Agenda item

Town and Country Planning Act 1990

Proposed residential development of 87 houses with new access from Rossendale Road and associated estate roads, open space and infrastructure. Proposal affects Public Footpath No. 8 (Habergham Eaves). Land South of Rossendale Road Burnley

A motion to delegate approval to the Head of Housing & Development Control subject to agreement of a S106 agreement and conditions was moved and seconded.  On being put to the vote the motion was declared to be lost.

It was moved, seconded and duly RESOLVED to adjourn the meeting for 10 minutes to allow some Members to consider whether there were material planning reasons to refuse the application.

The Head of Legal & Democratic Services issued the following Cost Warning to members:

‘May I remind members that any decision taken in this matter must be based on, and only on, proper planning grounds reflecting your planning judgment of the case. Your officers have advised fully in relation to the relevant material considerations and policy background and you should consider that advice carefully. Whilst you are not bound to follow that advice, in any appeal proceedings arising out of the decision you make, the Council will be expected to produce evidence to substantiate each reason for refusal, by reference to the Development Plan and all other material considerations. If the Council fail to, or cannot do so, then costs may be awarded against it.

To re-iterate, you are not bound to adopt the professional or technical advice given by your own officers, or received from statutory bodies or consultees. However, you will be expected to show that you had reasonable planning grounds for taking a decision contrary to such advice and are able to produce relevant evidence to support your decision in all respects. If the Council were to fail to do so, it may be liable to have costs awarded against it.

Whether or not a costs order may, or may not, be made and how much that may, or may not, amount to, is, however, not a material consideration and is therefore not something you should be considering in deciding whether planning permission should be granted or not.’

A motion to refuse the application for the following reasons was moved and seconded.

Local Plan Policy SP5 – Development Quality and Sustainability.  Although the properties were of a higher standard than required with regard to energy efficiency there was no evidence of consideration of alternative methods of fuelling the properties.

Local Plan Policy IC1 – Sustainable Travel.

Safety of access and egress from the site is a concern especially relating to those higher in the hierarchy of users – pedestrians and cyclists.  Distance residents would need to travel to access public transport was also concern. The relocation of the current bus stop was irrelevant due to lack of public transport on the road.  Methods of mitigation suggested by Lancashire County Council were not felt to be sufficient.

Local Plan Policy NE1 – Biodiversity

Although the mitigation proposes no net loss of biodiversity there will be a loss onsite.

Local Plan Policy IC5 – Protection & Provision of Social & Community Infrastructure

Inadequate provision of school places and difficulty accessing GP services.

The Planning Officer provided detailed advice to Members about the need to evidence each of the reasons for refusal they had provided.

As the motion was contrary to Officer recommendation and advice a named vote was taken as follows:

A motion to defer the application in order to seek further clarification from the highways authority regarding highways issues was moved and seconded.

On being put to the vote it was duly RESOLVED.

Decision

To defer the application and seek further clarification from the highways authority regarding highways issues.