Up to nine homes at Land Adjacent to Burton Muga, Burton-in-Kendal, Carnforth

What was proposed

Permission in principle was sought for up to nine dwellings and additional parking for the recreation area and Royal Hotel.

“SUMMARY 1.1 The application seeks permission in principle for up to 9 dwellings with additional parking for the recreational area and Royal Hotel on an unallocated site falling within the settlement boundary of Burton-in-Kendal and Flood Zone 1.”

Officer report

Officers’ recommendation

Officers recommended approval because the location, land use and amount of development were considered acceptable and policy compliant in principle.

“CONCLUSION 10.1 In accordance with The Town and Country Planning (Permission in Principle) (Amendment) Order 2017 and National Planning Practice Guidance Permission in Principle, the proposed use of the site for residential development was assessed against the relevant development plan policies. This assessment was limited to location, land use and amount of development.”

“Consequently, permission should be granted unless any adverse impacts would significantly and demonstrably outweigh the benefits and have regard to key policies for directing development to sustainable locations, making effective use of land, securing well-designed places and providing affordable homes. The location is sustainable within the existing development boundary of Burton-in-Kendal and the indicative site plan shows the site can make effective use of the land.”

Officer report

Public comments

Seven objections, nine comments and one support letter were received, covering traffic, flooding, heritage, ecology, landscape, amenity and parking.

“Shell UK Pipeline 6.12 The proposed work will not affect the Shell pipeline. REPRESENTATIONS 7.1 7 objections, 9 letters of comments and 1 support letter have been received as part of the public consultation.”

Officer report

Who spoke

An objector spoke against the application, and the applicant spoke in support; members had no questions for the objector.

Members’ debate

Members supported the principle but said key public concerns would need addressing at the Technical Details stage.

“Members queried whether they needed to specify that any future applications relating to this development should be brought back to Committee. The Solicitor explained that the ward member would be able to call in the application in the future should a further application be submitted relating to the development. Members requested that this be noted in the minutes but accepted that a condition or informative being attached to the decision was unnecessary in this instance.”

“During debate on the item members emphasised their support for the principle of the development but noted that a number of key issues raised in public comments would need to be addressed should the development move forwards to the Technical Details Stage.”

Minutes

The vote

A motion to approve permission in principle was moved and seconded, then passed unanimously.

“A motion to approve the Permission in Principle was moved and seconded.”

“RESOLVED, that the permission in principle is granted and that the following informative is included on the decision notice:-”

Minutes

The decision

Permission in principle was granted, with an informative stating that it would expire after three years unless technical details consent was granted first.

“(1) This permission in principle (PIP) shall cease to have effect three years after the date of this Decision Notice. The technical details consent (TDC) relating to the proposed development must be granted prior to the expiration of the PIP.”

Minutes