web analytics


Lancaster City Council Planning Committee have refused the planning application made on behalf of Simon Nutter, for the following reasons.

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. The proposal is therefore contrary to the aims and objectives of the National Planning Policy Framework, in particular the Core Planning Principles and Sections 6 and 8, Policy SCI of Lancaster District Core Strategy and Policies DM20, DM42 and DM49 of the Development Management Development Plan Document.

2. The proposed alterations and extension to the barn do not respect the agricultural character and appearance of the building and would result in an overly domestic appearance. The design and layout of the new dwellings do not relate well to the surrounding built heritage and fail to provide an appropriate level of private amenity space, including in relation to the barn conversion, and will lead to pressure on mature boundary trees. It is therefore considered that the proposal does not represent good design and is contrary to the aims and objectives of the National Planning Policy Framework, in particular the Core Planning Principles, Section 7, and Section 12, and policies DM8, DM31, DM32, DM33, DM35 and DM42 of the Development Management Development Plan Document.

3. 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. The proposal is therefore contrary to the aims and objectives of the National Planning Policy Framework, in particular Section 4, and policies DM20 of the Development Management Development Plan Document.

Parish Council and the Community

The following message has been emailed, by a fellow villager, to our Parish Council for discussion at their September Meeting.  The observations of other villagers are encouraged on this blog.

Parish Council Administration
Suggestion sent to parish Councillors by email 13 June 2016.

One way that the Parish Council could improve its communication would be if there were a published timetable for PC administration so that residents could be aware of when and how information would be made available.
A simple document would suffice and it could easily be included in the Parish Website.
for example:

Scheduled ordinary meetings
Items for discussion should be submitted no later than 14 days before a scheduled meeting so that they can be included on the Agenda.
Items raised after this period may be discussed at the discretion of the Chair.  Non urgent items will be included at the next meeting, items considered to be urgent will be considered at a special meeting of the PC.
Formal notice and agenda of all meetings will be posted on the village website (and elsewhere) no later than seven days prior to any meeting.

Special meetings
At the discretion of the Chair special meetings will be called, in which case notice will be given as above.

The PC recognises its responsibility for keeping residents informed and in order to achieve this draft minutes will be circulated to members for their immediate comments no later than 14 days after a meeting and published no later than 21 days in the same way as formal notice has been given.
The minutes will remain as draft until they have been formally agreed at the next ordinary meeting of the PC.
I am sure that the PC will discuss this if they feel that it might improve communication with and involvement of residents.

Did we do enough?

Loosing the buses still rankles.

Not simply because it now costs £12 return trip by taxi into Kirkby, but because I do not feel that our Parish Councillors have pulled their weight.

They put out a survey.  I have asked a number of times for the results, but the only response I have had is that they were sent to Peter Williamson (our rep on the City Council).  I have no problem with that but surely our PC made sure that they had a record!

The last time we had a survey in the Village was regarding the application for a Wind Farm.  The PC reported the results at their meeting on the 05 May 2015, as follows:

157 sheets delivered
99 returned to date, representing 200 parishioners
In favour of the windfarm – 25
Against the windfarm – 170
No firm opinion – 5

My question is – Why did the PC not discuss the results of the bus survey in the same way.  It was infinitely more important and of greater impact on those they are supposed to represent.

There has not been a contested election in the village since my wife and I arrived in 2001.  As the Germans say “alles ist nicht gut” or, the French put it more proverbially “cette pisse pierre sent”

Gutten nacht, et bien dormir.


The Village Blog