Governance and Democracy Lead Specialist (Monitoring Officer) undertook to provide a written response to the points raised by Mr Kell under C/75 above and to provide a copy of the response to Members.

 

Concerns were raised as regards the issue of three-Member wards, which, although it was pointed out that the Panel did not believe that this fell within its remit, had increased Members’ workloads, this being the reason that Members often cited for leaving the Council.  It was felt disappointing that this had not, yet again, been addressed by the Panel.  Also raised was the fact that the recommendations heavily factored in the voluntary aspect and that the existing allowance did not enable a lot of residents to take up the role as a councillor in South Lakeland.  Attention was also drawn to younger people and women being prevented from taking part due to, for example, having to take unpaid time out of work or having dependent children to care for.  Further concerns were raised around Covid-19’s impact on Members having to work from home and having to attend more and more virtual meetings in terms of heating and electricity.  Attention was drawn to the potential adverse impact on Members’ careers and thereby suffering financial loss and, in addition, for the need for consideration to be given to pensions for councillors.

 

It was suggested that consideration should be given to Members’ attendance at meetings, recognition thereby being given to their commitment.  It was also felt that special responsibility allowances did not bear relation to reality, for example, in relation to the many hours put in by Cabinet Members.  Some Members firmly believed that a review should continue to be carried out by the Panel each year, reference being made to how busy councillors had been during the pandemic, time spent in front of computers and rooms within homes being occupied by work-related equipment.

 

Attention was drawn to the fact that the IRP was an independent body that took into account comments raised by councillors and of the need, therefore, for Members to ensure that they responded to requests for input during reviews.  The fact that the Panel’s recommendations reflected the public service pay review was welcomed.

 

It having been proposed by Councillor Chris Hogg to move to the vote, Councillor Brook, as seconder, thanked Members for their comments, stressing the importance of councillors being appropriately remunerated for their work and also that the level of remuneration should not act as a bar to those without income.  He pointed out that the Panel did look at those issues and also that the Panel compared the level of remuneration with that of other councils.  He reiterated the fact that the Panel was independent and that Members had been provided the opportunity to make representation.  He suggested that in future years more Members might participate in the process.

 

A vote was taken by roll call and it was

 

RESOLVED – That

 

(1)        the recommendations of the Independent Remuneration Panel for Members’ Allowances to be adopted with effect from 1 April 2021;

 

(2)        approval be given to a four year term of the Members Allowances Scheme (the Scheme) subject to any request to review the Scheme as outlined in the Scheme;

 

(3)        for the period from 1 April 2021 to 31March 2025, it be agreed that the uplift for Basic Allowances be in line with the agreed public sector staff pay award for each year of the Scheme;

 

(4)        a detailed review and report by the Independent Remuneration Panel will be presented to the Council meeting in December 2024 for implementation for the next four years effective from 1 April 2025;

 

(5)        the number of Independent Remuneration Panel members be reduced from five to four effective from 1 April 2021 and that the Chairman of the Panel be given power to exercise the casting vote if ever required and the Independent Remuneration Panel Terms of Reference amended accordingly;

 

(6)        the Co-optees Allowance be uplifted in line with the agreed public sector staff pay award for each year of the Scheme;

 

(7)        Planning Committee Substitute Members continue to receive £250 allowance; and

 

(8)        the draft advert and job description for recruiting IRP members be approved.

Wards affected: (All Wards);

Lead officer: Courage Aiguobasinmwin, Linda Fisher


08/12/2020 - Local Government Reform - Proposal for Bay Area ref: 4457    For Determination

Decision Maker: Council

Made at meeting: 08/12/2020 - Council

Decision published: 11/02/2021

Effective from: 08/12/2020

Decision:

Copies of appendices 1 and 3 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 4 December 2020.  A revised version of page 13 of Appendix 1 had subsequently been sent to Members on 7 December and had also been published on the Council’s Website, with a fully revised version of Appendices 1 and 3 having been circulated and published on the Council’s Website earlier in the day of the meeting.

 

Councillor Giles Archibald, Leader and Promoting South Lakeland Portfolio Holder, reported that, further to the decisions of Cabinet and Council on 5 November 2020 to submit an outline proposal for a Bay area unitary authority, work had continued on development of the full proposal which had to be submitted by the deadline of 9 December 2020.

 

The full proposal formed Appendix 1 to the report and presented the case for a new unitary council for the Bay, focussed on the cohesiveness of the area and its communities.  It 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.

 

The proposal set out the approach which had been followed to develop a clear and justified proposal which met the criteria for local government reorganisation.  It demonstrated that the Bay was a credible geography and population size, that the proposal had strong level of local support, that it would deliver affordable and efficient local government and that it was deliverable.

 

The proposal was founded on the principle that ‘form follows function’. The starting point was an understanding of what needed to be addressed in the Bay area, ‘the drivers of change.’ The proposal identified the critical importance and opportunity for public services transformation so that whole system approaches were adopted to address needs. It set out opportunity for a new relationship between communities, the third sector and public services, enabling co-production of services and principles of subsidiarity. From this assessment of needs and opportunities for service reform came the objectives for the Bay Authority and the basis on which success could be measured.

 

The proposal provided comparison with alternative proposals against the criteria for reorganisation.  It presented a financial assessment, identifying financial cost, benefits and sustainability of The Bay. It set out the cost and approach to managing the transition from existing to new arrangements. It emphasised that, by adopting the ‘form follows function’ approach, the most significant benefits for the area and the affordability of public services were derived from service reform and transformation in addition to the savings from organisation structural changes.

 

The proposal provided commentary on an option for the organisation of local government in the remainder of Cumbria should the proposal for the Bay be implemented. It provided commentary with regard to Lancashire. It presented the opportunity for future discussions to proceed on combined authorities and devolution of powers and resources from Government.

 

The report included details relating to other proposals on the table.  It also provided details on consultation carried out through a communications and engagement plan.  The main outcomes were that the Opinion Poll had demonstrated that there was a broad and strong level of support for the proposals amongst residents across the area.  Engagement with strategic bodies indicated that there were benefits to be derived through collaborative work to align and transform services to achieve better outcomes for residents and improve the sustainability of services; that collaboration would improve the strategic voice and influence of the Bay area; and that there were no insurmountable issues which would stand in the way of a Bay Unitary Authority proposal being implemented.  The survey demonstrated a very high degree of public support for organising local government on the scale and geography of the Bay.

 

Councillor Archibald, in presenting the report, expressed thanks to officers from all tiers of local government for their amazing work during the pandemic, paying tribute to the collaborative working between the tiers, the leadership of Cumbria County Council and the work carried out by Colin Cox, Director of Public Health.  Councillor Archibald expressed pride in the District Council’s part in the activity.  He further referred to work which had been carried out in relation to the proposal for the Bay, a compelling and thorough business case having been put together during this difficult time.

 

Councillor Archibald drew Members’ attention to correspondence which had recently been received from the Cumbria Fire and Rescue Authority and the Lancashire Police and Crime Commissioner, copies of which had been circulated to Members prior to the meeting, as well as a response from Barrow Borough, Lancaster City and South Lakeland District councils to the Cumbria Fire and Rescue Authority.

 

Councillor Archibald informed Members that the proposal before Council was a result of significant detailed work by the consultant team, officers and Members based upon a clear understanding of the legislative requirements of local government reorganisation.  All of this work had been undertaken within the very tight timescale set by the invitation.  He pointed out, however, that submission of the proposal was only a milestone on the journey and that more detailed work would be required.  Councillor Archibald reminded Members that the invitation had specified that Type C proposals were eligible, and that presenting a proposal which crossed a county boundary was recognised by the Secretary of State.  The proposal reported that there had been engagement with representatives of strategic stakeholders and it made reference to those meetings and the issues raised.  These discussions had shaped the proposal to date.  Councillor Archibald clarified that the proposal did not propose to change existing Police and Fire boundaries.  He explained that Counsel’s Opinion had been sought in this regard and that it was clear from the legal advice received that there was no impediment to the Bay solution.  It was recognised that there were complexities to be addressed and also that there were options available to the Secretary of State.  Councillor Archibald looked forward to the Local Recovery and Devolution White Paper to see detail of the Government ambition on future reform of transformation of the Police and Fire services.  Councillor Archibald emphasised the offer for continued collaborative work with all interested bodies as the proposal progressed.  He made it clear that the correspondence which had been received did not change the view that the proposed arrangements were deliverable.  He pointed out that the proposal had been updated in to include the correspondence in Appendix 1 and the references changed in the body of the proposal changed accordingly, adding that Members had been informed where any changes had been made.

 

Councillor Archibald said that there were many reasons why a Bay unitary authority made sense when compared with other unitary options.  The Bay was a functioning economic area, 96% of the people lived and worked in the area, there was a shared cultural heritage and health footprint, housebuilding would be significantly enhanced by combining with the other authorities and the services transformation which had already been seen in South Lakeland District Council could be accelerated.  The Bay unitary authority would be adequately sized to deal with adult social care and it was hoped that delivery of that service would be enhanced through possible closer integration with the Health Trust.  Plans for children services as outlined within the business case would speed the necessary reforms to that service.  Forming a unitary authority of this size would also permit subsequent formation of a combined unitary authority and a possible agreement over a devolution deal should the unitary authorities decide to form a combined authority.  Councillor Archibald referred to the dedication and enthusiasm of his fellow leaders at Barrow and Lancaster for tackling some of the most serious problems faced by society and explained that they were united in their determination to do all possible to tackle the causes and effects of poverty, as well as putting Climate Change and Biodiversity loss high up on the list of priorities.  Councillor Archibald further referred to Morecambe Bay’s fantastically special eco system and informed Members that it was his belief that its protection and enhancement could be best carried out by an authority based around the Bay.  A Bay unitary authority would manage the Bay not just for residents but also for the land, the sand and the sea.

 

Councillor Archibald was pleased to note that the councils of Barrow and Lancaster had, earlier in the evening, passed the same proposal.  He informed Members that, if they also supported the proposal, this would be the only bid with the clear support of all the district councils involved.  The proposal already had the support of the leadership teams of all three councils, and now Barrow and Lancaster councils, the public, several town and parish councils, businesses, institutions, and Councillor Archibald, in moving the recommendations contained within the report, hoped that it would also have the support from South Lakeland District Council.

 

Councillor Jonathan Brook, Deputy Leader and Housing and Innovation Portfolio Holder, seconded the proposal.

 

Councillor Robin Ashcroft, Economy, Culture and Leisure Portfolio Holder, drew Members’ attention to the economic benefits to the area of the proposal, referencing business, culture, place making and the potential to attract young people to the area.  He further drew attention to the considerable assets within the Bay, such as Lancaster University, the heritage offer, a way into the nuclear energy industry, world class technical engineering and hi-tech renewable energy.  He referred to a letter from Cumbria Chamber of Commerce which stated that businesses within Cumbria found the current two tier system of local government wasteful and confusing.  Further, the letter stated that the Bay was a coherent economic and geographical unit.

 

Councillor Andrew Jarvis, Finance and Resources Portfolio Holder, felt that this proposal, which was based upon improving services and the outcome for residents, offered the best long-term prospect.  He drew attention to the problems of the case for a unitary Cumbria which covered a very large area and was split in two by mountains, which would restrict any council’s ability to run a fully integrated operation and create a disconnect between residents and the authority.  Furthermore, he did not see how a unitary Cumbria could fit in with devolution plans.  He referred to the financial aspects of the business case of the proposal for the Bay unitary and felt that the numbers therein were positive.  The philosophy behind the business case was not about claiming the biggest savings through cuts and redundancies but was built upon improving services and outcomes for residents.  In the end, savings could only be made if work was reduced and simplified and the proposal indicated that it would not be until Year 3 that savings would start to flow through.

 

Councillor Suzie Pye, Financial Resilience and Wellbeing Portfolio Holder stressed the fact that deprivation existed in South Lakeland which was why pointing towards deprivation levels in Morecambe and Barrow as a reason to reject the Bay proposal was a flawed argument when applying humanity.  She referred to the three area’s Poverty Truth Commissions and the cross-council conversations and learning which had taken place in his regard.  Furthermore, she pointed out that if the Government was going to consider the Bay proposal, it would also need to support it in terms of funding moving forward.  She accepted that grouping with areas that included pockets of high levels of deprivation needed addressing but did not accept that it is a reason to reject what was an exciting and potentially prosperous future for the area.  This would be a dynamic authority and, as such, she envisaged a scenario where all relevant areas benefitted from shared experiences and shared goals.

 

Councillor Dyan Jones, Climate Emergency and Localism Portfolio Holder reminded Members of the Prime Minister’s ambitions for a green revolution and referred to south Cumbria’s history of successful wind power delivery.  She felt that this, combined with engineering expertise, provided an excellent opportunity to innovate and transform.  She pointed out that the Bay proposal had the very essence of localism at its heart, growing sustainable communities, tackling bio-diversity loss, improving the natural environment and building local resilience together.  She believed that the ingredients for regrowth already existed, with manufacturing and engineering potential in Barrow, tourism opportunities and value in Morecambe and South Lakes, and with skills and investment from universities and further education centres across the three districts.  She referred to the opportunity for co-benefits and positive outcomes through collaboration, delivering change and sustainable growth with a careful, measured, prudent approach.  She believed that the Bay Authority had vision around the climate emergency with Barrow and Lancaster, the three councils having already joined together to address the issue.  She also believed that the Bay proposal had leadership, commitment and focus, with a clear and obvious shared and complementary vision.

 

Discussion took place during which a number of strong concerns were raised as regards the inappropriate timing of reorganisation in the midst of a serious global pandemic.  It was pointed out that there was no clarity on whether town or parish councils would have more powers as a result of the proposal.  Disappointment was expressed with regard to the potential loss of county championships and the sporting heritage.  It was raised that, looking at the map, this proposal did not look very much like a unitary authority, with a gash driven through the geographical area.  Attention was drawn to the fact that Barrow and Lancaster’s demographics and their negative statistics in relation to crime and deprivation compared to those of South Lakeland which led to the question of how two separate Police forces would work for the proposed authority.  Reference was made to when Cumbria Constabulary had tried to amalgamate with Lancashire in 2005/06 and as to how this had been unsuccessful, due to differences in Council Tax rates.  Also referenced was the fact that no comments had been received from Cumbria County Council.  Attention was drawn to the letter from the Police and Crime Commissioner in Lancashire who was totally against the proposal and, in fact, indicated that this could not be done.  Although it was understood that Counsel’s Opinion had been sought with the response suggesting the proposal was appropriate, it was felt that it should be indicated to Members in writing that the proposal could, in fact, go ahead.  Furthermore, it was suggested that the same arguments could be raised with regard to the Fire Service.  Concerns were further raised with regard to the diminishment of local democracy and also with regard to zero carbon Cumbria and how this would be managed in terms of partnership with both the Bay and Cumbria.

 

During discussion, a number of comments were raised.  Reference was made to the history behind plans for a barrage with a railway running across it and to the fact that this had never come about, also due to the recognition of the areas ecology.  Attention was drawn to access to the hospital in Barrow, which took longer to reach than Carlisle, however, it was pointed out in any case that people often attended medical appointments altogether outside of the area.  Councillor Peter Thornton stressed that Cumbria County Council, was a good council, although he felt that a unitary Cumbria would be too large to be local and, at the same time, too small to be strategic.  He felt a Unitary Cumbria could not be considered to be local government if ruled from Carlisle.  Councillor Thornton emphasised the need for councils to remain as close to the people as possible was raised.  He pointed out that unitary authorities had to be of a size where some residents were not near the centre, and it was suggested, therefore, that strong town councils would be essential, in particular for Barrow, Kendal, Lancaster and Ulverston, and the counterpoint to a future unitary, managing local parks, public conveniences, etc.  He hoped that, moving towards mayoral authorities, there would not be a Cumbria Mayoral Authority, which was felt to be too small, and the need for a larger mayoral authority covering 1.5m residents was raised, with decent sized Fire authorities and Police forces.  The need for Government to fairly fund authorities in the north of the country was stressed.  Although Ulverston felt affiliated with the Bay, it was questioned whether this was the same for Ambleside and Grasmere and Windermere.  This was later responded to within discussion, Members being informed that these areas in fact also looked south and would not wish to be governed from Carlisle.  It was claimed that mountains divided and rivers united, and pointed out that South Lakeland had always looked to the south, with families travelling south for holidays and shopping.

 

Also during discussion, reference was made to the fact that this proposal had first been raised some 16 years ago.  The positive advantage of a Bay unitary assisting in enabling people from Burton or Carnforth in accessing housing was recognised.  It was hoped that the proposal would help all residents to prosper.  In addition, it was recognised was the fact that this was an ecologically distinct area and the opportunity for enhancement in this regard was welcomed.  Also welcomed was the opportunity for more participatory democracy, the Citizens’ Jury established by Kendal Town Council being used as an example.

 

The Legal, Governance and Democracy Lead Specialist (Monitoring Officer) provided details with regard to the Barrister’s Opinion, explaining that the advice had been clear.  Legislation did not constrain the ability to form new unitary councils which crossed existing county boundaries.  The Secretary of State had, indeed, invited a proposal to be put forward which actually crossed boundaries.  With regard to the difference of opinion of the Lancashire Police and Crime Commissioner’s letter, the view was that the Secretary of State would consider what incidental or consequential provisions he might wish to make as part of this process if he decided to proceed.  This was a discretion, not a duty.  Details regarding short term and longer term options around the Police and Fire authorities had been included within the proposal and the documents updated in light of the two letters received.

 

Councillor Brook thanked Councillor Archibald for his introduction which clearly set out the position.  He wished to add his personal thanks to Councillor Archibald, as Leader, for his work and leadership on the proposal which had been driven forward in collaboration with the leaders of Barrow and Lancaster.  He also expressed thanks to Members for their useful insights during debate.  Councillor Brook specifically referred to housing delivery, and in particular affordable housing, which would continue to be a priority of a Bay authority, if chosen by Government.  He explained that both Barrow and Lancaster retained their housing stock and, therefore, had access to a Housing Revenue Account.  This facility would provide South Lakeland with expertise in running and managing housing stock and offered the ability to deliver housing through an in-house mechanism.  This would help build capacity and complement the existing arrangements for affordable housing delivery.  Councillor Brook drew attention to the fact that South Lakes Housing had indicated support for a Bay authority.  In summary, Councillor Brook believe that this was an exciting proposal which he was pleased to support and second.  He thanked the officers involved for their hard work and dedication over the last few weeks.

 

Councillor Archibald echoed Councillor Brook’s thanks.  He first responded to the question regarding copies of letters received by Members earlier in the day and explained that there was no reason to worry, that all bases had been covered and legislation checked.  Engagement would continue with all stakeholders and councillors and he encouraged any Members with queries to contact either himself or officers.  He referred to Councillor Pye’s inspirational comments and to the importance of understanding that a period of multiple crises was being entered into that needed to be addressed, including poverty and inequality.  He referred to the work being carried out by Barrow, Lancaster and South Lakeland in this regard and highlighted the opportunity for working together, seeking growth bids from Government and finding ways in which to enhance the economic growth of the area and ensuring that this was shared fairly and equitably amongst everybody.  Councillor Archibald referred to Climate Change and Biodiversity and to the fact that this was mentioned over 40 times within the proposal.  He assured Members that a Bay authority would accelerate the concern in this regard.  He agreed that it was of importance for consideration to be given to participatory democracy.  He referred to ceremonial boundaries and explained that there was no proposal to change these, however, suggested the potential for bay championships also to be initiated.  In terms of Lancashire, it was Councillor Archibald’s understanding that Lancashire County Council had given an undertaking to the Leader of Lancaster City Council that they would engage if the Bay proposal was invited to the next stage.  Councillor Archibald closed, highlighting the excellent opportunity to tackle any challenges together, across the Bay.

 

A request having been made by the requisite number of eight Councillors, the following vote was recorded in accordance with Rule 15.5 of the Council’s Rules of Procedure:-

 

The following Members voted in favour (37) – Councillors Giles Archibald; Robin Ashcroft; Rupert Audland; Pat Bell; Ben Berry; Jonathan Brook; Helen Chaffey; Stephen Coleman; Brian Cooper; Tracy Coward; Philip Dixon; Judy Filmore; Alvin Finch; Tom Harvey; Eamonn Hennessy, Hazel Hodgson; Rachael Hogg; John Holmes; Kevin Holmes; Vicky Hughes; Helen Irving; Andrew Jarvis; Janette Jenkinson; Dyan Jones; Helen Ladhams; Malcolm Lamb; Kevin Lancaster; Susanne Long; Pete McSweeney; Ian Mitchell; Jon Owen; Suzie Pye; Doug Rathbone; Brian Rendell; Matt Severn; Peter Thornton; and Ian Wharton.

 

The following Members voted against (2) – Councillors Mark Wilson and Shirley-Anne Wilson.

 

The following Members abstained (2) – Councillors Roger Bingham and David Webster.

 

RESOLVED - That

 

(1)        the full proposal for a unitary council for the Bay area be approved for submission by the Leader and Chief Executive to the Government by 9 December 2020; and

 

(2)        the Chief Executive and Leader be authorised to approve any minor amendments that may arise following consideration of the proposal by Barrow Borough and Lancaster City councils prior to submission.

Wards affected: (All Wards);


08/12/2020 - Local Government Reorganisation - Local Elections ref: 4458    For Determination

To consider MHCLG's request that Councils submitting a proposal for reorganisation consider whether they wish the local elections scheduled for May 2021 to be postponed.

Decision Maker: Council

Made at meeting: 08/12/2020 - Council

Decision published: 11/02/2021

Effective from: 08/12/2020

Decision:

Councillor Giles Archibald, Leader and Promoting South Lakeland Portfolio Holder, presented a report asking Council to consider whether it wished to seek postponement of local elections in May 2021 on account of proposals for local government reorganisation and in response to a request from the Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government (MHCLG).

 

Council, having approved the submission of a full proposal for local government reorganisation at C/71 above, the decision of the Council with regard to the local elections would be conveyed to MHCLG on 9 December 2020.

 

The report suggested that a postponement of elections would place at risk: the need for certainty to plan for elections at a time when Covid-19 may still exist; a need to refresh councillors, several of whom may be retiring; and the opportunity to give residents the chance to vote in the full knowledge of the plans afoot for reorganisation.  The report further suggested that, from a procedural point, there did not appear to be justification to postpone local elections on account of the proposals being put forward.  It was pointed out, however, that the timing of any consultation and issue of purdah was wholly within the decision of MHCLG and that they should be advised of the need to consider timing in this regard.

 

Councillor Archibald drew attention to approval in the previous item for the proposal for a Bay Unitary Authority and explained that elections to the new authority would not take place until 2023.  It was felt, therefore, that there was not a need to ask for any delay in the 2021 elections, as councillors elected in 2021 would serve for a period of two years.

 

Councillor Archibald having moved the recommendations within the report was seconded by Councillor Dyan Jones.

 

Concerns were raised with regard to the cost implications of full elections, to safety for voters in the light of Covid-19, as well as to those involved in political campaigning and the delivery of leaflets, and to the imminence of reorganisation.  A particularly strong concern was raised at the holding of elections in May 2021, reference being made to the sacrifices being made by NHS workers, and it being stressed that this would be irresponsible during a pandemic and that it would not be until at least June before there was any sign of normality.

 

A number of comments were raised.  It was suggested that, should the elections go ahead, they should be carried out through all-out postal votes, thereby allowing residents to engage safely, with attention being drawn to the fact that not everyone would have been vaccinated against Covid-19 by May 2021.  A pressing need for all-out postal votes was stressed and the fact that it was in the Council’s gift to make comment within its response to MHCLG to ask for consideration to be given to this or to some other safe method of voting.  Another suggestion was that more postal votes should be encouraged but that this should not be enforced, with some residents seeing it as their civic duty to attend a polling station to cast their vote.  Attention was drawn to the fact that both the Cumbria County Council Conservative Group Leader and Labour Group Leader had asked for the elections to be cancelled but that the Cumbria County Council Liberal Democrat Group’s desire was for the elections to proceed.  It was raised that the extra costs involved in holding elections would be minimal, as it was believed that the Police and Crime Commissioner elections were scheduled to take place in any case.

 

A majority spoke in favour of pressing ahead with elections due to the fact that there were vacancies on the Council, Members feeling that it would not be democratic to put them off due to local government re-organisation or Covid-19.  It was, furthermore, pointed out that the question being asked was whether the Council wished to hold elections in May 2021 due to local government re-organisation and not due to Covid.

 

The Legal, Governance and Democracy Lead Specialist (Monitoring Officer), during discussion, explained that the issue of all out postal voting was beyond the Council’s control and reminded Members that the Council was being specifically asked to comment on the holding of elections as part of the proposal for reform.  She added that, the decision on whether to hold elections was down to Government and that, if the elections were to proceed, guidance on safe voting was also expected.

 

Councillor Archibald reiterated the fact that the Council was being asked if want to delay the elections due to reorganisation.  In response to a query raised during discussion, he informed Members that the Police and Crime Commissioner elections were currently scheduled to be held in May 2021, and that these would go ahead unless the Government decided to delay for a month or so in the light of Covid-19.  Councillor Archibald acknowledged the validity of the points raised around the need to ensure that people could vote safety though the maximisation of postal voting.   He suggested that this could be considered at a future meeting, potentially through an appropriate motion.  Today’s question, he said, was different, and he asked Members to support the proposal.

 

A vote on the proposal was taken by roll call and it was

 

RESOLVED – That

 

(1)        Council expresses a preference at this stage:-

 

(a)        not to request a postponement of local elections (By Elections/Local and Town and Parish) in May 2021 on account of proposals for local government reorganisation;

 

(b)        specifically, that South Lakeland’s District Elections and By Elections, together with By Elections for town/parishes be excepted from any cancellation of elections under any future Structural Changes Order; and

 

(c)        that the County Council elections proceed in May 2021; and

 

(2)        MHCLG be advised of the need to consider the timing of any future consultation on proposals and conflict with purdah restrictions and to exercise their powers with regard to the holding of local elections accordingly.

Wards affected: (All Wards);

Lead officer: David Sykes


13/10/2020 - Local Government Ombudsman Annual Review and Complaints received from April 2019 to March 2020 ref: 4454    Recommendations Approved

Decision Maker: Standards Committee

Made at meeting: 13/10/2020 - Standards Committee

Decision published: 11/02/2021

Effective from: 13/10/2020

Decision:

The Operational Lead, Case Management, presented the annual report of the Local Government Ombudsman for 2019/2020 and the summary of complaints and compliments received from April 2019 to March 2020.

 

The Operational Lead, Case Management, informed Members that in line with the introduction of Customer Connect, the Council had recently implemented an online system for logging, monitoring and responding to customer comments, compliments and complaints. In addition, following the implementation of the new online complaints reporting system, the Council had introduced a streamlined Complaints Policy which had reduced the number of complaint levels from three levels to two levels. She went on to provide detailed statistics which included a breakdown of the complaints received relating to service areas.

 

The Operational Lead, Case Management, drew Members attention to the Local Government Ombudsman Annual Review 2019/20 letter, at Appendix 2 to the report and responded to questions raised by Members.

 

RESOLVED – That the annual report of the Local Government Ombudsman for 2019/20 and the summary of complaints and compliments received from April 2019 to March 2020, be received.


13/10/2020 - Code of Conduct Complaints ref: 4455    Recommendations Approved

Decision Maker: Standards Committee

Made at meeting: 13/10/2020 - Standards Committee

Decision published: 11/02/2021

Effective from: 13/10/2020

Decision:

The Legal, Governance and Democracy Lead Specialist (Monitoring Officer) presented the Code of Conduct Complaints report. She informed Members that, at the time of writing the report, there were two active complaints which were awaiting further information and clarification prior to consideration by the Independent Person.

 

In response to a question raised by a Member, the Legal, Governance and Democracy Lead Specialist (Monitoring Officer) outlined the complaints procedure.

 

RESOLVED – That the Code of Conduct Complaints report be noted.


13/10/2020 - Standards Committee Work Programme ref: 4456    Recommendations Approved

Decision Maker: Standards Committee

Made at meeting: 13/10/2020 - Standards Committee

Decision published: 11/02/2021

Effective from: 13/10/2020

Decision:

The Legal, Governance and Democracy Lead Specialist (Monitoring Officer) presented a verbal report on the Work Programme and drew Members attention to the previous meeting of the Standards Committee and the discussion which had taken place regarding the Local Government Association Civility in Public Life and the Review of the Model Code of Conduct, following which it had been agreed to focus the Work Programme on the Code of Conduct for Members. She informed Members that since the submission in response to the consultation, nothing had been received in terms of any proposals in relation to the Code of Conduct. However, plans were in place to deliver virtual training on the Code of Conduct to District and Parish Councillors, which would be facilitated using Microsoft Teams.

 

Discussion took place regarding Microsoft Teams and its accessibility to Co-opted Members and whether other meeting platforms could be considered. Members agreed that due regard should be given to the accessibility for all Councillors and Co-optees to virtual meetings and training.

 

The Legal, Governance and Democracy Lead Specialist (Monitoring Officer) agreed that virtual meetings and training needed to be inclusive and undertook to clarify the situation regarding inclusivity of Microsoft Teams Live Events and possible other options with the IT Lead Specialist.

 

RESOLVED – That the Work Programme be received.