Category Archives: Planning Applications

Whittington Farm Update

The following “Decision Letter” has been issued in respect of the Outline application for the erection of 18 dwellings with associated access and change of use.”

Application No. : 18/01224/VCN
Applicant – John Simm
Proposal – Outline application for the erection of 18 dwellings with associated access and change of use of barn to a mixed use comprising a dwelling (C3) and a shop/tearoom (A1/A3) and Relevant Demolition of the existing agricultural buildings (pursuant to the variation of conditions 2 and 13 on planning permission 16/OQ397/OUT to alter the site layout and remove the play area.

Lancaster City Council hereby give notice that PLANNING PERMISSION HAS BEEN REFUSED for the variation of condition(s) set out in the application dated 20 September 2018, and described above for the following reasons:-

  1. The development by virtue of the layout and house types are considered to significantly erode the architectural interest of the Whittington Conservation Area, and would contrast and detract from the architectural character of the two Listed buildings that frame the site. It is considered that the proposal does not respect the character of the Whittington Conservation Area with respect to the design and would lead to a level of harm on the visual amenity and wider setting of the Conservation Area. The scheme fails to accord to Policy DM31 and DM32 of the Development Management DPD.
  2. The layout and house types do not positively respond to the identity and character of the area by virtue of poor quality design, lack of regard to local distinctiveness and layout. On balance it is considered that the scheme does not accord with Policy DM35 of the Development Management Development Plan Document and Paragraph 130 of the National Planning Policy Framework.

Signed: Mark Cassidy:– Date: 8 January 2019

7 Holiday Lodges

Lancaster City Council Planning Department has advised that they have received further information regarding the above Planning Application for a change of use of the land adjacent to Sellett Hall.


Application No. : 18/01000/FUL

Site Address: Land To The West Of Sellet Hall, Biggins Lane, Whittington, Lancashire

The Council has received further information relating to the above planning application.

Details of further information:

Amended plans have been received. There may be other amendments you may wish to comment upon. You are advised toview the plans in order to determine whether you wish to make comment.

The revised Plans can be viewed at this link: Revised Site Plan

John Keegan

Vox Populi

The following message from Colin Hall, Chairman of Whittington Parish Council, is self-explanatory. Can I encourage as many people as possible to respond by clicking on “LEAVE A COMMENT” above this message

Evening John and Jim

We’ve just had a PC meeting where the developers interested in Edwards land were present. They have as you may know, applied for outline planning permission with alterations to the original scheme, in particular to the play area ie. it’s been omitted but still want our support.

I have agreed to get soundings from residents within the next couple of days before committing PC in any way so do you mind putting something on your sites inviting comments in order that we can get an indication of what people feel on this.

Proposals are that the play area will be omitted, the scheme layout altered to accommodate garages for many units and the finish and design of the dwellings slightly modified.

Any feedback would be greatly appreciated.

Colin Hall

For those who haven’t seen the new details check out THIS LINK to an earlier posting on this Blog.

The scheme features 7 Affordable Houses and 12 Open Market Houses, together with a shop.

If anyone needs assistance to add their comments give me a call on 73052.

John Keegan

Whittington Farm – Again

A new Planning Application has been submitted in respect of Whittington Farm.

I have to admit that when I first saw the Application I couldn’t think of a reason for a further application. However, the Planning Statement, which forms part of the Application, puts the position very clearly. It states as follows:

“Whittington Farm was the subject of LCC Outline Application 16/00397/OUT which granted permission for 19 Dwellings plus a shop.

The Permission included:

  1. ) 12 Open Market Dwellings
  2. ) 7 Affordable Houses

Unfortunately, the site layout includes five very large dwellings with Gross Internal Areas ranging from 180 to 244 sq m which requires high retail prices in order to make the site viable and would inevitably price local purchasers out of the market.

 In addition, a large proportion of the properties did not have a secure garage and instead relied upon open parking places and on-site separation distances between dwellings were less than the DM DPD Policy DM35 requirements.

 The property has been marketed for some time through two agents without success using the existing Planning Permission because of lack of viability a revised viable alternative is proposed so that the affordable dwellings can to be realised within the village.

 The revised house designs and road layout provides viable alternative properties which have integral garages and with increased security, spacing between properties which meet DM35 requirements and yet maintain the requirements of the original planning permission in providing the requisite 7 affordable ( plots 13 to 19 ) houses and 12 open market properties and shop.”

So, in a nutshell, it would appear that the plans have had to be re-configured because nobody wanted to buy the site, as defined by the existing Outline Planning Permission.

The Story goes on. You can view the new Planning Statement in its entirety at this LINK.

I have now added the Site Plan so that people can see the new layout, which is markedly different from the previous one. Be patient, this takes a little time to load.

John Keegan

PS: It has just been drawn to my attention that the children’s playground no longer forms part of this development. Frankly, I am in two minds about this but, on balance, I tend to think that it was unsafe to expect children, from other parts of the village, to use this playground because of the extremely dangerous entrance to the development. Which, arguably, should have prevented the scheme from being approved in the first place.