committee date: 15 june 2017 planning committee agenda · this assessment wouldbe carriedout in...

Agenda Item REPORTS FOR DEBATE

1

Eden District Council

Planning Committee AgendaCommittee Date: 15 June 2017

INDEX

Item No Application Details Officer

Recommendation

1 Planning Application No: 17/0143Change of Use of Guest House (C1) to house in Multiple Occupancy (Sui Generis)1 Portland Place, PenrithAnother Place Lakes Ltd

Recommended to:

APPROVESubject to Conditions

2 Planning Application No: 17/0198Retrospective change of use of agricultural land to residential for temporary siting of static caravan and storage unit.Ivy Cottage, Aiketgate, ArmathwaiteMiss C Armstrong

Recommended to:


3 Planning Application No: 17/0203Outline application for the erection of a dwelling with all matters reserved.Former Quarryfield, BlencowMr M Simpson

Recommended to:

REFUSEWith Reasons

4 Planning Application No: 17/0146Replacement sports pitch and training areas and installation of hardstanding, pitch, perimeter team shelters, storage container and flood lighting system.Penrith Rugby Union Football Club, Winters Park, PenrithRugby Football Union

Recommended to:


5 Planning Application No: 17/0016For residential development with accessLand off Scaur Lane, LazonbyCumbrian Homes

Recommended to:



2

Item No Application Details Officer

Recommendation

6 Planning Application No: 17/0299Outline permission for 3 residential dwellings with all other matters reserved.Garth House, CrackenthorpeMr M A Armstrong

Recommended to:


7 Planning Application No: 17/0311Land adjacent to Sowerby Lodge, Brough Sowerby, Kirkby StephenErection of a detached dwellingMrs D Chester

Recommended to:

REFUSEWith Reasons

8 Planning Application No: 17/0092Proposed residential development for 5 x 1 bedroom apartments, 1 x 2 bedroom apartments and 1 x 1 bedroom cottage.4-5 Southend Road, PenrithBarrett Waddingham - BW Sipp - O MacLaughlin

Recommended to:


9 Planning Application No: 17/0001Proposed Change of Use to Store Caravans, Trailers and Steel Containers to Use as safe Storage Units.Land adjacent to Kirkby Thore Industrial Estate, Kirkby ThoreMr T Bradley

Recommended to:



3

Item 1Date of Committee: 15 June 2017

Planning Application No: 17/0143 Date Received: 27 February 2017

OS Grid Ref: 351448, 530523 Expiry Date: 16 June 2017

Parish: Penrith Ward: Penrith North

Application Type: Full

Proposal: Change of Use of Guest House (C1) to house in Multiple Occupancy (Sui Generis)

Location: 1 Portland Place, Penrith

Applicant: Another Place Lakes Ltd

Agent: Mr Harry Tonge, Steven Abbott Associates LLP

Case Officer: Caroline Brier

Reason for Referral: An objector has requested to speak and the Decision is contrary to the recommendation of the Town Council

© Crown Copyright and Database Rights (2016)

Grid Ref: NY

APPLICATION SITE


4

1. Recommendation

It is recommended that delegated power be given to the Assistant Director Technical Services to grant planning permission subject to a Section106 Agreement being entered into to the absolute satisfaction of the Deputy Chief Executive and the Assistant Director Technical Services requiring the proposed HMO to be linked to the ownership of Another Place Ltd, The Lake, Watermillock, including a Service Occupancy Agreement, Noise Management and a Bound Register which would set out details of the occupants of the property.The Council's reasonable costs are to be paid in relation to that Section 106 Agreement and subject to the following conditions:Time Limit for Commencement1. The development permitted shall be begun before the expiration of three years

from the date of this permission.Reason: In order to comply with the provisions of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 as amended by Section 51 of the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004.

Approved Plans2. The development hereby granted shall be carried out in accordance with the

drawings hereby approved:i) Site Location Plan received 23 February 2017ii) Heritage Asset Statement received 23 February 2017iii) Supporting Information received 8 May 2017iv) 3009-1-001 received 8 May 2017v) 3009-1-002 received 8 May 2017Reason: To ensure a satisfactory development and to avoid any ambiguity as to what constitutes the permission.

2. Proposal and Site Description2.1 Proposal2.1.1 This proposal seeks to change the use of the existing guest house (C1) to a house in

multiple occupancy (Sui Generis).2.1.2 The property would be used to provide accommodation for 16 people employed at

Another Place, The Lake (formally Rampsbeck Hotel), Watermillock, Ullswater.2.1.3 The guest house currently provides accommodation for upto 17 guests plus. As such

the current proposal would not increase or intensify the use of the building.2.1.4 No alterations are proposed to the external appearance of the building, nor would there

be any increase in its size or footprint as no extension is proposed.2.1.5 There is currently limited parking provision on the street, however this proposal does

not seek to increase or intensify numbers. It proposes to provide transportation for staff to and from The Lake (formally Rampsbeck Hotel), Watermillock. The vehicle owned


5

by the company can carry a maximum of 6 members of staff, would carry out a maximum of 4 trips per day and be parked at the Hotel when not in use.

2.2 Site Description2.2.1 The proposal site is located close to the town centre of Penrith and is near to the mini

roundabout to Drovers Lane, Wordsworth Street and Meeting House Lane. The property is an end terrace in a row of 6 No three storey houses/former houses. A mixture of houses, guest houses and businesses are currently located in this area of Penrith.

2.2.2 The proposal site is currently used as a guest house and has been in this use for several years. There is no planning history on the property.

3. Consultees3.1 Statutory Consultees

Consultee ResponseHighway Authority No objection

The following are detailed responses as outlined above:3.1.1 Highways - ‘It is the Highways Authority’s understanding that the COU (change of use)

to Sui Generis will not affect the existing Highways conditions. Taking into account the previous use of the premises and the proposed use of a van to transport staff, the Highway Authority has no objection to the proposal’.

3.2 Discretionary Consultees

Consultee ResponseEnvironmental Health Object

The following are detailed responses as outlined above:3.2.1 Environmental Health (Pollution) - ‘I have assessed the above application along with

the additional information received from an Environmental Protection perspective. Houses of Multiple Occupation (HMO) are known to be sources of noise and disturbance. The proposed HMO is of particular concern in the respect of noise and disturbance for the following reasons:1. It is proposed 16 persons will reside in this dwelling, all of which will be unrelated

and some will share bedrooms. 2. We have been advised that staff will be transported to and from work at unsociable

hours - the earliest pick-up is likely to be 7am and the latest drop-off is likely to be midnight.

In our opinion the two factors mentioned above increases the noise and disturbance potential significantly, which will noticeably and disruptively impact on the adjacent and nearby domestic residences and commercial businesses. We are also of the opinion that the information received with the above application does not demonstrate to us how the noise and disturbance will be managed. Therefore, we have no option but recommend that this application is refused to protect amenity.


6

If this application is to be approved despite the comments above, we would like to recommend the following conditions are placed on any approval to protect amenity:1. That this proposed use as a HMO is linked into the ownership of Another Place,

The Lake, Watermillock. 2. Prior to the commencement of the development hereby approved, a noise

management plan shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. Once agreed this plan shall be implemented and site shall operate in accordance with the plan.’

3.2.2 Environmental Health (Housing) ‘HMO Licence:The property would require to be licensed as a House in Multiple Occupation which aims to ensure that:1. Conditions within the HMO comply with the Council’s HMO standards - see below2. Landlords and/or their agents are ‘fit and proper’ persons as defined in legislation -

this is checked as part of the licence application process.3. Management arrangements for the HMO must be appropriate. The planning

application does not demonstrate how the property will be managed. The Management of HMOs Regulations 2006, the Licensing and Management of Houses in Multiple Occupation and Other Houses (Miscellaneous Provisions) (England) Regulations 2006, the Licensing and Management of Houses in Multiple Occupation and Other Houses (Additional Provisions)(England) Regulations 2007 will apply.

HMO StandardsRoom sizesBedrooms 4 and 7: Useable floor area below minimum standard.Bedrooms 1, 5, 6, 8 and 9 are regarded as adequate for occupation by 2 persons provided a separate living area is provided. Bedroom 2: Rooms for 3 persons are not covered by the Council’s adopted standards, but the room is large enough to be suitable for such use. Bedroom 3 adequate for occupation by 1 person. Kitchen facilities: Two kitchen/diners for up to 15 occupants are required. A single shared living/dining area of 14.7m2 is insufficient.Housing Health and Safety Rating SystemThis assessment would be carried out in full at a later date. However, the following risks were evident at the time of the visit to the premises:Falling between levels associated with the fully openable windows in rooms with low level window sills. Fire - the existing fire safety measures are inadequate for a House in Multiple Occupation.


7

4. Town Council ResponsePlease Tick as Appropriate

Town Council Object Support No Response No View Expressed

Penrith Town Council

4.1 The Town Council’s initial responses states: ‘Penrith Town Council objects to this application on the following grounds:CS12 - Principles for Economic Development and Tourism - this application does not protect and enhance existing tourist facilities and infrastructure. Portland Place is renowned for its B&Bs with the only 5* B&B in Penrith next door to the application site, nor is an HMO appropriate to the character of the area.CS17 - Principles for the Built (Historic) Environment - this application within the conservation area and directly opposite a historic park/garden does not conserve and enhance buildings, landscapes and areas of cultural, historic or archaeological interest or their settings.Portland Place is a special area of Penrith generally renowned for the high quality guest houses it contains. An HMO would change the character of the street. Although there are no objections from the Highways Authority there is concern that an HMO with up to 10 bedrooms will naturally affect the parking availability within the location and the Town Council has grave concerns about the visual impact that such a potential change would have.Should EDC approve the application, Penrith Town Council would ask that the change of use be governed by a legal agreement tying its use to the hotel chain for a limited period of three years in order to review its use’.

4.2 Following additional information being received for the application, the Town Council were re-consulted however were unable to provide their comments within the consultation period and advised that ‘Penrith Town Council will be considering the additional information at their Planning Meeting on 5 June and will provide further comments immediately after that date which will be circulated to members as soon as possible’.

5. Representations5.1 Letters of consultation were sent to nearby neighbours and a site notice was posted on

10 March 2017.

No of Neighbours Consulted 6 No of letters of support 12No of Representations Received 21 No of neutral representations 0No of objection letters 9

5.2 Letters of support were also received which provided the following comments:

No disruption only enhancement to the area.

Will support the local economy.

Will increase the availability of parking in the area.


8

Another Place plans to reduce the current occupancy levels.

Guests at any guest house are not obliged to follow any code of conduct or good behaviour requests. Employees of Another Place will have to.

Another Place have stated they will deal with any anti-social behaviour or disturbance.

Change of use to staff accommodation would not be inappropriate because it will reduce the impact of people, parking and traffic on an already busy and diversely occupied street.

5.3 Letters of objection raised the following material considerations to the application:

There would be parking issues/noise nuisance.

A HMO is totally out of character for this street which comprises of bed and breakfasts, small businesses and private family accommodation.

To turn a guesthouse, that has been a guesthouse for half a century and is one of just four on this road, into a home for up to 16 workers would affect the character and appearance of the area.

The Local Planning Authority have previously refused a similar change of use for similar property within one of the Town's Conservation Areas to protect the character of the area as an important feature as part of the Town's Heritage.

The provision of transport for the proposed occupiers by mini bus will result in an increase in additional noise during unsociable hours.

Concerned regarding the overall appearance of the property as no one person will be responsible for rubbish and keeping the house in good order.

Conscious that the property is located in a prominent location within the Penrith Conservation Area.

Concerned that the proposed use of the property for an HMO to serve a hotel located approximately 7 miles away is unsustainable. Consider that travelling between the property and the place of work creates a high level of dependency on motorised vehicles.

The application simply fails to meet the terms of this policy. Policy CS2 ‘Locational Strategy’ seeks to focus ‘sustainable development’ to the Key Service Centre of Penrith.

The location of the development is unsuitable for its purpose contrary to the NPPF and the development plan.

Aware that there are already a number of HMOs in Penrith and they appear as you would expect them to - over-used and under-cared for.

The NPPF talks about supporting businesses and helping them grow; feel a positive recommendation for this application would result in quite the opposite in relation to our client’s business (Brooklands Guest House). Core Strategy policy CS12 (6) requires development to accord with the principle that it should “protect and enhance existing tourist facilities” - we are of the view that the proposal would fail to meet this requirement.


9

5.4 Letters of objection raised the following non-material considerations:

The change of use is not in-keeping with the other businesses operating on the street.

Probably a lack of interest in keeping the property in good condition as the term multiple occupancy can only mean workers drafted in from elsewhere for a period of time.

This street has always been notorious for the Bed and Breakfast properties.

Personal negative experience of a HMO in a different area.

A memorandum submitted to Parliament on 2013 by the National HMO Lobby presented evidence on the impact of such forms of housing, in particular the detrimental impact they have on the society, environment and economy, and hence cohesion of local communities. It goes on to warn of the intensive nature of the occupation, the fact that there are no social controls within a mixed community of generally younger occupiers who tend to be novice home owners, and the impact this has on behaviours and appearance. Specifically they warn of a greater likelihood of antisocial behaviour such as noise nuisance, of environment change such as gardens concreted over, or left to run wild, rubbish left uncleared, and greater late night disturbances of various kinds. They highlight the fact that it is not uncommon for whole areas to become dominated by these HMOs.

At present the high volume of traffic along Drovers Lane is already a major and increasing concern for local residents. When cars are parked densely along the C-zone permit area beside the church, the traffic flows during busy periods become very difficult.

This pavement is the main walking route for almost all school children in this part of the New Streets. There is walking traffic to St Catherine’s primary school and Brunswick road primary school, as well as all the children walking to both secondary schools. It is essential that parents feel safe to walk with their children along this road.

Cars using the existing parking bays would mean that when the mini bus was dropping off or collecting workers from the building it would have to park on double yellow lines close to a busy road junction or on the pavement opposite which would be a hazard to other road users or pedestrians.

Senior Staff don’t move from other locations in the UK and live in what is in essence, student accommodation.

The type of people who live in multi occupancy houses are students and young workers who haven’t managed to get on the property ladder yet.

If this application is passed, then this could be the start of the rot. A Street which hosts Guest Houses will slowly fall away. When the current owners of the Guest House want to sell, then who is going to buy a guest house business which is situated next to a poorly maintain, noise multi occupancy house.

We are concerned that no explanation has been provided by the applicant as to why the staff cannot be accommodated on the hotel grounds, in our view this is a


10

significant omission - they have failed to demonstrate a need for the development and in doing so failed to demonstrate the benefits of the scheme.

6. Relevant Planning HistoryThere is no relevant planning history

7. Policy Context7.1 Development Plan

Core Strategy DPD Policy: CS1 - Sustainable Development Principles CS2 - Locational Strategy CS15 - Tourism and the Visitor Economy CS17 - Principles for the Built (Historic) EnvironmentSupplementary Planning Documents: Management of Conservation Areas (2011)

7.2 Other Material ConsiderationsNational Planning Policy Framework: Building a strong, competitive economy Ensuring the vitality of town centres Conserving and enhancing the historic environmentNational Planning Practice Guidance

7.3 The policies detailed above are the most relevant policies relating to this application.

8. Planning Assessment8.1 Key/Main Planning Issues

Landscape and Visual Impacts Residential Amenity

8.2 Principle8.2.1 Core Strategy Policy CS1 ‘Sustainable Development Principles’ sets out the

sustainable development principles that will be applied to all applications considered by the Council. This policy supports the contribution of raising the hopes, aspirations and achievement of young people and adults.

8.2.2 It is noted that planning applications must be determined in accordance with the Development Plan unless material considerations indicate otherwise. At the present time, the Council is unable to demonstrate a five year housing land supply and in accordance with the National Planning Policy Framework (the NPPF) paragraph 49 “relevant policies for the supply of housing should not be considered up-to-date if the local planning authority cannot demonstrate a five-year supply of deliverable housing sites”. In light of this the development plan policies which relate to the supply housing are considered out-of-date and they are therefore afforded less weight in the planning assessment. The NPPF requires in paragraph 14 that “where the development plan is out-of-date, planning permission should be granted unless… the adverse impacts would significantly and demonstrably outweigh the benefits when assessed against the


11

policies in the NPPF…or specific policies in the NPPF indicate development should be restricted”.

8.2.3 It is important to note however, that whilst the lack of a five year housing supply is a serious concern, at a planning appeal in Allerdale (APP/G098/A/13/2193690), the Inspector noted that the lack of a five year housing supply is a temporary circumstance and as a short term problem it must be weighed against the permanent harm caused to the character of an area and the conditions of nearby residents.

8.2.4 Core Strategy Policy CS2 ‘Locational Strategy’ focuses new development in the first instance in Penrith which is a Key Service Centre and as such the proposal location is considered to be sustainable.

8.2.5 The proposal site is an existing property which is currently used as a guest house which falls within the use class C1 - Hotels, the proposal to change the use to a House in Multiple Occupation falls within the use class Sui Generis due to the number of residents proposed to reside at the property. Notwithstanding this, it is considered that an application for a residential use in the Key Service Centre of Penrith is acceptable in principle.

8.3 Landscape and Visual Impacts8.3.1 The development does not propose any external alterations and as such the property

is to remain visually and within the landscape as it currently is.8.3.2 Core Strategy Policy CS17 ‘Principles for the Built (Historic) Environment’ encourages

the sympathetic and appropriate re-use of existing buildings, especially those which make a contribution to the special character of their locality.

8.3.3 It is not considered that the proposed use would impact any differently on the built historic environment than that of the existing use as a guest house.

8.3.4 The street currently has guest houses, dwellinghouses, flats, business offices, Masonic Hall and restaurant and as such it is not considered to be out of character to introduce an HMO into an already mixed use area.

8.3.5 A number of objections have raised concerns regarding the potential state that the property may be left in that would cause a detrimental impact on the visual amenity. It is acknowledged that HMOs have received negative press and may be at higher risk of visually harmful problems. However, it should be noted that the Council has enforcement powers under the Section 215, Town and Country Planning Act 1990, to rectify any adverse visual impacts/conditions that may occur. As such, this does not represent sufficient justification to warrant the refusal of this application.

8.4 Residential Amenity8.4.1 Several objections, including Environmental Health have raised the issue of noise that

could be caused by the proposed HMO. Environmental Health state ‘HMO’s are known to be sources of noise and disturbance’ and go onto provide their reasons as being because 16 unrelated persons will reside in the dwelling, some with shared bedroom and that staff will be transported at unsociable hours (between 7am and 12am). However no evidence or justification has been provided to support the claim that 16 unrelated persons would generate more noise than the property’s current lawful use as a guest house. Nor has evidence or justification been provided that a maximum of 4 vehicle movements (as per the supporting statement) between the hours of 7am and 12am would create additional noise and disturbance on this town centre street.


12

8.4.2 Each planning application is assessed singularly on its own merits. The proposal site is close to the town centre which already generates noise associated with this type of location, such as traffic noise, pedestrian movement, restaurant and pub noise, guest houses, B&Bs etc. No evidence has been provided to suggest that this proposal would excessively increase the noise and disturbance that already occurs. As such, it is not considered that detrimental impact on the area would occur.

8.4.3 In an Appeal Decision (APP/B6855/A/16/3165327) for a ‘Change of use to Use Class C4 for HMO’ the inspector stated “I accept that houses that are occupied by non-family households are likely to have issues of rubbish management and litter, as well as some noise and/or anti-social behaviour but these are matters capable of being addressed by police enforcement, HMO licensing and street cleansing and community engagement strategies.”

8.4.4 Environmental Health have requested that should approval be granted, a condition be attached requiring a noise management plan to be submitted and approved in writing to the Local Planning Authority. In assessing this request against the six tests of applying planning conditions, it is not considered to be necessary, relevant or enforceable by the Local Planning Authority. Noise management would be subject to the S106 and should not be given further consideration for this application.

8.4.5 Highways have confirmed that they have no objection to this proposal stating “taking into account the previous use of the premises and the proposed use of a van to transport staff, the Highway Authority has no objection to the proposal.”

8.4.6 The Agent has confirmed that the staff will not be required to have a vehicle for work. If staff did have a vehicle they would have to find appropriate parking for it, in the same way others living/visiting this area do. Whilst there is a possibility of additional vehicles being brought to this area through this proposal, it is not considered to be significantly different to what would be generated through the property’s current use.

8.4.7 An objector considers the proposal site to be an unsustainable location due to the fact that the people staying there will have to travel to work. The maximum of 4 vehicle movements that would be generated through this proposal is considered to be less than an average household.

8.4.8 When applying Policy CS1 which looks for developments to be located to minimise the need to travel and to encourage any journeys that remain necessary to be possible by a variety of sustainable transport modes, it is considered that the applicant demonstrates this through the provided transport, as opposed to requiring their staff to provide their own transport to and from work. As such, notwithstanding concerns raised by objectors, this development is unlikely to effect the existing highway network.

8.4.9 The site is well related to the town centre, so residents can access shops and services without the need to travel via car. There is also a near by bus service and train station making the site a sustainable transport location.

8.5 Other Matters8.5.1 It is duly noted that the comments received from Environmental Health’s Housing team

relate to requirements for a licence that would be issued separately from this planning application. Any suggested internal alterations would not require planning permission. It is not a material planning consideration in the determination of this planning application as to whether the requirements can be met for a licence to be issued.


13

8.5.2 Environmental Health’s Pollution team have requested that should approval be granted, a condition be attached requiring the HMO be linked to the ownership of Another Place Ltd, The Lake, Watermillock. This requirement would be achieved through the S106 as opposed to a planning condition.

9. Implications9.1 Legal Implications9.1.1 The following matters have been considered but no issues are judged to arise.9.2 Equality and Diversity9.2.1 The Council must have regard to the elimination of unlawful discrimination and

harassment, and the promotion of equality under the Equality Act 2010.9.3 Crime and Disorder9.3.1 Under the Crime and Disorder Act 1998, the Council must have regard to the need to

reduce crime and disorder in exercising any of its functions.9.3.2 An objector has alluded that parents may not feel safe to walk their children along the

road if this proposal is granted. It is important to note that no reason or evidence has been provided to suggest that this would be the case. However, this is not a material planning issue that can be considered under this application and would be a matter for the Police.

9.4 Children9.4.1 Under the Children Act 2004, the Council has a duty to safeguard and promote the

welfare of children in the exercise of any of its functions.9.5 Human Rights9.5.1 In determining applications, the Council must ensure that all parties get a fair hearing

in compliance with the provisions of Article 6 under the European Convention on Human Rights, as now embodied in UK law in the Human Rights Act 1998.

10. Conclusion10.1 It is considered that the proposal accords with the Development Plan for the following

reasons which are not outweighed by material considerations:10.2 It is considered that the change of use from a guest house to a HMO is not

substantially different and would not alter the character of the area. The benefits of additional residential accommodation outweigh the slight harm that would be caused. Therefore, the planning balance is met. Residential accommodation in a key service centre is considered to be sustainable and acceptable, appropriate to town centre development.

Jane LangstonAssistant Director Technical Services

Background Papers: Planning File

Checked by or on behalf of the Monitoring Officer


14


Planning Application No: 17/0198 Date Received: 13 March 2017

OS Grid Ref: 348158 546524 Expiry Date: 09 May 2017(an extension of time has been agreed to the 16 June 2017).

Parish: Hesket Ward: Hesket

Application Type: Full Planning Application - Retrospective.

Proposal: Retrospective change of use of agricultural land to residential for temporary siting of static caravan and storage unit.

Location: Ivy Cottage, Aiketgate, Armathwaite

Applicant: Miss C Armstrong

Agent: Ian J Potts Associates

Case Officer: Nick Atkinson

Reason for Referral: The application is put before Planning Committee at the request of an objector.


15

1. Recommendation

It is recommended that planning permission be granted subject to the following conditions:Approved Plans1. The development hereby granted shall be carried out in accordance with the

drawings hereby approved:

Application Form dated 11 March 2017, received 13 March 2017;

Site Location Plan, dated 11 March 2017, received 13 March 2017.

Reason: To comply with the requirements of the Town & Country Planning Act 1990.

Time Limit2. The use of the land hereby granted is for a limited period of 18 months from the

date of this decision notice. After which time or before which the use of the land shall cease and the land reinstated to its former condition.

Reason: To secure the proposal as temporary and to ensure that the development is removed once the temporary permission expires in the interests of protecting the character and appearance of the area.

2. Proposal and Site Description2.1 Proposal2.1.1 The application seeks retrospective planning permission for the temporary retention of

a caravan and storage container on land opposite Ivy Cottage, Aiketgate, Armathwaite. The caravan is of a standard design and appearance. The same is said of the storage container

2.1.2 The retention of the caravan and storage container is sought in association with the construction of a ‘self-build affordable dwelling’ (3 bedroom detached house) granted planning consent (ref: 15/0481) at the Planning Committee on the 17 March 2016. The siting of the caravan originally formed part of the previous planning application but was subsequently removed. The caravan is being used to provide living accommodation and facilities during the construction period of the property.

2.1.3 The caravan and storage container are sited on land opposite application site 15/0481, with both parcels of land being within the ownership of the applicant. Both the caravan and storage container are currently being used in relation to the construction of the ‘self-build’ property.

2.1.4 The current planning application was submitted following an enforcement investigation undertaken by the Council upon the receipt of a complaint on the 03 October 2016 (ref: 16/5112). During the course of the investigation, notification was provided by the current applicant on the 31 January 2017 that construction works on the detached house had commenced, although the exact date of commencement is unknown. As almost 6 months have passed since this time, it is considered that a restriction of 18 months for the grant of a temporary consent is considered to be an appropriate period


16

for the completion of the dwelling. As such, it is considered appropriate to restrict the duration of the development due to its temporary nature which would be secured through the imposition of a planning condition.

2.2 Site Description2.2.1 The application site is located within the village of Armathwaite, positioned towards the

south eastern part of the settlement. The site is presently an agricultural land with the caravan currently positioned in the north east corner of the field and the storage container positioned adjacent to part of the south west boundary of the site.

2.2.2 The field is bounded by a hedgerow along its north east boundary, a stone wall along its north western boundary, and a post and wire fence around the remainder of the site. The land to the immediate North West contains the nearest residential property, whilst a large agricultural building positioned adjacent to the south eastern boundary of the site. Further agricultural buildings are intermittently positioned on land to the south west of the site.

2.2.3 The application site is accessed via a field gate leading directly onto the unclassified public highway which passes to the north of the site.

3. Statutory Consultees

Consultee Response

Highway Authority Responded on the 12 April 2017 raising no objection to the proposal.

Environmental Health Officer

Responded on the 13 April 2017 raising no objection to the proposal.

4. Parish Council ResponsePlease Tick as Appropriate

Town Council Object Support No Response No ObjectionHesket Parish Council

X

4.1 Hesket Parish Council confirmed that they have no objection to the planning application but made no further comments.

5. Representations5.1 In respect of the consultation following the submission of the application, the following

consultation letters were sent out:

No of Neighbours Consulted 3 No of letters of support 1No of Representations Received

2 No of neutral representations 1

No of objection letters 1


17

5.2 The letter of objection raised the following concerns which are considered to be material considerations:

The site is unsuitable as it does not comply with Eden District Council’s planning policy on separation distances. This point was put forward by the applicant and accepted by the Council in respect of planning application 15/0481 when it was suggested that the current application site was a sequentially preferable site than subsequently approved.

For the reasons of consistency in relation to overlooking, this application should also be refused for the same reason.

The applicant has previously claimed that there are health and safety reasons why the site could not have been used for a dwelling previously. Whilst other matters may be temporary, this cannot be accepted for the current application. Therefore, in the interests of the applicant’s health and safety/well-being the Council has no right to put the occupiers of the caravan at risk of harm, even temporarily.

If the application is approved, this would demonstrate a lack of consistency in decision making and threaten the well-being of the applicants.

5.3 The letter of support raises the following points:

My husband and I are the only neighbours that pass the static caravan and storage unit on our way to our property and we have no objection to the siting of the caravan or the storage unit. The applicant confirmed that they support the application.

5.4 The letter of observation raises the following points:

We do not have any objections to the temporary siting of a static caravan and storage unit as referenced in this planning application.

6. Relevant Planning History6.1.1 The planning history considered most relevant to the determination of this planning

application includes the following:

15/0481 - Erection of 100% affordable 3 bedroom detached house, approved by Planning Committee 17 March 2016.

16/5112 - Alleged unauthorised occupation of a residential caravan, enforcement case still open pending the determination of this planning application.

7.0 Policy Context7.1 Development Plan

Core Strategy DPD Policy: CS1 Sustainable Development Principles

CS2 Locational Strategy

CS3 Rural Settlements and the Rural Areas

CS7 Principles for Housing


18

CS9 Housing on Rural Exception Sites

CS16 Principles for the Natural Environment

CS18 Design of New Development 7.2 Other Material Considerations

National Planning Policy Framework: Core planning principles

Requiring good design

Protecting the natural environment 7.3 Eden Local Plan 2014-2032 (this is the emerging Local Plan for Eden District

Council): Policy Dev1

Policy Dev2

Due to the stage of adoption of the Local Plan, only limited weight is afforded to any of the policies contained within this document at the current time.


Principle

Landscape and Visual Impact

Impact upon local amenity

Health and safety

Other Matters

8.2 Principle8.2.1 At the present time the village of Armathwaite is identified as a Local Service Centre

under Policy CS2 of the Core Strategy, in which support is given to small scale development of an appropriate scale to support and sustain local businesses, services and to meet local need. This includes the provision of new housing development in line with Core Strategy Policies CS1, CS2 and CS7.

8.2.2 It is noted that planning applications must be determined in accordance with the Development Plan unless material considerations indicate otherwise. Whilst the proposed development is not for the creation of a permanent dwelling, the proposal is still able to be considered under the housing provision elements of the Development Plan. However, due to the nature of the application being for the temporary retention of a caravan and storage container, a development should demonstrate an over-riding local need, ensure that the scale is appropriate, ensure that the development is well-related to the settlement and that there would be no unacceptable impact upon the environment, the character of the local area or upon local amenity.

8.2.3 In the case of the current application, the proposed development is sought in relation to the construction of a new residential dwelling within the village, previously granted


19

planning permission by the Council at Planning Committee on the 17 March 2016. Whilst the proposed development is not in itself a permanent residential development, the use of the caravan and the storage container are both considered to be in accordance with and ancillary to the erection of the approved residential dwelling within the village, for a temporary period only. As such, it is considered that the principle of the proposed development is acceptable on this basis, being that an identified local need can be established and that it can be demonstrated that the development is ancillary to the approved residential development.

8.3 Landscape and Visual Impact8.3.1 The application site is not located within an area of any formal landscape designation,

with no evidence to suggest that it should be considered to be a valued landscape. The site is relatively open within the local surrounding area however; the application site is not positioned on the main village thoroughfare, instead being located on a cul-de-sac which terminates shortly after. As such, the impact of the proposed development upon the village setting or the wider character of the surrounding landscape is significantly reduced.

8.3.2 In addition, due to the proposed development being erected on site for temporary period, and due to its small scale, any negative impacts upon the character of the area would be short term and reversible.

8.3.3 Whilst the development would result in a temporary loss of a small area of greenfield land, this in itself is not considered to be sufficiently adverse so as to warrant the refusal of this planning application due to the relatively limited significance and importance that it makes to the wider landscape character. Furthermore, due to the location of the application site, it is considered that the site makes a limited contribution to the character and setting of the surrounding landscape by virtue of the limited inter-visibility between it and the surrounding land.

8.3.4 As such, whilst the use of land for the siting of a caravan and storage container in a such a setting would normally be considered to be incongruous, due to the identified ancillary need for the development and due to the temporary duration of the development, it is considered unlikely that the proposal would significantly adversely impact upon the character of the area.

8.3.5 Notwithstanding the above, due to the nature and purpose of the proposed development it is considered that the duration of the development should be restricted to a period of 18 months to restrict the impact.

8.4 Impact upon Local Amenity8.4.1 In respect of the impact of the proposed development upon local amenity, this is not

considered to be adverse. Whilst the position of the caravan is close to the boundary with the nearest residential property (a distance of approximately 12 metres from the property itself), the caravan has no high level windows which would result in any impacts of over-looking to the adjacent property. The position of the caravan maintains a sufficient stand-off distance, and is of an appropriate height so as not to result in any loss of light, privacy nor appear overbearing to the neighbouring property.

8.4.2 From a visual perspective, it is noted that the caravan is prominent to the nearest neighbouring residential property, however its impact is considered to be small scale and not significantly adverse. The height and scale of the caravan does not overbear or impose upon the neighbouring residential property. Furthermore, it is again considered


20

that due to the temporary nature of the siting of the caravan, the slight impact upon local visual amenity would be short term and reversible.

8.4.3 In relation to the position and siting of the storage container, which is at a distance of approximately 28 metres from the nearest residential property, this results in a negligible impact upon the amenity of any residential property.

8.5 Health and Safety8.5.1 It is noted that the objector to the application has raised concerns regarding the health

and safety impacts of the proposed development. Whilst the comments made are noted, matters of Health and Safety are covered by separate legislation outside of the Planning System and as such, do not form a material planning consideration. Therefore, no weight can be afforded to this matter in the determination of this planning application.

8.6 Other Matters8.6.1 It is noted that the current application is a retrospective submission, with both the

caravan and storage container already being placed within the application site. Although not a material planning consideration in the determination of the application, if members are minded to refuse the application, then the applicant would need to ensure that both the caravan and the storage container are removed from the site and the land restored back to its previous use and condition. Failure on the behalf of the applicant to undertake such works would mean that the council would need to consider the expediency of pursuing formal enforcement action to ensure this is undertaken.


harassment, and the promotion of equality under the Equality Act 2010.9.3 Environment9.3.1 The Council must have due regard to conserving bio-diversity under the Natural

Environment and Rural Communities Act 2006.9.4 Crime and Disorder9.4.1 Under the Crime and Disorder Act 1998, the Council must have regard to the need to

reduce crime and disorder in exercising any of its functions.9.5 Children9.5.1 Under the Children Act 2004, the Council has a duty to safeguard and promote the




21

10. Conclusion10.1 It is considered that sufficient justification and need exists for the temporary retention

and siting of the caravan and storage container on the application site. The proposed development would have a limited impact upon the character of the local landscape and upon local amenity.

10.2 Therefore, the proposed development is considered to be sufficiently in accordance with the development plan to gain temporary approval, which is not outweighed by material considerations and therefore the application is recommended for approval subject to restrictions on the duration of the development.





22


Planning Application No: 17/0203 Date Received: 16 March 2017

OS Grid Ref: 345107 532849 Expiry Date: 19 June 2017

Parish: Greystoke Ward: Greystoke

Application Type: Outline

Proposal: Outline application for the erection of a dwelling with all matters reserved.

Location: Former Quarryfield, Blencow

Applicant: Mr M Simpson

Agent: PFK Planning

Case Officer: Karen Thompson

Reason for Referral: This application is before Members as the recommendation is contrary to that of the Parish Council


23

1. Recommendation

It is recommended that planning permission be refused for the following reasons:1. The application proposes a new house in an unsustainable location in the open

countryside which is poorly related to local services without a demonstrated need contrary to Core Strategy policies CS1, CS2, CS3, CS7 and CS9 and also part 6 of the NPPF.

2. Proposal and Site Description2.1 Proposal2.1.1 The application is in outline with all matters reserved and therefore only the principle of

residential development on this land is to be considered.2.1.2 Although this application has all matters reserved, the application is supported by an

indicative plan showing the ‘potential footprint’ of a single proposed dwelling and the location of the existing access point.

2.1.3 The submitted Planning Statement outlines details of the need for the dwelling. The applicant is seeking suitable land for self-build of “a high quality, high specification energy efficient dwelling which will provide a sustainable family home. The applicant runs a local business (at North Lakes Business Park, Flusco) which provides employment for an additional 3 people and is seeking a build his own family house in a location where they can become part of village life and continue to build up his local business on a site which has community support and has been fully debated by the Parish Council”.

2.2 Site Description2.2.1 The application site relates to a field (25m x 30 metres approx.) on the Blencow to

Ellonby road. The field, which the applicant refers to as ‘unproductive’ is approximately 85 metres from the nearest residential property ‘Mellbreak Croft’ within the village of Blencow.

2.2.2 The site is immediately adjacent the former quarry which lies between ‘Mellbreak Croft’ and the application site, and measures approximately 45m x 85m.

2.2.3 The nearest listed building is Blencow Hall, a grade I listed building, which is approximately 250 metres to the south. The site is not within a conservation area.


24


Consultee ResponseHighway Authority Although this is for an outline application with reserved

matters the Highways Authority needs to make sure that a suitable access can be achieved at the proposed site. Parking, turning, access and other matters can be conditioned at a later point, however the applicant should show that the visibility splays of 2.4x215m can be achieved at the site entrance, if this is unattainable then a speed survey should be produced to show the maximum achievable visibility splay.Bearing this in mind the Highways Authority cannot accept the outline application due to inadequate information being submitted.


Consultee ResponseParish Council SupportEnvironmental Health/ Contamination Officer

The proposed development site is adjacent to a former quarry which is all owned by the Parish Council. Whilst I have no formal record of any waste materials being deposited within the quarry, it was common for most villages to have had a tip in the days before any waste licensing came into force. The usual place for a tip would have been an existing void in the ground like a quarry. I would therefore recommend that the applicant or the agent seeks assurance from the Parish Council regarding the history of the quarry. If the Parish Council will provide written confirmation that there has been no waste material deposited within the quarry then I would be satisfied that there are no further requirements in this respect. In the absence of this information I would recommend that there is a condition included with any planning approval granted that requires a ground gas risk assessment to be agreed, completed and submitted in writing prior to any construction works commencing on site. Any recommendations for further works identified within the risk assessment must be agreed with the LPA and if necessary gas protection measures implemented within the property.

United Utilities The site should be drained on a separate system with foul water draining to the public sewer and surface draining in the most sustainable way.


25

4. Parish Council/Meeting ResponsePlease Tick as Appropriate

Parish Council/Meeting Object Support No Response No View

ExpressedGreystoke

Greystoke Parish Council has submitted the following comments:

“Local housing land not suitable for agricultural use Currently deserted brown field site Not sporadic development - the 2 bungalows below the site are actually previous

planning applications on the quarry field Enhance & improve the area”


6 April 2017.


5.2 Letters of support were also received which provided the following comments:

Very supportive of the build subject to suitable drainage and water management being implemented.

We live South East of the plot and are fully supportive of the application. The development will enable a currently underused space of land be better cared for and allow the wildlife to flourish.

There is a need to resolve the drainage of water that come off the Quarryfield land into our properties - Together with the applicant, there is an agreement to deal with this run-off, which is a mix of surface water and ground water.



Saved Local Plan Policies: NE1 - Development in the open countrysideCore Strategy DPD Policy: CS1 - Sustainable Development Principles CS2 - Locational Strategy CS3 - Rural Settlements and the Rural Areas


26

CS7 - Principles for Housing CS18 - Design of New DevelopmentSupplementary Planning Documents: Housing (2010)

7.2 Other Material ConsiderationsNational Planning Policy Framework: Delivering a wide choice of high quality homes Requiring good designNational Planning Practice Guidance



Location

Highway implications8.2 Principle8.2.1 Paragraph 14 and 197 of the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) calls for a

presumption in favour of sustainable development, and states that “where the development plan is absent, silent or relevant policies are out of date, (that) planning permission should be granted.” Paragraph 49 of the NPPF states that “relevant policies for the supply of housing should not be considered up-to-date if the local planning authority cannot demonstrate a five-year supply of deliverable housing sites”. (The Council currently has a 3.33 year housing supply.) It is important to note that the lack of a five year housing land supply is a temporary circumstance and as a short-term problem it must be weighed against the permanent harm caused to the character of an area and the living conditions of nearby residents, for example.

8.2.2 The Council’s adopted Core Strategy Policy CS1 sets out a number of sustainable development principles including that development should be located to minimise the need to travel.

8.2.3 Policy CS7 sets out the principles for housing development within the district. It states that the focus of new housing provision should be in Key and Local Service Centres; however, it is acknowledged by Core Strategy Policy CS2 that development may be required in smaller villages, hamlets and open countryside to meet an identified local need.

8.2.4 Core Strategy Policy CS3 supports the provision of appropriate rural exception sites for the provision of affordable housing. Under the Core Strategy Policy CS9 small scale development may be permitted outside of Key and Local Service Centres where it will provide 100% affordable housing, where the design of the proposed development would respect the character and quality of the natural and historic environment and where all normal planning site requirements are met.

8.2.5 The application site is approximately 85 metres from the last dwelling - ‘Mellbreak Croft’ - within Blencow, when leaving the village on the Ellonby road. ‘Mellbreak Croft’


27

and almost directly opposite on the other side of the road ‘The Hollies’, together define the start of the village and the beginning of the open countryside.

8.2.6 The proposal for an unrestricted market-led dwelling in the open countryside cannot be supported.

8.2.7 The supporting information submitted details the need for the applicant to live close to his business which is at North Lakes Business Park, approximately 3 miles by road from the application site which is closer than his existing home which is approximately 10 miles away at Howtown. However, given that there is no evidence to show there is a demonstrable need for the dwelling to be in this location, the proposal would see a new dwelling built on a greenfield site in open countryside remote from services and infrastructure.

8.3 Landscape and Visual Impacts8.3.1 The Parish Council, who current own the land, have put forward their support for the

application on the basis that the site is currently underused and not suitable for agricultural use. They consider that the development of this site would improve and enhance the area. They have noted that the existing two properties that lie at the edge of the village ‘Mellbreak Croft’ and ‘Stonebank’ were built on the former quarry. A letter of support from a nearby residential occupier was also submitted on the basis that the approval of the application would ‘enable a currently underused space of land be better cared for‘.

8.3.2 However, the application site is positioned approximately 85 metres outside of the village of Blencow where it is considered to be located in the open countryside, given the distance from the nearest residential dwelling in the village. A new build dwelling in this location would amount to an isolated building in the open countryside and would not constitute sustainable development, and as such the proposal is contrary to policy.

8.4 Residential Amenity8.4.1 There are no residential dwellings immediately adjacent to the application site.8.5 Infrastructure8.5.1 Although the application is in outline with all matters reserved, the application indicates

that the site would be accessed via the existing field access positioned in the top northern corner of the site. Cumbria Highway Authority advised that it needs to make sure that a suitable access can be achieved and that required visibility splays can be achieved and where this is unattainable then a speed survey should be produced. On the basis that should information has not been submitted, the Highway Authority advised that they cannot support the outline application. Should the application be approved, the issues relating to access and visibility splays would be dealt with at the reserved matters stage.

9. New Homes Bonus9.1 The prospect of receiving a Bonus is, in principle, capable of being taken into account

as a ‘material consideration’ in determining a planning application. Whether potential Bonus payments are in fact a material consideration in relation to a particular application will depend on whether those payments would be used in a way which is connected to the application and to the use and development of land. For example, potential Bonus payments could be a material consideration if they were to be used to mitigate impacts resulting from development. But if the use to which the payments are


28

to be put is unclear or is for purposes unrelated to the development concerned a decision maker would not be entitled to take them into account when making a decision on a planning application. In this particular case, there are no plans to use the New Homes Bonus arising from this application in connection with this development.








reasons which are not outweighed by material considerations:11.2 In summary, the development is considered to be unacceptable on the grounds that

the proposal would result in a residential use in an unsustainable location outside of a key settlement or local service centre, contrary to Policies CS1, CS2, CS7, CS9 and CS18 of the Core Strategy DPD and the Planning Policy Framework Plan. Furthermore, due to inadequate information being submitted relating to access and visibility splays, the scheme would be contrary to Policy CS18 of the Core Strategy and also Part 4, paragraph 32 of the NPPF.





29



OS Grid Ref: 352622 529555 Expiry Date: 02 May 2017

Parish: Penrith Ward: Penrith Carleton

Application Type: Full Planning Application

Proposal: Replacement sports pitch and training areas and installation of hardstanding, pitch, perimeter team shelters, storage container and flood lighting system.

Location: Penrith Rugby Union Football Club, Winters Park, Penrith

Applicant: Rugby Football Union

Agent: Mr Tom Betts - Surfacing Standards Ltd

Case Officer: Nick Atkinson

Reason for Referral: The application is put before Planning Committee at the request of an objector.


30

1. Recommendation

It is recommended that planning permission be granted subject to the following conditions:1. The development permitted shall be begun before the expiration of three years

from the date of this permission.

Reason: In order to comply with the provisions of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 as amended by Section 51 of the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004.

2. The development hereby granted shall be carried out in accordance with the drawings hereby approved:

Application Form dated 21 February 2017, received 23 February 2017;

Surfacing Standards Ltd Artificial Turf Pitch Light Survey (ref: SSL2218), received 16 February 2017;

Design and Access Statement with Planning Statement;

Noise Management Plan, received 25 May 2017;

Site Location Plan (ref: 01 - Rev.01), received 05 May 2017;

Block Plan of Site (ref: 02 - Rev.01), received 05 May 2017;

Proposed Site Plan (ref: 03 - Rev.01), received 05 May 2017;

Proposed AGP Plan (ref: 04 - Rev.01), received 05 May 2017;

Proposed Elevations (ref: 05 - Rev.00), received 23 February 2017;

Proposed Floodlights (ref: 06 - Rev.01), received 01 June 2017.

3. The floodlights hereby approved shall be switched on no earlier than 09.00hrs and switched off no later than 22:00hrs.

Reason: In the interests of protecting local amenity from light pollution.4. Prior to the commencement of any development, a surface water drainage

scheme, based on the hierarchy of drainage options in the National Planning Practice Guidance with evidence of an assessment of the site conditions shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The surface water drainage scheme must be in accordance with the non-statutory technical standards for sustainable drainage systems or any subsequent replacement national standards. No surface water or land drainage shall discharge into the public sewerage system either directly or indirectly. Thereafter, the development shall be undertaken in accordance with the approved scheme.

Reason: To promote sustainable development, secure proper drainage and to manage the risk of flooding and pollution.


31

5. The development hereby approved shall be undertaken at all times in strict accordance with the Noise Management Plan, received 25 May 2017.

Reason: In the interests of protecting local amenity

2. Proposal and Site Description2.1 Proposal2.1.1 Full planning permission is sought for a new external sports pitch at Penrith Rugby

Union Football Club. The new pitch would be sited on the existing First Team Pitch which is currently grass covered.

2.1.2 The proposed development would include the following elements:

Installation of a new artificial grass pitch to form a full sized playing enclosure for rugby union with new artificial grass pitch surface. The pitch would be 120 metres x 80 metres and include associated technical areas to accommodate a full rugby union pitch including a variety of training areas;

Installation of a new pitch perimeter and associated gated entrances to form a playing enclosure around the field of play;

Installation of a new equipment storage container. The location of the container has been moved slightly further away from the nearest residential properties as originally proposed in response to concerns that were raised during the consultation period;

Installation of hard standing areas adjoining the artificial grass pitch perimeter complete with associated porous asphalt surfacing for pedestrian access, spectator viewing space and maintenance and emergency access.

Installation of new flood lighting. The lighting would include four columns which would extend to 18 metres in height and include luminaires. The masts would be located towards each corner of the pitch but would offer enough light spill to illuminate the entire pitch.

2.1.3 At the current time the applicant has confirmed that a 21:30hrs curfew is imposed at the rugby club after which time all training activities end. The current application would seek to extend the curfew to 22:00hrs by reason of the new lighting. It is noted that the curfew currently imposed is enforced voluntarily by the rugby club and not through the requirement of any planning permission or other form of controls upon the club. Should the rugby club wish to extend this self-imposed curfew at any point then they would be able to do so.

2.1.4 The use of the new pitch will be spread between Penrith Rugby Club; local schools; the Rugby Football Union for development programme; community access and in connection with the local rugby partnership.

2.1.5 The use of the facility would also be undertaken in accordance with a Noise Management Plan, provided by the applicant at the request of the Environmental Health Officer. The plan includes the following mitigation measures to reduce the potential impact of the use of the facility upon local residential amenity:


32

The nominated noise monitoring supervisor to regularly monitor activities on the artificial grass pitch;

All members of the management team will be fully aware and conversant with the noise management plan;

Limit use of the AGP between the following hours:

- Monday to Friday 09:00 to 22:00

- Saturday and Sunday 09:00 to 22:00

The management team will ensure the maximum user capacity of the artificial grass pitch is not exceeded;

Only pre-booked lettings will be permitted to use the artificial grass pitch;

All visitors as part of the lettings agreement will sign up to the Code of Conduct which includes arriving and leaving the site plus expectations whilst on site;

The management team will liaise with visitors to ensure noise management policies and the Code of Conduct are adhered to;

The monitoring supervisor will provide a clear and reliable mechanism whereby noise complaints can be made and logged;

The monitoring supervisor will follow the complaints procedure detailed below for any complaints received;

The monitoring supervisor will respond to noise complaints within 24 hours of receipt.

When requested, the monitoring supervisor provide the Local Authority with details of logged complaints and any actions taken;

The monitoring supervisor will liaise with the Local Authority to ensure the noise management plan remains effective and revise the noise management plan accordingly.

2.2 Site Description2.2.1 Penrith Rugby Club is located within a built-up residential area towards the south

eastern edge of Penrith. The rugby club has been located in its current location at Winter Field since the 1960s and as such is considered to be a long established sports club.

2.2.2 In terms of the layout of the site, the site includes a number of playing pitches towards the south western edge of the site. The first team pitch, subject of this application, has a small grand stand adjacent to enable spectators to sit and watch matches. The site also includes a large car parking area which is hard surfaced and the associated club house.

2.2.3 In terms of site topography, there is a fall in ground levels from the site in a south and south westerly direction. On site itself, the playing pitches are raised approximately 1-3 metres higher than the car park.


33


Consultee Response

Highway Authority Responded on the 12 April 2017 raising no objection to the proposal. The existing access is acceptable in connection with the proposed use.

Local Lead Flood Authority Responded on the 12 April 2017 raising no objection to the proposal. It was noted that the applicant suggests that the soil formation within the site has a poor infiltration rate and as such surface water discharge will need to be dealt with by attenuation and controlled discharge into the United Utilities system, which is supported.The change from grass to an all-weather artificial pitch will not have a significant change on the drainage characteristics of the site and that the formation level will offer an element of storage before a controlled discharge.

Sport England Responded on the 31 May 2017 raising no objection to the proposal which is considered to meet paragraph 74(iii) of the NPPF and Exception E5 of our adopted Playing Fields Policy. The loss of a natural turf pitch with an artificial surface constitutes a loss of natural turf and must be justified. The Rugby Football Union have been consulted and have made the following comments which addresses Sport England’s considerations:“1. Penrith rugby club is a priority site for the RFU. The new artificial grass pitch (AGP) will reduce overplay of pitches, as identified in the local authority playing pitch strategy, within the local area. 2. The AGP at Penrith is one of 60 new pitches to be supported through the new RFU AGP strategy, which will see 100 new AGP’s delivered across the country with RFU funding support. The new RFU Strategy aims to address overplay of natural turf pitches across England, which has been identified as having a negative impact on participation. Areas of the country identified as having significantly overused natural turf pitches and a high potential to grow rugby union have been targeted for investment. 60 of the proposed sites will be owned and operated by the RFU, with Penrith being one of these, whilst the remaining 40 will be part funded. The new AGP at Penrith will be leased to the RFU to allow usage by other local clubs and partner organisations to be maximised for the development of rugby union. 3. The key priority for the RFU is to grow the number of


34

players in Cumbria and specifically the Penrith area. The targeted clubs, who will be offered access to the new AGP, have been mapped onto the RFU People and Places Continuum and have been identified as having a need for additional capacity for both matches and floodlit training provision due to either the number of pitches they have on their sites and/or the quality of the pitch provision on their sites. 4. Based on this current pitch capacity of Penrith rugby club it is the RFU’s view that a World Rugby compliant AGP would provide a solution and mitigate the loss of a natural turf pitch. 5. The RFU can confirm that the AGP has been designed to meet World Rugby regulation 22 performance standards and it will delivered through the AGP framework to ensure the pitch meets World Rugby reg 22 and floodlighting standard are in line with RFU guidance. 6. The provision of the new AGP will provide increased usage in comparison to the existing grassed rugby union pitch. This will not only benefit Penrith rugby club, who will have set number of hours guaranteed for usage, but also other local clubs and partner organisations. Work is on-going to agree a usage plan but community use agreements will be in place and a partnership user group formed to review this annually, led by the RFU.7. In light of the above the RFU would support this application.”In light of the above information, Sport England does not wish to raise an objection to the application.

3.1. Non-Statutory Consultees

Consultee Response


Responded on the 16 May 2017 confirming that the proposed lighting assessment meets the current recognised standard. In relation to noise, it was noted that the use of the artificial pitch in all weathers should be balanced against the amenity of the occupants of the neighbouring dwellings who have not had the more continuous use that this application proposes. As such, in the absence of a noise or management plan, it is recommended that a curfew of 21:00hrs be imposed. If the applicant is in agreement with this then there will be no recommendation for objection.


35

Consultee Response

United Utilities Responded on the 04 April 2017 confirming that the proposed land drainage discharging into the wastewater network is not acceptable. Land drainage or subsoil drainage water must not be connected into the public sewer system directly or by way of private drain pipes. It is the developer’s responsibility to provide adequate land drainage without recourse to the use of the public sewer system.As such, it was requested that a condition be included in any decision notice as may be issued relating to the submission and approval of a surface drainage water scheme.


Town Council Object Support No Response No View Expressed

Penrith Town Council

X

4.1 Penrith Town Council confirmed that they have no objection. The Town Council confirmed that it is fully supportive of the application which will improve the sporting facilities within the town.

5. Representations5.1 In respect of the consultation following the submission of the application, the following

consultation letters were sent out:

No of Neighbours Consulted 38 No of letters of support 0No of Representations Received

4 No of letters of observation 1

No of objection letters 3

5.2 The letters of objection raised the following concerns which are considered to be material considerations:

The noise Monday to Sunday is unbearable;

The training weight room under the stand is used until late with loud music usually by people using bad language, so spending quality time in the garden with a young family is trying;

The existing training lights shine into the garden area. The proposed floodlights would only make this worse;


36

Moving the training area closer to the nearest residential houses, the noise impact would be considerably worse. Why can’t the training area be moved closer to the club house;

The floodlights already installed at the rugby club shine directly into our house. This has impacted us so much we have to close our curtains in order to read or watch television.

5.3 The letter of observation raises the following points:

We have lived at Carleton Hall Gardens since 1999 and have only had to complain to the rugby club once. This was promptly dealt with by the club. Since then the only issues have been odd noise issues with youths congregating around the stand and some noise from people using the gym.

The lighting and use of the pitch will create the potential for much more noise/disturbance than currently experienced which would not be easy to tolerate;

The lighting could result in people congregating resulting in anti-social behaviour, which would be an unreasonable invasion of our privacy and quality of life;

The storage container should not be located so close to the boundary of the nearest properties. It should be moved to a less intrusive location.

6. Relevant Planning History6.1.1 The planning history considered most relevant to the determination of this planning

application includes the following:

04/0559 - Resurfacing of car park and installation of 3 x 10 metre lighting stanchions, approved 04 August 2004;

14/0526 - Upgrade existing floodlighting on third team pitch and installation of new floodlighting on second team pitch, approved 22 September 2014.


Core Strategy DPD Policy: CS1 Sustainable Development Principles


CS4 Flood Risk

CS18 Design of New Development

CS21 Principles for Services, Facilities, Sport and Informal Recreation7.2 Other Material Considerations

National Planning Policy Framework: Core planning principles


Promoting healthy communities


37

7.3 Eden Local Plan 2014-2032 (this is the emerging local plan for Eden District Council): Policy DEV1

Policy DEV5

Policy COM27.3.1 Due to the stage of adoption of the Local Plan, only limited weight is afforded to any of

the policies contained within this document at the current time.


Principle


Impact upon local amenity

Flood Risk

8.2 Principle8.2.1 The proposed development would not result in a material change of use of the

application site from its current and existing use as a rugby playing field. The development would instead provide an alternative playing surface from the natural grass covering it currently has, to an all-weather artificial grass covering, including the provision of floodlighting. The combination of the floodlighting and the all-weather pitch would support the use of the site in the winter months and during periods of inclement weather. As such, the proposed development would deliver a number of benefits to the rugby club and wider community through the delivery of enhanced facilities.

8.2.2 The National Planning Policy Framework (“NPPF”), paragraph 70 confirms that Local Planning Authorities should plan positively for the provision of community facilities such as sporting venues to ‘enhance the sustainability of communities and residential environments.’ Although not a new facility, Penrith Rugby Football Union Club is an established and important sporting facility within the town, the sustainability of which would be enhanced through the proposed development, with wider community benefits delivered through the proposed community access, school and educational use and the local rugby partnership use. This would deliver considerable community benefits. Paragraph 70 of the NPPF, further states that that Local Planning Authorities should ensure that sporting facilities are ‘able to develop and modernise in a way that is sustainable and retained for the benefit of the community.’

8.2.3 Furthermore, paragraph 73 of the National Planning Policy Framework notes that Local Planning Authorities should ensure greater access to ‘high quality open spaces and opportunity for sport and recreation’, due to the importance that they make to the contribution of a communities health and well-being. This position within National Planning Policy is supported within the Development Plan, with Core Strategy Policy CS21 noting that the council will meet the sport and recreational needs of the district.

8.2.4 Whilst floodlighting columns would be new to the application site itself, the principle of new flood lights at sporting grounds is considered to be an appropriate an ancillary development. Furthermore, the principle of floodlighting at the rugby club has, in part, previously been established as sound following the previous grant of planning


38

permission 14/0526 which introduced flood lights to the adjacent second and third team pitches at the rugby club.

8.2.5 Due to the proposed development affects an area of existing playing field, under the provisions of the Town and Country Planning (Development Management Procedure) (England) Order 2015, Sport England are a statutory consultee. It is noted that Sport England have raised no objection to the proposal.

8.2.6 For the reasons detailed above, it is considered that the principle of the proposed development is acceptable subject to further considerations in relation to; landscape and visual impact; impact upon amenity and flood risk.

8.3 Landscape and Visual Impact8.3.1 Through the use of an appropriate design, the development would be both in-keeping

with and sympathetic to the appearance and character of a sporting ground. This would ensure that the development would not appear as an incongruous development, despite the height of the flood light columns which would be in-keeping with the principles of good design as outlined within Core Strategy Polices CS1, CS2 and CS18. The design of the flood lights are not dissimilar to those previously approved at the rugby club on the adjacent pitches which would enable them to be viewed entirely within the context of the rugby club setting.

8.3.2 The re-surfacing of the first team pitch would appear no different visually to existing ground conditions and therefore, have no impact upon the character of the area. Whilst the storage of the equipment container would visible from the nearest residential properties, views would be limited from any public highway with the container viewed entirely within the context of a sports ground, where containers are not uncommon or out of place.

8.3.3 For the reasons detailed above, it is considered that the proposed development would have a largely negligible impact upon the character of the area.

8.4 Impact upon Local Amenity8.4.1 A number of objectors to the application have raised concerns in relation to the impact

of the proposed development upon their amenity. Many have noted that this is currently an issue with the existing site conditions, that they feel would be exacerbated should the proposed development be granted planning consent.

8.4.2 The level of harm posed by the development is not considered to be significantly adverse upon local amenity. The development would not introduce a new land use or create a new sporting facility to the area. Instead, the development would support an existing and long established sports club, the position of which pre-dates much of the adjacent housing.

8.4.3 In relation to harm resulting from the flood lights, the applicant has provided an appropriately detailed assessment on the proposed lighting which details and models the likely levels of light spill at neighbouring properties. This assessment has been independently assessed by the Environmental Health Team who have confirmed its acceptability and who have raised no objection or concerns in relation to any adverse effects resulting from light spill. Notwithstanding, it is considered appropriate to condition the use of the lighting to cease at 22:00hrs in line with the applicants proposed hours of use, to ensure that the lights would not be left on overnight. It is considered that the imposition of such a condition would offer further mitigation to local amenity.


39

8.4.4 In relation to noise, it is considered that the proposal would not generate any additional noise levels above those expected to be generated by a sport facility such as a rugby club, nor above those which presently exist. The noise levels associated with the use of the proposed new pitch are considered to be part of the normal rugby club activities. In addition, whilst the proposed development may concentrate the use of the land for both training and playing purposes on evenings, there are no restrictions on the use of the application site for such purposes at the current time, bar natural light restrictions in the winter months. This is due to the application site forming part of an established sporting facility, with the first team pitch already attracting such use.

8.4.5 It has been suggested by both objectors to the application and the Environmental Health Officer, that a curfew should be put on the use of the application site to 21:00hrs to provide some mitigation for its use. However, this is not considered to be reasonable from a planning perspective with the applicant confirming that the proposed 22:00hrs curfew being required for the sustainability of the project. Whilst the applicant has noted that a curfew presently exists at the site (21:30hrs), this is self-imposed by the rugby club and not controlled through any planning condition. As such, although natural light restrictions would in practical terms dictate otherwise, there are no restrictions on the use of the pitches and land within the ground for the rugby club. In addition, the imposition of a 21:00hrs curfew, only affecting one relatively small area of an unrestricted site would raise concerns in relation to the enforceability of any such condition. As such, the proposed 30 minute extension to the self-imposed curfew is considered to be acceptable.

8.4.6 Following receipt of the consultation response from the Environmental Health Officer, the applicant has produced a Noise Management Plan which includes details of the how the facility would be used to ensure no anti-social behaviour or activities resulting from the use of the facility create excessive noise to the nearest noise sensitive receptors, being the residents on Carleton Hall Gardens and Carleton Road. Within the Management Plan the use of the facility is limited to the hours of 09.00hrs - 22:00hrs. A noise monitoring supervisor would be nominated to ensure the use of the facility is in-compliance with the noise monitoring plan and provides effective details of how any complaints can be made and investigated to ensure any sources of excessive noise are dealt with quickly and effectively. The supervisor will regularly monitor the use of the facility during use. The use of this plan would be secured through the imposition of a condition, and ensure further mitigation against the occurrence of any potentially adverse impacts upon local amenity.

8.4.7 Notwithstanding the above, through restricting the use of the floodlights to 22:00hrs would in all practicality largely achieve a controlled curfew at the site during the winter months which would be the main period of use for the pitch. Whilst this would not reduce the use until 21:00hrs in line with the objectors and Environmental Health Officer requests, it would still provide a form of restriction on the use of the land any later.

8.4.8 Therefore, for the reasons detailed above, it is considered that whilst the proposed development would impact upon local amenity, the extent to which this would occur is not considered to be adverse, or significantly different from the existing conditions. As such, the impact of the proposal upon local amenity is not considered to represent sufficient justification for the refusal of this planning application.


40

8.5 Flood Risk8.5.1 It is noted that the current application is located within a Flood Zone 1 and has been

subject to periods of localised flooding which has disrupted its use. As this is the case for the entire rugby club site, it would not be practical for the proposal to be relocated within an area of reduced flood risk. As such, it is considered that the sequential test for flooding has been met by the current planning application.

8.5.2 Although final drainage details are yet to be agreed and would require the submission of further details for approval at the agreement of the applicant and United Utilities, Cumbria County Council in their role as the Local Lead Flood Authority, has raised no concerns or objections to the proposal. As such, it is considered that the development would not result in or contribute towards increased risk of flooding at the rugby club site nor upon any surrounding and adjacent land. As such, it is considered that the proposal is considered to be an appropriate development within a Flood Zone.

9. Implications9.1 Legal Implications9.1.1 There are no legal issues arising out of this report.9.2 Equality and Diversity9.2.1 The Council must have regard to the elimination of unlawful discrimination and

harassment, and the promotion of equality under the Equality Act 2010. There are no equality and diversity issues arising out of this report.

9.3 Environment9.3.1 The Council must have due regard to conserving bio-diversity under the Natural





10. Conclusion10.1 It is considered that he proposed development represents an appropriate and

sustainable improvement to the facilities of an existing and established sport facility. The development would deliver significant benefits to the rugby club and also to the wider community through enhanced community and local rugby partnership use. The development would achieve this through improving health and well-being for the local community through increased access and opportunities for sport and sporting provision.


41

10.2 The development would have an impact upon the amenity of a number of neighbouring properties, however this impact is not considered to be adverse. Furthermore, the impact upon local amenity is considered unlikely to be significantly different to those currently experienced due to the established nature of the rugby club and does not, therefore, represent sufficient justification to warrant the refusal of this planning application.

10.3 The proposed development is considered to be in accordance with both the Development Plan and the National Planning Policy Framework. As such, it is considered that the considerable public and community benefits outweigh the limited impact upon local residential amenity and, therefore, the planning balance is considered to have been met.





42


Planning Application No: 17/0016 Date Received: 26 January 2017

OS Grid Ref: 353646, 539347 Expiry Date: 01 August 2017

Parish: Lazonby Ward: Lazonby

Application Type: Outline

Proposal: For residential development with access

Location: Land off Scaur Lane, Lazonby

Applicant: Cumbrian Homes

Agent: North Associates Ltd

Case Officer: David Wright

Reason for Referral: Major Planning Application that has received a request from a member of the public to address the Planning Committee.


43

1. Recommendation

It is recommended that delegated power be given to the Assistant Director Technical Services to grant planning permission subject to a Section106 Agreement being entered into to the absolute satisfaction of the Deputy Chief Executive and the Assistant Director Technical Services requiring the provision of 30% affordable Houses; and a financial contribution comprising £266,066 to the County Council for the provision of education. Furthermore that the Council’s reasonable costs being paid in relation to that Section 106 Agreement and subject to the following conditions:Time Limit for Commencement1. The development permitted shall be begun either before the expiration of three

years from the date of this permission or before the expiration of two years from the date of approval of the last of the reserved matters to be approved, whichever is the later.Reason: In order to comply with the provisions of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 as amended by Section 51 of the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004.

2. Approval of the details of the scale, layout, external appearance of the buildings, and the landscaping/boundary treatments of the site (called "the reserved matters") shall be obtained from Local Planning Authority in writing before any development is commenced.Reason: The application is in outline form only and is not accompanied by full detailed plans.

3. An application for approval of the reserved matters shall be made to the local planning authority before the expiration of three years from the date of this permissionReason: In order to comply with the provisions of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 as amended by Section 51 of the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004.


drawings hereby approved:i) Promap Site Location Plan received 9 January 2017.ii) Potential location of site access plan, Drawing No A099604-P002 dated

8 May 2017 and received 8 May 2017Reason: To ensure a satisfactory development and to avoid any ambiguity as to what constitutes the permission.

Before the Development is Commenced5. Prior to the commencement of any development, a surface water drainage

scheme, based on the hierarchy of drainage options in the National Planning Practice Guidance with evidence of an assessment of the site conditions (inclusive of how the scheme shall be managed after completion) shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority.


44

The surface water drainage scheme must be in accordance with the Non-Statutory Technical Standards for Sustainable Drainage Systems (March 2015) or any subsequent replacement national standards and unless otherwise agreed in writing by the Local Planning Authority, no surface water shall discharge to the public sewerage system either directly or indirectly. The drainage scheme submitted for approval shall also be in accordance with the principles set out in the Flood Risk Assessment dated October 2016 proposing surface water discharging to public surface water sewer.The development shall be completed, maintained and managed in accordance with the approved details. Reason: To promote sustainable development, secure proper drainage and to manage the risk of flooding and pollution. This condition is imposed in light of policies within the NPPF and NPPG. It is necessary for the condition to be on the basis that “No development shall commence until” as compliance with the requirements of the condition at a later time could result in unacceptable harm contrary to the policies of the Development Plan.

6. No development shall commence until a construction surface water management plan has been agreed in writing with the local planning authority. The development shall be completed, maintained and managed in accordance with the approved plan.Reason: To safeguard against flooding to surrounding sites and to safeguard against pollution of watercourses downstream of the site.It is necessary for the condition to be on the basis that “No development shall commence until” as compliance with the requirements of the condition at a later time could result in unacceptable harm contrary to the policies of the Development Plan.

7. No development shall commence until a Construction Method Statement (“CMS”) is submitted and approved to the Local Planning Authority.The CMS shall contain appropriate pollution prevention guideline measures to include materials and machinery storage, and mitigation for the control and management of dust, surface water run off and waste to protect any surface water drains from sediment, and pollution from cement to fuel.The development shall be carried out in accordance with the approved CMS.Reason: To minimise the impact of construction works upon the River Eden Special Area of Conservation.It is necessary for the condition to be on the basis that - No development shall commence until - as compliance with the requirements of the condition at a later time would result in unacceptable harm contrary to the policies of the Development Plan.


45

Pre-Occupancy or Other Stage Conditions8. No construction activity that can be heard beyond the site boundary shall take

outside the hours 8am to 6pm Monday to Friday, 9am to 1pm on Saturdays. There shall be no construction activity taking place on site on Sundays or Bank Holidays.Reason: To protect residential amenity of nearby properties.

Note to Developer

• The illustrative site layout plan that has been submitted as part of the application does not form any part of the approval hereby granted.

• In accordance with the Saved Eden Local Plan Policy BE10 the Council will seek the provision of a minimum of 15 square metres per dwelling of publicly accessible open space. Details of this provision should also include how the maintenance of the site is to be carried out.

Drainage

• Foul and surface water shall be drained on separate systems.

Highways

• The carriageway, footways, cycle paths etc: shall be designed, constructed, drained and lit to a standard suitable for adoption and in this respect full engineering details shall be submitted for approval with each Reserved Matters Application. These details shall be in accordance with the standards laid down in the current Cumbria Design Guide; all works so approved, shall be constructed before the development (or relevant phase thereof) is considered complete.

• The private driveways, footpaths, parking and green-space areas etc: shall be designed, constructed, drained and lit, to the satisfaction of the Local Planning Authority and in this respect, further details, including levels and material specifications etc: shall be submitted with each Reserved Matters Application. No such works shall be commenced until a full specification has been approved. Such areas shall either be assigned to Private Titles or, if joint and/or public access areas, maintained by the Management Company and secured through a Sec 106 Agreement. Note that a condition will be used where access to properties is to remain private and not become Highway.

Other

• Any reserved matters application should detail designated storage areas or facilities for waste refuse and recycling collections within the private residential areas/plots. It will be expected that any refuse facilities will be constructed and ready to use by residents prior to properties being occupied.

This grant of planning permission is subject to a Section 106 agreement dated [TBC]


46

2. Proposal and Site Description2.1 Proposal2.1.1 The application is for outline planning permission and the inclusion of an access onto

the site with all other matters reserved.2.1.2 As the current proposal is for outline planning permission at this stage, matters relating

to site layout, design, scale and appearance of buildings and landscaping would be subject to a further reserved matters application should planning permission be granted. Although at outline stage, the applicant has provided indicative plans indicating that the site could achieve up to 50 houses 15 of which would be affordable.

2.1.3 The applicant has indicated their willingness to provide 30% of the development as affordable homes.The application is supported by:

Site location plan

Indicative layout plan

Design & Access Statement

Transport Statement

Geophysical (archaeological survey)

Flood Risk Assessment

Indicative drainage plan

Ecological Appraisal (Phase 1) & Habitat Map

Preliminary Environmental Risk Assessment (PERA)

Statement of Community Involvement2.2 Site Description2.2.1 The site has been described in the application as Land off Scaur Lane and is located

on the southern edge of Lazonby. The application site is currently an agricultural field of 2.68 hectares. The site is bound to the North West by a recently completed development from Story Homes titled The Meadows. Agricultural fields with defined boundaries are located to the south west and south east. Scaur Lane bounds the site to the north and on the opposite side of Scaur Lane is the housing estate of Barton Dale. To the east of the site are two further residential properties located on the southern side of Scaur Lane. The topography of the land gently rises to the south.

2.2.2 Lazonby is classed as a Local Service Centre under the Council’s Core Strategy (2008) and is proposed to be a key hub under the Council’s draft Local Plan (2015). Lazonby is located approximately 6 miles to the north east of Penrith, Eden District’s principal town and key service centre.


47


Consultee ResponseCounty Council - education

- Public Rights of Way Officer

No objection subject to the following financial contributions to be payable by way of legal agreement to mitigate the impact of the development:£96,000 to facilitate 10 additional primary school places at Lazonby £127,316 to facilitate 7 additional secondary school places£42,750 to provide free transport to the secondary school students to the local secondary schools in Penrith.Total contribution of £266,066

No objection

Local Highway Authority 10 March 2017Accepted the principle of development but:- Required further details of how footpaths will be

provide alongside the highway- Required the proposed Access point should be

relocated as it could cause headlights directly facing existing bedrooms

- Required applicant to provide further information to demonstrate how an adequate visibility splay could be provided from the proposed access.

8 May 2017 (following a revised plan being submitted and discussions between the applicant and the local highway authority)The highway authority confirmed the new access is acceptable subject to a plan that demonstrates the boundary wall with the neighbouring site and amended speed survey information being provided to the local planning authority.Both the revised plan and the amended speed survey have been provided in accordance with the local highway authority’s requests.

Environment Agency No objectionNatural England No objection subject to conditionsLead Local Flood Authority No objection subject to conditions


48


Consultee ResponseParish Council No objectionEnvironmental Health No objection subject to planning condition controlling

construction hoursUnited Utilities 13 February 2017

No objection but requested further information than was provided in the initial Flood Risk Assessment25 April 2017A revised Flood Risk Assessment was provided and the planning officer encouraged United Utilities to provide any additional comments prior to the 31 May 2017 but not have been provided to date (as of1 June 2017)

Housing Officer No objectionCounty Archaeologist No objection



ExpressedLazonby Parish Council

X

4.1 Lazonby Parish Council provided the following response on the 15 February 2017:The above application was discussed at a meeting of Lazonby Parish Council on1 February 2017. In addition, Parish Councillors heard representations from a number of residents who attended the meeting. A number of residents who attended a Neighbourhood Plan public consultation session on 11 February also made representations about this application. It follows that the Parish Council feels that it is in a good position to represent resident’s views.Parish Councillors are fully aware of the current position regarding a five year supply of housing sites in Eden District and also aware of the presumption in favour of sustainable development within the National Planning Policy Framework. Accordingly, the Parish Council believe that it would be difficult to offer material grounds for objection to the application that could be sustained. Nevertheless, it is the case that there is some opposition to the application and it should be noted that this application, and an application, successful on appeal, to develop an adjacent site in Scaur Lane will have the cumulative effect of increasing the housing stock in Lazonby village by around 25% in less than two years.The Parish Council and residents have grave concerns about the capacity of the village infrastructure to cope with an increase of housing stock on this scale. No doubt the statutory authorities will make the appropriate comments. But the Parish Council would wish to have assurances on the following points:


49

• That the capacity of the drainage and sewage systems is adequate; [the adjacent development required the installation of attenuation measures.]

• That local children will be able to attend Lazonby Church of England Primary School and that siblings will not be separated.

• That measures will be included to mitigate the effect of increased traffic generated by the development on already congested roads. The ideal solution would be a relief road from the Will Pool to a point on the Great Salkeld Road beyond the existing children’s swings at Coronation Gardens.

• There are few amenities in the part of the village in which the proposed development is located. The Parish Council would like to see a play area for children and green space within the proposed development.

• That school transport needs for secondary pupils generated by the development will be favourably considered and additional seats provided if necessary.

• That in providing affordable homes to meet Eden District Council policy requirements, consideration is given to offsite development and utilising some of the brown field and so called “eyesore” sites in the village settlement.

• That consideration is given to the impact of the development on the local GP medical practice at Kirkoswald.

• That access to the site for plant and heavy goods vehicles be from the B6412 Great Salkeld Road.

The above points have been tabled by Parish Councillors and residents. They are intended to ensure that the Parish derives benefit from the development and that there is minimal impact, and preferably some enhancement of the quality of residents’ lives and village amenities. It is suggested that consideration of them may lead to conditions being attached to any planning consent.The Lazonby Neighbourhood Plan Steering Group will shortly lodge documents with Eden District Council. Over the coming months The Parish Council would expect the Plan to gather weight as it progresses through the defined processes. The Parish Council would particularly mention the Design Guide which has been drafted to enable new development to blend in with the existing built environment and landscape. The Parish Council understand that Lazonby Neighbourhood Plan will make separate representations on this matter.Finally, the Parish Council would ask that the application 17/0016 is determined by the Planning Committee. This request is supported by Councillor Gordon Nicolson who is presently acting Chairman of Lazonby Parish Council.Please would you acknowledge receipt of this letter and confirm that the application will be considered by the Planning Committee.

4.2 As stated above although the parish council are not objecting to the planning application they have requested that the application is brought to the planning committee to reflect the local interest in the application.


50


2 February 2017.

No of Neighbours Consulted 30 No of letters of supportNo of Representations Received 13 No of neutral representations 7No of objection letters 6

5.2 Letters of objection raised the following material considerations to the application:- the site is not allocated for development- lack of infrastructure to link new development to services in nearby Kirkoswald- development will lead to strain on transport infrastructure without further investment- Scaur Lane as a minor road can not support further development- local housing need has been satisfied both within Lazonby and Eden District- brown field sites should be developed first- impact construction work will have on local residential amenity whilst development is

carried out- impact development will have on existing residential properties including overlooking

and overshadowing- surface water run and a lack of infrastructure to protect existing properties in the

local area- lack of sustainable transport provided locally- impact on the character of the village due to size of proposed development- lack of facilities within Lazonby to support further development- impact on the drainage infrastructure- need for affordable homes

5.3 Letters of objection raised the following non-material considerations:- was not expecting the development- more amenity area should be provided in accordance with draft Lazonby

Neighbourhood Plan- design of proposed houses- recent development that has already taken place on adjacent land



51


Saved Local Plan Policies: BE20 - Open Space Provision in New DevelopmentCore Strategy DPD Policy: CS1 - Sustainable Development Principles CS2 - Locational Strategy CS4 - Flood Risk CS5 - Transport and Accessibility CS7 - Principles for Housing CS8 - Making Efficient Use of Land CS10 - Affordable Housing CS16 - Principles for the Natural Environment CS18 - Design of New Development CS21 - Principles for Services, Facilities, Sport and Informal RecreationSupplementary Planning Documents: Housing (2010)

7.2 Other Material ConsiderationsNational Planning Policy Framework: Building a strong, competitive economy Delivering a wide choice of high quality homes Requiring good design Promoting healthy communities Meeting the challenge of climate change, flooding and coastal change Conserving and enhancing the natural environmentNational Planning Practice GuidanceDraft Lazonby Neighbourhood Plan (January 2017)


8. Planning Assessment8.1 Key/Main Planning Issues8.1.1 Principle8.1.2 Landscape/Visual Impact8.1.3 Residential Amenity8.1.4 Infrastructure8.2 Principle8.2.1 Planning applications must be determined in accordance with the Development Plan

unless material considerations indicate otherwise. 8.2.2 Paragraph 49 of the National Planning Policy Framework (“NPPF”) states that housing

applications should be considered in the context of the presumption in favour of


52

sustainable development with relevant policies for the supply of housing not considered up-to-date if the local planning authority cannot demonstrate a five year land supply. As of 1 April 2016 the Council can only demonstrate a housing supply of 3.33 years.

8.2.3 Eden’s Core Strategy (CS2 Location Strategy) classifies Lazonby as a local service centre where development would be limited to “small scale development to sustain local services, support rural businesses and meet local needs including housing, provision of employment, improvements to accessibility”. CS2 Locational Strategy is a housing policy and given that the council cannot demonstrate an up-to-date 5 year supply of housing land this policy is not considered to be up to date and consistent with the NPPF. As such it is considered that little weight can be given to this restrictive housing policy in the determination of this application.

8.2.4 Whilst it can be given limited weight in the determination of this application due to its draft status the Council is currently consulting on the preferred options for the Local Plan. Within the document Lazonby is identified as a “Key Hub” which “will be the focus for development to sustain local services appropriate to the scale of the village, including new housing, the provision of employment and improvements to accessibility.” The draft plan does not provide housing allocations sites for Key Hubs that will be subject to Neighbourhood Plans. The draft Lazonby Neighbourhood Plan too only has limited weight at present but allocates the site as a mixture of housing and amenity space for children.

8.2.5 In the absence of up-to-date local plan housing policies the proposed development should be considered within the context of the presumption in favour of sustainable development as defined by paragraph 14 of the NPPF where planning permission should be granted unless there is significant and demonstrable harm that outweighs the benefits of the provision of approximately 50 houses. The Supreme Court judgement in Suffolk Coastal District Council (Appellant) v Hopkins Homes Ltd and anor (Respondents) Richborough Estate Partnerships LLP and anor (Respondents) v Cheshire East Borough Council (Appellant) [2017] UKSC 37 emphasised that the test set out in paragraph 14 covers all aspects of a proposed development and not just related to polices that restrict housing.

8.2.6 The Council consider that Lazonby, as a local service centre, is a sustainable location for development subject to the development being of an appropriate size and scale.

8.2.7 The Council have identified that there are approximately 450 dwellings within Lazonby. The addition of approximately 50 more dwellings would constitute an 11.1% increase in the size of the village. However the site is considered to be appropriate for residential development and the additional properties would not be considered to have an unacceptable impact on the character of the settlement by virtue of its size given the facilities available, transport links available and the relative close proximity to the key service centre of Penrith.

8.2.8 In terms of its location, the application site is considered to be well related to the village of Lazonby. It is acknowledged that the development would increase the extent of the village to the south but this extension would be located between existing development to the north west and two residential properties to the east. The Draft Lazonby Neighbourhood Plan is in the preliminary stages and therefore has limited weight at present. Notwithstanding the above the proposed development site is located within the proposed village boundary and is allocated housing site; albeit the Neighbourhood Plan proposes amenities for children to the south of the site.


53

8.2.9 Therefore, for the reasons detailed above it is considered that the principle of the proposed development accords with the Development Plan and National Planning Policy Framework. This is however, subject to further consideration on the adverse impacts and level of demonstrable harm that the development would bring and whether any harm outweighs the benefit of 50 additional homes.

Affordable Housing8.2.10 The proposed development is outline and as such the layout or number of dwellings

would not be finalised. The indicative layout suggests 50 units. Policy CS10 of the Eden Core Strategy requires development of this scale to ensure that 30% of the houses provided as affordable homes. The applicant has stated their intention, through their planning statement, to provide 30% affordable housing (15 affordable units) in accordance with this policy requirement. The expected affordable housing would be secured by way of section 106 legal agreement.

8.2.11 The housing officer has stated, due to recent experience of development in Lazonby, that there would be a healthy demand for affordable housing - both to rent and to buy (low cost home ownership) and they suggest a mix of rental (through a Registered Provider) and discounted sale would be appropriate for this site. Furthermore that there could be an opportunity for houses and bungalows to be included in the proposed development. This level of detail could be determined at reserve matter stages if outline planning permission was granted.

8.2.12 In considering the benefits of the proposed scheme the provision of 15 affordable homes should be taken into account as well as the net gain of 50 houses overall.

Amenity Space/Open Space provision8.2.13 A number of comments from members of the public have expressed a desire that there

should be amenities provided on site for children in accordance with the draft Lazonby Neighbourhood Plan. It must be noted that the draft Lazonby Neighbourhood plan has limited weight at present. Furthermore that the layout provided is indicative only and the scale and layout of the proposed development is not being considered in this Outline Planning application.

8.2.14 In accordance with Saved plan Policy BE20 of the Eden Local Plan new housing developments containing 10 or more dwellings would seek the provision of publicly accessible open space to a minimum standard of 15 square metres per dwelling as an integral part of the proposal. The indicative layout shows some areas of open space within the site; particularly along the northern boundary with Scaur Lane however this provision would be assessed in more detail at the reserved matters stage which could include amenity space for children which a number of residents wish to see in accordance with the draft Lazonby Plan.

Density8.2.15 Policy CS8 of the Council’s Core Strategy recommends a minimum housing density of

30 dwellings per hectare. Applying this level of density on the proposed site would equate to 80 homes. However CS8 allows lower densities to be considered where there is a need to preserve the character of the area. Lazonby is not a densely developed village and the provision of 80 homes on the land would increase pressure on the local infrastructure, represent an 18% increase in the size of the village and leave little room for necessary sustainable drainage and open space within the site.


54

Therefore the suggested number of 50 dwelling is considered more appropriate for this site.

8.3 Landscape and Visual Impacts8.3.1 The site is identified in the Cumbria Landscape Character Guidance and Toolkit as

subtype 6 which is defined as intermediate farmland where any proposed development should be of an appropriate scale and to use vernacular materials.

8.3.2 A number of members of the public have raised concerns with the impact the development would have on the character of the village due to its perceived design. An indicative layout has been submitted in support of the application. However this is indicative only and would be assessed fully at the reserved matters stage.

8.3.3 The application site is not in a prominent location located to the southern end of the village with glimpsing public views from the B6412. The development would only really become prominently visible when entering Scaur Lane from the B6412. Both the adjacent development and the topography of the proposed site would provide screening of the development which would assist in ensuring that it would be a natural extension of the settlement rather than a disjointed extension. This is reflected with the site being included within the boundary of village in its draft Lazonby Neighbourhood Plan. Residential development of the site would, in principle, be an acceptable visual form of development in this location and would not have a significant detrimental impact on the character or appearance of the surrounding area.

8.4 Residential Amenity8.4.1 Policy CS18 of the Core Strategy requires that development protects amenity of

existing residents and provides an acceptable amenity for future occupiers. 8.4.2 A number of members of the public have stated their concern that the proposed

development could have a negative impact on their residential amenity and have highlighted proposed separation distances, potential overshadowing and the difference in levels between existing houses on the Meadows and the proposed development site. It must be noted that scale, layout and design of houses are not been considered in this outline planning application but would be matters for a reserved matters application if outline planning permission was granted.

8.4.3 Notwithstanding the above it is still relevant, when assessing the principle of residential development, whether the indicated scale of 50 houses could be achieved on the land without causing serious harm to existing and future residential amenity. This harm can be measured by applying the Council’s planning policies to the indicative plan.

8.4.4 The Housing SPD (2010) recommends that there is a separation distance of 21 metres between principal windows and 13 metres between a main elevation and a blank gable wall. The indicative plan portrays a gap of between 20 and 25 metres between existing properties of the Meadows and the proposed residential properties. There are gaps of only 5 metres between some of the proposed properties gable walls. However, if the application progressed to reserved matters stages, a detailed design could confirm whether any windows were proposed between the gable ends and whether those windows were for habitable rooms.

8.4.5 Given the limited details under consideration within this outline application it is not possible to fully assess the impact on neighbouring properties at this stage. However the indicative sketch shows a good level of separation between existing and proposed dwellings that would be unlikely to result in any unacceptable impact on residential


55

amenity. The properties would be visible to existing dwellings to the north, north west and east however limited weight can be given to the loss of view in planning determinations and the indicated separation distance would be sufficient to avoid an overbearing impact.

8.5 Infrastructure8.5.1 Policy CS5 of the Core Strategy encourages the majority of new development to be

focused on key and local service centres due to their accessibility and variety of transport modes. Lazonby is a local service centre and therefore the location of the development in Lazonby is compliant with Policy CS5. The application is supported with a Transport Statement and Speed Survey to demonstrate how the impact of the proposed development. The Transport Statement sets out the different modes of transport available from the site location and asserts that the increase in traffic generated from the proposed development can be managed with the existing infrastructure.

8.5.2 Notwithstanding the above there have been a number of objections from members of the public regarding the impact the development will have on the local highway network, particularly Scaur Lane itself following a recently built development to the west of the proposed site. Suggestions have been made by members of the public that a relief road should be provided locally to deal with existing traffic and the increase that the proposed development would bring.

8.5.3 The highways authority, as the Council’s statutory consultee on highway matters, have no objections to the principle of up to 50 dwellings being provided on site and agreed with the findings of the Transport Statement. However they initially objected to the planning application due to the proposed positioning of the access to the development but are now satisfied with a revised plan which would not lead to glare from headlights into neighbouring properties during twilight hours.

8.5.4 On balance it is considered that the proposed development complies with the Council’s development plan in relation highway matters.

Village Facilities8.5.5 Concern has been raised by a number of objectors of the impact this development will

have on the local education infrastructure. The Parish Council have recommended that this development should not lead to siblings being broken up and attending different primary schools. The County Council, as the local provider of education, have no objection to the planning application subject to the developers contributing £266,066 towards the provision of education. This figure would provide free buses to secondary schools in Penrith and enable the Lazonby Primary School to carry out works to enable the school to accommodate the projected additional pupils as a result of this development.

8.5.6 The primary school currently has a Published Admission Number (PAN) of 15 but the County Council have carried out their projections on the basis that only 12 pupils can be admitted per year. However the proposed works on the school, which would cost £96,408 would increase its real PAN back from 12 to 15 and ensure that there is capacity for primary school children to attend the Lazonby’s school rather than the neighbouring school at Kirkoswald. Without the works being carried out 8 pupils would have to be transported to Kirkoswald. Local authorities can only request contributions that are related to the development and be fair and reasonable in relation to the scale of the development. This figure has been costed and is considered reasonable.


56

Drainage8.5.7 A number of objections have cited concerns regarding whether the local drainage

infrastructure can cope with the scale of development. However the exact methodology of how the site is drained is not subject to this outline planning application but the applicants have to demonstrate that the proposed housing will not lead to serious and demonstrable harm to either the existing infrastructure or existing and future properties.

8.5.8 The applicants have suggested that a sustainable drainage system could be provided on site which would consist of a swale and detention basin located to the north eastern boundary of the site. A Flood Risk Assuagement has been provided with the planning application and scrutinised by both United Utilities and the Cumbria County Council. Neither consultee have objected to the proposed drainage infrastructure but have recommended pre commencement planning conditions are imposed ensuring that both a surface water management plan and a surface water drainage scheme are submitted and approved by the local planning authority before any works start on site.

8.5.9 United Utilities have confirmed that there is sufficient capacity within their public sewer network to accommodate the proposed development.


as a ‘material consideration’ in determining a planning application. Whether potential Bonus payments are in fact a material consideration in relation to a particular application will depend on whether those payments would be used in a way which is connected to the application and to the use and development of land. For example, potential Bonus payments could be a material consideration if they were to be used to mitigate impacts resulting from development. But if the use to which the payments are to be put is unclear or is for purposes unrelated to the development concerned a decision maker would not be entitled to take them into account when making a decision on a planning application. In this particular case, there are no plans to use the New Homes Bonus arising from this application in connection with this development.





welfare of children in the exercise of any of its functions.


57

10.6 Human Rights10.6.1 In determining applications, the Council must ensure that all parties get a fair hearing



reasons which are not outweighed by material considerations:• The development represents an appropriate extension to the Local Service

Centre of Lazonby providing housing which seeks to address the current shortfall in the five year housing land supply.

• The scale and nature of the development takes into account the capacity of the essential infrastructure necessary to serve the development proposed.

• The proposal provides for the necessary financial contributions towards education together with the provision of 30% affordable housing required by Core Strategy.

11.2 Whilst the proposed development would result in a degree of harm to residential amenity and the character of the village it is considered that the level of harm would not be significantly adverse and demonstrable so as to outweigh the benefits of the scheme in accordance with paragraph 14 of the National Planning Policy Framework. The proposed development makes a good contribution towards the supply of housing within the district and provides sufficient gains in terms of local housing supply to outweigh the harm. As such, the planning balance in this instance is considered to have been met and planning permission should be granted.





58


Planning Application No: 17/0299 Date Received: 18 April 2017

OS Grid Ref: 366226 522082 Expiry Date: 13 June 2017Extension of time secured until 19 June 2017

Parish: Crackenthorpe Ward: Long Marton

Application Type: Outline planning application

Proposal: Outline permission for 3 residential dwellings with all other matters reserved.

Location: Garth House, Crackenthorpe

Applicant: Mr M A Armstrong

Agent: n/a

Case Officer: Mr Ian Irwin

Reason for Referral: The applicant is an elected Member of the District Council


59

1. Recommendation

It is recommended that outline planning permission be granted subject to the following conditions; 1. The development permitted shall be begun either before the expiration of three

years from the date of this permission or before the expiration of two years from the date of approval of the last of the reserved matters to be approved, whichever is the later.Reason: In order to comply with the provisions of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990.

2. An application for approval of all reserved matters shall be made to the Local Planning Authority before the expiration of three years from the date of this permission.Reason: In order to comply with the provisions of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990.

3. No development shall commence until detailed drawings showing the development and means of access thereto have been submitted to the Local Planning Authority for approval. Any such approved means of access shall be completed in accordance with the approved details before the development is occupied.Reason: In the interests of highway safety and environmental management.

4. Details of all measures to be taken by the applicant/developer to prevent surface water discharging onto or off the highway shall be submitted to the Local Planning Authority for approval prior to development being commenced. Any approved works shall be implemented prior to the development being completed and shall be maintained operational thereafter.Reason: In the interests of highway safety and environmental management.

5. The development shall not commence until visibility splays providing clear visibility of 120 metres measured 2.4 metres down the centre of the access road and the nearside channel line of the major road have been provided at the junction of the access road with the county highway. Notwithstanding the provisions of the Town and Country Planning (General Permitted Development) (England) Order 2015 (or any Order revoking and re-enacting that Order) relating to permitted development, no structure, vehicle or object of any kind shall be erected, parked or placed and no trees, bushes or other plants shall be planted or be permitted to grown within the visibility splay which obstruct the visibility splays. The visibility splays shall be constructed before general development of the site commences so that construction traffic is safeguarded.Reason: In the interests of Highway Safety

6. The development shall not be commenced until the access and parking requirements have been constructed in accordance with the approved plan. Any such access and or parking provision shall be retained and be capable of use when the development is completed and shall not be removed or altered without the prior consent of the Local Planning Authority.


60

Reason: To ensure minimum standard of access provision when the development is brought into use.

7. No development shall commence within the site until the applicant has secured the implementation of a programme of archaeological work in accordance with a written scheme of investigation which has been submitted by the applicant and approved by the Local Planning Authority.This written scheme will include the following components:

An archaeological evaluation;

An archaeological recording programme the scope of which will be dependant upon the results of the evaluation;

Where appropriate, a post-excavation assessment and analysis, preparation of a site archive ready for deposition at a store approved by the Local Planning Authority, completion of an archive report, and submission of the results for publication in a suitable journal.Reason: To afford reasonable opportunity for an examination to be made to determine the existence of any remains of archaeological interest within the site and for the preservation, examination or recording of such remains.

8. No demolition or construction works shall take place outside the hours:08:00-18:00 Monday to Friday09:00-13:00 SaturdayWith no activity and Sundays or Bank Holidays.Reason: In the interests of the general amenity of the area.

9. The development hereby permitted shall ensure that it complies with the findings of the noise assessment, report ref. EMAT/TN/2017-05-25.Reason: To ensure the development provides appropriate mitigation for the amenity of occupants.

Informative1. In accordance with the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) and the

National Planning Practice Guidance (NPPG), the site should be drained on a separate system with foul water draining to the public sewer and surface water draining in the most sustainable way.

The NPPG clearly outlines the hierarchy to be investigated by the developer when considering a surface water drainage strategy. We would ask the developer to consider the following drainage options in the following order of priority: 1. into the ground (infiltration);2. to a surface water body;3. to a surface water sewer, highway drain, or another drainage system;4. to a combined sewer.


61

We recommend the applicant implements the scheme in accordance with the surface water drainage hierarchy outlined above.

2. The level of cover to the water mains and sewers must not be compromised either during or after construction.

A separate metered supply to each unit will be required at the applicant's expense and all internal pipe work must comply with current water supply (water fittings) regulations 1999. Should this planning application be approved, the applicant should contact United Utilities on 03456 723 723 regarding connection to the water mains or public sewers.

3. It is the applicant's responsibility to demonstrate the exact relationship between any United Utilities' assets and the proposed development. United Utilities offer a fully supported mapping service and we recommend the applicant contact our Property Searches Team at [email protected] to obtain maps of the site.

Due to the public sewer transfer, not all sewers are currently shown on the statutory sewer records, if a sewer is discovered during construction; please contact a Building Control Body to discuss the matter further.

4. If the applicant intends to offer wastewater assets forward for adoption by United Utilities, the proposed detailed design will be subject to a technical appraisal by an Adoptions Engineer as we need to be sure that the proposal meets the requirements of Sewers for adoption and United Utilities’ Asset Standards. The proposed design should give consideration to long term operability and give United Utilities a cost effective proposal for the life of the assets. Therefore, should this application be approved and the applicant wishes to progress a Section 104 agreement, we strongly recommend that no construction commences until the detailed drainage design, submitted as part of the Section 104 agreement, has been assessed and accepted in writing by United Utilities. Any works carried out prior to the technical assessment being approved is done entirely at the developer’s own risk and could be subject to change.

Any further information regarding Developer Services and Planning please visit our website at http://www.unitedutilities.com/builders-developers.aspx

2. Proposal and Site Description2.1 Proposal2.1.1 The proposal is for outline planning permission for three residential dwellings t with all

other matters reserved. As the current proposal is for outline planning permission at this stage, matters relating to site layout, design, scale and appearance of buildings and landscaping would be subject to a further reserved matters application should planning permission be granted.

2.1.2 Therefore, the current application seeks only approval for the principle of residential development at the site.


62

2.2 Site Description2.2.1 The site is within the village of Crackenthorpe adjacent to Garth House and what

ultimately comprises a ‘garden’ of this property. It is approximately 0.15 hectares in size and is fundamentally flat. The site is almost two rectangles, partially parallel to one another, with the second leading off to the rear of the site. It effectively has a ‘stepped’ nature of appearance when viewed from a map. A public highway is located to the east of the site. This is the main road through the village of Crackenthorpe.

2.2.2 Presently, the site is bounded by a property to the north, Holme Farm. This is a stone built property, finished with render with a frontage that overlooks the aforementioned public highway. The rear of the property is ‘L’ shaped meaning it overlooks both the proposal site and the open land to the rear which opens up to the Pennines. To the south and west of the site is Garth House, the applicant’s residence and to the south of the site, outbuildings associated with ‘Wayside’ bound this part of the site.

2.2.3 Boundary treatment comprises mainly a small, stone built wall (approximately 0.6 metres in height) with some planting (small trees and shrubs) intermittently located on the northern boundary adjacent to Holme Farm.

3. Statutory Consultees

Consultee Response

Highway Authority The applicant has been in liaison with the Highways and Local Lead Flood Authority for some time throughout the application process. An initial response from the Highways Authority, received on the 19 May 2017 confirmed that the Highways Authority and Lead Local Flood Authority had no objection to the proposal but that conditions related to drainage, access and parking be attached to any subsequent grant of planning permission. On the 23 May 2017 the Highways Authority provided a further response requesting that a further condition related to visibility splays also be attached to any subsequent of planning permission.

United Utilities Responded on the 15 May 2017 and confirmed that their records showed no waste water assets in the area. Comments related to drainage, water, sewage, and procedural matters were made. All of these have been included as informatives in section 1 of this report.

Historic Environment Officer

The Historic Environment Officer responded on the 3 May 2017. The response confirmed that the proposal could potentially disturb buried archaeological assets and that consequently a condition be attached to any subsequent grant of planning permission. This condition should require an appropriate scheme of archaeological assessment and evaluation.


63

Consultee Response

Lead Local Flood Authority Responded on the 19 May 2017 and confirmed that the Lead Local Flood Authority had no objection to the proposal subject to appropriate conditions being attached to any subsequent grant of planning permission.


The Environmental Health Officer (EHO) responded on the19 May 2017 and confirmed that the site was adjacent to an agricultural/commercial building and that sawing of timber took place at a level that was more than ‘domestic’ use in nature at this location. Furthermore it was noted that the A66 was approximately 70 metres from the proposal site. Both noise and odour were therefore noted as possible issues. A noise assessment was therefore requested from the applicant. A noise assessment was produced and submitted to the Environmental Health Officer on the 25 May 2017. On the 1 June 2017 the EHO provided a further response and sought additional information on agricultural buildings adjacent to the site. The EHO confirmed that they considered they required further information as to what occurs at these buildings and the land associated with them to understand what potential noise or odour issues could affect the proposal site. They also sought clarification on one aspect of the noise assessment which was confirmed by the applicant’s noise consultant to be a typing error - this was confirmed on the 1 June 2017 and the EHO was notified. The noise consultants’ response also confirmed that with regard to the agricultural shed, only the noise that was taking place on site could be recorded and that during the noise assessment there was no noise emanating from the site.

Housing Development Officer

Responded on the 5 May 2017. Confirmed that as the proposal site is classified as a ‘rural exception site’ the expectation is 100% affordable housing in accordance with Policy CS9 of the Core Strategy. The proposal is therefore considered contrary to policy by the Housing Officer.


64


Parish Council Object Support No Response No View Expressed

Crackenthorpe Parish Meeting

4.1 The response provided confirmed that a meeting was held on the 15 May 2017 which fifteen people attended. Ten of which offered no objection, four objected and one abstained. No formal, final response was provided.

4.2 The concerns raised via the meeting were that the site is a ‘greenfield’ site, the proposal would result in a loss of the agricultural style of the village and loss of privacy for neighbours.

5. Representations5.1 The application was advertised by means of a site notice posted on the 15 February

2017, a press notice advertised in the Herald on the 18 February 2017 and the following neighbour notifications:

No of Neighbours Consulted 6 No of letters of support 0No of objection letters 4 No of neutral representations 0

5.2 Letters of objection have been received in relation to this proposal. It is not possible to convey, word-for-word these comments within this report. However, the key concerns, raised by objectors can be summarised as follows;

Lack of local amenities unable to support such development;

Application is contrary to Eden District Policy in relation to local housing;

Design would have a negative impact on the village ‘aspect’;

Proposal would have a negative impact on the village appearance;

Application would be very obtrusive and ‘overpower’ neighbouring properties;

Site is a garden;

Any development would be outside the building line;

Loss of privacy;

Flooding and drainage concerns (the village is not connected to the mains sewer or drainage systems);

Moved to the village to be surrounded by open space;

No land allocation for housing in Crackenthorpe;

The shape, dimension and topography of the site is inappropriate for development;

Greenfield site in the heart of the village that should remain undeveloped;


65

Residents of these properties would be unfairly located too close to a site that has agricultural workings ongoing upon it.

6. Relevant Planning History6.1 04/0059 - Outline planning application for 1 dwelling - Refused and refused again at

appeal.6.2 10/0192 - Change of use from agricultural land to domestic curtilage - Refused.6.3 14/069 - Outline planning application for 3 dwellings - Refused.


Core Strategy DPD Policy: CS1 - Sustainable Development Principles

CS2 - Locational Strategy

CS7 - Principles for Housing

CS8- Making Efficient Use of Land

CS18 - Design of New DevelopmentSupplementary Planning Documents: Housing (2010)

7.2 Other Material ConsiderationsNational Planning Policy Framework: The presumption in favour of sustainable development

Core planning principles

Delivering a wide choice of high quality homes


Meeting the challenge of climate change, flooding and coastal changeNational Planning Practice GuidanceThe policies detailed above are the most relevant policies relating to this applicationEden Local Plan 2014-2032: This is the emerging local plan for Eden District Council, but is not yet at this stage where any of the individual policies or allocations can be considered to have anything other than very limited weight.


66


Principle


Housing Density

Housing Need

Affordable Housing Contribution

Flooding and Environmental Impacts

Other matters

8.2 Principle8.2.1 In terms of the principle of housing development, consideration is given to the

development plan. This consists of both the ‘saved’ policies of the local plan (adopted in 1996) and the district’s Core Strategy (2010). In addition, there is a Housing Supplementary Planning document which assists in the determination process. Housing policy within the district as prescribed within these documents that comprise the development plan indicate that residential development should be directed to sustainable locations. These locations are indicated within the Core Strategy as ‘Key and Local Service centres’.

8.2.2 Such locations are considered ‘Key and Local Service centres’ because they are where local facilities and infrastructure is provided. In turn, it is considered such locations are ‘sustainable’ hence why they are the preferred locations for residential development. In this instance, Crackenthorpe is not a designated ‘Key Service Centre’ and accordingly is not where such proposals would be sought unless an appropriate need had been established by the applicant.

8.2.3 However, the ‘need’ issue is no longer an extant matter to consider in regard to such proposals. The overriding issue relates to a demonstrable five year housing land supply. At present Eden District Council is unable to demonstrate a five year land supply (it currently is only able to demonstrate a 3.33 year supply). In such circumstances policies related to housing are to be considered out-of-date and planning authorities are required to take account of the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF). The NPPF notes within paragraph 14 that “where the development plan is out-of-date, planning permission should be granted unless…the adverse impacts would significantly and demonstrably outweigh the benefits when assessed against the policies in the NPPF...or specific policies in the NPPF indicate development should be restricted”.

8.2.4 Paragraph 14 states that where policies are considered out-of-date planning permission should be granted unless there are adverse impacts. Such impacts would need to be considered significantly harmful and would demonstrably outweigh the benefits of the proposal.

8.2.5 Furthermore, paragraph 49 states “relevant policies for the supply of housing should not be considered up to date if the local planning authority cannot demonstrate a five year supply of deliverable housing sites.”


67

8.2.6 Recently a Supreme Court judgement (Case ID UKSC 2016/0078) also provides further qualification on how significant the lack of a demonstrable five year housing land supply actually is. Fundamentally, the judgement re-affirms that where such a supply is not demonstrable, paragraph 49 of the NPPF is a key material consideration in that all relevant housing policies detailed in the development plan are to be considered out-of-date. In turn, the determination of such applications given that circumstance in Eden means that paragraph 14 is a key factor to consider in the determination process. Ultimately, unless significant and demonstrable harm can be demonstrated to outweigh the benefits of the proposal, the development should be granted planning permission ‘without delay’.

8.2.7 Therefore, for the reasons detailed above it is considered that the in terms of the principle of the proposed development, it accords with the Development Plan and National Planning Policy.

8.3 Landscape and Visual Impact8.3.1 A significant consideration in the determination of this outline planning application is

the extent of the impact of the proposed development upon both the character of the area and local landscape. In terms of its location, it is acknowledged that the proposal would result, if implemented, in what some consider to be an alteration to the existing ‘building line’. However, it is not considered that there is a clear linear building line in the settlement. A number of the existing properties in the village have outbuildings to the rear of their properties. In such circumstances, it is considered that the proposal would not result in any significant impact in this regard that would be so significantly demonstrably harmful that would merit a refusal of the proposal.

8.3.2 It is noted that the application site is ultimately a garden which is located within the existing village. Some of the objections have referred to it as if it has some sort of amenity value. Others refer to it as a ‘garden’ rather than a ‘greenfield’ site. A number of the objections have raised the concern of landscape impact and how the development would change the character of the area. This view is acknowledged but not accepted by the Planning Authority. The proposal is for three dwellings which given the nature of this village would not be so out of character with what currently exists in the village. It is accepted that the specific design of the properties is not possible to assess due the proposal being for ‘outline’ permission but the Planning Authority is confident that if appropriate design is secured at the reserved matters stage, there is no reason that this proposal cannot result in a development that is reflective and considerate of the local area.

8.3.3 Indeed, in many respects it is considered that the open aspect of the site to be slightly at odds with anywhere else in the village. It is a logical location for an infill development and it is considered that were a well-designed proposal be submitted at the reserved matter stage it would not have a significantly detrimental impact on the local landscape.

8.3.4 The proposal site is visible given its prominent location on the street scene. It is particularly visible from the neighbouring property, Holme Farm, and the concerns raised by occupants of this property are appreciated. Whilst there is no doubt that they would no longer look out onto an existing garden, the views over the Pennines to the rear would not be affected in any way. Planning does not permit anyone to a ‘right’ to a ‘view’ and it is not a material planning consideration. In addition it is not considered that the view over an existing garden to be of such significant amenity value that it is worthy of retention in this instance.


68

8.3.5 In terms of the design, scale and appearance of the proposed development, it is noted that such matters are not proposed at this stage. This is due to the proposal being outline consent, looking at the principle of the development. Notwithstanding, should planning permission be granted then a strong and high quality design would be required at a reserved matters stage in order to ensure that the character of the development was in-keeping with the locality. It is recognised that appropriate design has a significant role to play in ensuring the development would be ‘in-keeping’ with the locality. Given that there are no design details specifically confirmed at this stage, those objections which relate to ‘scale’, ‘design’ and the proposal not in-keeping with the locality cannot be considered as a consequence of this application. The aforementioned high quality design is, however, accepted to be an important issue and one that can be dealt with at the reserved matters stage.

8.3.6 Therefore, whilst it is noted that the proposed development would result in an impact upon the local landscape it is considered that the impact would not be significantly adverse. It is therefore considered that with a high quality design secured at a reserved matters stage the scheme would be acceptable.

8.4 Housing Density8.4.1 It is noted that the Council’s principles on housing density are outlined within Core

Strategy Policy CS8, which advises that housing schemes should have a minimum density of 30 dwellings per hectare. In the case of the current application, as the application site covers an area of 0.15 hectares this would means that the scheme proposed should achieve a density target of approximately 20 dwellings per hectare.

8.4.2 Whilst the proposed level of housing is below the recommended level in Core Strategy Policy CS8, the reduced level would enable the applicant to offer a less overbearing development than there otherwise would be and in addition this would also allow a higher quality design to also created on the site. In conclusion, the intentions of Policy CS8 would likely result in a proposal out-of-character with the area and therefore need not be complied with in full in this instance.

8.4.3 Therefore, for the reasons detailed above it is considered that the density of the proposed development is considered to be acceptable in this instance.

8.5 Housing Need8.5.1 It is acknowledged that a number of objections have been raised in relation to the fact

that district housing policy requires a housing need to be identified in such locations. These observations are correct. However, as has been explained in section 8.2 of this report, national planning policy confirms that where a council cannot demonstrate a five year housing land supply, housing policies are to be considered out-of-date.

8.5.2 Therefore, in these circumstances all housing policies are not considered as part of this application and the proposal will be considered with reference to paragraph 14 of the NPPF which confirms that such proposals should be determined ‘without delay’. In addition it confirms that planning permission should be granted unless there are adverse impacts. Such impacts would need to be considered significantly harmful and would demonstrably outweigh the benefits of the proposal.

8.5.3 Therefore, it is accepted that the proposal is contrary to the housing policies that form part of the districts Core Strategy. However, given the aforementioned considerations relating to the absence of a five year housing land supply, the lack of compliance with these policies at this time is not a matter that can justify refusal for this application.


69

8.6 Amenity Impacts8.6.1 A number of objectors to the proposed development have made comment that the

application would result in an overbearing development, affecting privacy and ultimately being inappropriate for the location proposed.

8.6.2 These concerns are understood and noted. It is accepted that as an outline proposal there is no specific design detail to consider but it is felt that the site can accommodate residential dwellings that also protect the privacy of other local residents. The specific location, orientation and design of the dwellings are currently unknown but it is considered that it is achievable to maintain privacy of these residents by ensuring these design elements are appropriately considered at the reserved matters stage.

8.6.3 The Council’s Environmental Health Officer (EHO) has responded on this application and requested a noise report be commissioned by the applicant to ensure that any issues (particularly related to noise from the A66 are not so significant as to warrant a refusal of this application. The report has been considered by the EHO and they conclude that further information is required about nearby agricultural buildings which are outside of the applicant’s control. Accordingly, the EHO sought further information about these units and what was occurring on site so they could assess any potential noise or odour issues. The applicants noise consultant has confirmed that on the day that noise monitoring took place, no noise was emanating from these agricultural buildings.

8.6.4 The issue raised by the Environmental Health Officer relates to an agricultural unit adjacent to the application site. It is noted that the Environmental Health Officer has confirmed that no complaints in relation to noise or odour have been recorded for this location.

8.6.5 The agricultural buildings that have caused the Environmental Health team some concern are governed by some planning permissions. The first, 13/0448 permitted the erection of a ‘general purpose’ building that also, by condition, required this building to be used for storage of food (wintering stock) and timber only. With no machinery permitted to be installed within the structure. The other was permitted under planning permission 96/0445 and was for, ultimately, the erection of a garage.

8.6.6 The concerns raised by the EHO are noted. However, the permitted use of these buildings has not raised any formal complaints in terms of noise or odour and one of the buildings is permitted to be a storage building - with no machinery permitted to be installed within it. The other structure was permitted as a garage. It is therefore expected that activities associated with such a structure may take place, intermittently as would be expected in such structures. However, any significant change in activity would potentially be a material change of use, requiring planning permission.

8.6.7 In these circumstances, it is not considered that these buildings are any different to numerous examples that could be found across the district. A garage does not provide an unlimited use of anything - it, like any other building, piece of land and their occupants are still expected to not cause any statutory nuisances. There is no evidence to suggest such an existing use exists nor that one would be created at a later time - if it were, it would be investigated if a report was received. If such a nuisance and change of use were discovered, it would be subject to the potential action of the council.

8.6.8 It is therefore considered that whilst the Environmental Health Officers concerns are noted, there is no justifiable reason not to determine this application. Paragraph 14 of


70

the NPPF confirms that applications should be determined ‘without delay’ and in relation to this particular matter there is no evidence to suggest that any noise or odour nuisance is occurring in this neighbouring site. It is therefore considered that there is no significant or demonstrable amenity harm in terms of noise or odour in relation to this proposal that would or should warrant refusal of this application.

8.7 Flooding and Environmental Impacts8.7.1 The lead local flood authority have been consulted on this proposal. They confirmed

that this proposal was supported. A condition requiring details for dealing with surface water was requested to be attached to any subsequent grant of planning permission. This is included in the draft conditions that form part of this report.

8.7.2 Objector comments are noted that relate to concerns surrounding this issue. These comments relate to there being no drainage system in the village or sewage system. Whilst these comments are noted it is evident that residents occupy the village despite these apparent lack of services. The Local Lead Flood Authority does not object to the proposal and I have no reason to believe that these issues are so significantly harmful that they would merit the refusal of this application.

8.7.3 Therefore, on the basis that the Lead Local Flood Authority are satisfied with the proposal I have no reason to believe that the development cannot be subject of appropriate surface water drainage proposals in order to deal with that particular issue.






reduce crime and disorder in exercising any of its functions.


71




11. Conclusion11.1 It is considered that this proposal is acceptable. In current policy terms the absence of

a five year housing land supply is a material consideration of significance. The policy direction in such circumstances is very clear. Paragraph 49 states ‘relevant policies for the supply of housing should not be considered up to date if the local planning authority cannot demonstrate a five year supply of deliverable housing sites’. Paragraph 14 states that where policies are considered out-of-date planning permission should be granted unless there are adverse impacts. Such impacts would need to be considered significantly harmful and would demonstrably outweigh the benefits of the proposal.

11.2 The concerns raised by objectors that this proposal is not compliant with the housing policies that comprise the development are noted. It is quite correct that this is the case but as this report has explained these policies are to be considered out-of-date and are not significant enough considerations to outweigh the absence of a five year housing land supply.

11.3 Whilst the proposed development would result in a change of appearance in the village it is not considered that this change would be of significant harm. The proposal would be subject to a reserved matters application and appropriate design can ensure that the development meets the standards to ensure that the appearance of the housing would fit in with the character of the area.

11.4 The amenity of neighbours is an important consideration but whilst the concerns are noted there is no reason to believe that privacy will be unduly affected by this proposal. Views over the existing plot are not considered of any significance. Nor is the ‘right’ to a ‘view’ a material planning consideration. However, the views to the rear, over the Pennines would not be affected by this proposal in any way. Therefore it is not accepted that the proposal would result in significant demonstrable visual amenity harm.

11.5 The concerns related specifically to noise are also noted. Concerns have been raised by an objector that the site is adjacent to an agricultural unit that has unrestricted uses and that these uses could cause noise and disturbance to any residents of these properties. However, whilst these concerns are noted, the Environmental Health Officer has also noted that the site is not subject to any formal noise or odour complaints recorded by the Council. It is also understood that any activity in this building is intermittent and short-lived with the applicant’s noise assessment making note of them, but not recording any noise from them due to them not being in use on the day the survey was carried out. The units are believed to be used mainly as a storage facility primarily during daytime. It is also acknowledged that such agricultural units are typical of those in the district and many of these are also located to residential dwellings without issues arising.


72

11.6 These ‘agricultural units’ are in fact recorded as per their planning permissions as a ‘garage’ (as per 96/0445) and a ‘general purpose’ building (as per 13/0448). The garage does not therefore have an ‘unrestricted use’. If it were subject to activities that were considered a material change of use, it would need to be regularised. The laws that govern statutory nuisances still apply. In terms of the ‘general purpose’ building it is noted that this was restricted in its use for the storage of wintering food stock and timber, with no machinery permitted to be located within it.

11.7 It is also acknowledged that in this instance existing residential properties are already located near to this unit and were a statutory noise nuisance to be reported at this site, it would be investigated by the Environmental Health Unit accordingly. Whilst the units may be subject to a perceived ‘unrestricted use’ this does not give anyone the ability to generate noise to such an extent that it causes a potential noise nuisance for an unlimited time. There is no evidence to support a prolonged use being carried out on site and it is considered that the powers available to deal with such a noise nuisance, if it were ever established, are set out under the powers available to our colleagues in the Environmental Health Unit. Given that there is no evidence of such a noise nuisance existing in the vicinity of this site, it is not considered reasonable to delay determination of this planning application in such circumstances.

11.8 In terms of the A66, the noise survey considered that on the findings of the survey carried out, predicted noise levels would not cause any occupants amenity issues due to traffic noise. It is therefore considered that were these dwellings constructed and occupied there is no reason to believe that any prolonged noise amenity problems would be experienced by the occupants.

11.9 It is therefore recommended that planning permission be granted.





73

Item 7

Date of Committee: 15 June 2017

Planning Application No: 17/0311 Date Received: 24 April 2017

OS Grid Ref: 79285 12687 Expiry Date: 19 June 2017

Parish: Brough Sowerby Ward: Brough


Proposal: Erection of a detached dwelling

Location: Land adjacent to Sowerby Lodge, Brough Sowerby, Kirkby Stephen

Applicant: Mrs D Chester

Agent: Mr Andrew Willison-Holt

Case Officer: D Cox

Reason for Referral: A Ward Member has requested the application be called in to Committee to discuss the policy position and to consider the applicant’s case.

The application is a Departure from the Development Plan.


74

1. RecommendationIt is recommended that planning permission be refused for the following reasons:

1. In the absence of an exceptional justification, the proposal would realise one market led dwelling on a site which is considered to be outside of the limits of Brough Sowerby and therefore in the open countryside. The proposal is therefore contrary to Policy CS1, CS2, CS7 and CS9 of the Eden Core Strategy (2010) and paras 14 and 55 of the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) which seeks to restrain housing in the open countryside to meet a proven essential need only.

2. Approval of this proposal would set a precedent for the erection of dwellings on land adjacent to the application site. In the absence of exceptional justification such proposals would be contrary to the Council’s accepted adopted Plan Policies and the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF).

2. Proposal and Site Description2.1 Proposal2.1.1 Full detail application (as a re-submission following previous refusal under 17/0131) for

the erection of a detached, 2 storey, 3 bedroomed dwelling, with natural slate roof and reclaimed natural stone face cladding. The application site, presently used for agricultural grazing, is located on, and accessed from a junction off the west side of the Brough-Kirkby Stephen (A685) Road.

2.2 Site Description2.2.1 The application site is roughly an oblong area of agricultural grazing land, to the south

of the access lane to Lodge farm and Westwood Garth, and separated by another grazing field, adjacent and to the north the detached property, Long Acres. To the west the site abuts open agricultural grazing land, and to the east the proposed site abuts a combination of the access lane (to Long Acres), and beyond the A685 (Brough to Kirkby Stephen) Road, Brough Sowerby, Kirkby Stephen.

2.2.2 The nearest Local Service Centre is Brough/Church Brough, around 1 mile from the application site. Brough Sowerby itself falls to be considered as a Smaller Village.

2.2.3 The site has no other specific designation in terms of planning policies, ie it is not within a designated Conservation Area or in an area at risk of flooding.

3. ConsulteesA Ward Member has requested the application be called in to Committee to discuss the policy position and to consider the applicant’s case.

3.1 Statutory Consultees

Consultee ResponseHighway Authority No objection subject to condition.


75


Consultee ResponseParish Council No comment or observation received.

United Utilities Recommend any scheme approved to be in accordance with a suggested water drainage hierarchy.

Environmental Health Recommend the site and application be the subject of a noise assessment.

Housing Officer As the location would be classed as a rural exception site, the Council’s requirement is for 100% affordable housing, to meet an identified local housing need in accordance with adopted policy CS9 of the Core Strategy. No reference to affordable housing appears on the application form.



ExpressedBrough Sowerby Parish Council

5. Representations5.1 Whilst there are no dwellings in the vicinity of the application site, the proposal was

advertised by way of a notice posted at the site on 27 April 2017.

6. Relevant Planning History87/0781 - Dwelling - Refused - 17 September 1987.

17/0131 - Dwelling - Refused - 4 April 2017.


Saved Local Plan Policies:

NE1 - Development in the open countryside

Core Strategy DPD Policy:

CS1 Sustainable Development Principles


CS3 Rural Settlements and the Rural Areas


76

CS6 Developer Contributions

CS7 Principles for Housing

CS9 Housing on Rural Exception Sites

CS18 Design of New Development Supplementary Planning Documents

Housing (2010)

National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF):

Delivering a wide choice of high quality homes


Special Circumstances (paras 14, 49 and 55)

7.2 Other Material Considerations

National Planning Policy Framework:

Presumption in favour of sustainable development Demonstrating a deliverable 5-year housing land supply Delivering a wide choice of high quality homes Requiring good design

National Planning Practice Guidance

The Upper Eden Neighbourhood Development Plan

UENDP1 - Affordable Rural Exceptions Housing for Local People

The policies detailed above are the most relevant policies relating to this application and/or location.


Housing Policies and justification

Whether the proposal constitutes special circumstances

Landscape and Visual Impacts

Residential Amenity

Highway implications

8.2 Principle8.2.1 The starting point for assessing the proposal is the Development Plan, consisting of the

saved policies of the 1996 Local Plan and the Core Strategy (2010), together with the Housing Supplementary Planning Document. The housing policies direct residential development to the more-sustainable established Key and Local Service Centres, where services, facilities and infrastructure is available or could be provided, and


77

where development would be located to minimise the need to travel, and journeys could be undertaken by a variety of transport modes.

8.2.2 In particular, Policies CS2, CS3 and CS7 restrict the development of housing outside the Key and Local Service Centres to that which meets an identified need such as affordable housing, is economically viable and subject to a local occupancy clause. The development of this site peripheral to and outside Brough Sowerby for a market-led dwelling is therefore contrary to this Council’s adopted policies.

8.2.3 Local Planning Authorities are required however to demonstrate a deliverable 5 year land supply for housing, and where it cannot deliver the housing land supply, its planning policies for the supply of housing should not be considered up to date. The National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) advises that where policies are out of date planning permission should be granted unless any adverse impact would significantly and demonstrably outweigh the benefits when assessed against the policies in the NPPF or where specific policies in the NPPF indicate that development should be restricted (Para 14).

8.2.4 The NPPF further advises at Paragraph 49 that housing applications should be considered in the context of the presumption in favour of sustainable development.

8.2.5 Recent High Court and Appeal decisions, in particular Cheshire East (CEC) vs SSCLG & Renew Land (2016), provide clarity for Local Planning Authorities in the decision-making process. Put simply, where relevant planning policies are out of date, Paragraph 14 of the NPPF mandates that housing development should be approved as sustainable development unless the adverse impacts clearly and significantly outweigh the benefits.

8.2.6 The effect of this ruling is to crystallise the intention of the NPPF to deliver housing; where the LPA falls short in its housing land supply, its own housing planning policies are out of date and residential development should therefore be approved unless there are clear and demonstrable adverse impacts tilting the balance against the proposal. In such cases it is not for the LPA to determine whether or not the development constitutes sustainable development.

8.2.7 Therefore the LPA should identify substantial harm arising from the proposal, and where it cannot, it should approve the application.

8.2.8 The Council can still have regard to its housing policies in the planning balance when it falls short of the 5 year housing land supply. In a recent Court ruling the Judge advocated that there will be many cases in which restrictive policies, whether general or specific in nature, are given sufficient weight to justify the refusal of planning permission despite their not being up-to-date under the policy in paragraph 49 of the NPPF in the absence of a five-year supply of housing land (Suffolk Coastal DC v Hopkins Homes Ltd [2016] EWCA Civ 168). Even if a policy is ‘out of date’ it does not become irrelevant; it must not be ignored or dis-applied. The weight to be given to such a policy will be for the decision maker.

8.2.9 A recent Appeal decision in this District the Inspector dismissed the case for residential development in Hilton as he considered this to be an isolated hamlet lacking basic community facilities. The settlement is isolated from services and the adverse impact arising from allowing the single dwelling would significantly and demonstrably outweigh the benefits (15/0632/ Appeal ref W/16/3147006).


78

8.2.10 In considering the recent application and appeal decision at Pea Foot, Culgaith, and the two dwellings allowed (16/0697 and APP/H0928/W/16/3162642) Officers decline to accept the precedent argument put forward by the applicant, especially given the distinct site differences, the implications in terms of neighbouring land, landscape character and amenity. Members are specifically reminded to note that the Pea Foot Appeal related to the approval of 2 dwellings, and not the 1 dwelling sought with this application.

8.2.11 Eden’s housing policies, though dated, still stipulate that sites in open countryside, and outside a smaller village, cluster or hamlet should not be developed for market housing in the absence of exceptional justification. In terms of argument put forward in relation to a nearby site (16/0766) and with that particular site and location, then that proposal being within the village streetscape “would have very limited impact on the character of the landscape”.The current application and proposal is outside of settlement and therefore is not considered a reasonable or logical “infill” site. Lacking strong and defensible boundaries, especially to the south and west, it is difficult to see how the Local Planning Authority could then resist further proposals for other development in and around this area, with consequential cumulative potential for substantial and significant adverse landscape amenity and detrimental character impact.

8.2.12 Identifying such substantial and significant potential for harm in terms of the above, it therefore remains the Officer’s considered view that the development should be refused.

8.3 Special Circumstances8.3.1 The application is accompanied by further additional detail, with argument submitted in

support outlining the applicant’s special circumstances. As summarised:- The house is for the applicant’s son and fiancée.- They are financing the scheme without assistance from the applicant.- The son has building experience and will work on the house himself to mitigate

costs.- Although locals, they cannot agree to the idea of a “local occupancy” and therefore

a more restrictive local affordable limitation.8.3.2 Following the recent refusal, Officers of the Authority have suggested, in the particular

circumstances outlined by the applicant that possibly a more appropriate route might be to pursue and justify their proposal under the relevant considerations associated with Policy UENDP1 of the Upper Eden Neighbourhood Development Plan (UENDP).Upper Eden Neighbourhood Development Plan Policy 1 allows for the provision of affordable rural exception housing for local people, subject to a Section 106 Agreement to ensure its long term retention as affordable, given the exceptional nature of such proposals.The applicant has declined this opportunity and confirmed that they expect that UENDP1 play no part in consideration of their particular proposal and circumstance.

8.3.3 This re-submitted application is accompanied by a revised Planning Statement, additional applicant supporting statements, and Reference to recent Appeal


79

(APP/H0928/W/16/3162642), which the Applicant/Agent believe to be relevant and thereby draw to the Authority’s attention.In summary, argument submitted for the proposed development are that:- The relevance of the UENDP1 option and the applicants’ circumstance/aspirations

are not sufficiently material in terms of its relationship with the Core Strategy.- That a recent Appeal decision at Pea Foot, Culgaith (APP/H0928/W/16/3162642)

negates the basis for the previous Refusal for this particular site (17/0131)- That the location of this specific application is not what can reasonably be regarded

as “isolated” or with significant “adverse impacts” in the context of (NPPF 14 and 55) considerations.

- The argued precedent that recent approval (16/0766) for the erection of a nearby detached dwelling gives.

8.3.4 The above are considered to fundamentally raise no further issue over and above those already considered previously (under 17/0131) and Refused for the following reasons:1. In the absence of an exceptional justification, the proposal would realise one

market led dwelling on a site which is considered to be outside of the limits of Brough Sowerby and therefore in the open countryside. The proposal is therefore contrary to Policy CS1, CS2, CS7 and CS9 of the Eden Core Strategy (2010) and paras 14 and 55 of the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) which seeks to restrain housing in the open countryside to meet a proven essential need only.

2. Approval of this proposal would set a precedent for the erection of dwellings on land adjacent to the application site. In the absence of exceptional justification such proposals would be contrary to the Council’s accepted adopted Plan Policies and the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF Reminding Members of the presumption of consistency, it must also be noted that the applicant has specifically chosen the not to justify their proposal and secure the development under the exceptional provisions of the Upper Eden Neighbourhood Development Plan (UENDP1).

8.3.5 The unwillingness of the applicant to both accept and adopt the benefits (.. albeit with legal restrictions) of the suggested UENDP1 option are of particular note, as such an approach is thought particularly tailored for applicants who argument appears based on both a site specific and stated need of and for local affordable housing.

8.3.6 Members are advised that if the current proposal were to be approved, in the absence of such an overriding and exceptional justification, it would result in an unrestricted market led dwelling, in the open countryside only with no legal requirement or restriction ensuring long term provision for those in exceptional local need for affordable housing. In the absence of exceptional justification such proposals would, (and, notwithstanding certain Appeal outcomes elsewhere) remain contrary to this Council’s accepted, adopted long standing Plan Policies.

8.4 Landscape and Visual Impacts8.4.1 Like the Pea Foot Site, Officers consider that, though peripheral, the site is effectively

located in the open countryside, outwith the settlement of Brough Sowerby.


80

8.4.2 Unlike the Pea Foot Site, the current application site is more open and not a significantly constrained by the limitations of surrounding topography and landfall.

8.4.3 There are trees and low sandstone walls relating to the application site boundary. However, with slight elevation (viewed from the direction of the A685) a 2 storey dwelling would not be discretely located, even set back from the road at a lower level, behind the wall and retained trees.

8.4.4 As no significant material aspects or elements are considered to have changed, development in this location, by its very nature would have a significant adverse and therefore negative impact on the undeveloped and open nature of the attractive landscape, and unjustified otherwise as such, would continue to be contrary to the adopted Core Strategy Planning Policy aims of the Authority. The topographical constraint and landfall differences between this application site and the recent appeal site at Pea Foot, Culgaith are such that the decision there is not considered to have set either a general or specific precedent in the context of this particular site and application.

8.5 Residential Amenity8.5.1 Were a dwelling of the type and scale as proposed to be approved on the site, the

design and separation distances are such that no unreasonable amenity issues would arise in terms of impact on those relevant neighbouring and/or nearby. A proposal of this design, scale and nature could therefore reasonably comply with the privacy and separation distance requirements of the relevant Housing Supplementary Planning Guidelines and thus the amenity aims and concerns of relevant Core Strategy CS18.

8.6 Built Environment8.6.1 There is no particularly dominant architectural style in Brough Sowerby. The cladding

and design detail of the particular dwelling proposed could maintain the broad theme evident within the village through the use of external materials of salvaged local stone and natural slate. The fundamental issue is not however one of cladding, design or indeed levels of residential amenity, but remains that of principle and justification required in relation to the location sought.

8.7 Infrastructure8.7.1 The Highway Authority have raised no objection. There are not considered to be any

significant harmful impacts arising from the development in terms of highway safety.

8.7.2 Notwithstanding the proximity of the site to the A685, adverse levels of background noise are not considered to be of particular issue in this location.


as a ‘material consideration’ in determining a planning application. Whether potential Bonus payments are in fact a material consideration in relation to a particular application will depend on whether those payments would be used in a way which is connected to the application and to the use and development of land. For example, potential Bonus payments could be a material consideration if they were to be used to mitigate impacts resulting from development. But if the use to which the payments are to be put is unclear or is for purposes unrelated to the development concerned a decision maker would not be entitled to take them into account when making a decision


81

on a planning application. In this particular case, there are no plans to use the New Homes Bonus arising from this application in connection with this development.

10. Implications10.1 Legal Implications10.1.1 The following matters have been considered but no issues are judged to arise.

10.2 Equality and Diversity10.2.1 The Council must have regard to the elimination of unlawful discrimination and

harassment, and the promotion of equality under the Equality Act 2010.


Environment and Rural Communities Act 2006.

10.4 Crime and Disorder10.4.1 Under the Crime and Disorder Act 1998, the Council must have regard to the need to






11. Conclusion11.1 Reflecting and re-enforcing the consideration stance taken previously by the Authority,

and despite the revised arguments and additional supporting statements made and accompanying the re-submission, the development as still proposed remains fundamentally contrary to the aims of the relevant adopted Policies CS1, CS2, CS7 and CS9 of the Eden Core Strategy (2010). Paragraphs 14 and 55 of the NPPF set out special circumstances and considerations where isolated homes in the countryside should be granted planning permission. It is, and remains despite the recent Appeal outcome quoted by the applicant, that the Officers considered view that none of the prescribed special circumstances, or weight to be attached, apply in this instance.

11.2 The significant demonstrable harm of an otherwise unjustified dwelling is not overridden given the site’s visually prominent proposed location in an otherwise sensitive countryside location, and in addition the fact that a single dwelling would not make any significant, or given other relevant factor, acceptable inroad into housing supply shortfall.


82

11.3 In summary, the application would lead to the unjustified creation of a single dwelling in an unsuitable countryside location and would result in an undesirable and incongruous extension of development into the attractive rural area, where no exceptional or proven essential need has been demonstrated for such. The application is therefore contrary to adopted Core Strategy and the NPPF.


Background Papers: Planning File.



83

Item 8

Date of Committee: 15 June 2017


OS Grid Ref: 51711 29912 Expiry Date: 3 April 2017(as extended)

Parish: Penrith Ward: Penrith South


Proposal: Proposed residential development for 5 x 1 bedroom apartments, 1 x 2 bedroom apartments and 1 x 1 bedroom cottage.

Location: 4-5 Southend Road, Penrith

Applicant: Barrett Waddingham - BW Sipp - O MacLaughlin

Agent: Manning Elliot Architects

Case Officer: D Cox

Reason for Referral: Penrith Town Council have objected to the Planning Application.


84

1. RecommendationIt is recommended that planning permission be granted subject to the following conditions:

Time limit for commencement1. The development permitted shall be completed within three years starting with

the date of this approval.

Reason: In order to comply with the provisions of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 as amended by Section 51 of the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004.

Approved Plans2. The development hereby granted shall be carried out strictly in accordance with

the following drawings and supporting detail, as dated received by the Local Planning Authority on the 6 February 2017 hereby approved and shall not be varied other than by prior agreement in writing by the Local Planning Authority:

- Site Location Plan Drawing Ref No 1623-EX-200 Rev B

- Proposed Plans & Section A-A Ref No 1623-PL-303 Rev A

- Proposed Elevations Drawing Ref No 1623-PL-304 Rev A

Reason: To ensure a satisfactory development and to avoid any ambiguity as to what constitutes the permission.

Ongoing Conditions

3. New Ground floor windows and doors abutting the highway shall be of a type which cannot open outwards into the highway.

Reason: To minimise possible danger to other highway users.

4. Details of all measures to be taken by the applicant/developer to prevent surface water discharging onto or off the highway shall be submitted to the Local Planning Authority for approval prior to development being commenced. Any approved works shall be implemented prior to the development being completed and shall be maintained operational thereafter.Reason: In the interests of highway safety and environmental management.

5. Before any development takes place, a plan shall be submitted for the prior approval of the Local Planning Authority reserving adequate land for the parking of vehicles engaged in construction operations associated with the development hereby approved, and that land, including vehicular access thereto, shall be used for or be kept available for these purposes at all times until completion of the construction works.Reason: The carrying out of this development without the provision of these facilities during the construction work is likely to lead to inconvenience and danger to road users.


85

6. Prior to the commencement of any development, a surface water drainage scheme, based on the hierarchy of drainage options in the National Planning Practice Guidance with evidence of an assessment of the site conditions (inclusive of how the scheme shall be managed after completion) shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The surface water drainage scheme must be in accordance with the Non-Statutory Technical Standards for Sustainable Drainage Systems (March 2015) or any subsequent replacement national standards and unless otherwise agreed in writing by the Local Planning Authority, no surface water shall discharge to the public sewerage system either directly or indirectly.

The drainage scheme submitted for approval shall also be in accordance with the principles set out in the Flood Risk Assessment and Drainage Statement dated June 2016 proposing surface water discharging to Thacka Beck.The development shall be completed, maintained and managed in accordance with the approved details.

Reason: To promote sustainable development, secure proper drainage and to manage the risk of flooding and pollution. This condition is imposed in light of policies within the NPPF and NPPG.

7. Foul and surface water shall be drained on separate systems.

Reason: To secure proper drainage and to manage the risk of flooding and pollution.

Informative

Should any unexpected ground conditions, which could indicate the presence of land contamination (for example unusual colours, odours, liquids or waste materials) be encountered during development, the Environmental Protection Team should be notified immediately. The responsibility for securing a safe development however lies with the developer and/or landowner.

2. Proposal and Site Description2.1 Proposal2.1.1 The application is for full planning permission for a proposed residential development

to form 5 x 1 bedroom apartments, 1 x 2 bedroom apartments and 1 x 1 bedroom cottage, as an infill scheme to an existing brown-field site presently vacant within the central conservation area of Penrith, at Southend Road, between the now converted former Salutation Hotel, and opposite the Wetherspoons, “The Dog Beck” Public House. Under previous Appeal Decision (APP/H0928/A/02/1103601) and relevant Approved applications (06/0945, 09/0389 and 13/0009) the site has and retains consent for the erection of a similar scheme containing retail and residential apartments

2.1.2 This application relates to the proposal for a three storey residential development providing 5 No 1 bedroom apartments, 1 No 2 bedroom apartment and 1 No1 bedroom cottage, utilising the full extent of the previous approved scheme’s site, but with due regard to the issue of and relationship to existing windows of the previously approved converted Salutation Public House (the subject of previously Withdrawn application Ref No 16/0595).


86

2.1.3 The scale of the proposed development is governed by the previously approved3 storey development and its relationship to its surrounding context and streetscape along Southend Road. In order for the new development to both reflect and complement its’ existing context, all walls are proposed to be white rendered blockwork, finished and painted to match with traditional painted window surrounds to Uvpc sash and casement windows to the front, principle elevation. The principle pitched roof to the Southend Road is proposed to be covered with a natural slate to match adjoining roofs, and with matching gutter detail and downspouts.

2.2 Site Description2.2.1 The application site relates to an area of land which was formerly the service and car

parking area, to the rear and associated with “The Salutation” and former Public House, now converted to residential use. To the south and north of the site are the flank walls of the existing adjacent two storey residential terrace blocks. To the east are the pedestrian entrances to the converted flats of the former Salutation, with the first floor being via an existing external stairway and balcony. The site fronts Southend Road, to the west, with the flank wall of “The Dog Beck”, formerly Toppers Nightclub opposite. Southend Road, the rear service area of The Travelodge, and the New Streets/Sainsbury development lies opposite and beyond, further to the south and west.


Consultee ResponseHighway Authority and Lead Local Flood Authority:

United Utilities:

No objection subject to conditions.

No objection subject to condition.


Consultee ResponseHousing Officer:

Contaminated Land Officer:

The development as proposed has no affordable housing implication (or requirement).

No objection subject to the inclusion of an informative.

4. Penrith Town Council Response(Following further submission from the Applicants’ Agents, in light of original objection, the following maintained objection from the Town Council was received, and which re-iterates their earlier view and stance in the matter.)Members considered the letter from the applicant and felt that it did not answer their concerns about the proposed development. They resolved that although it was laudable to develop on a brownfield site near the town centre such a development should be commensurate in size and scale. The Town Council maintain their objection to the planning application on the grounds that the application constitutes an overdevelopment of the site with poor design, in particular the cottage has no outlook


87

and is surrounded by higher buildings. Members still remain concerned about highway safety as that area is very busy, has no off-road parking and is an area used by delivery wagons to hotels, a pub and shops on a narrow road. The application goes against CS18 in that it does not protect the amenity of existing residents or provide an acceptable amenity for future occupiers and is not an appropriate scale and layout for the site.

5. Representations5.1 Whilst there are no dwellings in the vicinity of the application site, the proposal was

advertised by way of a notice posted at the site on 24 August 2016.


5.2 A letter of objection raised the following concerns which are material considerations to the application:

Approval of the development would exacerbate the parking problems and issues which are held to be experienced by certain businesses in the vicinity of the site;

Proposal is significantly different to previous (approved) proposal;

The height of the proposed building will deny flats (ex-Salutation) to the rear natural daylight;

The proposed building will be over dominating to neighbouring flats to the rear;

Proposed fenestration at the rear could lead to loss of privacy;

Concern is expressed regarding the escape route for the flats via the proposed passageway.

6. Relevant Planning HistoryApplication 02/0590 - Proposed development of 6 one bed flats. Decision date: 19/09/2002 - Full Refusal.

Appeal APP/H0928/A/02/1103601 - Decision date: 05/03/2003 - Allowed with Conditions.

Application 06/0945 - Erection of building to contain one retail unit on ground floor and 6 flats on first and second floors. Decision date: 05/02/2007 - Full Approval.

Application 09/0389 - Variation of condition 1 of planning permission 06/0945 to all extension of time for commencement of development. Decision date 03/07/2009 - Full Approval.

Application 09/0706 - Removal of condition No 3 of planning permission 06/0945 (local occupancy). Decision date 26/10/2009 - Full Approval.

Application 13/0009 - Application to extend the time limit for the implementation of planning approval 06/0945 for the erection of a building to contain 1 retail unit and 6 No flats.


88

Application 16/0595 - Proposed residential development to form 9 one bedroom apartments. Demolition of former single store garage/store - Withdrawn.


Eden Core Strategy DPD Policy:

CS17 - Principles for the built (Historic) Environment CS18 - Design of New DevelopmentSupplementary Planning Documents:

Housing (2010)

7.2 Other Material ConsiderationsNational Planning Policy Framework:

Delivering a wide choice of high quality homes Requiring good designNational Planning Practice Guidance



Design and Visual Amenity

Residential Amenity

Highway implications

8.2 Principle8.2.1 The proposed development relates to the provision of an infill scheme to an existing

brown - field site presently vacant within the central conservation area of Penrith. Following the relevant Appeal allowed under APP/HO928/A/02/1103601, the site has had approval for the erection of a similar scheme (Applications Ref Nos 06/0945, 09/0389 and 13/0009) containing retail and residential apartments. Part of the site is currently occupied by a single storey garage that will be demolished once the redevelopment of site proceeds.

8.2.2 This application relates to the proposal for of a three storey residential development providing 5 No 1 bedroom apartments 1 No 2 bedroom apartment and 1 No1 bedroom cottage, utilising the full extent of the above previously approved scheme’s site. The proposed development also has due regard to existing windows to of the previously approved converted Salutation public house/hotel to King Street, with relevant overlooking and proximity designed so as to minimise and protect mutual levels of amenity and privacy. The development is thereby intended to accord with the aims and concerns of adopted Core Strategy Policy and reflect the areas existing character.


89

8.3 Landscape and Visual Impacts8.3.1 Using a neutral but mixed pallet of natural colours, the visual appearance of the

development will sit well within the existing urban landscape and is designed to improve, rather than distract from the visual amenity of the town. In order for the new development to reflect the existing context, all walls will be white rendered blockwork, finished and painted to match with traditional painted window surrounds to uPVC sash and case windows to the front elevation. The principal pitched roof to Southend Road will be covered with a slated finish to match existing adjoining roofs together with the gutter details and downspouts. The element of the property to the rear will be provided with a flat roof allowing for the reduction in its impact to the neighbouring properties.

8.4 Residential Amenity8.4.1 Neighbouring objection received expresses concern with regarding the further

possibility of loss of privacy through overlooking and amenity through proximity and overbearing nature. The current application, following discussion with the Authority (after the withdrawal of previous application Ref No 16/0595) has resulted in a proposed scheme which not only reduces the number, type and degree of fenestration in the rear elevation (from the previously approved), but sites the relatively limited numbers of windows now proposed (mostly now opening into communal hallways and bathrooms) in such a way as to be oblique in their relationship to windows/doors and openings on the former “Salutation” building.

8.4.2 Whilst the main body of the proposed block, including finished height to ridge will be 2m higher than that previously approved, the continued degree of separation and proposed use of a flat roof to the rear (instead of a mansard roof) should ensure both a practicable and reasonable protection of neighbouring amenity, having regard to the nature and design of the previously approved development on site. On balance therefore the proposed is considered to reasonably accord with the aims and criteria concerns of relevant adopted Core Strategy Policy CS18.

8.5 Built Environment8.5.1 The layout takes its form from the existing topography and townscape. The principal

frontage of any proposal should help to reinforce the streetscape along Southend Road. Historical maps show that the site had been occupied by terraced houses with access to shared yards to the rear. This was used as the basis for the proposed layout on the site together with reference back to the previously approved scheme.

8.5.2 The scale of the proposed development has been governed by the previously approved 3 storey development (see history above) and its relationship to its surrounding context and the streetscape along Southend Road.

8.6 Infrastructure8.6.1 Two entrances are to be provided into the development, firstly a stepped access

directly off Southend Road and secondly full access will be maintained to the rear of the properties. The proposal also includes the provision of a 1200mm wide passage to the side of the ground floor units, allowing for accessible level access via the rear entrance into a communal area and thereby also providing level access to all ground floor dwellings and the communal staircase. The passage also allows for access to the rear of the previously converted public house/hotel and shared communal bin store.

8.6.2 Access can be afforded to all of the proposal in the event of the emergency services needing access to any part of the building from the exterior.


90

8.6.3 The Highway Authority have confirmed that they have no objection to the proposal subject to standard condition.





harassment, and the promotion of equality under the Equality Act 2010.


Environment and Rural Communities Act 2006.

10.4 Crime and Disorder10.4.1 Under the Crime and Disorder Act 1998, the Council must have regard to the need to







reasons which are not outweighed by material considerations:

It is considered that the scale, design and nature of the development proposed is and continues to be acceptable within the location and site sought and would not have an unreasonable or significantly detrimental effect on neighbouring properties or the area in general.


91





92


Planning Application No: 17/0001 Date Received: 3 January 2017

OS Grid Ref: 364296/525927 Expiry Date: 5 April 2017

Parish: Kirkby Thore Ward: Kirkby Thore


Proposal: Proposed Change of Use to Store Caravans, Trailers and Steel Containers to Use as safe Storage Units.

Location: Land adjacent to Kirkby Thore Industrial Estate, Kirkby Thore

Applicant: Mr T Bradley

Agent: Manning Elliott/Tom Woof

Case Officer: Tony Ryniejski

Reason for Referral: The recommendation is contrary to the views of the Parish Council and an objector has requested to be heard.


93

1. Recommendation

It is recommended that planning permission be granted subject to the following conditions:Time Limit for Commencement1. The development permitted shall be begun before the expiration of three years

from the date of this permission.Reason: In order to comply with the provisions of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 as amended by Section 51 of the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004.


drawings hereby approved:i) Drawing Nos 1642-PL-100 received 3 January 2017, 1642-PL-200

Revision C received 30 March 2017 and additional ‘Zoning Plan’ received 2 May 2017.

Reason: To ensure a satisfactory development and to avoid any ambiguity as to what constitutes the permission.

Ongoing Conditions3. A landscaping scheme shall be undertaken in accordance with the timescales

and specifications of the ‘Schedule of Landscaping’ and details shown on Drawing Number 1642-Pl-200 Revision C.Reason: To safeguard the visual amenities of the locality.

4. Only Storage Containers shall be sited/placed within the area identified as ‘Zone A’ on the Zoning Plan received 2 May 2017. Any Storage Container sited or placed within that area shall painted/finished Bottle Green equivalent to RAL 6007 and shall thereafter be maintained as such. Reason: To safeguard the visual amenities of the locality.

2. Proposal and Site Description2.1 Proposal2.1.1 The proposal is change the use of land and to create a secure compound to site steel

storage containers and store caravans and trailers. The facility would be available to both members of the public and businesses on a rental basis. The submitted plan indicates that the site would surrounded with a twin mesh, 1.95m high fence, supplemented by native hedgerow planting to all sides, with additional landscaping to the entrance area fronting the highway.

2.1.2 The site would have a hard-core/gravel surface and the notional layout suggests that, 32 storage containers would be sited at the south western end of the site, there would be 25 spaces for caravans to the middle and north eastern end of the site and 9 bays along the south eastern boundary for trailer/container or caravan storage.


94

2.2 Site Description2.2.1 The flat, ‘L’ shaped site is currently part of an agricultural field and extends to about

0.75h. 2.2.2 It is situated to the side and to the rear of 6 workshop/business units located on the

Kirkby Thore Industrial Estates and diagonally opposite the Sandersons Croft housing estate.

2.2.3 Access in to the site would be via the existing estate access road which serves Sandersons Croft and the Saint-Gobain Works (former British Gypsum Works) beyond.

2.2.4 Planning permission has recently been granted to erect a further 5 industrial units, under application ref 16/1106, on land to the rear of the 6 existing units and immediately adjacent to the application site.


Consultee ResponseLocal Highway Authority No objection Lead Local Flood Authority No objection

The following are detailed responses as outlined above:



ExpressedKirkby Thore X

4.1 Parish Council response: “Thank you for the opportunity to respond to the additional information provided by the applicant and agent regarding application number 17/0001.Kirkby Thore Parish Council have considered the additional information and make the following comments:Kirkby Thore Parish Council acknowledge that efforts have been made by the applicant/agent to address some of the concerns expressed in our original response to the application. We note that the amended plans now indicate that landscaping will be used to help screen the site and that a hedge will be planted along the exposed perimeter of the site, outside the fencing. We also acknowledge the letter from Tweddell and Slater regarding the soil infiltration tests in the existing site. The email from Mr Woof also attempts to allay residents' concerns regarding several other matters, such as visual amenity, traffic and noise. Mr Woof concludes his email with a petition from people who support the planning application. Mr Woof and the applicant have also sought to draw parallels with the applicants' other storage site in Appleby. It is the view of the Parish Council that the proposed planting and landscaping will help to reduce the impact of such a development but due to the close proximity to residential properties and the contour of the proposed site, the visual impact of the site will still be significant and obtrusive. It will be several years before native hedging will


95

be of a maturity to provide any reasonable screening effect and due to the contour of the land within the site, much of the proposed site will remain visible from nearby properties.Mr Woof states that noise has not been a concern with the site in Appleby. We can understand this as the nearest residential property to this site is at least one hundred metres distance and is within a recognised industrial estate. The proposed site in Kirkby Thore is within 20 meters of the nearest properties and at least 50 properties would be closer to the site in Kirkby Thore than the nearest property in Appleby. The proposed site in Kirkby Thore is roughly four times larger than the site in Appleby (0.73ha v 0.18ha). At a recent visit to the site in Appleby it was clear that the individual caravans and storage units are placed very close to each other and at that time numbered 19 Containers and 11 caravans. Scaling up the number of caravans and storage units on this ratio, the proposed site in Kirkby Thore could accommodate up to 120 caravans/storage containers. The nature of the operation is such that users could access the site at any time of day or night and on any number of occasions. Clearly, the location of the proposed site and its nature of operation is likely to have a dramatic amenity impact on neighbouring residential properties and bring a clear threat of noise disturbance from use of the site and traffic to and from the site. The proposed site in Kirkby Thore has poor access to the primary road network as it is sited on the north eastern edge of the village and access to the site would normally be from the A66 through the village. The proposed site is located off the access road to the Saint-Gobain works. The route to the proposed site is already heavily used by HGV traffic in transit to the Saint- Gobain works. This proposal would add to the existing traffic problems that residents experience. Unlike the applicant's existing site in Appleby, the proposed site in Kirkby Thore is adjacent to a significant residential area which is populated with many families with young children. The route followed by traffic seeking to access the proposed site is also followed by children en-route to school and recreational facilities in Kirkby Thore. We have agreed with Saint-Gobain a self-imposed 20mph speed limit for HGV traffic through the village and are seeking to initiate an independent traffic survey to analyse the impact of traffic through the village following concerns from residents about speed, noise, vibration and pollution. The matter has received support from Saint-Gobain and Mr Rory Stewart MP. With regard to the soil infiltration tests we remain concerned that the use of a hardcore and gravel as a finished surface on an area of this size and general contour will introduce a threat of surface water run off especially over time when the surface will become compacted through vehicle use. No reference is made to the existing land drains in the western corner of the proposed site and how they are to be dealt with. A list of people who support the application has been provided. However, it is clear that only one person who resides in the Parish of Kirkby Thore supports the proposal. All other persons listed live outside the Parish. This demonstrates that there is virtually no support for the proposal in the parish of Kirkby Thore and our attached petition illustrates the depth of feeling against the proposal for those people who would be directly affected by the proposal. Whilst the signatories of the petition in support of the proposal may feel they stand to benefit from the development, they are unlikely to experience any of the negative impacts that residents of Kirkby Thore will experience.


96

Currently the site is designated as employment land and has been since at least 1996. The site has been open grazing land since that time. However, the emerging Eden Local Plan does not seek to retain this site as employment land, choosing to locate these areas within the larger industrial estates in Penrith and Appleby. It would appear odd if the proposal were to be accepted when EDC have decided to focus these land uses in more appropriate locations. It is a surprise to the Parish Council that the applicant has chosen to propose a development of this nature when it has been clear for several years that the District Council has no desire to retain the designation of employment land for this site. The strength of feeling within the community of Kirkby Thore is clearly against the proposal and with significant justification. As there is little evidence of any true local benefit and a distinct threat of significant adverse impact, Kirkby Thore Parish Council retain our OBJECTION to the proposal.”


26 January 2017.

No of Neighbours Consulted 5 No of letters/emails of support 31No of Representations Received 63 No of neutral representations 1No of objection letters/emails 31

5.2 In addition to the individual representations a petition in support of the proposal signed on behalf of 35 local businesses was received, as well as a petition against the proposal signed by 57 persons.

5.3 The letters/emails of support provided the following, summarised, comments:

Will provided a needed service and benefit the local economy

Ideal and quiet use for the industrial estate

Any business which supports new jobs should be encouraged

Affordable storage of caravans will bring much need tourism and benefit the rural area

Will encourage local employment through small businesses and the self-employed using the storage containers

It is a problem finding flexible access to storage and there is need for secure storage for caravans in this area.

Kirkby Thore has always been a working village5.4 The letters/emails of objection raised the following material considerations to the

application:

It will result in negative visual impact and be out of character with the area

Increase in noise and disturbance

The proposed screening will not hide the development

Potentially increase crime and antisocial behaviour

There will be no control on what is stored


97

Increase in traffic, particularly HGVs adversely affecting highway safety

The road is already heavily trafficked by HGVs accessing the nearby Saint-Gobain Works

There will be no benefit to the community

There will be no provision for parking thereby leading to parking problems in the vicinity

24 hour access will lead to disturbance at anti-social hours

A 2.4m high fence will be out of keeping

No employment will be created

The actual number of items stored could be much greater than indicated

Danger to children in the area

Increase in pollution from fumes

Potential light pollution


Application No Description Outcome16/1106 5 Industrial units (adjacent to application

site) Approved


Saved Local Plan Policies: Saved Eden Local Plan Policy EM3 - Local Employment Site Allocation.Core Strategy DPD Policy: CS1 - Sustainable Development Principles CS2 - Locational Strategy CS4 - Flood Risk CS5 - Transport and Accessibility CS12 - Principles for Economic Development and Tourism CS13 - Employment Land Provision CS18 - Design of New DevelopmentNational Planning Policy Framework: Building a strong, competitive economy Supporting a prosperous rural economy Requiring good designNational Planning Practice Guidance



98

8. Planning Assessment8.1 Key/Main Planning Issues8.1.1

Employment and economic development Highway safety Surface water drainage and flooding Effect on visual amenity Effect on residential amenity

8.2 Principle8.2.1 The site is identified in the Eden local plan (December 1996) as a land allocation for

employment under policy EM3, and is shown on the proposals map number 50. EM3, is a saved policy and supports the current core strategy which remains the development plan for the area at this time. The national planning policy framework (NPPF) confirms that a determination must be made in accordance with the development plan, which overall establishes the principle of acceptability for a business use under planning use classes B1, B2 and B8 use on this site. The use proposed is considered to fall within Use class B8 (Storage or distribution), one of the 3 uses the Policy seeks to encourage and make provision for.

8.2.2 The acceptability of policy EM3 is, however, subject to judging proposals against policy EM5 (also a saved policy) which requires consideration against the following criteria:1. the effect of the proposal on the amenity interests of any nearby users or local

residents;2. the provision of parking and servicing space to a satisfactory standard;3. the suitability of the access to the primary highway network for the particular

requirements of the proposed developments;4. the standard of design, materials, landscaping and boundary treatment which it is

proposed to use, in relation to the sites locality; and5. the impact of the local built form, landscape and nature conservation interests.

8.2.3 These 5 criterion broadly cover the concerns and issues raised by both the Parish Council and local residents as set out below.

8.3 Residential Amenity8.3.1 In response to concerns in respect of noise and disturbance the Applicant, who already

operates a similar facility on Cross Croft Industrial Estate in Appleby, has advised that he expects the application site to be used in the same way with roughly one third of the storage containers being used by house movers to store domestic goods while they are in rented accommodation, one third used by businesses and organisations and 1/3 by householders who do not have their own garage or other storage. In respect of caravan storage it is estimated that one third would be used by locals who use their vans 6-10 times per year with two thirds used by persons from outside the area who, it is estimated, would take them out 3-4 times per year.


99

8.3.2 Whilst this can only be an estimate of the likely usage it does suggests that the comings and goings at the facility are unlikely to be frequent and there is nothing to suggest that the usage would result in a significant increase in HGV traffic as is feared by the objectors.

8.3.3 In terms of site security and the potential for increase in crime and disorder the Applicant has advised that there are strict terms of business and operating conditions. These include HSE requirements and activities not comprising of loading and storage would not be allowed. He states that there have been no incidences of theft at the Appleby premises thus far and as that he lives close to and overlooks the site antisocial behaviour or misuse would not be tolerated.

8.3.4 Whilst there would be no restriction on hours of access no external lighting is required or proposed, as the Applicant does not wish to encourage clients to access the site during hours of darkness and it has to be borne in mind that there are no restrictions limiting the operating hours of the 6 workshop/business units which already exist on the estate.

8.4 Highway Safety, Parking, Servicing Space and Access8.4.1 Notwithstanding concerns in respect of parking provision the layout proposed does

appear to provide sufficient on site circulation, manoeuvring and parking space and the Local Highway Authority raises no issues in this regard. In terms of access and servicing, the facility would utilise the existing estate junction whose adequacy and capacity has not been questioned by the Highway Authority who, themselves, do not advance any concerns with regard to highway safety.

8.5 Landscape Impact8.5.1 A large part of the site lies behind and is shielded from view from the adjacent highway

by the 6 workshop/business units which already exist on the estate with the main viewpoints being on the south western approach and across the existing entrance. Views from these vantage points would however be filtered by the proposed 1.95m high perimeter fence, similar to that surrounding the existing estate and the Applicant has proposed to plant native hedging to the outside of the security fencing, along with additional landscaping at the entrance area.

8.5.2 Further screening would be provided by the storage containers, which the Applicant has advised would be painted Green like those already sited at the Appleby facility. In addition the Applicant has provided a ‘Zoning Plan’ and has agreed to site the containers on the south western portion of the site, thereby helping to shield the white caravans and trailer storage from view.

8.6 Surface Water Drainage8.6.1 In response to the questions and concerns raised in respect of surface water drainage

and flooding by the Parish Council and Cumbria County Council, in its capacity as Local Lead Flood Authority, the Applicant commissioned consultants to undertake a drainage assessment. The County Council, have considered the drainage assessment and confirm they have no objections in this regard.



100







10. Conclusion10.1 It is considered that the proposal accords with Saved Eden Local Plan Policy EM3

which identifies the land as a Local Employment Site, where use Classes B1 (Business), B2 (General Industrial) and B8 (Storage or Distribution) will be permitted if the development is considered acceptable against the criteria set out in Policy EM5.


Background Papers: Planning File 17/0001
