44 homes at Land At Ashton Road, Lancaster

What was proposed

The application sought 44 dwellings with landscaping, open space, access, highway works and drainage infrastructure.

“23/00283/FUL Erection of 44 dwellings (C3) with associated infrastructure including landscaping, open space, access, highway and drainage. Scotforth West Ward A(106)”

Minutes

Site and surroundings

The site is agricultural land beside the Lancaster Canal corridor, with mature hedgerows, trees, woodland and protected boundary trees.

“The application site comprises agricultural land bounded by mature hedgerow, individual trees and woodland, with the Lancaster Canal corridor adjoining the site to the east/north-east. The canal corridor is designated as a Biological Heritage Site (BHS), with the adjacent woodland forming an important ecological and landscape feature. Trees on the eastern/northern boundary are also protected by TPO No. 565 (2015).”

“The relevant policy context includes Policies SP8, DM43, DM44, DM45 and T3 of the Lancaster District Local Plan, together with the NPPF. Policy DM44 seeks the protection and enhancement of biodiversity, while Policy DM45 establishes a presumption in favour of retaining trees, hedgerows and woodland that contribute positively to amenity, landscape character, biodiversity and climate resilience.”

Officer report

What officers recommended

Officers recommended approval because substantial housing and infrastructure benefits were not significantly and demonstrably outweighed by localised harms.

“The proposal would deliver substantial public benefits. These include 44 new homes, 13 of which would be affordable, equating to 30% provision in accordance with Policy DM3. The affordable housing offer, together with the delivery of NDSS-compliant homes and enhanced accessibility standards, attracts significant positive weight, particularly given the Council’s housing land supply shortfall and identified affordable housing need.”

“Overall, the proposal is not without harm, and the residual concerns relating to landscape, design, trees, non-designated heritage assets and housing mix should not be understated. However, some of these harms are localised and would be mitigated to an acceptable degree.”

Officer report

Main planning issues

The main concerns were landscape and design effects, heritage harm, pressure on retained trees, hedgerow loss and an unbalanced housing mix.

“There are, however, material harms. The development would result in localised landscape and townscape change in a sensitive semi-rural edge-of-settlement location. Although the revised layout is an improvement, including the pulling back of development from the canal cutting, the removal of the parking court, revised materials and enhanced landscaping, the scheme remains relatively standardised in design terms and would have an urbanising effect.”

“The proposal would also cause harm to the setting and significance of non-designated heritage assets, including the Lancaster Canal, Deep Cutting Farm and Elmhurst. The harm to the canal has been reduced through amendments but remains material given its high significance as a non- designated heritage asset. In addition, the arboricultural position is finely balanced.”

Officer report

Technical advice and obligations

Subject to conditions and legal obligations, officers considered drainage, amenity, pollution, biodiversity, open space, highways and infrastructure matters acceptable.

“In technical terms, the scheme is capable of being made acceptable through conditions and planning obligations. Safe and suitable access can be achieved, and the residual highway impacts would not be severe, subject to access amendments, Section 278 works, Travel Plan measures and the required strategic transport contribution.”

Officer report

Who spoke

The ward councillor spoke against the application and the agent spoke in favour.

Committee discussion

Councillors proposed approval with the reported conditions, an amended highway infrastructure obligation and a two-year commencement period.

“It was proposed by Councillor Sandra Thornberry and seconded by Councillor Keith Budden:”

“That the application be approved subject to the conditions in the Committee Report and subject to an amendment to the Highway Infrastructure Improvement obligation and subject to condition 1 being amended to 2 years for commencement.”

Minutes

The vote

The proposal passed with 10 votes in favour, none against and 3 abstentions.

“Upon being put to the vote, 10 Councillors voted in favour of the proposal with none against and 3 abstentions, whereupon the Chair declared the proposal to have been carried.”

Minutes

The decision

The application was approved subject to a legal agreement, amended highway funding arrangements and the listed planning conditions.

“That the application be approved subject to the following conditions:”

Minutes