Agenda item

The Board considered a report of the Chief Executive in respect of both these applications, a copy of which, marked ‘Item 7’, is filed with these minutes, along with a supplementary report which responded to representations from Mrs. J. Hunt MP. 

 

In accordance with the procedure for making representations to the Board, Mrs. E. Hollingshead, Mrs. K. Dalzell-Payne and Mrs. E. Goodwin (local residents) spoke against the proposals and Mrs. J. Saunders spoke as the applicant.

 

Mr. R. J. Shepherd CC spoke as one of the local members and stated that he objected to the proposals due to the noise caused by the lorries and the potential impact on the health and quality of life of local residents and he was of the view that lorry movements at 3:00am was unreasonable.

 

The Chief Executive reported that the local member Mr. J. Poland CC was concerned at the proposed extension of the hours during which lorries were permitted to travel down Paudy Lane, and Mr Poland CC asked for consideration to be given to the potential for the local railway to be extended so it could be used to transport goods into the British Gypsum Barrow Works site.

 

The Director of Law and Governance advised members to focus on planning issues when making their decision on the applications, having regard to the technical advice that is set out within the report in relation to matters such as pollution and noise. Advice with regard to reasons for refusal was also provided arising from comments made by members as they considered the report.

 

The Director of Law and Governance also advised that as some members had experienced technical difficulties during the meeting and not been able to hear all of the officers’ presentation, members needed to think carefully about whether they had sufficient information and understanding to make a decision on the applications and if they did not then they should not take part in the vote.

 

RESOLVED:

 

2018/2588/02 (2018/VOCM/0251/LCC)

 

(a)        That the application be refused;

 

(b)        That the Board confirms (as required by the Town and Country Planning (Development Management Procedure) (England) Order 2015 (as amended) that in dealing with the application the County Council worked in a positive and proactive manner, taking account of paragraph 38 of the National Planning Policy Framework.

 

REASONS FOR DECISION:

 

1.      Failure to accord with Policy DM1, with regards to the environmental and social impact upon residential properties in the locality.  The proposed mitigation of the acoustic fencing is not considered sufficient to mitigate against the noise, amenity and health impacts upon the residents of the nearest residential property.

 

2.      Failure to accord with Policy DM11, with respect to the cumulative impact upon the amenity of residential properties in the locality.

 

2018/2589/02 (2018/VOCM/0252/LCC)

 

(a)        That the application be refused;

 

(b)        That the Board confirms (as required by the Town and Country Planning (Development Management Procedure) (England) Order 2015 (as amended) that in dealing with the application the County Council worked in a positive and proactive manner, taking account of paragraph 38 of the National Planning Policy Framework.

 

REASONS FOR DECISION:

 

1.      Failure to accord with Policy DM1, with regards to the environmental and social impact upon residential properties in the locality.  The proposed mitigation of the acoustic fencing is not considered sufficient to mitigate against the noise, amenity and health impacts upon the residents of the nearest residential property.

 

2.      Failure to accord with Policy DM11, the cumulative impact upon the amenity of residential properties in the locality.

 

3.      With respect to the proposed increase in vehicle movements, the application fails to accord with Paragraph 8 of the NPPF, with regards to bullet points b) and c) in relation to the social and environmental objectives, respectively.  With regards to the social objective the application would fail to support communities’ health, social and cultural well-being. With regards to the environmental objective the application fails to demonstrate how the proposals would mitigate and adapt to climate change, including moving to a low carbon economy.

 

(Note: Mr. D. Harrison CC did not vote on either application as due to technical problems he had been unable to hear all of the officer’s presentation.)