Agenda and minutes

Development Control and Regulation Committee - Tuesday, 19th January, 2021 10.00 am

Venue: This meeting will not take place in a physical location, but will be held remotely. Please follow the link beiow to access the meeting:-

Contact: Nicola Harrison  Email: nicola.harrison@cumbria.gov.uk

Items
No. Item

203.

roll call and Apologies for Absence

To undertake a roll call and receive any apologies for absence.

Minutes:

An apology for absence was received from Mr A McGuckin.

 

204.

Changes in Membership

To note any changes in membership.

Minutes:

There were no changes in membership to report on this occasion.

 

205.

Disclosures of Interest

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.

 

In addition, you must also disclose other non-pecuniary interests set out in the Code of Conduct where these have not already been registered.

 

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).

Minutes:

There were no disclosures of interest made at the meeting.

206.

Exclusion of Press and Public

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

Minutes:

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

 

207.

Minutes pdf icon PDF 159 KB

To confirm as a correct record the Minutes of the meeting held on 30 November 2020

 

Minutes:

RESOLVED,     that, the minutes of the meeting held on 30 November 2020 be agreed with the following amendments:-

 

Page 8 – Minute 109 – CA10/45 – Application to Correct unit CL20 of the Register of Common Land – Caldbeck Common – in the opening paragraph change Ca10 to CA10, and Cl20 to CL20. 

 

Page 9 - Minute 109 – CA10/45 – Application to Correct unit CL20 of the Register of Common Land – Caldbeck Common – in the resolution replace the words contained within this report to read ‘contained within the report’.

 

Page 10 – Minute 192 – Highway Act 1980 Section 119 Proposed Diversion of Public Footpath No 105014 Parish of Brampton – in the second paragraph remove the words in the final sentence ‘all costs would be paid for’ as this had been doubly recorded.

 

Page 13 - Highway Act 1980 Section 119 Proposed Diversion of Public Footpath No 540005 Parish of Kirkby Lonsdale – second paragraph at the end of the second last sentence change Highways Act 198 to Highways Act 1980.  In the next paragraph at the start of the third sentence change ‘He that informed’ to ‘He then informed’.

 

Page 18 – Minute No 197 – Application Reference No 6/20/9004 Erection of Alternative Provision Facilities Building, Site at Channelside, Land off Ironworks Road, Barrow in Furness – the numbering in the resolutions be changed to read (1), (2), (3) etc

 

Page 19 – Minute No 200 Forward Plan – in the second paragraph take out the space in the third line so the word reads Wigton.

 

208.

CA13/19 Application to correct non-registration of common land, land at Thirlmere pdf icon PDF 155 KB

[Electoral Division: Keswick]

 

To consider a report from the Executive Director – Economy and Infrastructure (copy enclosed)

 

Additional documents:

Minutes:

Members considered a report from the Executive Director – Economy and Infrastructure which detailed an application to correct non-registration of common land at Thirlmere.

 

The applicant claimed that the application land was omitted from registration as part of the register unit CL413 Whelpside, Steel End, West Head, Armboth and Bleaberry Fells and had requested that the application land be added to that register unit.

 

The applicant also claimed that the application land was not at any time finally registered as common land or as a town or village green under the Commons Registration Act 1965 and that it was recognised or designated as common land by or under an enactment, that enactment being The Manchester Corporation Waterworks Act 1879, and thus satisfied the criteria specified in paragraph 2 of Schedule 2 of the Commons Act 2006.

 

The Commons Registration Officer took members through the report in detail.

 

One objection was received from United Utilities who was the owner of the application land. The Objection was duly served on the applicant in accordance with the 2014 Regulations and a response was provided by the applicant.

 

The officer took members through the objection and the grounds on which it was made.

 

The Commons Registration Officer reminded members that in line with Regulation 27 (7) an application may not be refused without first offering the applicant an opportunity to make oral representations. 

 

On 5 November 2019 the officer wrote to the Applicant informing him that she was minded to recommend that the two applications concerning land at Thirlmere (CA13/19 and CA13/20) be rejected, outlining the reasons and inviting the Applicant to make oral representations.

 

The oral representations meeting took place on 21 November in the presence of Commons Registration and Legal Officers.

 

Following this meeting the applicant submitted further written evidence in support of his application. However, having considered the contents of oral representations and further written evidence, it was the officer’s opinion that, despite there being some evidence that suggested that at some point in the past the application land was common land, there was still insufficient evidence to prove a direct relationship between the application land and the 1879 Act.

 

The Commons Registration Officer was of the opinion that the evidence provided by the Applicant does not show on the balance of probabilities that the application land was recognised or designated by or under the Manchester Corporation Waterworks Act 1879 and therefore it should not be registered as common land under paragraph 2 of Schedule 2 to the Commons Act 2006.

 

Members asked for clarity on whether if the public continued to enjoy access to the land, and had done for a number of years, this gave it a status of common land.

 

The officer responded to say the this does not automatically mean the land was common land.  She confirmed that she had considered all the appendices and a maps submitted and she could find no evidence that any of the land in question was recognised under the  ...  view the full minutes text for item 208.

209.

CA13/20 - APPLICATION TO CORRECT NON-REGISTRATION OF COMMON LAND; LAND AT GREAT HOW, THIRLMERE pdf icon PDF 152 KB

[Electoral Division: Keswick]

 

To consider a report from the Executive Director – Economy and Infrastructure (copy enclosed)

 

Additional documents:

Minutes:

Members had before them a report from the Executive Director – Economy and Infrastructure which detailed an application received to correct non-registration of common land at Great How, Thirlmere.

 

The Applicant claimed that the land which was subject to this application was omitted from registration as part of the register unit CL123 St. John’s Common and had requested that the application land was added to that register unit.

 

The Applicant also claimed that the application land was not at any time finally registered as common land or as a town or village green under the Commons Registration Act 1965 and that it was recognised or designated as common land by or under an enactment, that enactment being The Manchester Corporation Waterworks Act 1879, and thus satisfied the criteria specified in paragraph 2 of Schedule 2 of the Commons Act 2006.

 

The officer took members through the report in detail.

 

One objection was received from United Utilities who was the owner of the application land. 

 

The officer detailed the objection and response of the applicant to members.

 

The Commons Registration Officer reminded members that in line with Regulation 27 (7) an application may not be refused without first offering the applicant an opportunity to make oral representations. 

 

On 5 November 2019 the Commons Registration Officer wrote the applicant informing him that she was minded to recommend that the two applications concerning land at Thirlmere (CA13/19 and CA13/20) be rejected, outlining the reasons and inviting the applicant to make oral representations.

 

The meeting took place on 21 November in the presence of Commons Registration and Legal Officers.

 

Following this meeting the Applicant submitted further written evidence in support of his application, based on the applicant’s research and outlined the history of Thirlmere commons and the debates relating to common land in the period leading to the passing of the 1879 Act.

 

Having considered the contents of oral representations and further written evidence, it  it was the officer’s opinion that, despite there being some evidence that suggested that at some point in the past the Application Land may have been common land, there was still insufficient evidence to prove a direct relationship between the Application Land and the 1879 Act.

 

The evidence provided by the Applicant does not show on the balance of probabilities that the Application Land was recognised or designated by or under the Manchester Corporation Waterworks Act 1879 and therefore it  should not be registered as common land under paragraph 2 of Schedule 2 to the Commons Act 2006.

 

Upon conclusion of the debate the officer recommendation was moved, seconded, and put to a vote.

 

With 15 for, 0 against and 0 abstentions it was

 

RESOLVED,     that the application be rejected on the grounds that the land in question does not satisfy the criteria specified in paragraph 2 of Schedule 2 of the Commons Act 2006. It is considered that the Manchester Corporation Waterworks Act does not recognise or designate the land which is subject to this application  ...  view the full minutes text for item 209.

210.

CA14/52 - APPLICATION TO AMEND THE REGISTER TO RECORD AN HISTORIC EVENT - HISTORIC SEVERANCE OF A RIGHT OF COMMON (& CR19, APPLICATION NUMBER 1353 - APPLICATION FOR THE AMENDMENT OF A REGISTER IN RELATION TO A RIGHT OF COMMON) REGISTER UNIT CL3 EASTERN MARTINDALE COMMON (HALLIN FELL, SWARTH FELLS, FUSEDALE) ENTRY 5 (NOW ENTRY 31) pdf icon PDF 292 KB

[Electoral Division: Kirkby Stephen]

 

To consider a report from the Executive Director – Economy and Infrastructure (copy enclosed)

 

Additional documents:

Minutes:

Mrs Gray attended the meeting at this point, but abstained from the vote as she had not been present for the whole of the discussion.

 

Mr Hamilton left the meeting part way through this item and did not take part in the vote.

 

The Development Control and Regulation Committee considered a report from the Executive Director – Economy and Infrastructure which detailed two applications received from Gillian Margaret Hedworth to amend the register of common land at entry 5 of register unit CL3 Eastern Martindale Common (Hallin Fell, Swarth Fells, Fusedale (“CL3”), in consequence of an historic severance of a right of common.

 

Members were asked to determine whether, when Hause Farm and some of its associated land was repossessed by the bank, did the common rights that attached to a section of that land also transfer, or were retained by the previous owner.

 

The purpose of the report was to request Members make a decision as to whether the applications should be granted and amendments made to the Council’s register of common land.

 

The Commons Officer took members through the detailed and complex report.

 

The Officer explained how both applications centred upon the same key issue, the effect of a Charge by which land at Hause Farm was charged to UCB Bank by Mrs Hedworth and her husband.  More specifically, both applications contended that the right of common was not included in the Charge and thereby ceased to attach to the Charged Land, so that, in other words, the right of common was severed.

 

The Officer further explained that it had been pragmatic to consider the material received across both applications when coming to a recommendation for each application.  Members were reminded that each application was still independent and that two separate votes would need to be carried out.

 

Members were informed that two objections were received, one from the Rowleys, and one from a Mr Christopher Lasper, who had no legal interest in the land.

 

The Rowleys’ objection involved a dispute between themselves and Mrs Hedworth as to the ownership of the right to graze 135 sheep on register unit CL3.  The Officer explained that this dispute largely came down to the Charge document, which itself did not mention the common rights.  Members were shown extracts from Section 62 of The Law of Property Act 1925 which indicated that a conveyance would be deemed to include any attached rights unless a contrary intention was expressed within the document itself.  Members were told of correspondence made prior to the Charge which suggested that the intention was to exclude the grazing rights, but were reminded that this exclusion was not mentioned in the Charge itself.

 

Members were reminded that further details of these contentions were provided within the report and within the bundle of documents that were available by request, and that whilst the position put forward by the applicant was an arguable one, the Officer found that on balance the rights were not included within the Charge. 

 

Mr Lasper’s  ...  view the full minutes text for item 210.

211.

HIGHWAYS ACT 1980 SECTION 118 - APPLICATION TO EXTINGUISH PUBLIC FOOTPATH NO 302151 IN THE PARISH OF ALSTON MOOR: DISTRICT OF EDEN pdf icon PDF 4 MB

[Electoral Division: Alston and East Fellside]

 

To consider a report from the Executive Director – Economy and Infrastructure (copy enclosed)

 

Minutes:

The Committee considered a report from the Executive Director – Economy and Environment which proposed that the County Council extinguish public footpath no 302151 at Haggs Bank in the parish of Alston Moor District of Eden.

 

The route of public footpath no 302151 passed through the curtilage of the property at Haggs Bank before ascending steep rough pasture that was being developed as a bunkhouse and camping area.

 

The applicant landowner had applied to extinguish the whole length (126 metres) of the footpath, for the reasons of security and safety.

 

The Countryside Access Officer took members through the report in detail.

 

Members recalled that this item was presented to them at their previous meeting where it was deferred to a future meeting because it appeared the wrong District Council had been consulted. Officers had investigated the situation and found that it was an error in the report and the correct authority had been consulted.

As a result of consultations Cumbria and Lakes Joint Local Access Forum had commented that this proposal was not supported by them as the alternative existing routes would be far less convenient, direct and user-friendly than that created by a diverted FP 302151 passing through the camping ground.

Members noted that in the update sheet the local member for Alston and East Fellside had submitted a statement supporting the application to extinguish this route.

The pasture crossed by footpath no 302151 was bordered on three sides by other public rights of way, so the extinguishment of this short length of footpath would not detract from the convenience or enjoyment of the footpath network in the area.  The alternative paths had similar or better surfaces than the path to be extinguished and were visibly more obvious on the ground.

The Countryside Access Officer reminded members that there was only one reason that the County Council could make a legal order to extinguish a path and that was that it was expedient on the ground that it was not needed for public use.

The officer was satisfied that the proposed extinguishment met the legal tests set out in Section 118 of the Act and, if Members approve the recommendation in this report, the order would be made in the interests of the landowner.

One of the members asked whether there were any footways/pavements along the A689.  If any of the alternative routes passed along a busy highway they did not feel as if this was a practical alternative.  Officers confirmed that there was no pavement in this location and there was no segregated footpath.

The Lead Lawyer reminded members that the interests of the landowner should not be taken into consideration.  The only test to be applied was that the footpath was not needed for public use.

A question was asked about the accessibility of the proposed routes and whether the route proposed for extinguishment was less accessible that the others.  The officer confirmed that the current route 302151 was not as accessible to less able users  ...  view the full minutes text for item 211.

212.

Application Reference 6/19/9007 Erection of a replacement transfer building Sinkfall Farm Waste Transfer Station, Rakesmoor Lane, Barrow-In-Furness, LA14 4QE pdf icon PDF 325 KB

[Electoral Divisions: Hawcoat]

 

To consider a report from the Executive Director – Economy and Infrastructure (copy enclosed)

 

 

Minutes:

Members of the Development Control and Regulation Committee had before them a report by the Executive Director – Economy and Infrastructure, which detailed a planning application for the erection of a replacement transfer building at Sinkfall Farm Waste Transfer Station, Rakesmoor Lane, Barrow-In-Furness.

 

Although the building would be significantly bigger than the current building, the applicant had indicated that they do not intend to increase the amount of waste handled at the site, rather, that they considered the development necessary to operate in a more efficient manner and to increase the separation between bays filled with different materials to more easily meet their fire prevention plan

 

The Planning Officer took members through the report in detail, and covered a site description, planning history, consultations and representations, planning policy, and the planning assessment.

 

Two representations to this application had been received, and the Planning Officer detailed these for members.

 

The Planning Officer shared concerns about the impact of noise on the ability of nearby residents to be able to enjoy their property, however, he felt that the use of a complaints investigation and reporting scheme could lead to measures to address complaints and if necessary, compel the applicant to carry out mitigation for the noisiest aspects of the operation. 

 

The proposed development was in accordance with the development plan, there were no material considerations that indicated the decision should be made otherwise and with the planning conditions proposed, any potential harm would reasonably by mitigated.  The officer was therefore recommending that the application be granted subject to conditions.

 

The Planning Officer referred members to the information contained in the Updated Sheet, with particular reference to the proposed condition 3. Members noted that it was proposed to delete draft condition 3 and amend draft condition 2.

 

The officer also referenced a further objection received since the report was published, and took members through the details of the objection.

 

One of the members raised the issue to vehicular access in and out of the site and whether the proposed extension would increase the amount of vehicles using the site and perhaps increasing traffic along the narrow country lanes.

 

The officer reassured the member that there would be little or no increase in the amount of waste processed at the site and should have very little effect on vehicular access.  He was not aware that wagons did use the narrow roads as  all vehicles should turn right when leaving the site.  He had not received any complaints about traffic along the narrow lanes and should any be received they would be investigated.

 

Members asked whether it would be possible to require more landscaping to make the appearance of the building more aesthetic. 

 

The officer responded to say that the lay of the land was such that it would require a substantial amount of material to make this possible.”

 

The recommendation was moved, seconded and then put to a vote.

 

With 14 for, 0 against and 0 abstentions the recommendation was carried.

 

RESOLVED,     that  ...  view the full minutes text for item 212.

213.

Safety at Sports Grounds pdf icon PDF 114 KB

[Electoral Division: All]

 

To consider a report from the Executive Director – Economy and Infrastructure (copy enclosed)

 

 

Minutes:

The Development Control and Regulation Committee considered a report from the Executive Director – Economy and Infrastructure which presented the  annual report on the Safety at Sports Grounds,

 

The report informed the Committee of the work of the Safety of Sports Grounds Team carried out during 2020.  It explained the County Council’s statutory obligations under the relevant legislation and outlined the activity carried out to ensure that these duties have been met.

 

The Regulation and Compliance Officer took members through the report in detail, and specifically highlighted safety audits at the following sports grounds:-

 

·      Carlisle United

·      Barrow AFC

·      Workington Town

·      Barrow Raiders

·      Carlisle Racecourse

·      Whitehaven RLFC

·      Workington AFC

 

There were no special safety certificates issued during the period covered by the annual report.

 

RESOLVED,     that the report be received and noted.

 

214.

Applications Determined Under Delegated Powers pdf icon PDF 86 KB

[Electoral Divisions: Various]

 

To consider a report from the Executive Director – Economy and Infrastructure (copy enclosed)

 

To note that these are applications that have recently been determined by the Executive Director – Economy and Infrastructure in accordance with the schemes of delegation.

Minutes:

RESOLVED,     that the list of applications determined under delegated powers be noted.

 

215.

Applications Proposed to be Determined Under Delegated Powers pdf icon PDF 106 KB

[Electoral Divisions: Various]

 

To consider a report from the Executive Director – Economy and Infrastructure (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.

 

Minutes:

RESOLVED,     that the list of applications proposed to be determined under delegated powers be noted.

216.

forward plan pdf icon PDF 95 KB

[Electoral Divisions: Various]

 

To consider a report from the Executive Director – Economy and Infrastructure

 

To note the Committee’s Forward Plan.

Minutes:

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

 

RESOLVED that, the Forward Plan be noted.

 

 

217.

Date and time of next meeting

The next meeting will be held on 19 February 2021 at 10.00am.

Minutes:

The next meeting of the Committee will be held on 19 February 2021 at 10.00am.

 

218.

Update Sheet for DCR 19 January 2021 pdf icon PDF 1 MB

enclosed

Minutes:

The update sheet was noted.