Category Archives: Planning Applications

Malicious Complaint

I have received a letter from Lancaster City Council Planning Department acknowledging a complaint, made in my name, about signage at a property in the Arkholme Parish.

I didn’t make the complaint but it was dated about the same time as one anonymous contributor to this Blog was taking issue with comments regarding Newton and Docker.

As they provided fictitious email addresses both in their correspondence with this blog and in their complaint to the Planning Department, one can only assume that they lack the courage of their convictions.

As far as this Blog is concerned it doesn’t matter, providing they are not telling untruths, using inappropriate language, being offensive or anything similar.

In my view making planning complaints in someone else’s name is fraudulent. There were a few people commenting on this Blog back in February who used false email addresses and anonymised names.  In fact, they were all supporters of the work of the Parish Council, but that is probably a coincidence.

I have reason to believe that the person making the malicious planning complaint was one of these people.

Sad isn’t it?

John Keegan

Dragons Head Planning Application

I am delighted to see that Simon Nutter has represented his planning application fo the Dragons Head. Let us hope that he has been able to satisfy the observation made opposite the original application and that this time he is successful.
John Keegan


APPLICATION FOR PLANNING PERMISSION
TOWN AND COUNTRY PLANNING ACT 1990
APPLICANT: MR SIMON NUTTER – P.E.C. LIMITED
SITE: THE DRAGON’S HEAD HOTEL, MAIN STREET, WHITTINGTON, LA6 2NY
PROPOSAL: REMOVAL OF OUTBUILDINGS, CONVERSION OF BARN TO SINGLE DWELLING AND
ERECTION OF 3 NO. DWELLINGS
APPLICANT’S STATEMENT RE: THE PUBLIC HOUSE
My plans for the ‘dragon’ are obviously to turn an empty closed shell into a thriving asset to myself and the community.
Upstairs will be refurbished to provide high end bed and breakfast accommodation (we have ties with the Plough Hotel in Lupton who have shown a willingness to send overflow residents to us) whilst on the ground floor we intend to be open during the daytime providing light meals, snacks and drinks but also a small village store area for
basics such as newspapers, bread, milk, bacon, meat, eggs etc. which we would stock for our own use anyway.
I also propose to contact the post office who may wish to visit once a week, but we would stock stamps as a basic service to the area anyway.
During the evening we intend to phase in different ideas and see what does or doesn’t work; we have plans to operate a pizza night on a Friday evening, so that eat in or take away pizza is only available one night a week, thus making it a ‘special’ night in the village.
Acoustic folk nights, domino nights are all easily organised and bring people into the place.
None of this is tricky or clever it’s just straight forward, providing good food at the right price and making people welcome, which I have been doing for the last thirty years or so.
Years ago my family and I used to visit the Dragon and never used the rear beer garden at all and with its situation detached from the Pub my idea is to move the sitting out area to the front of the pub which will provide a sunny area for customers and also provide a subliminal invitation to anyone passing that (a) we are open and (b) look popular.
I foresee it as a pleasant place to eat during the sunny days of summer. We are also planning the ‘smoking area’ to be away from this area (I hate seeing smokers by a pub front door).
With regard to the access view to and from the proposed car park. I have spoken to my neighbour, Eric Pelter, and he has agreed that the small hedge on his corner to me can be reduced to whatever
height required.
Simon Nutter.

Anyone wishing to view the complete set of Planning Documents can do so on the Planning Department section of the City Council Website Website at https://planning.lancaster.gov.uk/online-applications/.  The application number is: 17/00352/FUL

The drawing below shows the proposed layout of the ground floor of the Public House, with the smoking area moved to the side of the premises, where the existing fire escape is situated.  The internal stairs are being replaced with stairs having access from the rear of the building.  The door at the side of the premises, not used for many years, will provide access with a disabled ramp.

The following drawing shows the proposed 1st Floor changes.  Looks like an excellent B&B to me.

And the Artists Impression of the appearance of the front view of the premises.

Finally the layout of the Dragons Head in respect of the site and Main Street.

Dragons Head Application

At a meeting of the City Council Planning Committee on 09 January 2017 the Planning Department Officials presented a ten page report on the Planning Application made by Simon Nutter in respect of the Dragons Head.

You can read all ten pages at this link: Planning Report

In a preamble to the report the following comment is made: This form of development would normally be dealt with under the Scheme of Delegation. However, a request has been made by Councillor Peter Williamson for the application to be reported to the Planning Committee. The reasons for the request relates to: the proximity to recently approved dwellings; the access has been used for many years by the public house; and issues raised by the Authority in relation to design.”  The “Scheme of Delegation” referred to is one in which the Planning Committee do not consider the Application themselves but leave it to the Officers of the Council to make the decision for them.  Peter’s timely intervention has brought the matter before Committee who, I understand are planning to make a site visit.  In fact 7 members of the Committee voted against the site visit and 7 in favour.  The motion was carried by the Chairmans casting vote.

 In my view, there are a number of dubious observations made in the Departments report.  I list a few below and would be interested in any observations which villagers would like to comment upon.

  1. The site is located within a small rural settlement with very limited services and as such is not considered to be sustainable in terms of its location. It is not considered that a sufficient and robust justification has been put forward to justify four new dwellings in this unsustainable location and it is likely that the proposal could have a detrimental impact on the viability and vitality of the pub business which it proposes to support.
  2. As a result of increased traffic movements and poor visibility at the site’s entrance, the application has failed to demonstrate that it will benefit from a safe access point onto the public highway.
  3. County Highways – Oppose: The proposal will result in an increase in peak hour traffic movements and the development has not demonstrated that it will benefit from a safe access point onto the public highway.
  4. Neighbour Representations:
    1. No evidence that the works will contribute to the re-opening of the public house and post office;
      • The following representation was made by Patricia Barber: “I am sure the majority of people in the village really want the pub to be renovated, as do I as the site has been an eyesore for a number of years. However, taking that plans for the pub are not included in this application, is there any guarantee that this will take place?”
      • The following representation was made by Rob Mackereth: “I feel the village has been held to ransom by the pub being closed until the planning has been approved and agreed. The pub is an essential ‘heart’ to the village, this is even more crucial now with the lack of any public transport outside of school hours. The village needs reassurance that the pub will reopen.”
    2. Impact on neighbouring property from existing smoking shelter; (There is no documentary evidence that any representation was made on this aspect of the application [JK])
  5. Principle of the development
    • Core Strategy Policy SC1 requires new development to be as sustainable as possible, in particular it should be convenient to walk, cycle and travel by public transport and homes, workplaces shops, schools, health centres, recreation, leisure and community facilities.
    • DM20 sets out that proposals should minimise the need to travel, particularly by private car, and maximise the opportunities for the use of walking, cycling and public transport.
    • DM42 lists settlements where new housing will be supported and indicates that proposals for new homes in isolated locations will not be supported unless clear benefits of development outweigh the dis-benefits. The application is not located within one of the settlements, the nearest of these being Arkholme
    • DM42 also speaks on when rural developments will be supported. The report observes: Whittington is a small and relatively linear settlement, with development predominantly following the main roads through the village. It has a church and village hall and a public house, which is currently closed. There has previously been a more frequent bus service through the village, however there currently only appears to be one bus service from Kirkby Lonsdale to Whittington, continuing through to Lancaster, which is only on school days. Therefore someone living in this location would be wholly reliant on private transport. There are also currently no shops in the village, although one has been proposed as part of another housing scheme to redevelop a farm complex within the village. The submission sets out that one would be proposed in the re-opened public house, although it does not form part of the current scheme. The site is therefore not in a location where new residential development would usually be supported as it is not considered to be sustainable.
    • The submission explains that the proposal will help to maintain the existing vitality of the local community through the refurbishment and reopening of the Dragon’s Head. There have been no details provided with the submission in how it would enable the public house to be reopened (for example the need for and costs of any refurbishment required that the dwellings might contribute towards). It would need to be fully demonstrated through robust evidence that the level of development proposed was required to bring the public house back into use. There are also no assurances that the development would lead to the reopening of the pub and, if anything, it is likely to lead to the business being less viable with the loss of the beer garden. It would normally be expected that this would be maintained, and possibly enhanced, as it would be a key attraction to a rural village pub.
    • The submission sets out that the applicant’s expertise in the leisure industry, having owned and managed a number of cafes and licenced facilities, and illustrates that serious intention to bring the pub business back into use. It also states that the proposals clearly include the construction of a car park for the pub and the applicant would accept a condition that the car park is completed prior to the occupation of the houses and that bringing the car park closer to the pub will make it more usable, particularly for disabled customers. A statement has also been provided by the applicant to show how he would run the public house. In addition to setting out that it is the intention to operate a bed and breakfast, this sets out that the sitting-out area would be moved to the front and that he never used the rear garden when he visited the pub many years ago. The plans do not show this, and it is still considered that an enhanced area at the rear would benefit the business and provide an area away from the road, which would be particularly beneficial for families. The application does not give any certainty that the development would lead to the re-opening of the public house, even if the car park is extended, or is required to allow for this.
    • In addition, within the preapplication advice, it was set out that the need for housing in Whittington should be justified with a robust, well evidenced local housing need assessment. The resubmission refers to the one carried out for a development which was approved in the village earlier in the year at Whittington Farm for 18 houses, although does not go into this in detail. It is not clear that this development would meet an identified housing need, particularly in conjunction with the approved development. This decision has also been referred to by the agent. However, each application must be determined on its own merits. The approved scheme provided some very clear benefits which weighed in favour of the development. These were: the provision of a village shop and tea room within a converted barn; delivery of market and affordable housing; enhancements to the Conservation Area; utilisation of brownfield land and the provision of open space.
    • Highways Authority recommend that the application be refused on the grounds that the development has not demonstrated that it will benefit from a safe access point onto the public highway, and that the development will result in an increase in peak hour traffic movements.
  6. Conclusions
    1. The site is located within a location which is considered to be unsustainable. Although the reopening of the public house would help to maintain the vitality of the settlement, this is not actually provided through the proposal. There is no certainty that the scheme will result in this and it also removes the associated beer garden which could adversely impact on the viability and vitality of the public house. In addition, no evidence has been provided to demonstrate that the development is required to bring the public house back into use and there has been no robust justification put forward as to how the proposal would provide for local housing needs. Part of the scheme does propose the conversion of a traditional building however, it is not considered that it would improve the setting of the building and would likely result in harm to the non-designated heritage asset and potentially the Conservation Area. It is not therefore, considered that the benefits of the proposal outweigh the harm. It is noted that a recent scheme for residential units has been granted in Whittington. However, this proposed to replace agricultural buildings and there were other clear benefits of the scheme which outweighed the unsustainable location. In addition to the above, it is not considered that the proposal provides a safe means of access or delivers high quality design.

John Keegan

Dragons Head

The Westmorland Gazette has published the following interesting piece related to the Dragons Head:

“PLANNERS delayed their decision about four new homes in a Lune Valley village so they could visit the site.

Simon Nutter is seeking planning consent to build a terrace of three dwellings on land behind the closed Dragons Head pub on Main Street, Whittington, as well as convert a barn and demolish outbuildings.

Lancaster City Council’s Planning and Highways Regulatory Committee refused a similar plan last year, saying four new homes could not be justified in a small rural settlement with limited services. At Monday’s meeting, they voted to visit the site.

Graham Williams.