Transcript
Matthew Maxwell Scott, Chair of Development Control Committee, welcome all to County Hall for the final Development Control Committee of this Council term. I will at the end of the meeting say a few thank yous to colleagues and officers and others. Obviously the extent of those thank yous and how meaningful they are depends partly on your behaviour during the meeting.
So, looking at you Steve.
D-mob happy. Right. It's just a little bit of housekeeping. There's not a fire alarm expected. I'm conscious there are members of the public here, so I need to go through these things. If there is a fire alarm, please wait at assembly point C, but you'll be directed by fire wardens to the right points. Please make sure any phones, tablets, other mobile devices are on silent.
This is a public meeting. We're being webcast live to the county and to the country and to the world. Camera will, of course, focus on you when you're speaking. This applies to members of the committee as well as any guest speakers, but if you don't want it on you, just say to members of the public, please, if you are going to film anything, do so in a very sort with members of the committee, i.e. passing notes or comments.
And for those who are watching, and I'm sure there are many, many thousands out there, the agenda, including the reports and presentations that members have received, can be found on Lancashire County Council's homepage.
Go to the council, then our meeting information, select development control, and then today's date, which is the sixth mechanism. Just let me know. We'll temporarily stop the meeting.
So, item one is apologies for absence. I've had them from County Councillor Jackie Oates and from County Councillor David Westley.
So, just for noting. Item two, disclosure of pecuniary and non-pecuniary interest. Does anyone have anything to declare?
Councillor Clarke.
I'd like to declare an interest on item 11, as I am the Chairman of the Deals with Children in Care.
So you are. Thank you very much. Councillor Paterson.
Thanks, Chair. I'm a sub on Lancaster City Council Planning, so item six and seven.
Will I be all right voting on them, or do I have to go out?
I don't think so, unless, yeah. Thank you, though. Three, which is the minutes of the meetings, tings, held on the 15th of January of this year.
Are we all happy for me to sign those as an accurate record? Councillor Pope.
Yeah, Chair, I'd just like to make a comment. I mean, I think we did expect by now the Roundall Quarry issue to be coming back to this meeting.
I've had an exchange of emails with Jonathan, and he said the developers were waiting for the good weather.
Well, they've had probably six or seven weeks of very good weather, and they've done nothing.
So I am very concerned about the monitoring of this. I think the recent appeals for Powerball...
June the 16th. They should be coming back. Okay. June the 11th. It's in June.
Are we happy for me to sign them? Yes. Good. Thank you very much.
Item four is the update sheet, which should be in front of you. Does anyone need any extra time to read those?
I'm sure officers will set out what's in them when the time comes, which takes us on to item five, which is Chorley Borough, LCC 2024-23.
It's the erection of an anaerobic digester unit with associated infrastructure on land adjacent to Wigan Lane, Heath-Charnock, Adlington, and Chorley.
Rob, to present, please. Thank you.
Thank you. Good morning.
So, in essence, planning permission is sought for a facility for the anaerobic digestion of agriculture can be injected into the national grid or tanker off-site,
and then utilising heat or power to generate electricity or heat.
This, again, this is a view from the sort of southeast elevation.
So I'll just take you back. There's this area here, which is in the direction.
This agricultural land to the north of the site, which was part of the former open cast.
This is footpath number 12.
In the northern Sandy Lane in Adlington, this is the part of the footpath number 12.
Looking down towards the site, you can just make out farm rooftop here.
So the site would be, which is contrary to the purposes of including land in Greenbelt, would be substantial.
The applicant has presented very special circumstances to support the proposed sites outside the Greenbelt,
which together present a strong case.
In terms of other harm, it has been concluded that the impacts on local landscape character and visual impact
in the vicinity of a scene by the Environment Agency through the environmental permitting process.
There will be minor impacts on biodiversity in trees on site as part of construction works,
but the required...
Members, I'm speaking this morning on behalf of the residents of Adlington, Anderton and Heath-Tronick,
who are extremely concerned about this application and will be severely impacted by this.
And we're asking that you support your officer's recommendation to refuse this application.
Firstly, there's no escaping the fact that this site is in the Greenbelt.
An application of this huge size and scale referred to as what could be the biggest site in Europe
is therefore inappropriate development in the Greenbelt and harmful by its definition.
The proposed site is 4.4 hectares with eight structures, each 10 metres high with a 6 metre dome,
plus a multitude of other structures and proposed changes to the landscape.
This is entirely inappropriate for the Greenbelt.
Not only that, this will result in a reduction in the openness of the countryside and the wider Greenbelt.
Any special circumstances documented by the applicant do not, in our view,
overcome the harm that this proposal would cause to the Greenbelt and its encroachment into the countryside.
Therefore, in our view, it's contrary to the National Planning Policy Framework.
The original write-up of the application by the applicant presented, in our view,
a false picture that this site is in the middle of nowhere and nowhere near any properties.
And I appreciate that this has now been updated on supplementary documentation.
However, it's important to bear in mind that there is a community of approximately 800 properties in Lower Adlington
that are just over 400 yards away from the boundary of the site.
In fact, it's so close, I'm told historically by residents,
that the miners used to walk down Sandy Lane and cross Wigan Lane to Ellabert Colliery,
to the other side of Wigan Lane, many years ago,
which reiterates the close location to the community of Lower Adlington.
Therefore, given the close location, the potential odours and the noise disturbance levels
would present an unacceptable impact on the amenity of residential occupiers in Lower Adlington,
contrary to policies EP3 and B&E1 of the Chorley Local Plan 2012-2026.
Members, this proposal, in my view, is industrialising the Greenbelt and our countryside,
and along with Adlington, Anderson, Heath, Charnock and Coppell Parish Councils,
the ward councillors across the three wards this impacts,
the neighbouring councillors from the Wiganborough,
and our MP, Lindsay Hoyle,
we ask that you support your office's recommendations and reject this application.
Thank you.
Thank you very much.
Well, within time as well, so thank you.
Good luck that you cough.
Next, we have Councillor Kevin O'Donnell, who's from Adlington Town Council.
Councillor O'Donnell, welcome.
Just start whenever you feel ready.
Sorry?
Sorry?
Chair, I'm speaking on behalf of Adlington Town Council and residents of Adlington,
and in particular Lower Adlington, where I live,
and these are the residents who could potentially be most affected by this proposed scheme.
As you can see from behind, there's a large number of residential properties in Lower Adlington,
located in a roughly easterly direction from the proposed site,
around 400 metres from the digester and associated plant and equipment.
And as Kim referred to, on the initial planning application,
the aerial views provided didn't show these properties,
but we note that the subsequent revision did show this.
Now, I've had many residents expressing extreme concern about this potential development,
and there are three major concerns to people living in this area.
Firstly, there's potential for odours, including hydrogen sulfide,
to be emitted from the plant when operating,
and as the prevailing wind predominantly comes from the westerly,
southwesterly directions, residents, and Lower Adlington.
And hydrogen sulfide is a by-product of an anaerobic digestive process
and is a very smelly, toxic gas.
Secondly, low-frequency sound produced by plant and equipment,
not often recognised,
but can be quite intrusive and disruptive at night to local residents.
And then thirdly, the layout of local roads, in our opinion,
for access to the proposed sites mean access or standish.
All of these roads have a lot of residential locations in them that...
One minute.
One minute, thank you.
300 HGV movements a week, 15,000 a year.
So that means all this traffic, large HGVs,
will pass through residential areas
and could cause significant noise and disturbance to local residents.
As Kim said, the site's located in the Greenbelt on agricultural land
and it seems to be an odd case.
And Adlington Town Council and residents
would ask the LCC Planning Committee to note our concerns
and refuse consent for this scheme.
Thank you.
That's just a few.
Very good.
Thank you, all noted.
And third objector we have is Councillor John Donnellan,
who's from Heath Charnock Parish Council.
At the moment, waste sites where these odours are being generated.
There's lots of concern.
And they are supposedly controlled by the Environment Agency
and looked after, but have you found a scene?
There are no statutory consultee objections in this development.
The two concerns raised are visual impact
and inappropriate development in the Greenbelt.
Why is this such a problem on a well-screened site,
as we've seen from the images?
The members of the committee that visited last week
will know that you could drive past the site on the air road
without even knowing the farm was there.
It will be the same with the AD plan.
The site will not be visible or noticeable.
The only visual impact will be from approximately 300 metres
of a very little-used public footpath
after passing a recycling centre and landfill.
This is an agricultural digester
and needs to be built alongside a farm with the feedstocks
and a connection to the NTS gas system.
Every agricultural digester I have visited in the UK and across Europe,
every one, including the one this committee passed in November
at Stanley Villa Farm, are built in the Greenbelt.
Incidentally, Stanley Villa is designed and built
by the same company we are proposing to use,
March's Biogas, from Ludlow, a UK company.
Why is this one any different?
The NTS is the main high-pressure gas main
from the top of Scotland to the south of England.
National gas transmission have worked extremely hard
to grant connections to this pipeline
as they are desperate for more biomethane in the grid.
This site is unique in that we have an adjacent NTS high-pressure gas main.
Within a three-mile radius of this site,
over 50,000 tonnes of farm animal manure is produced annually today.
This is currently spread onto the land in its raw state.
The AD plant will receive this manure instead
and process it into digestate and biomethane.
This is the same gas that you use at home.
When the manure leaves the site as digestate,
it will have been pasteurised and comply with PAS 110,
which is regulated by the Environment Agency.
All pathogens and the majority of the order will have been removed.
The digestate is a nutrient-rich fertiliser
that is far more bioavailable than raw manures.
The local farms will receive income.
They're supplying raw manure to the site
and take back the digestate to use as fertilisers,
helping the farms meet their every increase in environmental obligations.
This site will produce 100 million kilowatts of biomethane per annum,
which equates to 9,000 ohms,
15% of Preston's ohms, with clean energy.
We will be displacing six supertankers of frat gas from America.
We'll be replacing our tractor fleet with CNG tractors built in Basel in the UK.
Our HGV partners are committed to fuelling around the country
at many of the CNG sites like the one we have at Leyland.
Germany have close to 10,000 of these agricultural AD plants.
We currently have 685, mainly generating electric.
Denmark's gas grid is 23% bio-methane,
and they're aiming by 2030 to be at 100%.
In the UK, ours is currently lower than 2%.
The site will be capturing all the CO2 within the process
and upgrading the gas to bio-methane.
This will be in excess of 20,000 tonnes of CO2 captured per year.
I'm going to have to stop you there, I'm afraid.
I'm going to have to stop you there, I'm afraid.
Very quick.
Yes, yeah, displaced.
Having farmed for many years,
this is the first time I've seen irrigation in April in this region.
We all know climate is changing.
If we don't allow development such as this,
what future are we leaving for our children and grandchildren?
This is a perfect site, and development should be granted.
And I'm happy to say, any questions?
No, we don't have any questions, but thank you nonetheless for that.
And I think an extra few seconds was fair enough,
seeing as there were three objectors and one supporter.
Right, as I said, it's a very good report,
and it's been very interesting.
I think my personal comment on this would be,
actually, there's a lot to...
2012 to 2026.
The scale and size,
and I think the number of vehicle movements
is totally under footpath,
which might be referred to as being underused,
but I think that's because the environment around it
is quite industrialised.
And actually, that should be improving.
Most people thought that the industrial unit,
the factory to the side looks a bit like a shed,
was operational.
I only discovered on Friday it's not operational,
even though it was granted planning permission
significant years ago.
And I just thought that was the only qualification
for being of special circumstances.
It's not operational,
so what's that about?
There is no poo.
You know, so we're now talking about having to bring poo in,
which means, you know,
we've got all these poo lorries coming through.
Regardless of what you say going down the A6,
they're going to come down,
spend more laying in Cople,
and that would be an utter disgrace,
because the roads might be doing their functioning properly,
but the pavements aren't,
and residents are at risk.
So, I recommend that we,
I'd like to propose that we go for...
Thank you, Councillor Yates.
Look, I think we probably are in agreement on this.
We have obviously visited the side,
we have grounds, I'd say,
for refusal on the basis set out.
But Councillor Pope,
would you like to say something?
Yeah, I mean, I agree with what's being said,
but it's just the issue on that.
That would be all right.
Yeah, I can...
Good morning, everyone.
I can speak sort of generally.
I think the key task for us
is updating the local development plan.
It's in quite quickly now,
and will hopefully give us, you know,
an updated, fit-for-purpose set of policies and procedures
under our new Waste of Minerals local plan.
Not by the next meeting.
Right, OK.
No, it is noted, I think, that.
Thank you, Councillor Pope.
We have a question from Councillor Clark.
Thank you, Chair.
I was a bit concerned about the Environment Agency
saying no objection on this.
I can actually see in the whole,
it is a good idea to produce power this way,
and one thing or another.
But for the Environment Agency saying no objection,
I would like to say is that the Environment Agency,
I wouldn't trust them as far as I could throw them,
because what has happened at Fleetwood,
they've allowed the owners from a tip,
which they're supposed to be responsible for,
to cause major problems about it.
Thank you.
That was of some relevance, Steve, I think.
It's fair to say.
But, again, your opinion is on.
I think you're probably preaching to the converted
when it comes to Environment Agency.
We have a proposal to refuse the application
proposed by Councillor Holgate first.
I want to make a comment.
Thank you, Chairman.
I know it's my last meeting,
but I don't want to be cut off short.
Thank you for the presentation,
and thank you for the documentation.
It is very, very thorough indeed.
And as you read through it,
you get the impression that everything's okay with the application.
And I, too, believe that anaerobic digestion can be
and will be a significant part of farming going forward.
About 50 years ago,
I used to take trips down to the Centre for Alternative Technology
in McConflith,
and they had an anaerobic digester.
They were well ahead of the curve in their little community,
and it was quite a smelly device, I must say.
However, technology has moved on,
and I have quite a reason,
especially if it's run properly
and doesn't cause inconvenience.
But as you go farther and farther into the report by Jonathan,
it becomes apparent there is one significant,
well, one or two significant issues
that dealt with the impending poo, as Julia calls it,
that will be produced by the adjoining...
...today as a sort of super sub.
So thank you for being with us.
Over to you.
Agenda item five.
This is the anaerobic digester unit
with associated infrastructure at Adlington Chorley.
The recommendation is to refuse the planning permission refusal.
If you can take to voting using the buttons in front of you,
either for refusal, against, or abstain,
voting will be open for 30 seconds.
Okay.
So the motion has been carried.
Right.
Thank you very much,
and thank you again to our four speakers
for being with us today.
Takes us on to...
And you are, of course,
very welcome to stay for the rest of the meeting
if you'd like to,
but you may well have other things to do.
But thank you for being...
Just...
You're welcome.
Thank you for being with us.
Right.
Item number six is Lancaster City,
LCC 2024-12.
This is the amendment to conditions 1, 2, 4, 6, 41, and 43,
of planning permission reference 0109-360,
to put an extension of the depth of the quarry
to 37 metres, minus 37 metres above ordnance datum.
Continued working of the quarry
until 31st of December 2077,
with restoration by 31st of December 2078.
I look forward to that.
And consequent amendments to the working scheme
and restoration proposals,
Bat Lane Quarry, Bat Lane,
Nether Kellett, Carnforth, LA6, 1EA.
And I would just add,
before I hand over to Jonathan to present,
that obviously this application,
and item number seven,
should be considered very close.
The current authorised limit of plus 38 metres.
The current applications are to deepen both quarries
to minus 37...
Site visit.
Obviously they have to be seen really together,
otherwise it doesn't work.
And I have to say,
I'm not the county councillor for the division in question,
I'm neighbouring,
but considering the vast scale of this,
for there to be so few comments,
I think tells something of a story.
Has anyone got any questions?
Or Councillor Clarke.
Yes, thank you, Chair.
I've got to admit,
I would like to thank the companies,
both for letting us,
the site visit on Monday.
I was very impressed, actually,
how well run the place was.
I couldn't believe the size of the area,
but it's immense.
And I can actually see,
for the infrastructure of the country,
we need these sorts of materials.
And I am therefore quite willing to propose
that we accept the application.
Two separate votes,
just for...
Two separate votes, definitely.
I'm used to...
Yeah.
No, they're just to be seen together,
but voted on separately,
because they have to be.
Yeah, yeah.
That's fine.
Okay.
I'll do the same thing,
just through a different mechanism.
Well, there's a couple more questions,
and we can put,
if necessary,
come back to that,
if that's all right,
Councillor Hayes.
Councillor Cullens.
The cruciality here is that,
and for what the site owner said,
we've done this for years,
but companies come and companies go.
You know, they're my...
Okay.
Councillor Holger,
and then Councillor Clarke.
Thank you, Chairman.
Over the years,
I've had some proper good goals
at various nature,
and in my view, rightly so.
However,
I think it's only fair to say
that the current site operation
does have a point,
far be it from me to agree with Barry,
but on this occasion,
I think his concerns about,
I think it was procedures
and habits changed with it.
So,
I take comfort from the fact
there's a 106 agreement
being put in place
that will enable some...
Thank you,
Councillor Holger.
Councillor Clarke.
Thank you, Chair.
I totally agree, actually,
with the Council of the Year's,
because it's basically,
what we've got to think about
is these people are actually
operating it absolutely perfect
at the moment.
No problems at all,
I must admit,
it's actually run right,
even the wheel wash and everything
is done perfectly.
Now, the only thing is,
you've hit the nail on the head here,
if there's a change of operator
or a change of people running the area,
would they still maintain
the same,
well,
well-run way it's being done
at the moment?
Because I've actually seen that,
again,
I'm sorry to bring it back up,
but Fleetwood Tip altered operations,
and look what happened there.
Now, the thing is,
we need to actually ensure
that if there is a change of operator
or ownership,
that this travel...
I can expect,
so the permission would run with the land,
not with the operator,
so that enforceable section 106 agreement
to make sure the highways are maintained,
and what we've been advised
is that to add an additional condition
would not achieve anything
that would be legally enforceable.
therefore,
it's a question of whether or not
we're prepared to accept that legal advice.
Stephanie, is that correct?
Yeah, if I can just come back,
there's a section 106 agreement
is binding on successes in title.
Councillor Candon,
we're not in section 106, are we?
That's the problem,
because you mentioned
the maintenance highway,
that's not what this committee
is currently discussing,
it's actually usage of that highway,
and I don't know
how that can ever be brought back,
I'm not, you know,
we have to leave that to the officers
to come up with,
but I think what we're trying to say
is that...
If you want to move an amendment
and second it,
we could have a vote on that.
Do you...
To amend...
Right, we'd have to come back
to exactly what you'd want,
but do you have an 06 agreement
and Councillor Cullens?
Sorry, Joe,
in a roundabout way,
I would second that,
but again,
we're told leadly
that there can't be a condition,
you know,
or if leadly were voting
for something
that can't be there.
...information at this committee
at this time,
then, yes.
So, just to be clear,
if we were to go along with...
I'll bring you in a second,
Jonathan.
If we were to go along
with officers' recommendation
to officers on...
Jonathan,
could you come in?
Yeah, thank you.
I think we can certainly commit
to when finalising
the 106 agreement
to make sure that...
Yes, well, exactly,
it's the same that already exists.
So, Barry,
do you insist on trying
to add a condition?
No.
If...
We should...
...of the 106
when it has been agreed.
Thank you.
Right, Christ.
All right, look,
I think I'm going to...
Does anyone else want to...
Wait, wait.
This is time
we could use
for spending leafleting.
We have a proposer
in Councillor Clark
and a seconder
in Councillor Yates.
If there are no more
further comments,
Stephanie, over to you.
Thank you.
Just to be clear...
Item 6.
Yeah, sorry,
just to be clear,
yes, items 6 and 7,
we've had one presentation on,
but there are going
to be two separate votes.
So, this is the vote
for Agenda Item 6.
This is the amendment
to the conditions
1, 2, 4, 6...
Lovely, I think that's...
The motion is carried.
Thank you.
Lovely.
Thank you all very much
and thank you to officers
for their help on that
and I suggest
that surviving members
of the committee
go to see
the restoration works
when they are unveiled
in the 80s.
But looking at it,
I think that's none of us.
Item number 8,
then,
is Wire Barrow,
LCC,
2024-31.
It's the direction
of a pressure relief column,
control keels,
raised access platform,
the formation of temporary
and permanent site access,
association,
the installation
of a detention tank.
It's a land adjacent
to St. Michael's
on Wire pumping station
adjunction of Garstang Road
and Warcliffe Road.
St. Michael's watercourse
to prevent the sewage system
becoming inundated.
The overall purpose
of the development
including an underground
detention tank
is to provide sufficient
storage of wastewater.
The site is situated
within flood zones 3
but the area has a benefit.
I can just see the site here
neighbouring properties
in the A586.
So the application
is before you today
because Upper Rawcliffe
and Tarnacre Parish Council
have objected
to the proposed siting
of,
sorry,
of...
This is agenda item A,
direction of a pressure relief column,
control kiosk,
raised access platform,
formation of temporary
and permanent site access
in association
with installation
of a detention tank
at land adjacent
to St. Michael's
on Wire pumping station.
The recommendation
is to approve
and grant planning permission
subject to the conditions
set out in the report.
If we can vote on the motion,
please vote using the buttons
in front of you
either for,
against or abstain.
Voting will remain open
for 30 seconds.
Thank you.
And the motion is carried.
Lovely.
Thank you, Stephanie.
Thank you all very much.
My proposal...
You might have a great deal to say.
Yes, Chairman.
My query was on exactly that.
I was wondering
why we were coming
to this committee
to discuss this issue
when, in fact...
Well, it's a stretch of way
with Jonathan,
perhaps you should come in,
but bearing in mind
Jonathan is the applicant here, so...
Yeah, just to clarify,
the levelling up funding,
national funding scheme,
some of the money
went to district councils,
but also some of the money
has come to the...
To be clear, so...
Thanks, Stephanie.
Over to you.
Sorry, I'll propose both of them
if someone wants to second both of them.
Councillor Clarke.
There we go.
Thank you, Chair.
This is Agenda Item 9.
Public realm improvements
are set out in the report
on page 179
to the land at the junction
of Nuttall Street
and Royd Street.
The recommendation is to approve
and grant planning permissions
subject to the conditions
set out in the report.
If we can vote on this motion,
if you would vote
using the buttons in front of you,
either for, against, or abstain,
voting will remain open for 30 seconds.
That's fine.
We can move on to the next one.
Motion is carried.
And now on to Agenda Item 10.
This is the formation of green space,
including landscaping,
footpath, play equipment,
and street furniture,
and lighting on land
between Fulbarn Crescent
and Hardman Avenue,
Rottenstall.
The recommendation is to approve
and grant planning permission
subject to the conditions
set out in the report.
If we can vote on this motion,
if you would vote
using the buttons in front of you,
either for, against, or abstain,
voting will remain open for 30 seconds.
That takes us on to Agenda Item 11,
which is a little bit more complicated,
which is Burnley Borough,
LCC 2025 5.
It's a change of use
from Class C3A,
dwelling house,
to Class C2,
residential institutions,
to enable the product
of use as a home
for up to two young persons
between the ages of 11 and 17 years,
with no more than two carers,
staying in the property overnight,
providing care as required.
This is Maybury,
Maybury Avenue,
in Burnley.
Helen, I'm glad you could be with us
as a future presenter.
Thank you, Chair.
This is a planning application
for the change of use
of an existing residential
of 17 years old,
with no more than two carers
staying overnight.
The property is located
at Maybury Avenue,
in Burnley.
This is a cul-de-sac
located off Stephenson Drive,
which is,
Stephenson Drive is this road here,
and this is Maybury Avenue,
with the town centre.
The application property
is a two-storey detached dwelling
with four bedrooms.
There is also a ground floor room
that is indicated
as a bedroom
on the estate agent's particulars.
It is located on a corner plot
with a driveway to the front,
which the front elevation is here,
fronting onto Maybury Avenue,
and gardens to the sides
and the rear.
This here would be classed
as the rear elevation.
Maybury Avenue has a mixture
of two-storey detached
and semi-detached properties
and bungalows.
The next slide shows
an aerial view
of more of the surrounding area.
You can see that the property
is located in a predominant...
There is Eynon Hill Park nearby.
This slide shows
the internal layout
of the property.
It's not proposed
to make any changes
to the internal layout.
As you can see,
there are four bedrooms
on the first floor,
and the estate agents
have chosen to denote
that particular property
as a bedroom as well,
but you can see
from the description
of the development
that the proposal
is up to two young persons.
This slide shows
the front elevation
of the property
fronting onto Maybury Avenue.
This will come to in the report.
There are proposals
to increase the width
of the driveway slightly
by removing this area of fencing.
This is a view
of the property
from Stevenson Drive.
You can see the property
is here on the corner.
This road here
is Maybury Avenue.
This is a privately owned
and adopted road.
This is the side elevation
of the property
as viewed
from Stevenson Avenue.
So you can see
it's well screened
by Mature.
This was by
Lancashire County Council
Highways.
Burnley Council
have drawn attention
to the parking requirements
of their local plan
but do not raise
any objections
to the proposal.
A total of 14 letters
of objections
from local residents
have been received.
The matters raised
in the letters of objection
are set out in detail
in the committee report
but to summarise
the concerns relate
to impacts
on the amenity
of neighbouring residents
through increased levels
of the occupants
and the timings
of coming and goings
to the property.
Concerns around highway safety
have been raised
due to increased
vehicle movements,
the number of vehicles
likely to be visiting
the property
and potential increases
in on-street parking.
A number of concerns
have been raised
around the cumulative impact
and interaction
with the neighbouring property
which is,
you can see a small part
of it there,
it's quite a large property.
This property is known
as Gorse Hill
which is an existing
care home
providing support
with adults
for adults
with disabilities
and complex needs.
There are concerns
raised regarding
the potential behaviours
of the children
who would live
at the property
and that the proposal
could lead to an area.
The unsuitability
of the location
due to the proximity
to the local park,
proximity to existing
care homes
and existing problems
with antisocial behaviour
which may both impact
on the children
living in the home
and may also increase
as a result
of the proposal.
Concerns have been raised
that there are too many
facilities of this nature
already in the area.
The proposal would have
a negative impact
on the character
of the area
and a number
of other matters
are also raised
which are not
material planning
for the future
and concerns
around how the private road
will be maintained
in the future.
This application
has been submitted
by Lancashire County Council
as part of its
statutory responsibilities
to ensure
the sufficient availability
of homes
to meet the needs
of children
and young people
in its care.
In April 2024
the Council's Cabinet
approved a programme
and capital funding
for the establishment
of a further 15
council run
children's homes
in addition to the 15
that have already
been agreed.
The applicant has provided
the following information
in support of the application.
Despite having
a larger number
of children's homes
in the county
the council often
struggles to find
good quality
Lancashire child
living there.
Only 29%
of the new
children's care homes
that opened in Lancashire
in 2023 and 2024
were caring for
Lancashire registered
children's home
located within a mile
of the proposed home.
In May 2023
central government
produced a written
ministerial statement
to address planning
for accommodation
for looked after children.
In that statement
the government
stressed that the
planning system
should not be a barrier
to providing homes
for the most
unacceptable level
of impact
on amenities
of neighbouring residents.
It is proposed
that the property
would be occupied
up to two children
and up to four members
of staff during the day
significantly different
to the normal activities
of a normal family home.
The fear of crime
can be a material
planning consideration
where a proposed use
would provide
reasonable disposal
regarding the potential
for an increase
in antisocial behaviour.
The operation
and management
of the property
would be such
that children
would be supervised
at all times
in the driveway
to enable three vehicles
to be parked
off the street.
The property
would therefore
meet the parking standards
as set out
in the council's
local plan
and no county council
highways have been received.
It is acknowledged
that there may be instances
where there are visitors
to the property
and that shifts
change over times
where on-street parking
may be necessary.
However,
this is not considered
that this would give rise
to such detriment
to highway safety
that would warrant
refusal of the application.
It is important
to the occupancy
would be similar
to the occupancy
of a family home.
In addition
to the way
it should be afforded
to the recent
ministerial statements
I would also draw
members' attention
to the details
into consideration.
It is considered
that the proposal
complies with national
and local policies
and would not have
such a detrimental impact
on the character
and amenity
in this application.
I wouldn't think so.
As long as I know that.
No?
Okay, just thought
worth mentioning that.
I was noting
that obviously
the comments
of the prospective neighbours
I think there's a lot
to support
in this application.
Councillor Patterson
and Councillor Clarke.
Yes,
at the moment
there's just two
places to park
two cars
and then they're
taking the fence
down for three.
That is correct,
yes.
The driveway
is being widened
to make sure
that there is sufficient
space.
for the children
going.
Yes.
I know what parking
is like outside
the house.
Thank you.
Councillor Clarke.
As I said
I actually
have an interest
in this
as being the
Chairman of the
Corporate Parenting Board
but obviously
these properties
are essential
for our Lancashire
children.
The biggest problem
in Lancashire
we do have a lot
of children
living in Lancashire
and we have firms
from out of this queue.
Thank you.
Yes,
I think that's sensible
and some good points.
So Councillor Hindle
then Councillor
Sorry,
Councillor Hindle
then Councillor Rue.
I just wanted
for the committee
to know
to grant permission.
Yes,
please Mr Chairman.
Thank you.
Would anyone like to
Councillor Barry
I think
or do you have a question
as well
or is it just a second?
No,
in that case
any other comments?
And I know
when we discussed
a similar application
previously
whilst again
noting the concerns
by the residents
there was a lot
of support for this
but it might not
involve any of us
and I know
I'll come a little bit
why it won't involve
Helen either
but there we are.
Councillor Holgate.
Just to point out
really
just because
somebody's
looked after
a child
or has been
looked after
there's a huge
assumption
by some people
based out of
ignorance
nothing more
than that
that they're
going to be
troublesome
and cause
major
disruption
to the area.
Believe me
I've lived
next to people
who have not
been looked
after children.
A proposal
in Councillor
Brigby
and a second
in Councillor
Berry
so Stephanie
over to you.
This is agenda
item 11
a change of
use from
class C3
a dwelling
house
to class
C2
residential
institutions
to enable
the property
to be used
as a care
home
for up to
two young
people
between
11 and
17 years
with no
more than
two carers
staying in
the property
overnight
providing
care as
required
at Maybury
Avenue
Burnley.
The recommendation
is to
approve
and grant
you.
Thank you
Stephanie
very much
and thank
you all
for your
comments
on that.
Let's
take on to
item number
12.
Helen are
you planning
a presentation
on this?
No.
So number
12 which
is filed
by it's
a report
on appeal
decision
and it's
really just
for us
to consider
and receive.
Have we
considered
and received
it?
We have.
Lovely.
Thank you
very much.
There's no vote.
So item
13 is just
the decisions
taken on
development
and control
matters
by the
Director
of Environment
and Planning
in accordance
with the
County Council
Steeming
Delegation.
Is that
noted?
Lovely.
Well,
oh,
Councillor Pope.
Just
regarding
appeals,
I don't
think it
would be
a bad
idea
for the
committee
to actually
see the
appeal
decision
or be
very
informative
for
members.
Yes.
I think
in general
I should
just say
that this
is very
useful
this
report
for our
education
as much
as anything
but on
those
borough
council
appeals
well I
think in
general
I think
these sorts
of reports
are very
welcome
and we'd
like to
see them
in the future
I think
is the
point.
11th of
June
I think
11th of
June
here
just a
couple
of things
I'd like
to say
if you'll
grant it
just say
a lot
of thank
yous.
It's been
a very
interesting
four years
for me
as your
chairman
I've
learnt
a great
deal
and
I've
been
exceptionally
impressed
by the
officer
support
we have
it is
not
easy
this
committee
is not
easy
at all
it is
a
quasi
judicial
thing
it's
hugely
important
and it
obviously
matters a lot
to people's
lives
so we
rely
hugely
on the
advice
and
guidance
that we
are given
so to
Jonathan
Hayne
to Rob
Hope
to Helen
Ashworth
who I
note
with great
sadness
is leaving
us
but Wigan
Borough
Council's
gain
is our
considerable
loss
so Helen
thank you
for all
you've
done
for us
and
every
good
luck
in
future
but
also
to
thank
the
other
officers
who
are
involved
with us
Craig
who does
our
tech
thank you
Craig
Sam
Gorton
and Joanne
Mansfield
who are
exceptionally
the rest
of it
thank you
all
to
Jonathan
Edwards
the
Director
Stephanie
who
might be
one time
only
but thank
you for
your help
today
but to
all
we've
got
through
quite a lot
of lawyers
I don't
know what
it is
what it is
I've said
but thank
you to
them
and the
team
and also
obviously
can you
communicate
to the
wider
team
because
there
are
other
people
below
the
surface
as it
were
like a
duck
paddling
furiously
to produce
these reports
that are
enormously
complicated
and of a
this is
not just
your final
actions
formal
actions
as
councillors
so Councillor
Holgate
Councillor
Rigby
I don't
think
if anyone
else
is standing
down
I think
it's
because
they're
being
stood
down
by their
electorate
so
can I
say
personally
I very
much
hope
in all
of your
cases
that is
not
the
case
because
I
think
you
are
exceptionally
hard
work
and
finally
particular
thanks
to
my
former
deputy
and to
my
current
one
Councillor
Yates
it's
been
an
absolute
privilege
thank
you
Barry
thank
you
all
good
luck
and
maybe
see you
on the
11th
of
June
