To receive any apologies for absence.

Apologies for absence were received from Mr Bleasdale and Mrs Tarbitt.

To note any changes in membership.

It was noted that Mr R Bingham replaced Mrs V Tarbitt as a member of the Committee for this meeting only.

Members are invited to disclose any disclosable pecuniary interest they have in any item on the agenda which comprises

1          Details of any employment, office, trade, profession or vocation carried on for            profit or gain.

2          Details of any payment or provision of any other financial benefit (other than from the authority) made or provided within the relevant period in respect of any expenses incurred by you in carrying out duties as a member, or towards your election expenses.  (This includes any payment or financial benefit from a trade union within the meaning of the Trade Union and Labour Relations (Consolidation) Act 1992.

3          Details of any contract which is made between you (or a body in which you have a beneficial interest) and the authority

(a)       Under which goods or services are to be provided or works are to be executed; and

            (b)       Which has not been fully discharged.

4          Details of any beneficial interest in land which is within the area of the authority. 

5          Details of any licence (alone or jointly with others) to occupy land in the area of the authority for a month or longer. 

6          Details of any tenancy where (to your knowledge)

            (a)       The landlord is the authority; and

            (b)       The tenant is a body in which you have a beneficial                                                         interest.

7          Details of any beneficial interest in securities of a body where

(a)       That body (to your knowledge) has a place of business or land in the    area of the authority; and

(b)       Either –

(i)      The total nominal value of the securities exceeds £25,000 or one            hundredth of the total issued share capital of that body; or

(ii)     If that share capital of that body is of more than one class, the total nominal value of the shares of any one class in which the relevant person has a beneficial interest exceeds one hundredth of the total issued share capital of that class.

Note

A “disclosable pecuniary interest” is an interest of a councillor or their partner (which means spouse or civil partner, a person with whom they are living as husband or wife, or a person with whom they are living as if they are civil partners).

Mr J Holliday declared a non-pecuniary interest in Agenda Item No. 8(b) as a member of Allerdale Borough Council’s Development Panel.  He would leave the room when the item was discussed.

To consider whether the press and public should be excluded from the meeting during consideration of any item on the agenda.

RESOLVED,       that the press and public be not excluded during consideration of any items of business.

To confirm as a correct record the Minutes of a meeting held on 29 August 2012 (copy enclosed).

On Minute No. 44 Highways Act 1980 Section 119 – Application to Divert Public Footpath No 431056 marked A-B to a new route A-B-D-E-F-C in the parish of Whitehaven should have read A-D-E-F-C.

On Minute No. 46(2) Planning Application No’s. 3/12/9008 and 3/12/9009 members wanted it made clear that it was a transcript of what the objectors said on the day and not the opinion of the council.  On page 8, 6^th paragraph there was a typo …’the County Council’s Senior Mentoring and Enforcement Officer’ should have read ‘the County Council’s Senior Monitoring and Enforcement Officer.

Subject to the above, it was,

RESOLVED,       that the minutes of the meeting held on 29 August 2012 be confirmed as a correct record and signed by the Chairman.

[Electoral Division: Lyth Valley]

To consider a report from the Corporate Director – Environment (copy enclosed).

This report seeks a decision from the Committee as to whether it would authorise the Assistant Director Legal and Democratic Services, in consultation with the Assistant Director Highways and Transportation, to enter into a dedication agreement with the Department for Transport to provide for public vehicular rights through the Underpass subject to engineering works to obviate nuisance to non-motorised road users being completed to the satisfaction of the County Council.

The Committee considered a report from the Corporate Director – Environment which sought a decision from members as to whether to authorise the Assistant Director – Legal and Democratic Services to enter into a dedication agreement with the Department for Transport to provide for vehicular rights through the Underpass subject to engineering works to obviate nuisance from non-motorised road users being completed to the satisfaction of the County Council.  Members thanked the officers and all concerned for their efforts in finally coming up with a solution.  A member added that lessons could be learnt by taking account of the views of the local committee.  Mrs Gray MOVED the recommendation, this was SECONDED by Mr Stewart.

RESOLVED,       that the Assistant Director – Legal and Democratic Services, in consultation with the Assistant Director – Highways and Transportation be authorised to enter into a dedication agreement with the Department for Transport to provide for public vehicular rights through the A590 Witherslack Underpass subject to engineering works to obviate nuisance to non-motorised road users being completed to the satisfaction of the County Council.

In accordance with the Planning Act 2008 (Part 6 – Article 60) - the County Council, as a relevant local authority, is required to produce a Local Impact Report (which sets out what the Council consider to be the effects of a project upon the local area) to be submitted to the National Infrastructure Directorate to inform their decision upon the application.

[Electoral Division: All]

To consider a report from the Corporate Director – Environment (copy enclosed).

This report asks members to consider a joint Cumbria County Council/Barrow Borough Council Local Impact Report relating to an application for a Development Consent Order (DCO) to enable the applicant to construct and operate a new Biomass electricity generating station with a nominal capacity of 90MW, together with a number of associated developments

Land at Roosecote, Barrow-in-Furness.

The Committee considered a report from the Corporate Director – Environment which sought members approval of a joint Cumbria County Council/Barrow Borough Council Local Impact Report relating to an application for a Development Consent Order (DCO) to enable the applicant to construct and operate a new Biomass electricity generating station with a nominal capacity of 90MW, together with a number of associated developments.

Mr Hale, Spatial Planning Team Leader introduced the report.  Cumbria County Council was a stakeholder consultee along with Barrow Borough Council (BBC), Copeland Borough Council and South Lakeland District Council.  CCC were working jointly with BBC to prepare the Local Impact Report (LIR) by assessing information supplied by Centrica which the Secretary of State would consider.  However, no Planning Performance Agreement (PPA) between the joint authorities and Centrica RPS Ltd had been signed.  Due to the tight timescales, only limited independent studies had been commissioned at financial risk to both Authorities as part of the LIR process.  He had been mindful of the views of both members and objectors at the Barrow Local Committee meeting on 6 September when compiling the LIR.  If the Development Control & Regulation Committee (DC&R) endorsed the LIR, a further report would be prepared for Cabinet in November and their response would be sent to the National Infrastructure Directorate (NID). 

Mr Guselli, the local member for Roosecote and Chair of Barrow Local Committee addressed the Committee and made the following points:-

• He endorsed all the concerns raised within the 189 page report and placed his trust in the Committee to do likewise

• People in the area nearest to the proposed plant had been unable to sit in their gardens, open windows or even hang washing out because of odour from another adjacent industry left them feeling ill.  Yet it was an industry, regulated by the same standards for air quality and emissions as Centrica would use

• Only yesterday a resident told him how yet another accidental release of the chemical mercaptan, from Centrica’s existing terminal left her feeling physically sick.  Centrica’s plant near Plymouth accidentally released white smoke “as thick as fog” and with “a rancid burning smell”, described by a doctor as potentially dangerous to people’s health

• Accidents happen and with some of the worst health statistics in the UK, the people of Barrow and Furness do not want this additional risk

• Worrying concerns about the air quality were well documented in the report.  Wood in small quantities had been burned for years but habit did not make it safe.  Burning only 2 pounds of wood produced 0.3 grams of highly carcinogenic poly cyclic organic hydrocarbons.  This plant would burn a hundredweight of timber every 3 seconds

• Danish scientist, Professor Loft identified that the tiny airborne specks (particulate matter) in the smoke can be a silent killer because they were small enough to be inhaled into the deepest part of the lungs

• We were told tobacco, asbestos, vehicle emissions and lead were safe; we gave Thalidomide to expectant mothers  ...  view the full minutes text for item 57a

In accordance with the Town and Country Planning Act 1990, Schedule 1, paragraph 7, the County Council is consulted on those applications which are considered to fall within the agreed Development Control Code of Practice for Cumbria.

Mr Hale, Spatial Planning Team Leader introduced the report.  A member was concerned that the archaeological survey was desk-based.  The site adjoined Hadrian’s Wall and he did not think it was sufficient to say that the land had been disturbed over a number of years and therefore it was unlikely that there would be any artefacts.  He was informed that Appendix B contained a condition for archaeology. 

Mr Richardson had attended the site visit and asked if would be possible to extend Houghton School, as it was a vibrant village that would benefit from the development, he then MOVED the recommendation.  Mr Hale replied that the county council were only consultees and the timescales were too tight to look at extending the school.  However, officers’ preference was for the school to be extended but the other alternative would be a Section 106 Agreement, whereby the developer would pay for the transportation of the children to other schools.  He informed members that a draft Development Contribution Policy (DCP) had also been produced.  Mr Stewart SECONDED the recommendation added that he also fully supported the need for a developer contribution.  He asked if the DCP would be submitted to DC&R for members’ comments.  One member believed that the development should not be stifled by imposing Section 106 Agreement on the developer.  Increases in school rolls should be the responsibility of the county council.  Mr Hale explained that in determining the number of pupils in a school, they looked at the net number of pupils that would arise as a direct result of the development.  The county council as the education authority would fund extra numbers who were there already but not when it is a new development.  Housing developers recognised that new development contributions would be sought to not only support education but to improve the highway network or adult social care, this was in keeping with the rest of the country.  A member added that he was not against the application but there was a problem with an oversubscription in schools north of the River Eden. 

RESOLVED,       that

(1)NO OBJECTION be raised to the strategic principles of the development, provided that the Local Planning Authority:

i.                    is satisfied that there exists a shortfall of housing land that can be met by the proposal when considered against their housing land requirement;

ii.                  secures an appropriate supply of affordable housing proportionate to local needs from the development;

iii.                ensures that full and detailed consideration of ecological issues are carried out prior to determination;

iv.                 is satisfied that the development reflects and protects the character of the site and its surroundings; and

v.                   seek a financial contribution via a S106 agreement for additional capacity at a local school, in order to provide the required additional education facilities, or failing that option funds for the transportation of the 17 pupil yield, as set out paragraphs 3.31-3.37 of the report; and

(2)to note the response of the Highway Authority as set out in  ...  view the full minutes text for item 58a

Ms McEnaney, Planning Officer presented the report.  As the application was contrary to the Cumbria and Lake District Joint Plan Policy R44 due to adverse localised visual effects, Mr Stewart MOVED the recommendation. 

A member asked what would happen when the Regional Spatial Strategy (RSS) was revoked.  He had read in the local newspaper that there were a further 93 similar schemes planned for Allerdale.  Previous applications that had been turned down by Allerdale Borough Council’s Planning Committee had been overturned on appeal.  He was informed that the RSS was still in place for now and whilst the government had given an indication that they would withdraw the RSS, there was no indication as to when it would be withdrawn. If the RSS was withdrawn, any saved Cumbria and Lake District Structure Plan policies would also be lost. The National Planning Policy Framework had an emphasis on supporting renewable energy schemes, so unless an application did create significant adverse impacts, it was likely that it would be overturned at appeal should the application be refused by a local authority.  The regional target for renewable energy in Cumbria was 210MW by 2010 but there was currently a shortfall of 70MW.

Mr Toole referred to the application being contrary to Policy R44 and MOVED that a STRONG objection be raised.  This was SECONDED by Mr Hornby. 

RESOLVED,       that

(1)   A STRONG OBJECTION be raised to the proposed development as it is contrary to Cumbria and Lake District Joint Structure Plan Policy R44 due to adverse localised visual effects.  It is considered that there would also be significantly adverse cumulative landscape and visual effects.  The applicant has failed to fully address the potential visual impacts on the nearby individual dwellings which means that he potential impact on these dwellings cannot be ascertained;

(2)   Allerdale Borough Council should note the comments of the Highways Authority contained in Appendix 1.

Mr Holliday re-entered the room.

These are applications which are determined by the County Council after taking into account the views of consultees and relevant representations.  Applications in this category are prescribed by legislation. Private applications principally relate to minerals and waste management activities and associated development. County applications are developments which are to be carried out by the County Council itself or jointly with any other person.

Mrs Mason, Senior Planning Officer presented the report.  Mr Toole, the local member had been unable to attend the site visit but had been to the site following the recent high winds.  He noticed pieces of plastic bags and waste in the trees at the nature reserve and surrounding area.  He understood why residents were trying to sell their houses, it was a planning blight.  The facility was being used out of hours and vehicles were speeding along Etterby Scaur.  He would be noting the number of vehicles using that route out of hours and would take photos which he would pass onto the Planning department.  He would be voting against the application. 

One member had asked for directions to the site and was told to ‘follow the paper trail’, which had obviously been tidied up for the site visit.  It was suggested that the application should be deferred until the next meeting, in order to send a message to the operator and have the local members concerns addressed.  Mrs Mason replied that a previous application had been deferred and that a site visit had made a difference.  She supported any member taking photos of vehicles accessing the site out of hours from alternative routes to the CNDR.

As Mr Toole was against the application, he asked that it be recorded in the minutes.

RESOLVED,       that planning permission be GRANTED for the reasons stated in Appendix 1 and subject to the conditions in Appendix 2.

RESOLVED,       that planning permission be GRANTED for the reasons stated in Appendix 1 and subject to the conditions in Appendix 2.

Mrs Petersen, Planning Officer presented the report.  Members were concerned that it was an inappropriate design and not in keeping with the area.  Following a vote, 13 FOR, 2 AGAINST and 1 ABSTENTION it was,

RESOLVED,       that planning permission be REFUSED, on design grounds.

RESOLVED,       that planning permission be GRANTED for the reasons stated in Appendix 1 and subject to the conditions in Appendix 2.

[Electoral Divisions: Various]

To receive a report from the Assistant Director – Planning and Sustainability (copy enclosed).

To note that these are applications/consultations that have recently been determined by the Assistant Director – Planning and Sustainability in accordance with their schemes of delegation.

The list of applications/consultations determined under delegated powers was noted.

[Electoral Divisions: Various]

To receive a report from the Assistant Director – Planning and Sustainability (copy enclosed).

To note that these applications that have been submitted to the County Council but are not ready/appropriate for presentation to the Committee of for determination under delegated powers and/or have been recently withdrawn or determined as invalid or not requiring planning permission etc.

The list of applications/consultations proposed to be determined under delegated powers was noted.

Members were informed that Planning Application No. 4/12/9003 New office accommodation at LLWR, Holmrook, Near Drigg would be dealt with under delegated powers.

[Electoral Divisions: Various]

To receive a report from the Assistant Director – Planning and Sustainability (copy enclosed).

To note the list of outstanding planning applications.

The list of applications to be considered at future meetings was discussed.

Members were informed that a site visit to Planning Application No. 4/11/9007 Phased construction of Vaults 9a to 14 and for the disposal of low level radioactive wastes within these new Vaults and within existing Vault 9 at LLWR, Holmrook, Near Drigg would now not be arranged until April/May 2013 at the earliest.