Public Document Pack

SOUTH LAKELAND DISTRICT COUNCIL South Lakeland House Kendal, Cumbria LA9 4UQ www.southlakeland.gov.uk

You are requested to attend a meeting of the Planning Committee on Thursday, 28 March 2013, at 10.00 am in the District Council Chamber, South Lakeland House, Kendal

Committee Membership

Councillors

Brian Cooper Joss Curwen Philip Dixon Sheila Eccles (Vice-Chairman) Sylvia Emmott David Fletcher Clive Graham Brenda Gray John Holmes Janette Jenkinson Sonia Lawson Ian McPherson (Chairman) Mary Orr Bharath Rajan David Ryder Sue Sanderson David Williams Mary Wilson

Tuesday, 19 March 2013

Debbie Storr, Director of Policy and Resources (Monitoring Officer)

For all enquiries, please contact:- Committee Administrator: Janine Jenkinson Telephone: 01539 793189 e-mail: [email protected] AGENDA

Page Nos. PART I

1 APOLOGIES To receive apologies for absence, if any. 2 MINUTES 1 - 8 To authorise the Chairman to sign, as a correct record, the minutes of the meeting of the Committee held on 26 February 2013 (copy attached). 3 DECLARATIONS OF INTEREST To receive declarations by Members and/or co-optees of interests in respect of items on this Agenda.

Members are reminded that, in accordance with the revised Code of Conduct, they are required to declare any disclosable pecuniary interests or other registrable interests which have not already been declared in the Council’s Register of Interests. (It is a criminal offence not to declare a disclosable pecuniary interest either in the Register or at the meeting.)

Members may, however, also decide, in the interests of clarity and transparency, to declare at this point in the meeting, any such disclosable pecuniary interests which they have already declared in the Register, as well as any other registrable or other interests.

If a Member requires advice on any item involving a possible declaration of interest which could affect his/her ability to speak and/or vote, he/she is advised to contact the Monitoring Officer at least 24 hours in advance of the meeting. 4 LOCAL GOVERNMENT ACT 1972 - EXCLUDED ITEMS To consider whether the items, if any, in Part II of the Agenda should be considered in the presence of the press and public. 5 PUBLIC PARTICIPATION Any member of the public who wishes to ask a question, make representations or present a deputation or petition at this meeting should apply to do so before the commencement of the meeting. Information on how to make the application can be obtained by viewing the Council’s Website www.southlakeland.gov.uk or by contacting the Democratic and Electoral Services Manager on 01539 717440.

(1) Planning Applications

Planning applications for which requests to speak have been made.

(2) Agenda Items

Agenda items for which requests to speak have been made. 6 REPORT OF THE DIRECTOR OF PEOPLE AND PLACES 9 - 150 To determine planning applications received. 7 A REPORT ON ENFORCEMENT ACTIVITY FROM 1 JAN UARY - 31 151 - 162 JANUARY 2013 To inform Members about enforcement activity. 8 APPEALS UPDATE 163 - 174 To provide Members with information about the receipt and determination of planning appeals. 9 TIME SCALES FOR RU RAL HOUSING POLICY REVIEW 175 - 186 To inform Members about the time scales for progressing Local Plan Policy Documents. PART II

Private Section (exempt reasons under Schedule 12A of the Local Government Act 1972, as amended by the Local Government (Access to Information) (Variation) Order 2006, specified by way of paragraph number) There are no items in this part of the Agenda. This page is intentionally left blank Item No.2 81 26.02.2013 Planning Committee

PLANNING COMMITTEE

Minutes of the proceedings at a meeting of the Planning Committee held in the District Council Chamber, South Lakeland House, Kendal, on Tuesday, 26 February 2013, at 10.00 am.

Present

Councillors

Ian McPherson (Chairman) Sheila Eccles (Vice-Chairman)

Brian Cooper Janette Jenkinson Sue Sanderson Philip Dixon Sonia Lawson David Williams Sylvia Emmott Mary Orr Mary Wilson Brenda Gray Bharath Rajan John Holmes David Ryder

Apologies for absence were received from Councillors Joss Curwen and Clive Graham

Officers

Mark Balderson Enforcement Officer Fiona Clark Planning Officer Lilian Hopkins Planning Officer Barry Jackson Development Management Team Leader Michael Keane Assistant Director Strategic Planning Kate Lawson Planning Officer Matthew Neal Solicitor to the Council Mark Shipman Development Management Group Manager Lee Teasdale Democratic Services Assistant

P/94 MINUTES

RESOLVED – That the Chairman be authorised to sign, as a correct record, the minutes of the Committee meeting held on 24 January 2013.

P/95 DECLARATIONS OF INTEREST

RESOLVED – That it be noted that there were no declarations of interest made at the meeting.

P/96 LOCAL GOVERNMENT ACT 1972 - EXCLUDED ITEMS

RESOLVED – That, should discussion be necessary, the item in Part ll of the Agenda be dealt with following the exclusion of the press and public.

Page 1 82 26.02.2013 Planning Committee

P/97 PUBLIC PARTICIPATION

1.SL/2012/0566 KENDAL: Land to west of Oxenholme Road, Kendal. Residential Development. (Briery Homes Ltd)

Before discussion of the item commenced, the Chairman informed the Committee that the applicant had submitted an appeal of non-determination and that if the appeal proved to be valid, the Committee could only indicate how it would have been minded to determine the application. If the appeal proved to be invalid, the decision could still be issued by the Director of People and Places under delegated authority.

Dennis Reed, spoke on behalf of the Triangle Opposition Group (TOG) in objection to the application. A full copy of the representation has been placed on the Democratic Serviced file. Objections were raised in relation to the damage that would be caused to the character of the local landscape, over intensive development of the site and wider infrastructure concerns such as the need for more schools, recreational spaces and traffic calming measures.

Alastair Skelton, the applicant’s agent, responded to the points raised. He stated that the key issue for the applicant was to ensure that the infrastructure met local needs. The development was considered pivotal to the necessary growth of the area.

A site visit had been undertaken and Members had had the opportunity to view the proposed site from several vantage points.

The Planning Officer provided the Committee with a summary of a letter received from the applicant’s agent, which stated that £115,884 which had been requested by Cumbria County Council as a highways and transport contribution would not be committed to as it was considered not to meet the statutory tests for obligations set out in the Community Infrastructure Levy Regulations.

With regard to other key elements, Briery Homes was willing to provide an affordable housing element of 10%, provide education contributions up to a maximum of £361,530, off-site public open space improvements of £20,000 plus a further £8,000 contribution for an off-site ‘kick about’ area.

Cumbria County Council had sent a letter stating that it believed that the request for highways and transport contributions did meet the Community Infrastructure Levy Regulations tests and that the contribution would be directly related to the development.

A discussion took place. Members felt that impact upon local primary school provision, the traffic generated by the development and the inability of the applicant to meet the needs of affordable housing provision outweighed the potential benefits of the development.

The Director of People and Places be authorised to either REFUSE or inform the Planning Inspectorate that Planning Permission would have been refused had the

Page 2 83 26.02.2013 Planning Committee

Planning Committee been in a position to do so, for the reasons contained in the Committee Report.

3.SL/2012/0886 HELSINGTON: The Wheatsheaf Inn, Brigsteer, Kendal, LA8 8AN. Single storey rear extension, side extension, bay window, external stone staircase and front porch. (Individual Inns)

Richard Frank, owner of a neighbouring property, spoke in objection to the application. A full copy of his representation has been placed on the Democratic Services file. He felt that the proposed development would impact upon the privacy afforded to his family and the outdoor area could cause light and noise pollution issues.

Duncan Isherwood, the applicant’s agent, spoke of the support that had been received from local residents for the re-opening of the pub. The applicant was agreeable to the conditions suggested in the planning report, and would also arrange for fixed windows at ground level.

Members discussed the possible un-neighbourly nature and parking impact of the development and were minded to suggest that the item be deferred to enable further negotiations to take place with the applicant.

DEFER – to allow for further negotiations to take place with the applicant.

P/98 REPORT OF THE DIRECTOR OF PEOPLE AND PLACES

5.SL/2012/0934 BURTON IN KENDAL: The Tannery, Tanpits Lane, Burton in Kendal, LA6 1HZ. Extensions and alterations to form annexed accommodation. (Mrs C Cliffe and Mr B Hornby)

The Committee requested that a site visit be undertaken in order to view the proposal in relation to properties to the south and east.

DEFER – to allow a site visit.

4.SL/2012/0914 KIRKBY IRELETH: The Moors, Sandside, Kirkby-in-Furness, LA17 7UB. Detached dwelling. (Mr W Brocklebank)

Following a deferral for a site visit, the Committee was advised that whilst no objections had been raised against the development, the property would still be a new residential dwelling within open countryside, and therefore would be contrary to the National Planning Policy Framework and Policies CS1.2, CS3.1 and CS6.4 of the adopted South Lakeland Core Strategy.

It was concluded that there were no significant material considerations relating to the application which could have been regarded as justification for allowing an exception to policy to be made.

REFUSE for the reasons contained in the Committee Report.

Page 3 84 26.02.2013 Planning Committee

2.SL/2012/0813 (FPA) & SL/2012/0814 (CAC) ULVERSTON: Cumbria County Council, Brogden Street, Ulverston, LA12 7AH. Partial demolition of existing building and annexes, construction of four flats, four dwellinghouses, including provision of parking and landscaping. (Mr David Armer)

The proposal had been amended from the original submission to incorporate improved design details and a higher ratio of off street parking.

The Planning Officer updated Members on the consultation responses received with regards to the amended scheme. Ulverston Town Council had recommended approval of the amended design, subject to the view of neighbours; the Highways Officer had advised that the new residents of the development would not be eligible for on-street parking permits and therefore sufficient off road parking facilities should be; the Conservation Officer had two remaining concerns regarding the design of the rear elevation of the detached apartment block and the relationship of the attached new build dwelling to the existing building.

Two further letters had been received from residents regarding the potential impact on the drainage system and increased surface water run-off and the impact on private vehicular access to the rear of a garage, though this issue was considered as a private legal matter between the garage owner and the applicant.

GRANT – Subject to the conditions set out in the Committee Report.

6.SL/2012/1036 KIRKBY IRELETH: Land to south of A5092 Ashlack Hall, Grizebeck, Kirkby-in-Furness LA17 7XN. Single wind turbine (74 metres to blade tip) with associated control building and track. (Empirica Investments LTD C/O Agent)

The Committee were advised that the item had been withdrawn by the applicant.

WITHDRAWN

7.SL/2012/1066 KENDAL: Nobles Rest, Maude Street, Kendal, LA9 4QD. Erection of eight dwellings for over 55s with formation of new vehicular and pedestrian access, parking and landscaping. (Impact Housing Association)

Comments had been received from Kendal Town Council which stated that they wished to recommend refusal of the design but that a more sympathetic design scheme would be welcomed.

In the light of the retained and proposed landscaping, and with the omission of the proposed artificial stonework, the design was considered acceptable.

Issues had arisen from a higher than expected open-market valuation of the land, this meant that some of the properties may be needed to be sold to over 55s on the open market. This would not affect any policy on affordable housing requirements, as the policy only covered developments with a minimum of nine dwellings in Kendal.

Page 4 85 26.02.2013 Planning Committee

GRANT – Subject to the conditions set out in the Committee Report.

8.SL/2012/1070 BURTON IN KENDAL: Burton Morewood C of E Primary School, Main Street, Burton in Kendal. Extensions and alterations. (Mrs Sue Woodburn)

Works had already commenced on removal of asbestos from the roof of the school during the half-term break. It was proposed that the deteriorating roof panels be replaced with zinc panels which would meet the need for a dark roof; examples of the zinc roofing were shown to the Committee.

GRANT – Subject to standard conditions and a condition confirming the colour of the roofing material.

P/99 A REPORT ON MONTHLY ENFORCEMENT ACTIVITY FROM 1 DECEMBER TO 31 DECEMBER 2012

Members were presented with a report on enforcement activity between 1 and 31 December 2012. 20 new complaints had been recorded and were presently being investigated.

12.290 114/116 Kirkland, Kendal.

In 2000, enforcement action had been taken to serve a Section 215 Notice to clear items of waste and rubbish from the rear of the property. The property had been empty for a number of years and had fallen into disrepair.

There was a prospective purchaser for the property who had confirmed that he wished to improve the building and convert the ground floor into office space, and renovate the residential uppers.

It was requested that should the purchase fall through or the works not take place within four months, a Section 215 Notice be served to repair the front on the building.

10.318 Llawn Roc, Coast Road, Bardsea, Ulverston, LA12 9RB

The current owners of the property Llawn Roc had sited a large static caravan in the field adjacent to their property; the caravan had water, electricity and drainage connected.

The caravan was positioned outside of the curtilage of the dwellinghouse. It was prominent and isolated from other buildings and developments in a location detrimental to the character and appearance of the local area.

Officers requested authority to issue an Enforcement Notice allowing the disconnection of the services from the caravan, remove the caravan from the land and take up the hard-core and remove it from the land.

11.089 Land to rear of former Mission Hall, Stainton with Adgarley

Page 5 86 26.02.2013 Planning Committee

The land to the rear of the mission rooms in Stainton with Adgarley had been granted planning permission in 1983 for the construction of a dwellinghouse. The Owner had lived in a static caravan on the site for over ten years whilst he built the dwellinghouse himself.

Complaints had been received with regards to the unfinished dwelling and unmade drive which was shared with the neighbour to the east, and noise complaints had been passed to the Council’s Environmental Health Department.

Officers’ opinion was that the unsurfaced drive entrance was not dissimilar to many other drives within the vicinity, the caravan was in a relatively inconspicuous location within the site, and the site was kept in a tidy condition. Officers considered that no enforcement action was necessary at the present time.

Other items

An update was provided on Holme House Farm at Skelsmergh. Mr Steele had been given until 9 March 2013 to comply with the Court Order and there was some progress towards remedying the breaches.

It was requested that an update be provided directly to Cartmel Parish Council on the situation involving the listed building at Priory Close, Cartmel.

RESOLVED – That

(1) the contents of Appendix 1 be noted;

(2) in respect of 12.290, should the purchase fall through or the works not take place within four months a further Section 215 Notice be served;

(3) authority be given for all necessary enforcement action to remedy the breach of planning control identified in the report reference 10.318; and

(4) no action be taken in relation to the breach of planning control identified in the report under case reference 11.089.

P/100 APPEALS UPDATE

Members were provided with information about the receipt and determination of planning appeals from the start of the financial year in April 2012.

Clarification was sought regarding the status of Crosby House in Ackenthwaite; Members were advised that a revised application was being awaited.

RESOLVED – That the report be noted.

P/101 REQUEST FOR DELEGATED POWERS TO DETERMINE CARAVAN SITE APPLICATIONS TO VARY CONDITIONS

Page 6 87 26.02.2013 Planning Committee

Members were asked to authorise the Director of People and Places to determine any applications made under S73 Town and Country Planning Act 1990 which related to caravan sites that sought not to comply with a condition that required them to close for six weeks when the South Lakeland District Council holiday conditions could be substituted.

RESOLVED – That

(1) the Director of People and Places be authorised to determine applications made under S73 Town and Country Planning Act 1990; and

(2) an amendment to the delegation scheme for the Planning Committee be approved as set out in Appendix 1 to the report.

The meeting ended at 1.35 pm

Page 7 This page is intentionally left blank

Page 8 Item No.6

SOUTH LAKELAND DISTRICT COUNCIL

From: Director (People and Places) To: Planning Committee – 28 March 2013

REPORT OF DIRECTOR (PEOPLE and PLACES)

PLANNING APPLICATIONS FOR DECISION Page No

Index

Schedule A - Complex planning applications (13-150)

Schedule B - Planning applications where the Director (People and None Places) is seeking authority to determine

Schedule C - Applications relating to Listed Buildings None

Schedule D - Advertisements None

Schedule E - Development by South Lakeland District Council and None Cumbria County Council

Schedule F - Straightforward planning applications None

Schedule G - All other submissions None

Background papers relating to the subject matter of the report For all items the background papers are contained in the files listed in the second column of the schedule index.

Note: The background papers may be inspected at the offices of the Director (People and Places), Lowther Street, Kendal, Cumbria

Page 9 This page is intentionally left blank

Page 10 SOUTH LAKELAND DISTRICT COUNCIL PLANNING COMMITTEE – 28 March 2013

SCHEDULE REFERENCE SECTION SITE ADDRESS NUMBER NUMBER

ALDINGHAM 8 SL/2012/1073 A (99-106) Skeldon Moor, Little Urswick

BURTON 4 SL/2012/0934 A (75–80) The Tannery, Tanpits Lane

HELSINGTON 3 SL/2012/0886 A (67-74) Wheatsheaf Inn

KENDAL 6 SL/2012/1055 A (87-92) Land to the rear of 19 Hill Place, Oxenholme 12 SL/2013/0075 A (129-150) Land at Hallgarth Cottage, Windermere Road

KIRKBY LONSDALE 10 SL/2013/0055 A (113-118) Queen Elizabeth School 11 SL/2013/0072 A (119-128) Biggins Hall, High Biggins

MILNTHORPE 2 SL/2012/0865 A (61-66) Land at Turnpike, Beetham Road

PENNINGTON 1 SL/2011/0685 A (13-60) Standish Cote and Mean Moor, Marton and Harlock Hill 9 SL/2012/1075 A (107-112) Land adjacent to Vale View

PRESTON PATRICK 7 SL/2012/1058 A (93-98) Milness Hill Caravan Park, Crooklands

ULVERSTON 5 SL/2012/0977 A (81-86) Tarn Side

1 Page 11 This page is intentionally left blank

Page 12 SCHEDULE A

Complex Planning Applications

SCHEDULE No: 1 SL/2011/0685

PENNINGTON: STANDISH COTE AND MEAN MOOR, MARTON AND HARLOCK HILL, PENNINGTON, ULVERSTON

PROPOSAL: INSTALLATION OF FIVE 99.5M HIGH (2.3Mw) WIND TURBINES, INCORPORATING THE REMOVAL OF FIVE EXISTING Website Link: TURBINES ON http://www.southlakeland.gov.uk/fastweb/detail.asp?AltRef=SL/2011/0685 HARLOCK HILL, FORMATION OF E325395 N479542 28/03/2013 ON-SITE ACCESS TRACKS, ASSOCIATED INFRASTRUCTURE WORKS AND CARRIAGEWAY WIDENING WORKS

MR MATT RUSSELL

SUMMARY: This application seeks permission for the removal of the five existing 53 metre high turbines and replacement with five turbines, which would have a maximum height of 99.5 metres to blade tip. It straddles the administrative boundaries of Barrow Borough Council and South Lakeland District Council. Planning applications detailing the full scheme have been submitted to both authorities. Two of the turbines would be located in South Lakeland and three would be within Barrow Borough. A site visit was undertaken in October last year and this application was deferred from the October Committee Meeting so that the developer could submit further information in support of the application relating to the visual impact from dwelling houses. The report at that time recommended refusal for three reasons: adverse impact on the landscape, adverse impact on living conditions and adverse visual impact on the footpath users of Mean Moor. In addition to the additional information submitted by the applicant, two planning appeal decisions have been drawn to the officer’s attention, GlaxoSmithKline have written

Page 13 stating that they wish to source electricity from the turbines and an independent assessment of the LVIA and the Galpin audit report thereon has been received. The appeal decisions relate to the objective assessment of the impact of wind turbines on living conditions in dwellings, and this has altered conclusions on one of the previous reasons for refusal. All of this material is addressed in the report. Although the proposal will make a tangible contribution to targets for renewable energy generation, this does not outweigh the adverse visual impacts of the proposal and the significant impacts on users of the adjacent public footpaths, taken together.

DESCRIPTION AND PROPOSAL: Site Description There are currently five wind turbines located on Harlock Hill near Pennington within South Lakeland District. They have a height of 53 metres and were granted consent in 1995. The application site is approximately 10km northeast of Barrow-in-Furness and 4km northwest of Ulverston. The larger part of the site is located at Mean Moor (Barrow) and the smaller at Harlock Hill (South Lakeland). The two sections are separated by Poaka Beck and the northern part of Harlock Reservoir. The land rises at either side of the beck, and is steeper and higher on Mean Moor, rising up to a height of 311 metres on Bank House Moor immediately to the northwest. The site is farmland and is used for grazing purposes. It is comprised predominantly of semi-improved grassland, improved grassland, marshy grassland and acid grassland. Other habitats include scattered scrub, species poor hedgerows, springs and flushes. Kirkby Moor Site of Special Scientific Interest (SSSI) is adjacent to the site to the northwest. Two bridleways and a series of footpaths pass within and adjacent to the part of the site within Barrow Borough. Proposal The proposed turbines would have three blades with a maximum height to blade tip of 99.5m, a maximum hub height of 64 metres and a capacity of up to 2.3 MW. The two turbines on Harlock Hill, within South Lakeland, would be located reasonably close to the locations of the two most northerly existing turbines, and would be separated by approximately 280 metres. The three on Mean Moor, in Barrow Borough, would follow a line northwest from the most southerly of the proposed turbines on Harlock Hill and would have a similar spacing. Access to the Harlock Hill section of the application site would utilise the entrance for the existing wind farm, off the C5018. A new access would be created to serve the Mean Moor section of the application site. This will be taken off the C5016 Ulverston Road, approximately 250 metres northwest of Harlock Farm. The turbines would have circular foundations with a diameter of approximately 7 metres at the surface and 17 metres below the surface. The hard standings at the base of the turbines would be approximately 50 x 22 metres during construction, to allow for crane and component delivery vehicles, and 30 x 22 metres post construction to allow for maintenance. The scheme also includes the construction of two temporary construction compounds; two on-site switch rooms; partial re-routing of one bridleway and one footpath (both within Barrow Borough); and installation of underground on-site electrical and communication cabling.

Page 14 The submission states that the final precise positioning of the turbines would be the subject of a detailed design process following consent which would involve further investigations. As such, the applicant is seeking a micro-siting allowance of 50 metres for all elements of the scheme. The proposal would provide a total maximum “installed capacity” of up to 11.5 MW, compared to the current wind farm which has an installed capacity of 2.5 MW. Applicant’s Activities and Ownership The on-site construction would take approximately seven months. The turbines would be operational for 25 years after which the development would be decommissioned, with all major equipment and above ground structures being removed from the site with the concrete foundations remaining. Any plans for repowering would be subject to a new planning application. The turbines on Harlock Hill are currently owned and operated by the Baywind Energy Co-operative Ltd. The two proposed turbines on this part of the site would be retained by this co-operative and the three turbines within Barrow Borough would be owned and operated by the applicant, Infinergy. The two sections of the proposal have been submitted as one scheme due to viability, and they must be considered as such. The submission states that the wind farm could meet the electricity needs of around 6,000 households each year and is expected to offset between 11,000 and 26,000 tonnes of carbon dioxide per year.

HISTORICAL CONTEXT 5950255 - Erection of 5 Turbines and Switch Room. Approved 2.6.1995. Implemented. 5960033 - Erection of 30m Anemometer Mast for measuring wind speed and direction (Retrospective). Approved 27.2.1996. Implemented.

CONSULTATIONS: Pennington Parish Council Object because they believe it is not a suitable development for the area. It is unnecessary because the current Harlock Hill wind farm was due to be refurbished regardless of this development. Wind farms are increasingly being installed locally offshore which are more desirable as they do not affect residents’ lives and the Furness Peninsula is already sufficiently populated by wind farms. The Parish Council is not opposed to wind power as a form of meeting the country’s energy needs. Recently the council did not object to two wind turbines being installed on a farm as they were positioned with due consideration to the surrounding area and did not affect local residents and the applicant was the nearest resident to the development. This is not the case with the Furness Wind Farm as those proposing the development will not be affected by it in any way, unlike Pennington Parish residents. There are issues of noise and flicker with their associated guidelines which are open to interpretation and dispute. Reports of illnesses amongst residents close to wind farms, due to the affect of the wind farms, are increasing and gaining credibility.

Page 15 Previously, a proliferation of electricity pylons were erected close to residential areas until it was eventually proved that they could have an adverse affect on health and well-being. It cannot be guaranteed that the health of residents will not be affected. The Furness Peninsula has long been a jewel of the English countryside with spectacular views over Morecambe Bay and the Lakeland Hills but was unknown to many tourists. Pennington Parish Council has applauded Ulverston Town Council’s initiative in installing the Laurel and Hardy Statue recognising the success of the Eric Morecambe statue. This has noticeably increased tourism to the area which also boasts the South Lakes Wildlife Park. As Pennington Parish is on the periphery of these attractions, residents have also responded by investing in accommodation for the increasing number of tourists. This is bringing both much needed income to the area and creating much needed jobs for the area. The Parish Council believes the erection of wind turbines of this height will dominate the landscape for miles around, would affect the ambiance and affect the tourist footfall. The issue of government policy is also of significance. The erection of wind farms has been encouraged however this may change as has happened with solar panels with the financial incentives being cut. In conclusion, Pennington Parish Council vehemently supports the objections of Pennington Parish residents to the Furness Wind Farm development and would implore the council to reject the application.

Askam and Ireleth Parish Council Askam and Ireleth Parish Council cannot support this application for the following reasons: It will impact on nearby homes as a result of shadow flicker. The proposal overlooks the village and there will be loss of privacy during construction and on-going maintenance phases. The Statement gives a Landscape and Visual impact assessment which concludes that the effects are minimal, this is a subjective statement not qualified or agreed. The Furness peninsula is of insufficient size to accommodate structures of this size, and they are too close to the adjacent National Park. The stated aims regarding reversing the impact on decommissioning are flawed, i.e. the concrete rafts would still be left according to their methodology for the existing site and Grid connections would not be removed. The application states that the components will be delivered by road and are described as abnormal loads. The proposed route is via A590, Marton Road, Horrace Road and onto Ulverston Road to the site. This route is totally unfit for purpose. There are currently problems with some blades from Far Old Park wind farm (relatively small in size compared with those proposed). Replacement of these blades necessitating removal and return to and from the Far Old Park Farm site is proving a problem because of the blade size. Such problems for the proposed wind farm will be of a different magnitude again and will cause repeated traffic and neighbour disruption over the years as and when blades will require offsite attention. Given the recent concerns over the access road for the Animal Park and the dangers thereon, major works would be required in altering the A590 and subsequent country ‘B’ roads with enormous damage to the hedgerows, disruption to local communities and impact on the environment. There will be a large increase in traffic during the

Page 16 construction phases, not only with abnormal loads but with general construction traffic. Working hours are disproportionate Monday to Saturday 0700 to 1800 causing unacceptable levels of noise and disturbance. The impact of the construction site buildings and any other temporary buildings, sewage and water impact on the area do not seem to be addressed properly in the Environmental Impact Statement. The size and number of turbines on these 2 adjacent developments severely impacts on local views for people in the surrounding area, and visitors to the southern Lake District National Park, given that they will be visible for 10’s of miles around all points of the compass. The proposal brings the development closer to both Kirkby Moor and Far Old Park Farm wind farms thus creating ribbon development along the spine of the beautiful Furness peninsular. As a consequence, believe that there should be 2 applications and not one blanket one. Landscaping and hedgerows in the area will be severely impacted along with wildlife. On site, in addition to the turbines and new buildings, there will be inter-site tracks which will impact on wild life and flora and fauna, for generations to come. The Ecology Statement directly contradicts the views and opinions of acknowledged experts and authorities in respect of the impact on wildlife. There is proposed access via Harlock Hill with minor realignments; these would need to be looked at as this road is definitely not suitable for abnormal loads, site traffic or construction traffic. The access route at Mean Moor is a new development on a road that is unsuitable for abnormal loads. This will mean that quiet country lanes will become heavy construction roadways. Policy states that the Borough’s countryside will be safeguarded for its own sake and non-renewable and natural resources afforded protection. Development will be permitted in the countryside only where there is demonstrable need that it cannot be met elsewhere. This application falls short in this regard. There is already a need being met on these sites for the Cumbrian renewable energy targets, and there is an on going proliferation of wind turbines off the coast of Barrow and more yet planned for the Duddon Estuary. This proposal with 300 foot structures will certainly change the distinctive character of this area contrary to policy. Concerns regarding damage and disturbance to the peat blanket are a primary consideration and the serious issues raised previously by United Utilities. They do not seem to have been answered in Infinergy’s Environmental Impact Statement. The application states that 2 Turbines will be owned and operated by Baywind Energy Co-operative and will be marketed locally to maximise the benefits locally. The makeup of this company is such that the local shareholders are very much in a minority and as such the economic benefit to residents of the Furness area is limited. The submission says there is a commitment to utilise local contractors, however past experience would suggest otherwise. No commitment is made as to what the possible job impact would be either in the construction phases or in the ongoing operational environment. More transparency would be welcomed in respect of the Bay Wind Community benefit fund. It is suggested that the only ones who will benefit are shareholders and developers. Baywind already have alternative plans should the development not be approved, which will involve re-powering. This would seem to indicate that the

Page 17 existing site could have improved turbines without the need to repower the Harlock site and in addition construct a new wind farm. The Environmental Statement lists the project benefits; however in this list of 7 benefits the only tangible benefit is that this wind farm will contribute 4.7% towards the Cumbria onshore wind target for 2020. However this seems to be taken in isolation as a figure based on a calculation of percentage 245MW and does not take into account how many other developments are contributing to the overall figure. The Parish Council is of the opinion that should permission be granted for these developments, a dangerous precedent would be established. The way would be open for repowering of Far Old Park Farm and Kirkby wind farms, and the construction of multiple single turbine developments currently pending. It would be difficult if not impossible to reject such proposals, and that if approved would lead to ribbon development across the entire Furness peninsula, and consequent industrialisation of a beautiful countryside that we are trying to protect.

Egton with Newland, Mansriggs and Osmotherley Parish Council The Parish Council wish to express their objections to the proposal for the following reasons: 1) The site proposed would be highly visible from the borders of this Parish and be of great detriment to the landscape and for the residents overlooking the site. 2) The main vehicular access for the Furness peninsula (A590) would be impacted by the sight of the turbines and would be detrimental for those driving along this section of the A590. 3) The noise and flicker impact on the health of those overlooking the turbines is of great concern. There is already a noise impact with the current turbines.

Kirkby Ireleth Parish Council The Parish Council has severe reservations relating to this application. The magnitude of the application is such that the various aspects are not easily understood by lay persons, and thus many questions are raised, questions which can perhaps be more easily answered by a Public Inquiry. Of particular concern are the many thousands of tons of hard core and other building materials which will be needed for the turbine bases and road works. The application does not state where these are to be sourced, or what route they are to take to the site. At an earlier liaison meeting the Developer was unable to answer the question. This Parish Council believes they will be sourced from the many quarries to the north of the site, and will be routed via the A595 and other minor roads within this parish, and others close by. The A595 between Grizebeck and Askam with its single vehicle areas is totally unsuited to this level of traffic, as are other minor roads in neighbouring parishes.

Urswick Parish Council Would like to object to the proposed development. The size of the wind turbines means that their visibility will be increased from a greater distance compared to the

Page 18 existing turbines. Noise pollution is also a potential nuisance factor for those living in the vicinity. The Council would therefore recommend refusal of the application.

Ulverston Town Council Refused this application on the grounds of the environmental / visual impact with the new turbines at 326 feet high and potential noise concerns in the locality.

Lake District National Park Authority No objection to the proposed repositioning and the new heights of the existing wind turbines at the site. Whilst it is recognised that the turbines will be slightly more visible from views within the National Park it is not thought to be significant enough to warrant an objection as any views of the proposed development are seen within the context of other turbines in the landscape and the undulating nature of the terrain in the vicinity ensures that undue prominence is not given to the proposed turbines.

Cumbria County Council National planning policy promotes targets for renewable energy and looks to local authorities to support proposals for renewable energy developments which do not have unacceptable impacts. Saved Policy R44 of the Joint Structure Plan relates to renewable energy schemes outside national landscape designations and supports favourable consideration if there are no significant adverse effects on landscape character, built heritage, local amenity, highways and a range of other issues. Saved Policy E37 refers to landscape character and E35 refers to nature conservation interests. It is considered that the application is in line with the identified saved Joint Structure Plan policies. The proposed development site is not sited in an area with any designations, and the evidence provided by the applicant has shown that the impacts to any existing habitats and wildlife will be minimal. There is an existing wind farm on part of the site, and it is considered that the increase in turbine height will have a localised impact in relation to its visual amenity and the cumulative landscape effect. The County Council raise no objection to this development, subject to various conditions and contributions being incorporated into any planning permission which may be granted. Before consent for the proposal can be granted the developer must agree to apply to divert any public rights of way that would be affected by the development. Such an application would be made to and processed by the relevant planning authority under Section 257 of the Town and Country Planning Act. Any temporary closures will also need the consent of the County Council; this may include a request for an alternative route / diversion whilst the temporary closure is in place. At the Development Control and Regulation Committee on the 15th February 2012 Members requested that, should it be considered appropriate, Barrow Borough Council encourage the applicant to work with broadband providers to improve rural broadband access in the vicinity of the development. This would involve using the proposed cabling trenches for the wind turbines to lay the necessary broadband infrastructure.

Page 19 Highways The proposed development is considered broadly acceptable by Cumbria Highways, subject to a number of conditions being attached to any permission which may be granted by the Local Planning Authorities. The proposed accesses must be improved and surfaced with a bound material for the use upon completion of the works and any extraordinary damage to the highway resulting from the development should be made good by the applicant. The applicant must prepare a Traffic Management Plan and this must be approved prior to any construction works commencing on site. The accommodation works within the highway will need separate consent from the Highways Authority, as will the treatment and restoration of verge and boundaries. These works will need to be carried out by an approved contractor.

Highways Agency No objections on the basis that there are no alterations to the existing access / egress arrangements, as stated in the application and therefore will have no impact on the strategic road network.

Cumbria County Council Historic Environment Officer The environmental statement indicates that the site lies in an area of some archaeological potential. There are various known earthwork remains in the vicinity including post medieval quarries, ridge and furrow, and a possible ringwork of unknown date. The occasional prehistoric stray find has also been recovered nearby. The location of the development infrastructure has been designed to avoid the known archaeological remains on the site but agree with the environmental statement that there is some potential for the ground works to disturb currently unknown buried archaeological remains. Therefore agree with the recommended mitigation outlined in the environmental statement that an archaeological evaluation and, where necessary, a scheme of archaeological recording of the site be undertaken in advance of development. Advise that this programme of work should be commissioned and undertaken at the expense of the developer and can be secured through the inclusion of a condition in any planning consent. This written scheme will include the following components: i) An archaeological evaluation to be undertaken in accordance with the agreed written scheme of investigation; ii) An archaeological recording programme the scope of which will be dependant upon the results of the evaluation and will be in accordance with the agreed written scheme of investigation; iii) where appropriate, a post-excavation assessment and analysis, preparation of a site archive ready for deposition at a store approved by the Planning Authority, completion of an archive report, and publication of the results in a suitable journal.

Page 20 English Heritage The demolition and construction works involved have the potential to impact directly on elements of the historic environment, including designated structures and buried archaeological remains both within the development site and on routes into it. To mitigate and manage the risk of damage to the historic environment, a range of measures is proposed in paragraphs 11.89-11.92 of the Environmental Statement. English Heritage has no objection to the granting of planning permission for the proposed development, providing that the range of measures outlined in paragraphs 11.89-11.92 of the Environmental Statement are adopted. Recommend that any grant of planning permission be conditioned to ensure the adoption of the proposed mitigation and management measures.

SLDC Environmental Protection Officer Satisfied with the scope and undertaking of the acoustic assessment which the applicant has submitted to form part of this application. Conditions have been agreed with the applicant if the proposal is recommended for approval.

Environment Agency The proposed development will only be acceptable if a planning condition is imposed requiring a working method statement to cover all ground works. Without such a condition our position would be to object to the proposed development on the grounds of the adverse impact on water pollution. Ask to be consulted on the details of this scheme when it is submitted for approval to the Local Planning Authority. Detailed method statements will need to include all aspects outlined in the Environmental Statement to ensure protection to the environment. It is not clear which watercourse crossing method is to be used. This detail should be provided as part of the Flood Defence Consent application along with detailed method statements for this part of the construction. -The applicant must ensure protection of the surface water hydrology and the springs on site. Works should be undertaken in a way to prevent any silty water run-off entering the nearby watercourses. The method statement should include details of the mitigation measures to be put in place to contain and attenuate any silty water from the working areas, including the access tracks and any bridging of watercourses. Surface water run-off to receiving watercourses should be limited to pre-development run-off rates by the use of filter strips, permeable surfaces, soakaways or other Sustainable Drainage Systems in order to reduce flood risk and control surface water as close to the source as practicable.

Natural England Response dated 8/11/11 Designated Sites (including ornithology) The proposed turbines are located between the Duddon Estuary SPA/Ramsar site/SSSI and Morcambe Bay SPA/Ramsar site/SSSI, at distances of 2.3km and 6.5km respectively. Of the species for which these sites are designated, Curlew, Lesser Black-backed Gull, Lapwing and Wigeon were recorded on the site with flight

Page 21 activity occurring within the collision-risk window of the proposed turbines. While the ES includes the total number of seconds that each species was recorded flying through the site, no collision risk modelling has been undertaken on the basis that no target species (Annex 1 and Schedule 1 species) were recorded. Furthermore, the ES concludes that any impacts to such species (and therefore the SPAs) would be negligible because significant numbers (surpassing international or national thresholds) were not recorded during the surveys. Natural England considers that any species associated with the surrounding SPAs should be considered as target species. In addition, do not agree that the impacts can currently be assessed as negligible on the basis that the survey area did not support SPA species in numbers of international or national importance. Impacts on a very small percentage (even 1%) of the population of a given SPA species, either alone or in-combination, could result in a significant effect. Without collision risk modelling there is insufficient information available to conclude that the proposed scheme is unlikely to have a significant effect on the surrounding SPAs. Consequently, the LPA is advised to request further information from the applicant, in the form of collision risk modelling for the relevant SPA species. The proposals are also located directly adjacent to Kirkby Moor SSSI. Provided a 50m buffer is provided and that a Construction Environment Management Plan is developed and implemented as suggested (paragraphs 9.109 and 9.171), then Natural England is satisfied that the proposals will have no significant impact on the special interest features for which the SSSI is designated. Para 9.181 suggests that because no habitats within the SSSI will be affected by the proposals, then it is not necessary to include the extension of the SSSI heathland within the proposed Habitat Management Plan for the site. While Natural England accepts that this would not be required as mitigation, the Local authority is encouraged to explore such opportunities as a biodiversity enhancement. Habitats Paragraphs 8.168-172 identify that during construction small areas of marshy and acidic grassland will be lost to the development, resulting in a minor adverse impact. Mitigation measures subsequently described for these habitats during construction (paras 8.222-225) and operation (para 8.235) relate to the safeguarding of retained habitats not directly impacted. However, following implementation of these measures, the ES concludes that the residual impacts of the development will be negligible (para 8.245). Natural England disagrees with this conclusion. The mitigation measures have no bearing on the minor adverse effects of habitat loss identified, so it is not clear how the residual impacts can be reduced. It is therefore suggested that the unmitigated loss of minor areas of ecologically valuable habitat reinforce the requirement to ensure that ecological enhancements and a Habitat Management Plan are secured for the site. Bats The ES identifies that bat activity surveys following set transect routes have been undertaken during 2007, 2008 and 2010. The ES suggests that these were undertaken in accordance with the BCT Bat Survey Good Practice Guidelines. However, while dusk surveys should commence from sunset and last for 2-3 hrs afterwards, it is noted that many of the surveys commenced after sunset (for example on 21 Sept 2010 sunset was at 19:07 yet the survey didn’t commence until 19:51), and lasted for less than an hour. There is therefore a risk that the levels of bat activity

Page 22 recorded at the site are an underestimation and that early-emerging species such as noctule could have been missed. Given the habitats present across the site, the low level of activity recorded during the surveys that were undertaken and the existing presence of turbines on the Harlock Hill part of the site, Natural England accept that the risks to bats resulting from the new turbine scheme remain low. However, given the apparent survey limitations and the fact that some turbines will be sited within 50m of suitable bat features (contrary to current best practice guidance), the local authority is encouraged to secure a programme of post-construction monitoring at the site, both to validate the predictions of the ES and help inform the understanding of the impacts from wind turbines on bats in the UK. Other species Provided the suggested species buffer distances for badger and otter are implemented (see para 8.162), then have no further comment on other protected / BAP species. Landscape The proposed turbines fall within the setting of the Lake District National Park, and Natural England welcomes consideration of views from within the National Park (viewpoints 8, 10, 12, 14, 16 and 18) as part of the Visual Impact Assessment undertaken in support of the application. The wireframes and photomontages produced for these viewpoints show that the proposals will introduce new limited views of turbines from within the National Park which do not occur as a result of the existing Harlock Hill scheme and which would add to the visual impact of other existing turbines in the area (e.g. from viewpoints 8 and 10). As a result of the distances and topography involved, the ES suggests that such impacts would be at most moderate in nature, and therefore not significant. Based on the wireframes and photomontages provided, Natural England is satisfied with this assessment. Natural England is satisfied with the conclusion that the proposals will not have a significant effect on views from within the more distant Arnside and Silverdale Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty. The ES does acknowledge major / moderate (i.e. significant) landscape and visual impacts will occur at the more local level. Such impacts are a material consideration and should be given due consideration by the local authority as part of the determination process. Enhancements The Local Authority should consider opportunities for securing measures to enhance the biodiversity of the site, if it is minded to grant permission for this application. Currently the application provides no indication that enhancements will be delivered as part of the proposals, except for brief references to a Habitat Management Plan that would be developed post-consent. While the detailed content of such a plan could be agreed post-consent, Natural England suggest that as part of the planning application it would be reasonable to expect a broad outline of the scope of the plan to be provided, particularly given the remaining residual impacts to habitats described above.

Page 23 Response dated 22.12.11 In the original comments on this application, Natural England indicated that, in relation to otters, they were satisfied with the mitigation measures incorporated into the proposals (disturbance buffer zones around potential holts and watercourses, avoidance of construction activities at night) based on the survey information provided by the applicant. However, the additional Confidential Otter Report now provided indicates that otter activity across the Mean and Dalton Moors area north of Harlock Reservoir is greater than indicated by the applicant, and that the proposals, as submitted, will potentially result in disturbance to otters and the destruction of their places of rest or shelter as defined under the Conservation of Habitats and Species Regulations 2010 and the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981 (as amended). In particular, it would appear that the construction of Turbine C will result in the loss of gorse and bramble thickets which have been used as lay up where a family of otters has been raised, as well as impacting on an area of suggested importance for foraging activity. The current scheme design and mitigation measures proposed are not sufficient to ensure the favourable conservation status of otter is maintained and that offences under the above legislation are avoided. Therefore recommend that this new survey report is provided to the applicant and their ecologist, and that the scheme and any avoidance, mitigation and compensation measures are reviewed in light of this information. The scheme should seek to retain all habitat which provides suitable opportunities for otters to rest and shelter and provide sufficient construction buffer distances around known holts and lay up features. Suggest that this would most easily be achieved by the removal of Turbine C, or its re-location to another more suitable area within the site (dependent on ecological and other constraints). Unless these issues are addressed, Natural England's view is that granting permission for this proposal is likely to contravene Article 12(1) of the Habitats Directive, and therefore planning permission should not be granted. Response dated 13.2.12 The updated survey report suggests that the majority of scrub habitat (that could provide cover for resting otters) has been removed from site as part of standard management of the site, that foraging opportunities are limited, and that no evidence of otters was observed. Meanwhile, potential impacts on features which could be used as otter holts remain as described in the original EIA for site. Given the current lack of suitable habitat or evidence to suggest otter presence, Natural England accepts that the outline mitigation strategy proposed in section 5.2 of the updated report should be sufficient to avoid offences being committed under the Conservation of Habitats and Species Regulations 2010 and the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981 (as amended). However to ensure the development of a detailed mitigation strategy, recommend that a suitably worded planning condition is attached to any permission granted. Current management practices would appear to be a factor limiting the use of the site by otters, and in addition to measures proposed as part of the mitigation strategy (e.g. construction of artificial holts), suggest that the enhancement and maintenance

Page 24 of suitable otter habitat on site (e.g. providing continual gorse / scrub cover) should form a specific component of a Habitat Management Plan, which should also be secured as part of the proposals. Responses dated 23.03.12 Ornithology The applicant has now provided Natural England with bird collision risk modelling data for the above proposed development. The modelling indicates that at a 98% avoidance rate (which Natural England would accept as being appropriate for the species concerned) the predicted annual collision risks are: Wigeon = 0.04, Lapwing = 0.35, Curlew = 0.02 and Lesser Black-backed Gull = 0.46. These figures provide more robust support for the conclusions in the original ES (that the turbines would have negligible impact on SPA bird species), and Natural England now advises that the proposal, if undertaken in strict accordance with the details submitted, is not likely to have a significant effect on the interest features for which the Duddon Estuary SPA / Ramsar site and Morecambe Bay SPA / Ramsar sites have been classified. Otters There are evidently conflicting views on the level of otter activity on site as described by Peak Ecology and Mr McMinn (supported by additional work undertaken by Envirotech), and Natural England is unable to comment further over disputes regarding the verification of field signs or the competencies of the surveyors involved. With regards to the potential indirect effects of disturbance (including the potential natal holt near turbine C at SD248798) and impacts to foraging habitat, Natural England remains satisfied that the measures proposed by the applicant are sufficient to enable the conservation status of the species to be maintained. Any concerns regarding the destruction of otter resting places that occurred a year and a half ago should have been reported to the police at that time. Natural England would not seek to take any further action over this issue as part of the current planning application, although are keen to ensure that future management practices for the site are secured which are favourable for otters. There remains an issue over the current status of suitable habitat on the site. Peak Ecology make a general statement about gorse scrub being largely absent from the site following management works. If these works did occur during 2010, between mid April-Oct (as suggested by Mr McMinn), then the layup site shown beneath gorse during the winter of 2010/11 (at the turbine C location) is presumably still present. Natural England advises that the information submitted to date still leaves uncertainties regarding the suitability of habitats at the Turbine C location to provide places of rest or shelter for otters. The Local Authority needs to be satisfied that such habitats are currently either (a) absent or (b) if present are being retained, before concluding that the otter current mitigation package (outlined in the most recent Peak Ecology report) is acceptable. Bats Comments from a local resident highlight the deficiencies in survey effort undertaken at the site when compared with current best practice publications. These were recognised as part of the original response of 8th November 2012, and therefore consider that the advice provided in that response is still appropriate.

Page 25 Habitat Management Plan Whilst Natural England is broadly satisfied with the submitted Habitat Management Plan as an outline document, this does not appear to take any account of recent discussions regarding the need to incorporate positive habitat management for otters, and in particular the need to provide and maintain areas of gorse scrub for cover. Infinergy Ltd have stated that they are “happy to commit to including otter habitat enhancement measures and monitoring as part of the Habitat Management Plan for the proposed Furness Wind Farm”, and the outline document should be revised accordingly.

Cumbria Wildlife Trust Response dated 7.7.11 Cumbria Wildlife Trust is disappointed that the application has not been accompanied by habitat creation and restoration measures which are required by national, regional and local planning policy. These were requested in the response to the scoping opinion in August 2008. The Trust therefore objects to the application. This management for biodiversity could include enhancement of the site for the population of common lizards referred to in the text, heathland recreation using the adjoining Kirkby Moor as a donor site for seed, and enhancement of species rich or marshy grassland. Heathland recreation would be especially welcome as it would add to the network of heathland in the area and would enhance habitat connectivity and habitat expansion meeting the Network of Natural Habitats goal. Biodiversity enhancement of the site for habitats, and species other than birds (as addressed in Chapter 9) does not appear to have been considered in the application, despite the proximity to Kirkby Moor SSSI making the site potentially suitable for heathland creation and expansion. It is disappointing that the opportunity for habitat (re)creation for habitats and species other than birds has not been explored by the applicant as it is often only through large-scale applications such as this that benefits for nature conservation interests can be provided. On page 9 of Chapter 8, the applicants state that “all comments [from Cumbria Wildlife Trust] have been addressed and incorporated”. This is not actually the case, as biodiversity enhancement of the site is not considered in Chapter 8. Policy EM1 (B) of the RSS which is quoted on page 5 of Chapter 8 also states that projects should be securing “a ‘step change’ increase in the region’s biodiversity resources by contributing to the delivery of national, regional and local biodiversity objectives and targets for maintaining extent, achieving condition, restoring and expanding habitats and species populations.” The Cumbria and Lake District Joint Structure Plan also indicates that protection and enhancement of the existing natural environment should be ensured. The applicant’s comments on Page 39 of Chapter 9 that: The habitat loss will be of common habitat types and the heathland habitat on the adjacent Kirkby Moors SSSI will not be impacted on in any way. Therefore, it is not considered necessary for the HMP to include the extension of the Kirkby Moors SSSI (see Table 9.2, Cumbria Wildlife Trust comment). Cumbria Wildlife Trust is aware that the Kirkby Moor habitats will not be directly impacted, however, policy drivers indicate that applications should be aiming to add

Page 26 to overall biodiversity, and that a net gain should be aimed for within developments. The application as submitted does not appear to recognise this. The Habitat Management Plan (HMP) is not mentioned in Chapter 8 (Ecology) of the EIA. Therefore there is no protection and enhancement of habitats for non-bird species ensured. It is recommended that the applicants incorporate habitat creation into the HMP for the site and make it clear that the Plan is applicable for the other protected species found on the site as well as for bird species. Response dated 8/2/12 The Trust is satisfied that the otter report addresses the concerns and withdraws its previous objection subject to the preparation of an HMP as part of a condition.

RSPB No objections, would like to be consulted on the Habitat Management Plan.

Friends of the Lake District (CPRE) The site lies within Landscape Sub-Type 9d ‘Ridges’, as defined by the recently updated Cumbria Landscape Character Assessment. The LCA notes that: These are generally open, large scale landscapes…The open and distinct ridges and heather moorland and wide and expansive uninterrupted views to sea and the Lakeland Fells provide a sense of wildness that are sensitive to changes in land management and significant infrastructure development. The Cumbria Wind Energy SPD incorporates 9d into the wider type 9i ‘Intermediate Moorland’, which is judged to have a moderate / high capacity to accommodate turbine development. The ‘striking views in Furness’ are recognised as a key consideration in the appropriate siting of turbines. In regard to the above guidance, FLD have concerns that the turbines would have a net adverse impact upon views out to sea, as viewed from the elevated open access land to the north of the site. It is key to note that Landscape sub-type 9d covers a relatively small area. Given the nature of the development proposed, FLD would also highlight the importance of considering the potential impact upon other key viewpoints and landscape types. The applicant’s zone of visual influence diagram indicates that the turbines will be visible across a wide area. The area within a 15km radius of the site contains some areas of very high quality landscape, including a significant area of the Lake District National Park, and a number of areas which are recognised locally as being particularly high in quality (denoted by the County Landscape designation). FLD highlight the impact upon the key viewpoints identified within the National Park – Hampsfell, Black Combe and Bigland Tarn. Additional areas of importance are Thwaites Fell, to the north east of Black Combe, and Bethecar Moor, to the south of Coniston Water. All of these areas have a high recreational value, due to the existence of established rights of way, trails such as the Cumbria Coastal Way, large areas of open access land, and recognised viewpoints. The relevant landscape guidelines for these individual areas, given by the Lake District National Park Landscape Character Assessment and Guidelines, all highlight the key contribution which long distance views make towards the character of each, and recommend that these are conserved.

Page 27 FLD are concerned over the net impact the turbines will have upon the long distance views in question. The proposed Furness wind farm will be more widely visible in the National Park than the existing Harlock Hill development. Have particular concerns in regard to the cumulative impact upon Bethecar Moor, highlighted above, from where the Kirkby Moor and proposed Furness developments would both be clearly visible. FLD would highlight CWESPD guidance in this regard (p.66), which states in regard to 9i that: Particular sensitivities in relation to the setting of international and national designations include views from the Furness Fells and trunk road skirting the edge of the Lake District NP (9d). Locally important areas such as Walney Island and Birkrigg Common will also be clearly affected, as will the recognised viewpoint at the Hoad in Ulverston. Whilst the Harlock Hill scheme is already visible from a number of these areas, the proposed increase in turbine height will result in the development becoming much more of a prominent, skyline feature than it is currently. In FLD’s view, the proposed development conflicts with the aforementioned national and local guidance, and should therefore be refused.

National Trust The National Trust’s Energy Policy strongly supports a major increase in renewable energy generation nationally for electricity, heat and power appropriate to the site, and a significant expansion in micro-generation. However, the Trust also believe that the location and design of all energy generation and distribution schemes should take account of the full range of environmental considerations. From the Trust’s perspective the main aspects that it has considered are the implications in terms of landscape / visual impacts in the context of its particular responsibility to care for Sandscale Haws, and Dalton Castle. Sandscale Haws It is not only a National Nature Reserve, but also part of the Duddon Estuary Ramsar site, Special Protection Area and Special Area of Conservation, and also a Site of Special Scientific Interest. A key aspect of the importance of Sandscale Haws is its cumulative value as an eco-system – some parts of which are very fragile. There are key inter-dependencies with the Duddon Estuary such as the supply of sand, sediments and nutrients which are essential to initiate dune building processes. There are also many species that rely on different habitats within the wider ecosystem such as wading birds which utilise different areas for feeding, nesting and roosting. The reserve is also a popular place for recreation, both on the beach and in the quieter areas of the dunes, with the views to the central Fells of the Lake District being a key, and much valued, characteristic of the property. It is estimated that there are 70 - 80,000 visits there each year. The assessment information indicates that from Sandscale Haws, wind farms at Far Old Park, Kirby Moor, Haverigg, Ormonde off-shore, Barrow offshore, West of Duddon Sands and Olney offshore would all be visible in addition to the current proposal. The proposed Standish Cote turbines would be about 6.4km from Sandscale Haws. Whilst the information shows four turbines being visible from that particular location it is noted that all five turbines are likely to be visible from the majority of the Trust’s land. The Trust believes that the Magnitude of Change would be greater than suggested in the submitted documents.

Page 28 The new turbines will impact on a relatively large section of the view that does not currently have any wind farms or individual turbines upon it and is devoid of other infrastructure with the exception of a tall (but thin) mast / aerial. The proposed turbines would change the landscape character from this viewpoint as it would significantly reduce the horizon on which no wind turbines are visible. There is the resulting potential for the proposed wind farm to dominate the view rather than being a part of the view as they are now. Accordingly a key characteristic of the landscape, in terms of the interruptions to the landform, it experiences at least a partial change. Given the high landscape sensitivity of Sandscale Haws this is a significant effect of a major / moderate scale. Accordingly the overall effect is considered to be “significant”. It is considered that there is a similar under-playing of the Visual Effects, i.e. the Magnitude of Change would be moderate as the proposals would be readily apparent and in substantial measure provide an important new element in the view. Accordingly this equates to major / moderate significance in visual terms, i.e. it is significant. Although these significant landscape and visual effects are reversible they will nonetheless be permanent for the life of the proposed development. In this context it is also notable that the current proposal means that the effects of the existing wind farm development will not be reversed at the end of their working life but rather that the desire is to extend and magnify those effects through this application to replace the existing development. The discussion of the impacts upon “Recreation and Visitor Destinations” (paras 7.107 – 7.116) considers various recreational routes, including the Cumbria Coastal Way, but fails to recognise that Sandscale Haws is a visitor destination in its own right. Dalton Castle The Castle is a 14th Century tower built to assert the authority of the Abbot of Furness Abbey. Situated within a Conservation Area in Dalton town centre the Castle overlooks the town, its approaches and the countryside beyond, being a reminder of the glory days of this small market town. The assessment information indicates that from ground level at Dalton Castle the wind farm at Far Old Park would also be visible in addition to the current proposal. For the other wind farms covered by the cumulative assessment these are more marginal in terms of their visibility, but it would appear that most, if not all, of these would be visible from elevated positions within the Castle. The proposed Standish Cote turbines would be about 6.5km from Dalton Castle. The ZTV information suggests that all five proposed turbines would be visible from ground level at the Castle and consequently the impact upon views would be more noticeable from higher points within the Castle. No separate Viewpoint analysis has been undertaken from Dalton Castle although Viewpoint 6 (“View North from Dalton- in-Furness”) is of some value in gauging the impacts as experienced from the Castle. In this respect the additional height available from within the Castle will increase the extent of visibility and arguably the scale of the impacts. However, it is concluded that, in the context of the definitions and methodology used in the landscape and visual analysis that the effects would not be ‘significant’. Conclusions It is considered that there would be some impacts upon National Trust interests at Dalton Castle but not to a significant extent; however, it is considered that the visual

Page 29 and landscape impacts are under recorded in respect of Sandscale Haws where the Trust considers that they would be both significant and adverse. The proposed development would result in detrimental impacts and these would adversely affect the enjoyment of the many visitors to Sandscale Haws each year, along with that of those using the footpaths across the property. In the context of relevant national and local planning policy it is not considered that the identified adverse impacts at Sandscale Haws, or the more modest impacts at Dalton Castle, are of themselves such as to indicate that in this instance the benefits of the renewable energy that would be produced would be outweighed by those impacts alone. However, they should be taken into account as part of the overall cumulative assessment of the positive and adverse impacts of the proposed development in reaching a decision. In that respect it is noted that the Trust considers that the applicant has given insufficient weight to the adverse impacts at Sandscale Haws.

National Grid No objection on the understanding that all conditions highlighted in the letter from the applicant on 25/01/12 are adhered to.

United Utilities No objection. United Utilities reservoirs are operational and will remain so for the foreseeable future. No peat has been identified at the locations and other mitigation will be in place during construction.

Electricity North West The proposal has no impact on Electricity Distribution System infrastructure or other ENW assets.

Ministry of Defence No objection. In the interests of air safety, the MOD requests that the turbines are fitted with aviation lighting. All turbines should be fitted with omni-directional red lighting or infrared lighting with an optimised flash pattern of 60 flashes per minute at the highest practicable point.

NATS The proposed development has been examined from a technical safeguarding aspect and does not conflict with safeguarding criteria. Accordingly, NATS has no safeguarding objection to the proposal.

Civil Aviation Authority There is currently a high demand for CAA comment on wind turbine applications which exceeds the capacity of the available resource to respond to requests within the timescales required by Local Planning Authorities. The CAA has no responsibilities for safeguarding sites other than its own property, and a consultation by a Council is taken as a request for clarification of procedural matters.

Page 30 There is an international civil aviation requirement for all structures of 300 feet (91.4 metres) or more to be charted on aeronautical charts. Any structure of 150 metres or more must be lit and should be appropriately marked.

Walney Aerodrome No objection.

Cable & Wireless No objection. British Telecom The proposal should not cause interference to BT’s current and presently planned radio networks.

Joint Radio Company LTD (JRC) JRC analyses proposals for wind farms on behalf of the UK Fuel and Power Industry and does not foresee any potential problems based on known interference scenarios and the data provided.

Arqiva (Television Transmission) Arqiva is responsible for providing the BBC and ITV’s transmission network and is responsible for ensuring the integrity of Re-Broadcast Links, and protecting its own microwave networks. No objection.

Ericsson There are no microwave links within 200m and no mast within 500m of the proposal and therefore have no objections.

Orange Have identified 1 Orange m/w link which may be affected by this application. Although the response sent to Barrow Borough council stated that there are no Orange m/w links affected.

Other: The correspondence that has been sent to Barrow Borough Council, with regards to the scheme, has also been summarised in this section given the cross-boundary nature of the proposal. 51 letters of objection have been received which raise the following concerns: • Landscape and Visual Impact - The landscape is of an extremely high quality - the wide upland views are a prime feature. It is of County Importance and the landscape character type is described as unusual within the County. The large, moving, wind turbines will seriously depreciate the character of the area and will further erode the natural skyline which is important to the Cumbrian identity. Due to their prominent setting, the turbines will be visible from large

Page 31 distances including many of the Lake District Fells. The landscape cannot absorb 5 larger turbines, buildings and extra roads, however well designed. With a total height of 100m the turbines will be extremely conspicuous, overwhelming, will dominate the landscape to an unacceptable degree and will appear as alien structures. Government targets threaten much of the finest landscape, including this location. The turbines would spoil the appearance of the Pennington area. They would be nearly double the size of the existing turbines and moved further up the hill increasing their visual impact over a much wider area. The considerable width of the development, west to east, will maximise the adverse impacts on the visual amenities of the area. The harm caused by the proposal should not be judged as incremental harm to the existing turbines because that is time limited. • Cumulative impact - There are now enormous wind farms visible across the seascape all around Furness. The threshold for wind energy in this area has become unacceptable. There will be significant cumulative impacts with other operational schemes in the area. • Impact on Tourism - The turbines will discourage visitors from staying in the area, including at the holiday cottages located adjacent to the site at Ewedale Farm. This will lose vital income to the already crumbling economy. People who come to Pennington do so for its outstanding natural beauty, its peacefulness and its ease of travel to other destinations and nearby local amenities. The development would have a significant adverse effect on the use and enjoyment of these natural heritage locations. The proposal will adversely affect efforts to encourage the tourist industry of the area as this is largely based upon the quiet appreciation of the countryside and its views by walkers and others. • Impacts on birds - Birds can be killed by turbines and their habitats destroyed. There are important species that breed close to the site e.g. Buzzards, Kestrel, Skylark, Reed, Bunting and Ravens, which would be at risk of hitting the turbines, or driven off by the fuss and noise. Large turbines are known to have a negative impact on wildlife, especially birds of prey and several species in the area may well be affected including owls and both resident and migrating species. Other large birds such as herons and swans are prone to collision with the turbines. The bird survey submitted is too old and Red Kites are now present in the area. Collision risk is an issue for all species and it is standard practice to undertake collision risk modelling for many species found at the site. The information provided on breeding waders is out of date and misleading. Other birds observed on Mean Moor and Dalton Moor include – Peregrine Falcon, Barn Owl, Tawny Owl, Little Owl, Osprey, Hen Harrier, Red legged Partridge, Snipe, Merlin, Hobby, Sand martins, Swifts and House martins. • Impacts on bats – Bats can be killed by the blades and are susceptible to the pressure differentials caused by wind turbines. The proximity of the proposed site to Harlock reservoir means that bats which use the reservoir for hunting are likely to be affected. There are extensive numbers of bats in the nearby area. Concerned that a thorough independent bat survey hasn’t been conducted in the surrounding area and that the surveys carried out by the applicant were not sufficient to make a full assessment of the impacts. The surveys do not appear to follow interim guidance set out by Natural England.

Page 32 • Impacts on otters - Otters are a protected species and it is a criminal offence to disturb or destroy their habitat. There is evidence of resident female otters using the site and otters spend long periods on the fells foraging for frogs / toads. Turbine C is situated in the middle of prime otter habitat with its gorse bushes, marsh / peat bog, holt, raised dry mounds and tall grasses. The 17 metre base of the turbines and access route will completely destroy this ecosystem. The otters that move between Harlock Reservoir and Rathmoss Beck avoid the Harlock wind farm. The obvious route is through the wind farm but they travel around showing that otters are affected by the noise of the turbines. A report was also submitted by an ecologist on behalf of one of the neighbouring residents. This raises concerns that the ES significantly underestimates the use of the site by this species and that there are potential long term impacts on the favourable conservation status of the species based on the current proposals. It concludes that unless it can be proven that there would be no net negative effect on the species, installation of the turbines would be in breach of the Habitat Regulations 2004. • General ecology – The scale of the development will affect insects, frogs and potentially invertebrates and aquatic species although this has not been assessed. The surveys for amphibians are poor and there is not enough information to assess the impacts on protected species. There is no mention of other mammals which have been observed on Mean Moor and Dalton Moor – Roe deer, hares, stoat and weasel. • Noise - Wind turbines produce penetrating low-frequency noise pollution, day and night, which makes some physically ill. The turbines will bring noise levels close to the edge of maximum permitted levels which will adversely affect the living conditions of local residents to an unacceptable extent. The owners of Horrace Farm have complained to the Council about the level of noise created by the current development on several occasions and are concerned that the level of noise will increase if the larger turbines are erected. When all five turbines are working and there is a prevailing westerly wind the noise is great. The pitch produced becomes increasingly intrusive and unpleasant to be exposed to for a sustained period. Despite the assurances in the ES, experience of noise problems at other wind farms suggests that nearby dwellings may experience problems including discomfort due to aerodynamic and thumping noises that have a greater ability to penetrate the conciseness than steady background noise. When ETSU-R-97 was set up, turbines were smaller and the effect of wind shear on noise was small. The wind shear impacts on higher turbines can be significant. The valley where the turbines are to be located is very quiet and noise is amplified in different ways depending on the wind and water levels of Harlock Reservoir. There would be added noise pollution from HGV’s during construction. • Shadow Flicker – This would increase considerably and is extremely disturbing for residents and passing motorists and walkers. The flickering currently experienced by Horrace Farm and Harlock Farm would exacerbated by larger structures. 25.4 hours of shadow flicker are predicted at Harlock Farm, dependent on time of year and weather conditions. • Living conditions – The development, by reason of its scale, design, close proximity and visual impact, would exert a significant harmful influence on the living conditions currently enjoyed by neighbouring residents contrary to

Page 33 policy. There are 6 dwellings within 800 metres of a turbine and no specific detailed residential amenity survey has been undertaken. The submission states that none of the turbines are closer to the surrounding properties than the existing ones, which is incorrect for Standish Cote Farm and Swallow Cottage. The turbines on Mean Moor will increase the field of view for these properties from approx. 25 degrees to almost 90 degrees. There will be a significant change in scale due to the increase in size. There will be a significant loss of residential amenity at Swallow Cottage. The turbines would be clearly visible from Horace Farm, would dominate the view from the property, significantly affecting the amenity and enjoyment of the home and place of work. At Harlock Farm the five large turbines will be within 650-700 metres, over an arc of 92 degrees compared to the existing situation where they cover an arc of 30 degrees, most at great distances. • Effect of private water supplies – The service road to Mean Moor will be constructed close to a spring providing the only water supply to Harlock Farm and are concerned about the disruption the work will cause. • Light pollution - The substation would need security lighting, causing light pollution. • Safety - Broken blades, and ice blocks flung in winter, are hazardous to locals, visitors, and wildlife and are potentially fatal. • Impact on watercourses - The construction of the wind farm will involve the laying of roadways and large concrete bases over open moorland, which will affect the ecology and watercourses over a huge area, with possible pollution of watercourses which run into the several public water supply reservoirs on and adjacent to the site. Aquatic benthic invertebrate surveys are required to assess siltation under baseline, during construction and post construction regimes. Turbine C is too close to water courses – with 17 metres diameter foundations, the hard standing and 50 metre micro siting allowance, the turbine is too constrained by the watercourse. There will be damage as a result of the excavation proposed. Risks such as decreased run-off attenuation and increased flooding downstream, increased erosion and deposition of fine sediments, creation of barriers to aquatic species, dewatering of mire communities need to be assessed and mitigation defined as part of the planning application. • Impact on Road Infrastructure – The current approach roads to the site are small and rural and prone to bad conditions. Additional traffic and its heavy nature could cause congestion and damage to the road surfaces as well as disruption to local residents. • Public Rights of Way – The turbines would be close to bridleways contrary to British Horse Society recommendations. They will have a damaging effect on the use of the area as a natural recreational resource as people will be deterred from using the footpaths and bridleways in the area. • Lack of benefits - There will be little work for local people. After construction there will be only maintenance jobs, and in view of the likely disproportionate damage to the tourist industry, there will be a net loss of jobs in the area.

Page 34 • Precedent - It will set a precedent for a multitude of similar wind farms and other potential harmful developments throughout the Lake District with other local wind farm sites increasing the size of turbines. • Public consultation – Concerned about the misleading or inaccurate information that has been given to the public. No contact with those closest to the site was made until after the plans for the wind measuring mast were submitted. False promises were made to individual local residents about benefits that would be available. Local residents have not been invited to liaison group meetings for a couple of years leaving them with a feeling of mistrust. • Efficiency / Economics of turbines – Wind turbines are one of the most expensive ways to generate electricity and they are inefficient. The saving in CO 2 must be weighed against the energy used in making, transporting and erecting the turbines as well as site preparation. Many experts now question the suitability of wind farms to provide efficient energy.

309 letters of support have been received which raise the following points:

• The replacement turbines will give a greater energy output, with less CO 2 emissions than fossil fuel generation. It is a clean, renewable energy using a local resource that there is a lot of and presents no dangers short or long term. It will be a very important contributor to renewable and on shore wind targets, with a capacity of up to 11.5 MW, a contribution of 4.9% towards the Cumbria onshore wind target for 2020. • The existing turbines have become an integral part of the scenery in the area and are well accepted. As there will be no increase in the number of turbines there will be very little, if any, change to the landscape character of visual amenity of the area. The site layout achieves good visual balance from key views around the surrounding area. The appearance of the proposed development would be strong, positive and balanced and changes to the surrounding landscape character and visual amenity would not be unacceptably widespread or adverse. • There are no significant ecological impacts arising from the proposals. It has satisfied the requirements of an environmental assessment, all necessary planning guidelines and noise levels are acceptable. • The Cooperative is a tried and tested means of producing local electricity with opportunities for local people to have a voice in decision making. It has been in operation since 1997 and has demonstrated that the cooperative model is effective and draws in the support from individuals. Individuals in the community will have the chance to invest quite cheaply in the project and get a good return. • The existing Trust will administer the community fund with an annual budget of around £35,000 per year, set up to develop and benefit local projects and other community developments. A letter has also been received from The Co-operative who would like to support the application. Through its support of community-scale renewables it has engaged previously with Baywind Energy Co-operative and Energy4All. The project is co-

Page 35 operatively structured which enables democratic ownership by the local community, it will help to connect people with the wider energy and climate change agenda, it will make a meaningful contribution to the region’s 2020 renewable energy capacity target, and the existing Baywind project has been successful and should be recognised through the encouragement of development that maximises its potential.

Representations by GlaxoSmithKline Community Co-operative Baywind Energy and wind energy provider Infinergy are seeking to upgrade an existing, proven wind farm (Harlock Hill) of five 500KW turbines, which have operated since 1997 and reached the end of their useful life. The proposal is to replace the five existing wind turbines with five modern machines, increasing the wind farm’s power generating capacity from 2.5MW to a maximum of 11.5MW. The new project is known as Furness Wind Farm and, if consented, will provide Baywind with two new turbines and Infinergy with three. GlaxoSmithKline is a worldwide operating pharmaceuticals company with a global Environmental Sustainability strategy. For its operation in Ulverston, the following objectives have been set:

• Reduce the site’s CO 2 footprint by 30% by the end of 2014 (from a 2011 baseline). • Reduce hazardous waste by 30% by the end of 2014 (from a 2011 baseline). • Eliminate waste to landfill by the end of 2014 (achieved December 2012). • Reduce water use by 15% by end of 2014 (from a 2011 baseline). Furness Wind Farm presents GSK with an opportunity to explore the possibility of purchasing wind-generated renewable energy in line with the company’s sustainability strategy of becoming carbon neutral. As such, GSK Ulverston approached Infinergy to discuss the possibility of purchasing the electricity generated by the three Infinergy turbines (up to 6.9MW in total) at the Furness Wind Farm. Discussions are ongoing and in the event that planning consent is granted, formal contracts will be put in place.

How will this work? A legally binding Power Purchase Agreement (PPA) would be entered into between Infinergy and GSK to enable the sale of electricity generated by the three Infinergy wind turbines directly to GSK.

How will the electricity be distributed? The electricity generated by the wind turbines would be fed directly into the grid, therefore it will not be necessary to lay a cable connecting the two sites.

How would GSK benefit? 1. Reducing GSK’s carbon footprint GSK Ulverston uses a lot of electricity in its production facilities and has a carbon footprint of around 28,000 tonnes of CO 2 per year. The electricity generated by the three Infinergy wind turbines at the Furness Wind Farm would be offset against their electricity supply, ensuring that the site benefits from the locally sourced renewable

Page 36 power. By purchasing the electricity, GSK Ulverston would be reducing its carbon footprint by about 25%.

2. Keeping GSK Ulverston competitive Purchasing the electricity from the three wind turbines would reduce the cost of electricity for GSK Ulverston. Additionally GSK Ulverston would benefit from stable electricity prices throughout the life of the wind farm (up to 25 years), or initially for the length of the PPA, which is usually a significant number of years, for example 10 - 15. In turn, these factors help to maintain the competitiveness of the company’s production facilities.

3. Capital investment opportunities Other commercial opportunities are also available to GSK, including capital investment which could lead to GSK ownership in the Furness Wind Farm. These options remain under consideration and would only be agreed in the event that planning consent is granted.

Overview The diagram below shows how the arrangement would work:

 

   
             

    



     

       

Page 37 Independent Review of the LVIA, Supplementary Information and Galpin’s Audit Report The owner of Ewedale Farm instructed Woolerton Dodwell Landscape Architects and Environmental Planners to review the Landscape and Visualisation Impact Assessment. The report concludes: • The ES has not been undertaken in a manner which is sufficiently objective, thorough and balanced. Although the LVIA considers the potential effects within a 30km ZTV, it has not given adequate consideration to the range and extent of landscape and visual impacts or their significance within 5 - 6km. • The assessment has not been undertaken in sufficient detail within the local area to reflect and evaluate the likely impacts that will occur. The limited assessment that has been undertaken within 5km- 6km, of the development has resulted in a general under-assessment of the range of impacts and the magnitudes of change that occur and insufficient weight has been given to their significance “in the round”. • The magnitude and significance of a number of landscape changes have not been evaluated accurately. Landscape effects include the significant enlargement of a “wind farm landscape” (up to approximately 950m) and a “landscape with wind farms” (up to 3km) due to a virtual doubling of the height of the turbines and an increase in the area of the footprint and an intensification of the impacts. • The effects on residential amenity have been under-estimated. The effects on residential amenity are severe for receptors living in at least 12 properties within the enlarged “wind farm landscape” in which the turbines are a defining element. This is considered to be wholly unreasonable and unacceptable. • The effects on the amenity of walkers and riders using public rights of way are severe within approximately 1km and significant from well-used public access areas up to 5 - 6km away. • The visual effects on the recreational users of roads are significant within approximately 3km. • The sensitivity of farm workers is considered to be high and the landscape and visual effects of the development are of Major significance. • The successive and sequential cumulative landscape impacts are under- estimated, particularly within 5km due to the enlargement of the wind farm footprint and the intensification of the impacts because of a doubling of the size of the turbines. Overall, in terms of landscape and visual impact, the development is considered to exceed the threshold of acceptability by a considerable margin. The proposals are inappropriate as a consequence of the location, scale and siting of the turbines which have a severe impact on both the landscape character of the area, on residential amenity and the visual amenity of local people and visitors and users of minor roads, public rights of way and open spaces in the area.

Renewables background The 2007 European Union Common Energy Policy includes a binding target of 20% of overall energy to be produced from renewables by 2020 with a reduction in

Page 38 greenhouse gases by up to 30%. The Climate Change Act 2008 set a legally binding target to reduce greenhouse gas emissions by at least 80% by 2050 with reductions in CO 2 emissions of some 26% by 2020 against a 1990 base. In 2009, EU Directive 2009/28/EC set out a requirement of 20% of overall energy and 35% of electricity is to be produced from renewables. This directive sets out the contribution from each member state with the UK set to produce 15% of all energy from renewable sources by 2020. The 2009 Renewable Energy Strategy (RES) highlighted a need to radically increase the use of renewable electricity and noted that the 15% binding target required a 7-fold increase in the share of renewables in less than a decade.

POLICY ISSUES: National Planning Policy Framework The National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) was published in March, and replaced the PPS and older PPG documents with a broader policy approach. The key message is that sustainable development should be supported unless other material considerations dictate otherwise. Section 10 Meeting the challenge of climate change, flooding and coastal change , states that planning plays a key role in supporting the delivery of renewable and low carbon energy and associated infrastructure. Planning authorities should adopt proactive strategies to mitigate and adapt to climate change in accordance with the Climate Change Act. When determining applications, LPAs should approve the application if its impacts are (or can be made) acceptable. It should also be recognised that even small-scale projects provide a valuable contribution to cutting greenhouse gas emissions and applicants should not be required to demonstrate the overall need for renewable or low carbon energy. The NPPF states that the approach set out in National Policy Statement for Renewable Energy Infrastructure (EN-3) should be followed when determining planning applications in addition to relevant sections of the Overarching National Policy Statement for Energy Infrastructure (EN-1). These seek to speed up the transition of the UK to a low carbon economy in order to help realise the UK’s global commitments and to improve the security of supply, by reducing reliance upon international energy sources. There should be a diverse mix of technologies, supply chains, and fuel sources, in order to avoid reliance on one sector. The government is committed to “dramatically” increasing electricity generation from renewable resources. In the short term this will mainly be onshore / offshore wind, with future input from biomass, wave and tidal sources. The process is considered to be urgent as aged fossil fuelled power stations need to be closed due to their excessive carbon generation in breach of government targets. As part of this transitional process, the NPSs recognise that significant negative impacts associated with new energy projects should be generally capable of being successfully mitigated. In terms of onshore wind, the turbines can be sited to reduce any potential for noise nuisance, shadow flicker, or ecological impacts, but other impacts upon landscape and visual amenity will be harder to mitigate. However, there is considerable weight given to the overriding public interests of diversifying the UK energy production base and reducing the effects of climate change. Accordingly, the general policy inference is that unless there are recognised issues of significant

Page 39 importance, such as residential amenities or environmental assets that cannot be mitigated, then renewable energy schemes should be supported. Section 11 of the NPPF, Conserving and enhancing the natural environment , states that the planning system should seek to protect and enhance valued landscapes and to minimise impacts upon biodiversity.

Regional Policy Policy DP7 promotes the protection and enhancement of environmental quality, including green infrastructure, but at the same time respecting the character and distinctiveness of landscapes and the maintenance and enhancement of the tranquillity of the open countryside. Policy EMI(A) states that priority should be given to conserving and enhancing areas, sites, features and species of international, national, regional and local landscape, natural environment and historic environment importance. Policy EM17 specifically promotes renewable energy sources and states that significant weight should be given to the wider environmental, community and economic benefits of renewable energy schemes. It lists wide-ranging criteria which should be taken into account when assessing renewable energy proposals, including the effects on local amenity, visual impact and nature conservation. The visual impact of such schemes is a matter to be taken into account but should not be used to rule out or place constraints on the development of all, or specific types of, renewable energy technologies.

Structure Plan Policy Saved Structure Plan Policy R44 states that outside the Lake District National Park and the AONB proposals for renewable energy will be favourably considered if: (1) there is no significant adverse effect on the landscape character, biodiversity and the natural and built heritage of the area either individually or cumulatively through their relationship with other utility infrastructure; (2) there is no significant adverse effect on local amenity, the local economy, highways or telecommunications; and (3) the proposal takes all practicable measures to reduce any adverse impact on the landscape, environment, nature conservation, historical and local community interests. In considering applications for planning permission in relation to the above criteria, and other policies in the Structure Plan, the environmental, economic and energy benefits of renewable energy proposals should be given significant weight. Saved Structure Plan Policy E37 requires development to be compatible with the distinctive characteristics and features of Cumbria’s landscape types Policy E37 requires proposals to be assessed in relation to: (1) locally distinctive natural or built features; (2) visual intrusion or impact; (3) scale in relation to the landscape features; (4) the character of the built environment;

Page 40 (5) public access and community value of the landscape; (6) historic patterns and attributes; (7) biodiversity features, ecological networks and semi-natural habitats; and (8) openness, remoteness and tranquillity.

South Lakeland Core Strategy Policy CS7.7 supports in principle appropriately located renewable energy schemes. It is acknowledged that there are some energy sources which need to be remote from residential areas and other sensitive land uses, and projects should avoid any harmful impact upon the historic environment. Policy CS8.2 states that development proposals should be informed by and be sympathetic to the distinctive character landscapes identified in the Cumbria Landscape Character Guidance and Toolkit. Proposals should demonstrate that their location, scale, design and materials will protect and conserve the special qualities and local distinctiveness of the area. Policy CS8.4 relates to biodiversity and geodiversity and states that all development proposals should protect, enhance and restore the biodiversity and geodiversity value of land and buildings. It also states that development proposals that would have a direct or indirect adverse effect on nationally, sub-regional, regional and local designated sites will not be permitted unless they cannot be located on alternative sites that would cause less or no harm; the benefits of the development clearly outweigh the impacts on the features of the site and the wider network of rural habitats; and prevention, mitigation and compensation measures are provided.

Local Plan Policy Saved Policy L10 states that existing and proposed rights of way will be maintained and protected from any development that would affect their character. Development which results in the loss of, or disruption to, existing rights of way will only be permitted where a satisfactory diversion can be provided and secured in advance of planning consent. Saved Policy C26 covers wind energy proposals and states that their acceptability will be judged according to whether a number of defined criteria can be satisfied. One of the criteria is that the proposal’s energy contribution and other benefits outweigh any significant adverse impact on the character and appearance of the landscape, the amenity of residential properties, nature conservation, archaeological or geographical interests.

OTHER POLICY CONSIDERATIONS: The Cumbria Wind Energy Supplementary Planning Document This was adopted in 2007 and provides guidance for the consideration of wind energy developments. Part 2 of the guidelines provides specific guidance on landscape and visual issues and identifies the potential capacity of various landscape types throughout the county to accommodate different scales of wind farms. The landscape type for this location is intermediate moorland and is judged to have an

Page 41 overall sensitivity of low / moderate with a moderate / high capacity to accommodate turbine development. The capacity statement sets out that small to large groups of turbines responding to the shape and scale of individual hills would be appropriate in Furness. The most notable limiting factor is the potential for turbines to erode a sense of remoteness and wildness and cause visual clutter and confusion with existing turbines and masts. It also states that there is potential for turbines on the open edges of the high plateaus or ridge to be overbearing or intrusive in relation to settlements, visitor routes and prospects from neighbouring landscapes of high sensitivity.

Cumbria Landscape Character Guidance and Toolkit This document was prepared by Cumbria County Council in conjunction with the district authorities in March 2011. The application site lies within character sub-type 9d, Ridges, within the broader landscape character type of Intermediate Moorland and Plateau. The key characteristics of this landscape sub-type are distinct ridges; extensive areas of true heathland moorland; improved pasture with distinctive stone walls; and woodland and small belts of trees forming prominent features. The guidance sets out that the open and distinct ridges, heather moorland and wide and expansive uninterrupted views to sea and the Lakeland Fells provide a sense of wildness that are sensitive to changes in land management and significant infrastructure development. It recommends that the impact of development is minimised by careful siting and design and environmental gains sought such as heather and moorland restoration. It also states that the siting of large scale wind energy should be avoided where it could degrade the open and expansive character.

Companion Guide to PPS22: Planning for Renewable Energy The NPPF replaced all the previous PPG and PPS documents. However, this companion guide is not contained within the list of replaced documents and is therefore still a material planning consideration. It states that there is no statutory separation between a wind turbine and a public right of way, however fall over distance is often considered an acceptable separation, and the minimum distance is often taken to be that the turbine blades should not be permitted to oversail a public right of way. Fall over distance is the height of the turbine to the blade tip and 10% is often added to this as a safe separation distance from occupied buildings. In relation to shadow flicker, the guide makes the following statements: • shadow flicker only occurs inside buildings where the flicker appears through a narrow window opening; • only properties within 130 degrees either side of north of the turbines can be affected at UK latitudes; • shadow flicker has been proven to occur only within ten rotor diameters of a turbine position; • less than 5% of photo-sensitive epileptics are sensitive to the lowest frequencies of 2.5-3 Hz; the remainder being sensitive to higher frequencies; and

Page 42 • a fast-moving three-bladed wind turbine will give rise to the highest levels of flicker frequency of well below 2 Hz. The new generation of wind turbines is known to operate at levels below 1 Hz.

HUMAN RIGHTS ACT: This application has been determined to accord with the rights and limitations of the Act in relation to Article 6 (Right to a fair and public hearing), Article 8 (Right to respect for private and family life, home and correspondence), Article 14 (Prohibition of discrimination) and Article 1 of Protocol 1 (Right to peaceful enjoyment of possessions and protection of property).

ASSESSMENT: The main issues raised by this proposal relate to - • Impacts on landscape and visual amenity. • Users of the nearby public footpaths. • Residential amenity. • Ecology. • Tourism. • Highways. • Historic environment. • Aviation. • Telecommunications. • Power Purchase Agreement with GlaxoSmithKline.

Landscape and Visual Impacts Barrow Borough Council commissioned Galpin Landscape to independently review the applicant’s landscape submission and undertake an independent landscape and visual impact assessment of the proposal. This has been used to aid both Local Authorities in assessing these issues. Landscape Assessment The sensitivity of landscapes can be defined as the degree to which a particular landscape can accommodate change arising from the development, without detrimental effects on its character. This varies with the pattern and scale of the landscape, visual enclosure / openness of views, and distribution of visual receptors, the scope for mitigation and the value placed on the landscape. The site lies within character sub-type 9d – Ridges as identified in the Cumbria Landscape Character Guidance and Toolkit 2011. It is situated within an extensive area of farmland of an upland character, mainly consisting of improved pasture used for sheep and cattle. On Harlock Hill, fields are bounded by both dry stone walls and hedges. On Mean Moor, the enclosures are bounded by poorly maintained walls or fences, it remains open in character without any vertical features other than the TV mast

Page 43 to the south. A number of sykes flow down the valley side from springs close to the proposed turbine locations on Mean Moor. There are open views of part of the site from the south and east, however the local topography partially screens the site from the north and west. This area has been assessed in the Cumbria Wind Energy Supplementary Planning Document as having low / moderate sensitivity with a landscape capacity of moderate / high to accommodate “up to a large group” which is 6 – 9 turbines and exceptionally up to a medium wind farm (16 to 25 turbines). It states that small to large groups of turbines responding to the shape and scale of individual hills would be appropriate in Furness. However, it is set out in the document that the SPD is intended to provide an indication of the relative capacity of different landscapes and should not be used to determine the acceptability of a proposal. The following table summarises the findings (paras 4.17-4.24) in Galpin Landscape’s report. Landscape characteristic Magnitude of impact Scale and Enclosure Low Complexity and Order Low Manmade Influence Low Skyline Low / moderate Connections with adjacent Low / moderate landscapes Remoteness and Tranquillity The area is very remote and tranquil. The sensitivity is high. In this case the magnitude of impact is moderate / high due to the effect on the remote sense of place.

The landscape character assessment, produced by Galpin Landscape, states that the existing wind turbines, on the site and in the general area, have established this landscape character as a landscape with wind turbines and the additional vertical structures would not have a significant effect on the landscape character type. The report concludes that the impact significance medium to low / medium which is not significant.

Visual Assessment The sensitivity of visual receptors (people) can be affected by the location and context of the viewpoint, the type of landscape, the type of receptor, the activity of the receptors and the importance or popularity of the view and typical numbers of viewers. As part of the application a map showing the Zone of Theoretical Visibility was submitted and identified important viewpoints. Wirelines and photomontages were undertaken from these viewpoints and illustrate the impact of change. The independent assessment has highlighted that there are a lack of viewpoints in the immediate vicinity of the development, the only one of which is viewpoint 1, from the minor road south of Harlock Hill. Galpin Landscape finds the magnitude of impact on Viewpoint 1 to be substantial, therefore resulting in a significant visual impact. The report goes on to state that,

Page 44 “viewpoint 1 is in the vicinity of the proposal and other viewpoints (if they had been included) would have a similar significance of impact” (para 5.16). The other important public viewpoints in the vicinity are the footpaths that cut through the site on Mean Moor. The impact on users of these footpaths is considered separately. However, in relation to visual impact, paragraph 5.18 of Galpin Landscape report states: “There were no viewpoints for public rights of way in the immediate vicinity of the proposal included in the applicant’s submission. Our independent assessment has identified through site study and digital terrain modelling verification, that visual receptors using the public footpath leading to Shooting House Hill (SD 25965 81740) would have a high magnitude of impact. As this is a recreational route the sensitivity of visual receptor would be high resulting in a high significance of impact which is significant.” The applicant’s submission and the Galpin Landscape report state that the other significant impacts would be at Swarthmoor, the Hoad Monument, Birkrigg Common and Askam-in-Furness. In particular, Galpin Landscape report states at paragraph 5.17: “These viewpoints have high visual receptor sensitivities, such as Birkrigg Common and the Hoad Monument as they are important recreational routes and viewpoints - the views are important at these locations. The difference to the viewpoints nearer to the proposal is the separation distances from the proposal to the visual receptor locations. The views will be changed at these locations with the introduction of these wind turbines as can be seen in the photomontages”. The independent report outlines that the proposal would result in further turbines to the west of the existing ones on Harlock Hill forming a wider grouping. In particular the three on Mean Moor would appear prominent in views from the south in comparison to the existing turbines. The report sets out that the overall magnitude of impact to views for visual receptors would be moderate. It goes on to state that: “the visual receptor sensitivities would be moderate to moderate / high in places due to the close proximity to local recreational routes, dwellings and local recreational viewpoints at the Hoad and on Birkrigg Common. Therefore the inclusion of these wind turbines into the landscape would have an adverse visual impact of medium to medium / high significance” (paragraph 5.25 – 5.26). Also of note is the topography of the land where the turbines will be sited. Taken from an Ordnance Survey plan, the turbines on Harlock Hill (D and E) and the closest on Mean Moor (C) would be sited at a similar elevation (approximately 210 metres). The turbines on Mean Moor follow the slope of the land upwards, with turbine B sited at a level approximately 50 metres higher than turbine C, and turbine A, a further 30 metres above B. The existing turbines on Harlock Hill have a height to blade tip of 53 metres and, as such, the base of turbine B would be almost above these, with the base of turbine A in line with the blades of the turbines C, D and E. The existing turbines at Harlock Hill are relatively well contained within the landscape. The proposal does not just relate to the increase in height of these but also to the spread of turbines to the northwest on significantly higher land, although there will be the same number of turbines. The elevation of the land on Mean Moor in particular will result in the turbines appearing prominent at much further distances. The character of the existing wind farm will change from a well contained group to a linear form across a greater distance onto higher land.

Page 45 The Galpin Landscape report concludes that the overall visual impact is significant according to current guidelines, and from key view points where significant impacts would be experienced by visual receptors, such as the Hoad Monument and Birkrigg Common, there would be a change in perception of the wind turbines. The report recommends that the application is approved as the visual impact identified is outweighed by the benefits arising from the proposal. However, this is something for the Local Authority to determine and there are other issues that need to be balanced against the benefits of the scheme.

Independent Review of the LVIA, Supplementary Information and Galpin’s Audit Report The owner of Ewedale Farm instructed Woolerton Dodwell Landscape Architects and Environmental Planners to review the Landscape and Visualisation Impact Assessment. The report concludes: • The ES has not been undertaken in a manner which is sufficiently objective, thorough and balanced. Although the LVIA considers the potential effects within a 30km ZTV, it has not given adequate consideration to the range and extent of landscape and visual impacts or their significance within 5 - 6km. • The assessment has not been undertaken in sufficient detail within the local area to reflect and evaluate the likely impacts that will occur. The limited assessment that has been undertaken within 5km - 6km, of the development has resulted in a general under-assessed of the range of impacts and the magnitudes of change that occur and insufficient weight has been given to their significance “in the round”. • The magnitude and significance of a number of landscape changes have not been evaluated accurately. Landscape effects include the significant enlargement of a “wind farm landscape” (up to approximately 950m) and a “landscape with wind farms” (up to 3km) due to a virtual doubling of the height of the turbines and an increase in the area of the footprint and an intensification of the impacts. • The effects on residential amenity have been under-estimated. The effects on residential amenity are severe for receptors living in at least 12 properties within the enlarged “wind farm landscape” in which the turbines are a defining element. This is considered to be wholly unreasonable and unacceptable. • The effects on the amenity of walkers and riders using public rights of way are severe within approximately 1km and significant from well-used public access areas up to 5 - 6km away • The visual effects on the recreational users of roads are significant within approximately 3km • The sensitivity of farm workers is considered to be high and the landscape and visual effects of the development are of Major significance. • The successive and sequential cumulative landscape impacts are underestimated, particularly within 5km due to the enlargement of the wind farm footprint and the intensification of the impacts because of a doubling of the size of the turbines.

Page 46 Overall, in terms of landscape and visual impact, the development is considered to exceed the threshold of acceptability by a considerable margin. The proposals are inappropriate as a consequence of the location, scale and siting of the turbines which have a severe impact on both the landscape character of the area, on residential amenity and the visual amenity of local people and visitors and users of minor roads, public rights of way and open spaces in the area.

Galpin Response to the Review There are professional differences and to this end the current guidance of “industry standards” is the GLVIA. This does not prescribe a set methodology, although our methodology has been proven and tested over a number of years of relevant experience. The main point of the independent assessment was to draw out the salient points of the applicant’s assessment and provide interpretation – therefore the main intention is to assess the assessment. To this end the main emphasis of our work concentrated on checking (by site assessment, checking visualisations and reports) rather than a full assessment. Therefore the limited scope for the independent assessment seems to be an area that WD has focussed on. We were commissioned primarily to provide a review and integrity check of the applicant’s LVIA with our own interpretation as an “independent assessment” (as per paras 4.1, 5.1, 6.1 “a brief discussion”), therefore we were not commissioned for a full LVIA which is how WD has viewed our work. However, with the emergence of a new and revised GLVIA due out next month, hopefully these kinds of differences between fellow Landscape Institute professionals may be avoided. The methodology employed followed GLVIA guidelines including site assessment, analysis, tabulating results and concluding in the summary report. As explained above the “selective” aspects of the submitted LVIA was in order to provide a review of the applicant’s assessment not a stand-alone assessment. As an example of the use of major / moderate / minor - the GLVIA has one typical example of none / negligible / slight / moderate / substantial / severe. There is no flaw in the methodology employed – the GLVIA states that residential views will be dependent on the location and context of the viewpoint which is included in this table. All residents do not have a high sensitivity, this would depend on the direction of view, whether the development could be seen, if near to or far away, etc. The GLVIA does not include this level of detail until the new GLVIA is issued. The methodology employed using the five point scale is a guideline to understand the applicant’s assessment – providing a direct comparison – as they have employed a similar scale. The visual receptors sensitivities and magnitudes of effects are correct in accordance with current guidelines. In order to draw a conclusion whether a development has a significant impact, the overall impact significance balances all the considerations of the assessment. The significant impacts were previously assessed and therefore carried forward for consideration. The cumulative assessment has provided verification, as with the landscape and visual assessments of the applicant’s submitted assessment. The limited scope for assessment included a review of the applicant’s details, check of other wind developments and verification of the significant elements as included in para 6.5 and

Page 47 6.6. The sequential effects and viewpoints are included here but would not contribute to an overall cumulative impact.

Applicant’s response A Summary of the Key Issues It is noted that there is considerable agreement between Woolerton Dodwell and Stephenson Halliday, in particular regarding: • The ES LVIA which adheres in general terms to current guidance (GLVIA) and covers all the aspects which would be expected in an assessment of a substantial development, located in open countryside. (paragraph 3.1) • The extent of significant landscape effects is agreed to occur within a 3km radius of the site. • The most significant visual impacts would be experienced within a 2km radius of the site given the visually contained nature of the site. • Significant visual effects on the amenity of walkers and riders using public rights of way would be experienced at distances up to a 6km radius of the site. • No issues are raised in respect of the quality and/or technical accuracy of the ES and SEI visualisations. • There is no disagreement regarding the assessment of landscape and visual effects at the 20 no selected viewpoints. • There is agreement regarding the conclusions of the ES CLVIA. (Appendix 7D) The specific issues of concern highlighted by Woolerton Dodwell are focussed on the following narrow range of issues as detailed in the Summary (Section 5): • It is suggested that the ES LVIA has not given adequate consideration of the range and extent of landscape and visual effects within a 5 - 6km radius. Response: The LVIA and SEI (December 2012) has considered in great detail the potential effects on landscape and visual receptors within a 5 - 6km radius and the wider 30km radius study area. The scope of LVIA Viewpoints was agreed with the Council and statutory consultees. • On landscape effects it is agreed that the proposed scheme would lead to an extension of the landscape sub-type Intermediate Plateau with Wind Farm up to 3km. Woolerton Dodwell suggest that the proposed scheme would result in a “wind farm landscape” at distances of 750 - 900m in comparison with 600m as stated in the ES LVIA. Response: It is noted that the threshold of 600 metres defining the extent of the “wind farm landscape” is not predetermined and clearly does not form a sharp line on a plan but is judged on the basis of site specific characteristics and the nature of views towards the proposed scheme. It is not as suggested by Woolerton simply a geometric calculation based entirely on height of the turbines, assuming flat

Page 48 topography, it is strongly influenced by distance from the site and characteristics of the local landscape. • Woolerton Dodwell suggest that the effects on residential amenity have been underestimated and believe that “the effects on residential amenity are severe for receptors living in at least 12 properties within the enlarged ‘wind farm landscape’ in which turbines are a defining element.” Response: In the case of the Furness Wind Farm proposal the distance away from the nearest turbine (in excess of 640 metres), the orientation of the dwellings, the topography and vegetation and layout which maintains a high degree of visual permeability all serve to reduce the potential effects on dwellings. While it is inevitable that the turbines will be viewed from some windows, the extent of the effects is not such that there is a degree of harm that should be considered unacceptable. • It is agreed that significant effects would be experienced from public rights of way and public access areas within a 5 - 6km radius and major effects would be experienced within a 1km radius. Response: In the case of the Furness Wind Farm proposal alternative routes are available which would provide greater separation from the turbines. Overall there is nothing to suggest that the degree of harm alleged in respect of the Furness Wind Farm proposal is any different to that experienced elsewhere and which has been found to be acceptable. • It is agreed that the visual effect on recreational users of roads would be significant within approximately 3km. • It is suggested that successive and sequential cumulative landscape impacts are under-estimated. Response: The ES Cumulative Landscape and Visual Assessment concludes that the additional cumulative effect of the Furness Wind Farm would be limited and localised given the context of the proposal involving replacement of the existing Harlock Hill turbines and the visually contained nature of the site. Overall it is considered that the area in the vicinity of the Furness Wind Farm proposal has the capacity to accommodate the scale of development proposed and in landscape and visual terms should be considered acceptable. The proposed development would be entirely consistent with the Cumbria Wind Energy Supplementary Planning Document and Cumbria County Council has confirmed “no objection” to the proposal.

Landscape Impact Conclusion Whilst there are difference in interpretation between Galpin’s and Woolerton Dodwell the conclusions are the same that the proposal will have a significant adverse impact on visual receptors from both close and distant view points.

Impact on public rights of way Saved Policy L10 of the South Lakeland Local Plan states that existing and proposed rights of way will be maintained and protected from any development that would affect their character. Although the part of the site which has the potential to impact on public

Page 49 footpaths is within Barrow Borough, the scheme must be considered as a whole. The Local Plan for Barrow Borough contains a similar policy. A number of signposted and waymarked footpaths cross the site in close proximity to turbines C, D and E. Two bridleways originate from the A595, cross on Bank Moor, and connect to Standish Cote and Harlock. Additional footpaths and bridleways connect Standish Cote and Kirkby Moor cut through the site. The footpath and bridleways on Kirkby Moor connect through to several routes to the north and to the village of Kirkby. The footpaths, looking south provide views over Barrow, Morecambe Bay and towards Lancashire. In views looking north from the footpaths to the south (north of Standish Coat and Bank House Moor) there is a feeling of wilderness and isolation with some views towards the Lake District fells. The footpaths appear to be well used. The character of the landscape is already influenced by wind turbines. The current turbines in a cluster form, while present in the landscape in eastern views from the footpaths, do not have a dominating or imposing impact on these footpaths. In most views they appear to respect the surroundings due to their appropriate size and layout. Some users of the rights of way might feel neutral or find the turbines to be a feature of interest. Nevertheless, they are likely to have a significant impact on the views over Barrow Borough, Morecambe Bay and Lancashire from footpaths on Mean Moor and further afield at Shooting House Hill. They will also have a major impact on the isolated and wilderness character of the footpaths. The layout of the turbines results in the whole east to west panorama being dominated by them. Despite the buffer zones and footpath diversions, the turbines will have a dominating, intimidating and imposing impact on users of the footpaths on Mean Moor such that their wilderness and isolated character and appeal would be completely lost. The scale and movement of the turbines would be particularly disturbing due to the proximity of the footpaths and their varied elevation compared to the turbines.

Impacts on nearby residential properties There are several residential properties, forming an arc around the site, which are in close proximity to the proposed turbines. The ones most likely to be affected are Harlock Farm and Rathmoss to the north, Horrace Farm to the north east, properties at Ewedale Farm to the south, and properties at Standish Cote to the south west. The impacts on other properties further from the site will also be discussed where appropriate. There are three main issues in relation to the proposal that have the potential to impact on the amenities of nearby residential properties; namely the visual impact or dominance of the turbines, noise and shadow flicker.

Visual Impact Carland Cross Wind Turbine Appeal Decision (Cornwall) Part of this decision is a material consideration in the determination of this application. In forming his conclusions, the Inspector stated the following: “Among the total number of properties assessed, 23 were identified as likely to experience high significance of visual effect, which in each case the Council regards as “overwhelmingly adverse”. It would seem from the representations that this is also a widely held opinion among the occupiers concerned. However, those who face the prospect of living close to a wind farm may attach very different value judgements to their visual effect than the wider public, who stand to benefit from the energy produced without seeing turbines from their homes. In effect, the former is primarily

Page 50 a private interest whereas the latter is a public one and, in the case of the former, few householders are able to exercise control over development by others that may do no more than impinge into the outlook from their property. The planning system is designed to protect public rather than private interests, but both interests may coincide where, for example, visual intrusion is of such magnitude as to render a property an unattractive place in which to live. This is because it is not in the public interest to create such living conditions where they did not exist before. Thus, I do not consider that simply being able to see a turbine or turbines from a particular window or part of the garden of a house is sufficient reason to find the visual impact unacceptable (even though a particular occupier might find it objectionable). However, when turbines are present in such number, size and proximity that they represent an unpleasantly overwhelming and unavoidable presence in main views from a house or garden, there is every likelihood that the property concerned would come to be widely regarded as an unattractive (rather than simply less attractive, but not necessarily uninhabitable) place in which to live. I make my judgements on whether the visual impact of the turbines would be harmful to living conditions accordingly.” For the purpose of the assessment in this report, the affect on the nearest individual properties will be considered in detail, taking into account the Inspector’s objective test. Harlock Farm This property is located approximately 700 metres north of the nearest proposed turbine. The front elevation faces south east and there is a large garden area in this direction which extends around the south east side of the dwelling to the rear. The north east section of the building at this property consists of an attached annex, which appears to be currently unoccupied. The ground floor windows at the front of the dwelling relate to a sitting room and study with a window serving a kitchen / dining room at the rear. There are also bedroom windows at first floor in the front and side elevations. The existing turbines are seen as a contained group in most views from the garden and habitable rooms at the front of the property. The current occupiers have planted trees that go some way to obscuring the existing development in the spring and summer months, but the three turbines on Mean Moor will increase the arc of vision across which the turbines will be visible from this property. There will be very few places within the dwelling, at both ground and first floor, where the turbines will not be visible. Due to their height, elevation, size and linear spacing they will have an imposing impact on the property that exceeds the existing situation. Having assessed the impacts above it is considered that the turbines are not present in such number, size and proximity that they represent an unpleasantly overwhelming and unavoidable presence in main views from a house or garden. It is concluded that there is not an adverse impact on living conditions. Rathmoss This is a detached property approximately 750m north of the nearest turbine. The outlook from living room and bedroom windows are to the south and overlook the existing turbines on Harlock Hill. The replacement turbines on Harlock Hill will be more prevalent in views due to their height and size and it is possible that turbine C will also be visible above Harlock Farm. Again, using the objective test, it is considered that the turbines are not present in such number, size and proximity that they represent an unpleasantly overwhelming and

Page 51 unavoidable presence in main views from a house or garden. It is concluded that there is not an adverse impact on living conditions. Rathvale This is a detached farmhouse approximately 1.3km north of the nearest turbine. Its main outlook from habitable rooms and the main garden is south towards the development. The existing 5 turbines can be seen above the topography. There is little screening provided by trees of the Harlock Hill site, however there are limited views towards Mean Moor. Two of the turbines on the Mean Moor site are likely to be obscured from views. While the visible turbines will be larger and prominent in the landscape the change is unlikely to have a direct impact leading to serious harm to living conditions. Horrace Farm This property is located to the northeast of the existing turbines at Harlock Hill and is approximately 600 metres from the nearest proposed turbine. The rear of the dwelling faces south and there is a small garden at this side of the property. Immediately to the west and south west of the dwelling are a collection of farm buildings. In the south west elevation of the dwelling there are two windows at ground floor, which serve a kitchen and a bathroom, and several windows at first floor which serve bedrooms, a landing / corridor and a sitting room which forms part of an annexe used by an elderly relative. From the garden, the turbines are mainly screened by mature trees. At present, two of the turbines are visible through the canopy. However, these are deciduous trees and as such in winter the visual presence of the turbines will be greater. From the kitchen window the turbines are mainly screened by the trees and the agricultural buildings, however this is less so in winter as with the garden area. Although the turbines on Harlock Hill will be reduced from five to two, given their increased height they will have a much more dominant impact on this dwelling. The trees and farm buildings will provide less screening of the larger turbines and the movement of the blades will be much more obvious at this property. However, the farm buildings and orientation of the dwelling mean that the proposed turbines at Mean Moor are unlikely to be visible from the living areas of this property. The window serving the upstairs living area is in the rear wall close to the west elevation. The blades of one of the turbines is clearly visible above the trees. As with the garden and kitchen window, although there will be only two rather than five turbines, their increase in height and blade length will increase the appearance and dominance of the turbines. It is considered that with the increased height and proximity of the turbines, they are still not present in such number, size and proximity that they represent an unpleasantly overwhelming and unavoidable presence in main views from a house or garden. It is concluded that there is not an adverse impact on living conditions at this dwelling. Ewedale Farm To the south west of Harlock Hill is a group of properties, some of which are let as holiday accommodation, collectively known as Ewedale Farm. These are approximately 700 metres from the nearest proposed turbine and are located almost immediately to the south of Harlock Reservoir, below the banking which forms its edge. To the west and south west of them is a large area of trees. The increase in height of the turbines at Harlock Hill is likely to make parts of them more visible. However, given where the buildings are situated within the landscape and their relationship to each other, it is

Page 52 unlikely that the turbines will be detrimental to the living conditions at these properties. It is likely that they will be most visible from external areas rather than habitable rooms. Some screening will be provided to the turbines at Mean Moor by the trees and the reservoir banking. Given this and the orientation of the windows, it is unlikely that the turbines will be overly dominant on these properties although they will be visible to a certain extent. Standish Cote Farm and Swallow Cottage The properties at Standish Cote are the closest dwellings within Barrow Borough to the proposal, approximately 800 metres from the nearest turbine. These consist of two semi-detached properties which are located to the south of Mean Moor and the south west of Harlock Hill. Immediately to the north of these is a collection of farm buildings and to the south is a detached dwelling, Standish Cote House, which is under the same ownership as the site of the turbines on Mean Moor. The rear elevations of both Standish Cote Farm and Swallow Cottage face north, with the side wall of Swallow Cottage facing east. Of these two properties, Swallow Cottage is more likely to be affected by the proposal. There are views of the existing turbines from a dining room at ground floor, the rear and side wall of which mainly comprises glazing. There is also a kitchen window in the rear wall of the dwelling which faces towards Mean Moor. On the first floor there is a second sitting room which has a glazed door and another window in the east elevation. The door opens onto a large decking area from which, all the existing turbines are clearly visible. The site of the turbines on Mean Moor will also become more prominent from this location as the change in levels of the land provides less screening from this position than at ground floor. There is also a patio area and garden at the rear which continues around the side of the house to the front. The proposed turbines will occupy a greater arc of vision than at present. The agricultural buildings to the rear will provide some level of screening, mainly when viewed from the rear garden area. However, the land where the turbines are to be sited on Mean Moor is higher than the ground floor level of the dwelling and as such at least some of the turbines are likely to dominate views and outlook north from the dining room and kitchen. The decking area at first floor is likely to be the most severely affected part of this property with clear views of all the turbines. The main outlook of the adjoining property, Standish Cote Farm, is towards the south. As such it is unlikely that the turbines would impact on the living conditions of the dwelling. The property has garden areas at the front and rear. From the rear garden / patio, the turbines at Harlock Hill are partly visible and this will increase with the larger turbines. This area is at a higher level than the garden at Swallow Cottage, and as such the impacts of the proposal on this garden area are likely to be similar to those described for the first floor decking area at Swallow Cottage, particularly in relation to the turbines on Mean Moor. Stewner Park Farm and Quarry Bank Farm These properties are located on the same road as those at Standish Cote, and are approximately 1.4 kilometres to the south west of the nearest turbine. The main outlook from these properties is away from the application site. Given this orientation, and the distance from the site, the proposal is unlikely to be seriously detrimental to the residential amenity of these properties. Shearbanks and Toad Cottage

Page 53 These properties are located to the south of Pennington Reservoir, approximately 1 kilometre to the south east of nearest proposed turbine. The present Harlock Hill wind farm extends closer to these properties than the proposed scheme. Given this, and the orientation of the properties, it is unlikely that the turbines would adversely affect the living conditions of the occupiers to a significant extent.

Conclusion of visual impact on residential amenity In considering the visual impact of turbines, several factors need to be taken into consideration: the number of turbines, the distance-to-height ratio, the angle of view that they occupy, the orientation of habitable rooms and gardens and screening effects of buildings and trees. Although the number of turbines will remain the same as at present, they will be higher and will extend over a much greater area and therefore occupy a larger view. In particular, the turbines will occupy a much greater arc of vision for the residents at Harlock Farm and Standish Cote. Collectively the impact on the living conditions at Harlock Farm, Standish Cote Farm, Swallow Cottage, Horrace Farm and Rathmoss, will be significant. The 50 metre micro-siting of the turbines, requested by the applicant, could result in their siting closer to residential properties which would be likely to increase their impact.

Noise The applicant’s assessment has been carried out according to the recommendations of ETSU-R-97, The Assessment and Rating of Noise from Wind Farms. Baseline noise levels were measured at four locations representative of the nearest residential properties to the site. Predictions of the typical downwind noise levels from the proposed wind farm, and the contribution from Askam Wind Farm, were carried out. These were based on the proposed site layout and using noise data in relation to the Enercon E-70 E4 2.3MW wind turbine. There is potential for noise impacts during construction, operation and decommissioning of the wind farm. During construction the likely cause of noise is as a result of the construction of access tracks and crane hardstanding; excavation of cable trenches and turbine foundations; concreting turbine bases; turbine assembly; and construction traffic. The decommissioning phase will have similar impacts as a result of the dismantling and removal of the turbines and associated vehicle movements. This is also relevant to the decommissioning of the existing Harlock Hill wind farm. During the operation of the turbines, there is the potential for aerodynamic and mechanically generated noise. Conditions relating to the noise generated from the turbines have been agreed with the applicant. They include limits on daytime and night time noise levels at each of the nearest properties at different wind speeds; a duty for the operator to investigate any noise complaints within 21 days with regards to amplitude modulation; and full details of the turbines and their exact positions and if not the same model a full update of the noise assessment.

Shadow Flicker Shadow flicker is the effect of the sun shining behind the rotating turbine blades and creating an intermittent shadow. It only occurs inside buildings where there is a narrow window opening and where certain meteorological, seasonal and geographical conditions prevail. The sun must be low in the sky and the wind turbine and property must be in line with the sun. The resultant effect is that moving shadows are cast

Page 54 through a window opening which appear to flick on and off as the blades rotate and can be detrimental to the amenity of residents. It has been shown to only occur within a distance equivalent to ten rotor diameters of a turbine, in this case, 710 metres, and the distance between the turbine and a residential property affects the intensity of the shadows cast by the blades. There are no guidelines within the UK in respect of the level of shadow flicker that is acceptable. The applicant has based the conclusions of the assessment on legislation and guidelines from the Netherlands and Germany. Harlock Farm and Horrace Farm have the most potential for shadow flicker. Mitigation is proposed within the ES and paragraph 16.46 states: “If, during the operational life of the wind farm, it is established that shadow flicker is experienced beyond acceptable levels, Baywind and Infinergy will close down the wind turbines responsible for causing the effects at times when the turbines have been predicted to cause shadow flicker effects”. The difficulty with the mitigation proposed is how it will be determined that the shadow flicker experienced is beyond acceptable levels. The amount of shadow flicker also has the potential to increase if the micro-siting brings the turbines closer to Harlock Farm and Horrace Farm. However it can be mitigated against by installing automatic turbine shut-down timers if necessary. It may be appropriate to require detailed mitigation measures to ensure that nuisance from shadow flicker is avoided. If a system is put in place to stop the turbines when they cause an impact, very little production time should be lost if the effects are minimal as outlined in the report.

Ecology Designated sites (including ornithology) The site is located approximately 2.3 km from the Duddon Estuary and 6.5 km from Morecambe Bay, both of which are designated as Sites of Special Scientific Interest (SSSI), Special Protection Areas (SPA), and Ramsar Sites. The Duddon Estuary also forms part of the Morecambe Bay Special Area of Conservation (SAC). The proposal has the potential to affect the SPA interest of the European sites. The typical effects of a wind turbine development on birds include collision risk, displacement to feeding / foraging / roosting birds or both. Curlew, Lesser Black-backed Gull, Lapwing and Wigeon were recorded on the site with flight activity occurring within the collision-risk window of the proposed turbines. Natural England did not consider that there was sufficient information to conclude that the scheme was unlikely to have a significant impact on the surrounding SPAs and requested that bird collision risk modelling was undertaken. Following the submission of this, Natural England confirm that the figures provide more robust support for the conclusions reached in the ES which stated that the turbines would have a negligible impact on SPA bird species. They also advise that that the proposal is not likely to have a significant effect on the interest features for which the Duddon Estuary SPA / Ramsar site and Morecambe Bay SPA / Ramsar sites have been classified. Kirkby Moor SSSI is located adjacent to the site. Natural England is satisfied that the proposals will not have a significant impact on the special interest features of the SSSI provided that a 50 metre buffer is provided and that a construction environment management plan is developed and implemented.

Page 55

Bats Bat activity surveys following set transect routes were undertaken during 2007, 2008 and 2010. Having studied the methodology of the surveys, Natural England noted that there is a risk that the levels of bat activity recorded at the site are an underestimation and that the early emerging species such as noctule could have been missed. However they conclude that, given the habitats present across the site, the low level of activity recorded during the surveys, and the existing presence of the turbines on Harlock Hill, that the risk to bats resulting from the proposed scheme remains low.

Otters and Badgers The initial response from Natural England stated that they had no concerns with regards to the impact on other protected species provided that the suggested buffer distances for badger and otter were implemented. However, concerns were raised by a local resident who submitted a report regarding the impacts on otters in the locality, and a survey was also carried out by an ecologist on behalf of another neighbour. Natural England then raised concerns regarding the potential direct impacts of turbine C on suitable otter resting and foraging habitat. Following the submission of an updated report by Peak Ecology, on behalf of the applicant, Natural England advised that there were still uncertainties regarding the suitability of habitats at turbine C and that the Local Authority needed to be satisfied that such habitats were either absent or if present were being retained. RSK Environment was commissioned by Barrow Borough Council to undertake an independent assessment of any potential impacts on otters in relation to the siting of turbine C. The report states that there is evidence of otters using Harlock Reservoir, however there is no evidence of them using the site and in particular the proposed location of turbine C. This was probably due to the poor quality of habitats in terms of providing shelter to otters. The report goes on to say that the fact that otters are present close to the site justifies the need for the mitigation measures detailed in the Environmental Statement. However, there is no evidence to suggest that the construction of turbine C, in particular, would directly affect the local otter population and there would be no loss of resting sites or places which could support breeding. The report by RSK concludes that there is no reason for the otters, which use the reservoir, to be resting in the location of turbine C at the time of construction and therefore the chances of otters being killed or injured during the works are negligible. Given the results of this independent survey and report, the Local Planning Authority is satisfied that the proposal will not have a detrimental impact on the local otter population.

Enhancements A Habitat Management Plan (HMP) is referenced in the applicant’s submission, however Natural England suggested that as part of the planning application it would be reasonable to expect a broad outline of the scope of the plan to be provided; as such, a brief HMP was submitted. Natural England confirmed that they were broadly satisfied with this as an outline document, however it did not appear to incorporate positive habitat management for otters, and in particular the need to provide and maintain areas of gorse scrub for cover. The applicant has confirmed that they will commit to including otter habitat enhancement measures and monitoring as part of the HMP.

Page 56

Tourism Although the proposal will have significant visual impacts on footpaths close to the site and more distance viewpoints, there is no evidence to suggest that this would significantly impact on tourism in general to the area. The impact on the properties to the south, at Ewedale Farm has been considered in this report and it is noted that some of the properties are let as holiday accommodation and planning permission has recently been granted for the siting of three holiday lodges.

Access and Highways The proposed turbine delivery route from the Port of Barrow uses the A590 trunk road to Lindal-in-Furness, then the Marton and Horrace Roads to access the Harlock Hill part of the site, then onto the Ulverston Road to access the Mean Moor part of the site. Access to the Harlock Hill section of the application site will utilise the entrance for the existing wind farm, off minor road C5018. The access will be widened, with off highway modifications proposed on the onsite tracks. A new access will be created to serve the Mean Moor section of the application site. This will be taken off the C5016 Ulverston Road, approximately 250m northwest of Harlock Farm. No objections have been raised by Cumbria Highways subject to inclusion of conditions which require a Traffic Management Plan to be submitted, access and parking requirements to be substantially met before works commence and a scheme to prevent surface water draining onto the highway.

Archaeology and Heritage Impacts Archaeology The environmental statement indicates that the site lies in an area of some archaeological potential. There are various known earthwork remains in the vicinity including post medieval quarries, ridge and furrow, and a possible ringwork of unknown date. The proposal has been designed to avoid the known archaeological remains on the site, however there is some potential for the ground works to disturb currently unknown buried archaeological remains. The Historic Environment Officer at the County Council agreed with the recommended mitigation outlined in the ES that an archaeological evaluation and, where necessary, a scheme of archaeological recording of the site be undertaken in advance of development. This can be secured through the inclusion of a condition on any planning consent.

Devils Bridge Devil’s Bridge is a Scheduled Ancient Monument and Listed Building within South Lakeland District. It is located next to the C5018 which will be the route taken by vehicles to the Mean Moor part of the site. Given its proximity to the road, there is the potential for permanent and / or irreversible damage from vibrations caused by lorries transporting the turbines and construction materials to the site. English Heritage have been consulted and have raised no objection subject to a range of measures outlined in the applicants Environmental Statement (Paras 11.90 -11.92) being adopted which can be conditioned as part of any planning consent.

Page 57 In the vicinity of Devils Bridge, the bank would need to be cut back and trees removed. This is a particularly sensitive and tranquil area and any works should be limited to the minimum required. Conditions can be used requiring the area to be recorded prior to commencement of the scheme and fully reinstated on completion.

Aviation and Telecommunications No concerns or objections have been raised with regards to any potential impact on aviation as a result of the proposal. However, the MOD has requested that the turbines are fitted with aviation lighting. No objections have been raised by the telecommunications operators consulted. Orange has stated that there is a microwave link in close proximity to the site. From the map supplied, it appears to be at least 400 metres from the nearest proposed turbine which is further than the distance from the present turbines. As such, it is unlikely that the link will be affected by the proposal.

Power Purchase Agreement This legal agreement between one of the developers and GlaxoSmithKline (GSK) is not an additional material consideration; it is an example of how the development can contribute to cutting greenhouse gas emissions. It is clearly stated in the NPPF “It should also be recognised that even small-scale projects provide a valuable contribution to cutting greenhouse gas emissions and applicants should not be required to demonstrate the overall need for renewable or low carbon energy” and it is not in doubt that the development contributes to this National objective. It is considered that little weight should be given to this specific correspondence; weight has already been accorded through the policy considerations.

Other issues Existing and Proposed foundations and infrastructure Whilst the applicant has said that they will “make good” the land affected by the development, the Environmental Statement (Chapter 12, page 26) states that it is not intended to remove the turbine foundations. This would result in 10 concrete foundation blocks and other infrastructure remaining permanently in the ground. Policy R44 of the Cumbria and Lake District Joint Structure Plan states that “measures should be included to secure the satisfactory removal of structures / related infrastructure and remediation of land following cessation of operation of the installation.”

Community benefit Baywind is a co-operative and presently owns the five wind turbines on Harlock Hill and will own 2 of the 5 proposed turbines. Currently there are 1,280 members each investing between £300 and £20,000. Nearly 300 members live in the LA postcode area. A new share offer is proposed to be launched. An existing community benefit fund receives £2500 which has been used to distribute low energy light bulbs in the local area, promote the installation of solar hot water systems, provide advice on energy efficiency measures in the home and approve grants to local organisations and community buildings to help towards the costs of refurbishment such as double glazing and low energy lighting. The fund is proposed to

Page 58 be increased to approximately £35000 annually and will continue to be administered by an independent Board. It will generally support energy conservation and climate change related projects in the area.

Conclusions The development plan comprises the Regional Spatial Strategy, the Cumbria and Lake District Joint Structure Plan and the South Lakeland Local Plan. Some of the relevant policies are essentially “protecting” policies and others are “balancing” policies in which the importance of protecting existing assets must be expressly weighed against the benefits that would result from the proposal. In addition, material considerations that might lead to a decision other than in accordance with the development plan must be assessed. Policies DP7 and EM1(A) of the RSS, Policy E37 of the Structure Plan and Policy CS8.2 of the South Lakeland Core Strategy are concerned with safeguarding landscape character and protecting the countryside from inappropriate development. Although the independent report that was commissioned by Barrow Borough Council concluded that there would not be a significant impact on landscape character, it did conclude that there would be a significant visual impact as a result of this proposal. This was not just within the immediately vicinity of the proposal but also from more distant important viewpoints. As a result of the significance that the turbines would have in terms of visual impact, the proposal would conflict with the above policies. Saved Policy L10 of the Local Plan seeks to protect public rights of way from development that would adversely affect their character. As a result of the impacts outlined above, the proposal would be contrary to the aims and objectives of this policy. Policy EM 17 of the RSS, saved Policy R44 of the Structure Plan, and saved Policy C26 of the Local Plan require the benefits of the proposal to be balanced against potentially adverse impacts. The general emphasis of these policies is that the environmental, economic and energy benefits of renewable energy proposals should be given significant weight. The NPPF also states that Local Planning Authorities should grant planning permission if its impacts are, or can be made, acceptable. The proposal will make a tangible contribution to targets for renewable energy generation. However, the contribution to achieving regional and national targets for renewable energy generation does not outweigh the adverse visual impacts of the proposal and the significant impacts on users of the adjacent public footpaths taken together.

RECOMMENDATION: REFUSE for the reason below: As a consequence of the size, siting and layout of the development, the proposed turbines will have a significant visual impact from viewpoints in close proximity to the site in addition to more distant viewpoints at Swarthmoor, the Hoad Monument, Birkrigg Common and Askam-in-Furness. Birkrigg Common and the Hoad Monument would have high visual receptor sensitivities as they are important recreational routes and viewpoints. The perception of the turbines would be significantly altered as a result of their continuation to the west, the linear pattern that would result and the significant change in the topography across the site. The proposed turbines will have a dominating, intimidating and imposing impact on users of the footpaths on Mean Moor such that their wilderness and isolated character and

Page 59 appeal would be completely lost. The scale and movement of the turbines would be particularly disturbing due to the proximity of the footpaths and their varied elevation compared to the turbines. The development is therefore in conflict with the objectives of Policies DP7 and EM1(A) of the Regional Spatial Strategy for North West England; saved Policies R44 and E37 of the Cumbria and Lake District Joint Structure Plan; Policy CS8.2 of the adopted South Lakeland Core Strategy; and saved Policies C26 and L10 of the South Lakeland Local Plan. The Local Planning Authority has acted positively and proactively in determining this application by identifying matters of concern with the proposal and determining the application within a timely manner, clearly setting out the reasons for refusal, allowing the applicant the opportunity to consider the harm caused and whether or not it can be remedied by a revision to the proposal. The Local Planning Authority is willing to meet with the applicant to discuss the best course of action and is also willing to provide pre-application advice in respect of any future application for a revised development.

Page 60 SCHEDULE A

Complex Planning Applications

SCHEDULE No: 2 SL/2012/0865

MILNTHORPE: LAND AT TURNPIKE, BEETHAM ROAD, MILNTHORPE LA7 7QR

PROPOSAL: DWELLING

MRS J WESSON Website Link: http://www.southlakeland.gov.uk/fastweb/detail.asp?AltRef=SL/2012/ 0865 E349678 N481105 28/03/2013

SUMMARY: This outline application relates to the erection of one detached dwelling within a garden at the southern edge of Milnthorpe. The site is within the development boundary and, although it is within an area set out as Important Open Space, this designation is proposed to be removed by the Allocations of Land Document. Erection of a single storey dwelling on the site will aid housing provision without detriment to the character and appearance at the southern end of Milnthorpe.

DESCRIPTION AND PROPOSAL: Site Description The application site relates to a section of large garden on the southern edge of Milnthorpe. The garden belongs to Turnpike, a detached bungalow on the western side of the A6. The site is prominent when entering Milnthorpe from the South and currently provides an area of grass and shrubs with some thin overgrown hedging along the southern boundary. The Proposal This is an outline application, with all matters reserved, for the erection of one single storey dwelling on this site. The site would be accessed via the existing entrance from the A6.

HISTORICAL CONTEXT: The land to the west of the site forms part of the garden belonging to Bela House. An application for two detached dwellings within the garden of Bela House was submitted last May (SL/2012/0461) and considered by the Planning Committee in

Page 61 July and August. Members may recall visiting the site prior to determining the application. It was considered that the site could be developed without harm to the character of the village and the benefits arising from the provision of additional housing outweighed the Important Open Space designation, particularly as it is proposed to remove the designation. Planning permission was therefore granted. An application for reserved matters consent for one of the plots is currently under consideration.

CONSULTATIONS: Milnthorpe Parish Council No comments received.

Cumbria Highways The Highway Authority has no objection to the proposed development as it considered that the proposal does not affect the highway.

United Utilities No objection to the proposal provided that the following condition is met: • No surface water is discharged either directly or indirectly to the combined sewer network.

POLICY ISSUES: National Planning Policy Framework Paragraph 14 of the Framework sets out a presumption in favour of sustainable development. This means approving development proposals that accord with the development plan without delay. Implicit is that development not proven to be sustainable or not in accordance with the development plan does not benefit from this presumption. Delivering a wide choice of high quality homes Paragraph 47 - Requires that local authorities significantly boost the supply of housing. To do this local authorities should identify and update a supply of deliverable sites to provide for five years worth of housing with an additional buffer of 5%. This buffer is increased to 20% where there is a persistent record of under delivery. Conserving and enhancing the natural environment Paragraph 109 - The planning system should contribute to and enhance the natural and local environment by protecting and enhancing valued landscapes and minimise the impacts on biodiversity and providing net gains where possible.

South Lakeland Core Strategy Policy CS1.2 Development Strategy for the District outside the National Parks . states that development will be concentrated in the towns of Kendal and Ulverston, which are identified as Principal Service Centres; then in the Key Service Centres of

Page 62 Grange over Sands, Kirkby Lonsdale and Milnthorpe; followed by a number of designated Local Service Centres throughout the rural hinterland. Policy CS6.6 Making effective and efficient use of land and buildings states that the Council will seek an average density of at least 30 dwellings per hectare for all housing developments. In some circumstances a lower density will be supported where there is proven need or environmental constraints mean that it is not suitable for high density development. Policy CS8.2 Protection and enhancement of landscape and settlement character states that development proposals should demonstrate that their location, scale, design and materials will protect, conserve and, where possible, enhance the special qualities and local distinctiveness of the area and the distinctive settlement character. Policy CS10.2 Transport impact of new development states that development proposals should be capable of being served by safe access to the highway network without detriment to the amenity or character of the locality, and should incorporate parking standards that are in accordance with any adopted and emerging policy or guidance.

South Lakeland Local Plan Saved Policy H5 Settlements suitable for growth retains the development boundary around Milnthorpe. It states that new dwellings will be permitted on suitable small sites within the development boundary, provided that they do not result in the loss of important open space. Planning permission will be subject to the submission of satisfactory density, design, layout, landscaping and access details. Saved Policy S4 Important open space for amenity sets out that development will not be permitted on important open space except where the proposal is for the extension, redevelopment or refurbishment of educational, community or recreational facilities.

HUMAN RIGHTS ACT: This application has been determined to accord with the rights and limitations of the Act in relation to Article 6 (Right to a fair and public hearing), Article 8 (Right to respect for private and family life, home and correspondence), Article 14 (Prohibition of discrimination) and Article 1 of Protocol 1 (Right to peaceful enjoyment of possessions and protection of property).

ASSESSMENT: The key issues for this application relate to the site’s designation as an area of important open space for amenity and the impact the development would have upon the site and the edge of Milnthorpe. The application site is located within the development boundary of Milnthorpe and is currently allocated as Important Open Space. Saved Policy S4 of the South Lakeland Local Plan states that proposals for development on land with this designation will not be permitted except where they relate to the extension, redevelopment or refurbishment of educational, community or recreational facilities. However, the Land Allocation Document, proposes to remove the designation from this land.

Page 63 Annex 1 to the National Planning Policy Framework (published March 2012) states that decision takers may give weight to relevant policies in emerging plans according to: • the stage of preparation of the emerging plan (the more advanced the preparation, the greater weight that can be given); • the extent to which there are unresolved objections to relevant policies (the less significant the objections, the greater weight may be given); and • the degree of consistency of the relevant policies in the emerging plan to the policies in this Framework. The Fact File on Milnthorpe, which supports the Allocations Document, states that the site is not allocated for residential development and is no longer proposed as amenity open space, but is proposed to be retained within the Milnthorpe development boundary in recognition of the likelihood of some development potential. Given the stage of the Land Allocation Document, a certain weight can be applied. As the designation is proposed to be removed from the land, it should not prevent the granting of suitable development. The proposal is in outline and as such the specific details in relation to the development would be submitted at the reserved matters stage. Development of a single dwelling on the site would “round off” the corner between the previously approved development at Bela House and Turnpike. Improvements to the hedge along the southern boundary and the erection of a suitably designed single storey would enhance the entrance to Milnthorpe. Conditions will be required to ensure that a landscaping scheme along the southern boundary is implemented. A dwelling can be accommodated on the site without impacting on the amenities of the neighbouring properties. The dimensions of the access from the A6 and visibility are appropriate to serve the existing dwellings, the previously approved dwellings and this site. There are no significant trees affected by the proposal but a tree survey will be necessary to determine the siting of the proposed dwelling at reserved matters stage.

Conclusion It is proposed to remove the designation of the site as an area of Important Open Space for Amenity as part of the Land Allocations DPD. This proposal, together with the benefits arising from the provision of an additional dwelling and the potential to enhance the appearance of the site and surroundings outweighs Saved Policy S4 of the South Lakeland Local Plan.

RECOMMENDATION: GRANT subject to: Condition (1) The development to which this permission relates must be begun not later than whichever is the later of the following dates: a) FIVE YEARS from the date of this permission; b) The expiration of TWO YEARS from the final approval of the reserved matters, or, in the case of approval on different dates, the final approval of the last such matters to be approved. Application for the approval of the reserved matters must be made

Page 64 not later than THREE years from the date of this permission. Reason To comply with the requirements of Section 92 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990.

Condition (2) No development shall take place until a scheme of surface water drainage has been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The development shall not be occupied until the works have been completed in accordance with the approved scheme. The approved works shall be retained thereafter. Reason To ensure adequate provision is made for the management of surface water and sewerage disposal in accordance with saved Policy S26 of the South Lakeland Local Plan.

Condition (3) No development shall take place until a tree survey to British Standard BS5837:2012, has been submitted to the Local Planning Authority. It shall include a Tree Location Plan displaying accurately plotted root protection areas for all trees to be retained, and indicating all trees to be removed. A Tree Protection Plan, showing the location of protective fencing for retained trees, an Arboricultural Method Statement detailing how the development will be managed in relation to retained trees, and details of the locations and species of replacement trees to be planted should also be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority before development commences. Any trees/shrubs which are removed, die, become severely damaged or diseased within five years of their planting shall be replaced in the next planting season with trees/shrubs of similar size and species to those originally required to be planted unless the Local Planning Authority gives written consent to any variation. Reason To safeguard and enhance the character of the area and secure high quality landscaping in accordance with saved Policy S3 of the South Lakeland Local Plan.

Condition (4) The roof shall be covered with slates being blue/grey in colour and of similar or the same texture to those mined within the County of Cumbria, a sample of which shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority before any development begins. Reason To ensure the development is of a high quality design in accordance with Policy CS8.10 of the adopted South Lakeland Core Strategy and saved Policy S2 of the South Lakeland Local Plan.

Condition (5) Notwithstanding the provisions of the Town and Country Planning (General Permitted Development) Order 1995 (or any order revoking and re-enacting that Order with or without modification), no development of the type described in Classes A, B and E of

Page 65 Part 1, Schedule 2 of that Order shall be undertaken without the express permission of the Local Planning Authority. Reason To ensure that any additional outbuildings or extensions do not adversely affect the appearance of this prominent site in accordance with Policy CS8.2 of the adopted South Lakeland Core Strategy.

REASON FOR GRANTING PLANNING PERMISSION The erection of a dwelling on this site will improve the provision of available housing in a sustainable location and will not be detrimental to the character of the area or residential amenity. The proposal is therefore in accordance with Section 6 of the National Planning Policy Framework, Policies CS1.2, CS8.2 and CS8.10 of the adopted South Lakeland Core Strategy and saved Policies H5, S2, S3 and S26 of the South Lakeland Local Plan.

The Local Planning Authority has acted positively and proactively in determining this application by identifying matters of concern within the application (as originally submitted) and negotiating, with the applicant, acceptable amendments to the proposal to address those concerns. As a result, the Local Planning Authority has been able to grant planning permission for an acceptable proposal, in accordance with the presumption in favour of sustainable development, as set out within the National Planning Policy Framework.

Page 66 SCHEDULE A

Complex Planning Applications

SCHEDULE No: 3 SL/2012/0886

HELSINGTON: THE WHEATSHEAF INN, BRIGSTEER, KENDAL LA8 8AN

PROPOSAL: SINGLE STOREY REAR EXTENSION, SIDE EXTENSION, BAY WINDOW, EXTERNAL STONE STAIRCASE AND FRONT PORCH Website Link: INDIVIDUAL INNS http://www.southlakeland.gov.uk/fastweb/detail.asp?AltRef=SL/2012/ 0886 E348012.9 N489702.4 28/03/2013

SUMMARY: A decision was deferred at the last Meeting to allow further consideration of the neighbourliness of the Garden Room extension and the parking issues. The further information and amendments submitted have overcome concerns.

DESCRIPTION AND PROPOSAL: Site Description The Inn lies in the northern portion of the village. A short distance to the west is the recently re-built Village Hall with its associated parking space. The Inn has been closed for some time. The Inn fronts onto the village road to its east. At present the public rooms are on the ground floor eastern frontage of the building with a kitchen and wc’s to the rear. On the first floor are the landlord’s accommodation and six letting bedrooms. Immediately to the rear of the northern part of the building a beck runs through a rocky cleft. This has been bridged over in the past to give access to a parking area served by an entrance from the Kendal to Crosthwaite Road and at a lower level a poorly accessed garden area with the beck on its southern boundary. To the south of this garden area is the curtilage of a dwelling known as “Nathans”. That domestic curtilage extends close to the eastern wall of a lean-to portion of the southern part of the Inn. A timber beer store is set on the bridge section just to the north of the lean- to. The drive into “Nathans” abuts the south wall of the Inn and the house itself has an east-west alignment with an entrance, windows and patio facing the application site. Adjoining the boundary with the Inn the grounds are planted as a woodland garden.

Page 67 The proposal The upper floor of the Wheatsheaf would be used for staff accommodation. The application has three main elements:

a) an extension across the bridge onto the car park accommodating facilities and a covered walkway / drinking area overlooking the car park and road; b) minor alterations on the main frontage and roadside gable and new steps to the lower garden area; c) a Garden Room extension is proposed on the small garden area in the south- west corner of the site enclosed on the south and west by the boundary with “Nathans”. As a result of negotiations after the last Committee meeting this extension has been reduced in size to give an internal space of 5.0 x 5.1metres. The south wall would be set one metre from the southern site boundary and the west wall would set back one metre from the line established by the rear of the lean-to which appears to correspond to the adjoining owners’ Land Registry plan boundary. The application site has been correspondingly reduced in extent. The glazing across the west wall facing the boundary has been changed to opaque glazing and along that western boundary to Nathans a timber fence is proposed rising to one metre above the floor level of the Garden Room. Rooflights and windows on the northern, inward-looking elevation have been added to the design to compensate for lost light and aspect. A pitched slate roof and walls of timber are proposed for the extension.

HISTORICAL CONTEXT: Over the years there have been applications for small scale alterations to the building and for advertisements and lighting. In 2001 planning permission (SL/2000/2147) was refused for a scheme that included the creation of a paved public space to the rear of the southern portion of the Inn adjoining the dwellings “Nathans” and “Beckside”. This was because the increased public use of the paved area would have been unneighbourly.

CONSULTATIONS: Helsington Parish Council Approve intention to re-open Inn as it is felt the public house is an important community facility. However there are concerns that despite the proposal to increase the current floorspace by 40% there are no proposals to increase car parking provision for 13 vehicles. Therefore request: a) explore whether additional parking could be provided within the site adjacent to the car park at a lower level; b) measures such as marking parking bays to maximise use of current car park; c) developers engage in management with SLDC and PC about management of car park which could otherwise become a problem for staff, customers and residents.

Page 68 Cumbria Highways None received.

Cumbria Local Flood Risk Management The development is not changing the structure over the beck so there is no requirement for consent to carry out the work.

Environment Agency None received.

South Lakeland Environmental Protection None received.

South Lakeland Arboriculturalist The submitted Tree Report accurately appraises the trees on and adjacent to the site. The one tree and a small holly that may be removed are not prominent in the landscape and I therefore have no objections.

Neighbours and other Members of the Public Seven letters have been received from village residents welcoming the re-opening and improvement of a valuable community facility. Four of the writers mention the need for extra car parking or parking management to avoid overspill problems. A letter of objection in respect of the application as originally submitted was received from the residents of the dwelling known as “Nathans” which has a common boundary with the Wheatsheaf along the southern side of the beck and to the rear of the southern part of the building. The family while approving the intention to re-open the important community facility objected to: • The Garden Room which would develop up to the boundary at a level higher than the adjoining ground and is designed to make a feature of views of the neighbours’ garden including patio and children’s play area, the drive, garage, main entrance door and window to the reception room with a consequent unacceptable impact on privacy. They have concerns that the timber structure will not effectively mitigate noise to their garden and to the bedroom and living room windows. The scheme would shift the focus of public activity from the front of the Inn to the rear. • The Tree Report and SL arboriculturalist recommend the removal of one of their trees before development commences. They do not agree to the removal of the tree. • The lower area of Inn Garden has not been actively used by patrons in the past but proposed improved access will lead to increased activity, noise, lighting and loss of privacy. • Overdevelopment of the site leading to overspill parking in the village.

Page 69 POLICY ISSUES: National Planning Policy Framework The Framework has a presumption in favour of sustainable development and seeks a strong economy and to support strong, vibrant communities with accessible local services. As part of the aim of promoting healthy communities the NPPF seeks provision and sustainable development of community facilities including public houses.

South Lakeland Policy Framework South Lakeland Local Plan

Saved Policy S2, the South Lakeland Design Code, offers detailed advice in relation to the local context. Saved Policy S10 seeks appropriate parking for new development. South Lakeland Core Strategy Policy CS 8.10 states that the siting, design, scale and materials of a development should maintain and enhance the quality of the local landscape or townscape and, where appropriate, should be in keeping with the local vernacular tradition. Policy CS 9.1 relates to social and community infrastructure with encouragement for social and cultural community facilities including public houses. Policy CS 8.4 seeks to protect and enhance bio-diversity. Policy CS 8.8 relates to the management of flood risk.

Other Material Planning Considerations Unneighbourliness in terms of invasion of privacy, overwhelming bulk or nuisance from noise or fumes can be material planning considerations.

HUMAN RIGHTS ACT: This application has been determined to accord with the rights and limitations of the Act in relation to Article 6 (Right to a fair and public hearing), Article 8 (Right to respect for private and family life, home and correspondence), Article 14 (Prohibition of discrimination) and Article 1 of Protocol 1 (Right to peaceful enjoyment of possessions and protection of property).

ASSESSMENT: The principle of improving the existing Inn to ensure it can viably re-open and operate is acceptable. At the last meeting of the Planning Committee there were no objections in relation to the design, appearance and materials of the proposal and no objections to the elements (a) and (b) as referred to in the Description and Proposal section of this report. The concerns of the Committee centred on the neighbourliness to “Nathans” of the Garden Room proposal and the adequacy of the parking. Parking Issues The agent has confirmed:

Page 70 1) the main car park and small parking area to the west of the frontage will be marked out so as to maximise the capacity;

2) the applicants have bought a mini-bus which can be used not only to move staff and customers between their premises but also to pick up groups of diners from the surrounding area;

3) they have had discussions with the Village Hall Management Committee to jointly plan and execute events to maximise benefits to both parties;

4) they wish to encourage use of the Inn by walkers and villagers;

5) on site management will be available to manage parking issues.

In the light of this information and the fact that the scale of additional trading space is not great the parking provision appears adequate subject to a condition requiring the marking out of bays in the parking areas. Neighbourliness At its last meeting the Committee’s remaining concerns with neighbourliness centred on the overlooking of the neighbouring residential property, Nathans. The amended plan overcomes this concern by the introduction of opaque glazing for the fixed windows on the west gable of the Garden Room and the erection of a fence on the relatively level land close to the proposed extension and outside the area of the disputed ownership boundary. The occupants of Nathans have been advised of the latest proposals and any representations received will be reported to the Committee.

Conclusion The amended plans and commitment to marking out the parking spaces have overcome previous objections to the development.

RECOMMENDATION: GRANT subject to the following conditions:

Condition (1) The development hereby permitted shall be commenced before the expiration of THREE YEARS from the date hereof. Reason To comply with the requirements of Section 91 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 as amended by Section 51 of the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004.

Condition (2) The development hereby permitted shall be carried out in accordance with the following approved plans: 4257-2A; 4257-3B; 4257-4A; and 4257/6. Reason To avoid unneighbourliness and over-intensity and to achieve a satisfactory standard of development.

Condition (3) As shown on plan number 4257-2A the windows on the south-west

Page 71 facing gable wall of the Garden Room shall be installed and thereafter retained as fixed lights of opaque glass and, moreover, on a line parallel to and one metre to the south west of that fixed window there shall be erected and thereafter retained a close- boarded timber fence rising to a height of one metre above the internal floor level of the Garden Room. Reason To avoid unneighbourly over-looking and the invasion of the privacy of adjoining residential development.

Condition (4) Before the extensions hereby permitted are first used the surface of the parking areas shall be marked out in paint or by paving setts into the parking bays shown on plan number 4257/6. Reason To maximize the capacity of the on site-parking provision.

Condition (5) The roofs shall be covered in slates being blue / grey / green in colour and of the same or similar texture to those mined within the County of Cumbria a sample of the slate being submitted to and approved in writing by Local Planning Authority before any development begins. Reason To ensure the development is of a high quality design in accordance with Policy CS8.10 of the adopted South Lakeland Core Strategy and saved Policy S2 of the South Lakeland Local Plan.

Condition (6) The external timber boarding of the walls shall be stained or otherwise finished in accordance with a specification previously submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. Reason To ensure the development is of a high quality design in accordance with Policy CS8.10 of the adopted South Lakeland Core Strategy and saved Policy S2 of the South Lakeland Local Plan.

REASON FOR GRANTING PLANNING PERMISSION: The development as amended and subject to the attached planning conditions would not give rise to unneighbourliness and the design appearance would be satisfactory in accordance with Saved Policy S2 of the South Lakeland Local Plan and Policy CS 8.10 of the adopted South Lakeland Core Strategy. The development would assist in ensuring the survival of a social and community facility in accordance with Policy CS 9.1 of that Core Strategy and the National Planning Policy Framework. In relation to Saved Policy S 10 of the South Lakeland Local Plan there would be a satisfactory level of parking provision. The Local Planning Authority has acted positively and pro-actively in determining this application by identifying matters of concern within the application as originally submitted, in negotiating acceptable amendments to address those concerns in assessing the scheme as amended in relation to all material planning considerations, planning policies and the representations received and in then granting planning

Page 72 permission in accordance with the presumption in favour of sustainable development in the National Planning Policy Framework.

Page 73 This page is intentionally left blank

Page 74 SCHEDULE A

Complex Planning Applications

SCHEDULE No: 4 SL/2012/0934

BURTON IN KENDAL: THE TANNERY TANPITS LANE BURTON in KENDAL LA6 1HZ

PROPOSAL: EXTENSIONS AND ALTERATIONS TO FORM ANNEXED ACCOMMODATION

MRS C CLIFFE and Website Link: MR B HORNBY http://www.southlakeland.gov.uk/fastweb/detail.asp?AltRef=SL/2012/ 0934 E352880.9 N476679.5 28/03/2013

SUMMARY: In principle, the enclosure of the swimming pool and the extension to the detached outbuilding are acceptable. Modifications to the scheme would assist in reducing its impact on adjacent neighbours to the south and east in terms of privacy and by reason of being overbearing. Consideration of this application was deferred at last month’s meeting to enable Members to visit The Tannery.

DESCRIPTION AND PROPOSAL: Background information The Tannery has been altered and extended to provide living accommodation for a young man with severe disabilities. The main building provides living accommodation for him, his mother and his staff of professional carers. The current application indicates that the detached outbuilding is to be re-modelled, adapted and extended to suit the young man’s future requirements for independence and for his changing disability requirements. As he becomes less dependent on his parents, the annexe used in conjunction with the main house, will be used for living accommodation for him and his carers. Site Description The application relates to a former tannery building which is now a substantial stone and slated dwelling, located on the northern side of Tanpits Lane, close to the junction with Burton Park. The three-storey southern gable of the property abuts the highway, and is linked to a small two-storey stone and slated outbuilding on the eastern boundary of the site by a high stone wall which lies adjacent to Tanpits Lane. The stone wall encloses a courtyard area to the east of the main building, and also

Page 75 forms a boundary with the bungalow to the east, 1 St James Drive, which is sited at a lower level. The outbuilding is currently used as a plant room / workshop, and it effectively projects into the garden area of 1 St James Drive; three windows overlook the garden of this property. A flat-roofed garage is attached to the outbuilding in the courtyard, and there is also an outdoor swimming pool. Vehicular access to the site is from Tanpits Lane directly opposite Burton Park. Proposal Planning permission is sought to enclose the outdoor swimming pool with the addition of a grey felt or polyurethane roofing system, and timber or uPVC clad walls. The building will project above the stone boundary wall shared with 1 St James Drive by approximately 0.55 metres. A two storey extension is to be added to the western side of the detached outbuilding on the site of the former garage, projecting 8.5 metres into the courtyard adjacent to the boundary of the site with the highway. The ridge of the extension will be approximately 1 metre above the height of the outbuilding. The extended outbuilding will accommodate a plant room, a disabled person’s wet room and a multi-purpose room at ground floor level; the first floor will be used as a studio / office / flat for care assistants. These works will entail building up part of the stone boundary wall with matching stonework, and the addition of a slate roof. The exposed elevations of the extension facing into the courtyard will have a rendered finish, with glazing in the west facing gable, and a first floor juliet balcony. Given the nature of the works necessary to alter the building a bat survey has been undertaken, and a contamination report has also been submitted to address potential ground contamination issues.

HISTORICAL CONTEXT: In 2006 planning permission was granted for alterations and extension to The Tannery together with a new vehicular access.

CONSULTATIONS:

Burton Parish Council Object for the following reasons:

• The new building will be overbearing and out of character with the surrounding development. This is a historically important traditional building, and its character would be lost if the development were to be allowed. • There are concerns over the introduction of a flat roof to the pool. A flat roof would be inappropriate on such a traditional site, but a pitched roof would be unacceptably overbearing. • Concerns that the proposed use of wet-dash finish on visible parts of the building was not in keeping with the historic character of the building.

Neighbours Four letters of objection have been received making the following comments:

Page 76 • The alterations previously approved were to make the building suitable for a disabled person; it is unclear why another building is needed for the same purpose unless the property is to be used as a business. • Permission was originally given for a new road access to create a car parking area. In practice this is not used by the employees of The Tannery who use the road for parking. This causes nuisance to other residents and a hazard to other road users. • This current application appears to be one of a number of applications which have steadily increased the size and nature of the property over the last 10 years, which, in combination serve to exert an overbearing impact on 1 St James Drive. • The wall of the swimming pool would project 2/3 of a metre higher than the current wall which is already high. It would have a “Berlin wall” effect on 1 St James Drive as it will be totally visible and obtrusive on approaching this property from the front. • Concerns over increased levels of noise and dust during the construction period. • The outbuilding is used as a pump house and store, and its conversion into accommodation will result in a vast reduction in privacy for the occupier of 1 St James Drive. At the very least if this development is permitted the flat should have opaque glass to avoid unwarranted intrusion. • Sympathetic to the young man residing at The Tannery, but consider the plans unsympathetic to neighbouring residents in terms of being overbearing. • Tanpits Lane is narrow at this point and the parking of employees in the road makes things hazardous for other drivers. • There is a large number of visitors to The Tannery which causes parking problems. • Loss of aspect and light to properties opposite on Tanpits Lane.

Environmental Health Accepts the findings of the contamination study, and require further ground investigations to be undertaken in consultation with the local planning authority.

POLICY ISSUES: National Planning Policy Framework Core Planning Principles. The NPPF sets out 12 core land-use planning principles which should underpin decision making. Of most relevance to this application are the following: Planning should be a creative exercise in finding ways to enhance and improve the places in which people live their lives; planning should always secure high quality design and a good standard of amenity for all existing and future occupants of land and buildings; and planning should conserve heritage assets in a manner appropriate to their significance. Part 7 Requiring good design emphasizes the importance of design to the built environment. Good design is a key aspect of sustainable development and should contribute positively to making places better for people.

Page 77

South Lakeland Core Strategy Policy CS8.10 Design requires that the siting, design, scale and materials of all development proposals should be of a character which maintains or enhances the quality of the landscape or townscape.

South Lakeland Local Plan Saved Policy S2 South Lakeland Design code requires development applications to take proper account of its principles.

Other Material Planning Considerations It is essential to consider the effect of the extensions on the residential enjoyment of neighbouring properties. The protection of residential amenity is a recognised material consideration in deciding whether planning permission should be granted. The needs of the young man occupying the property are also a consideration in the determination of the application.

HUMAN RIGHTS ACT: This application has been determined to accord with the rights and limitations of the Act in relation to Article 6 (Right to a fair and public hearing), Article 8 (Right to respect for private and family life, home and correspondence), Article 14 (Prohibition of discrimination) and Article 1 of Protocol 1 (Right to peaceful enjoyment of possessions and protection of property).

ASSESSMENT: The main issues raised by this application are: • The design and appearance of the development. • Impact on the residential amenities currently enjoyed by neighbouring residents.

Design and appearance The Tannery and the detached outbuilding are attractive stone buildings of some historic interest in the village. The swimming pool building is of a contemporary appearance with a flat roof, designed principally to lessen its impact on the adjacent dwelling, 1 St James Drive. Despite the utilitarian appearance of the flat roof when viewed on approaches from the east along Tanpits Lane, the pool building is largely screened by the stone boundary wall of the courtyard attached to The Tannery, and is not prominent within the wider locality. The extension to the outbuilding is of a significant scale, but the south facing elevation is to be faced with stone and the roof covered with slate. Although the Parish Council has expressed concern over the rendered finish to the internal elevations, these elevations will not be very conspicuous from public viewpoints, and render is an appropriate and acceptable treatment for these elevations. It is the

Page 78 scale of the extension in relation to the outbuilding which will be more apparent in the locality. The outbuilding appears to be dwarfed by the proposals, detracting somewhat from its traditional character and appearance.

Impact on the amenities of the neighbouring residents The impact of the scheme is felt mainly by the occupier of the adjacent bungalow to the east, 1 St James Drive. The stone wall enclosing The Tannery forms the boundary between the two properties, and because of varying levels, the wall reaches heights in excess of 3 metres when measured from the garden of the bungalow. The flat roof of the swimming pool will project above the top of this wall and will be most prominent when viewed from 1 St James Drive. The extension to the outbuilding will also be visible from this property, although views will be at an oblique angle. Nevertheless, the combination of the swimming pool roof and extension represents a significant increase in building mass which will exert a potentially dominant and overbearing influence on 1 St James Drive. Although there are window openings in the outbuilding, its internal layout and size restricts its usage. Conversion and extension into residential accommodation will lead to a significant increase in the use of the building, and as a consequence, there will be a loss of privacy to the occupier of 1 St James Drive, not least because the window openings in the north and east elevations are to be retained. In order to avoid overlooking it has been recommended to the applicants that the window openings in the north and east elevations of the outbuilding be infilled. Residents opposite the outbuilding on Tanpits Lane have also raised objections to the scheme. These are dormer bungalows, and the distance between the courtyard wall and the front elevation of these dwellings is approximately 15 metres. Although there will be some loss of aspect, it is mainly the roof of the extended building which will be evident from these properties. The change in outlook from the properties opposite caused by the extension is not, in itself, sufficient reason to withhold planning permission. Although there may be parking problems in the immediate locality, the use of the building’s annexed accommodation will not lead to any additional vehicles visiting the site.

Conclusion The development proposals designed to improve the residential arrangements for the disabled occupier of The Tannery can be largely supported. The building to house the swimming pool is acceptable and, although it will project above the boundary wall it will not exert a significantly overbearing influence on the neighbouring property, 1 St James Drive. The extension to the outbuilding will be prominent in view from the properties on the opposite side of Tanpits Lane but will not be so overbearing as to justify the refusal of planning permission. Infilling of the window openings in the outbuilding would, however, prevent the garden of 1 St James Drive from being overlooked.

RECOMMENDATION: The Director (People and Places) will report on the issues raised at the site visit.

Page 79 This page is intentionally left blank

Page 80 SCHEDULE A

Complex Planning Applications

SCHEDULE No: 5 SL/2012/0977

ULVERSTON: TARN SIDE ULVERSTON LA12 7EL

PROPOSAL: NINE DWELLINGS

MR J SILCOCK Website Link: http://www.southlakeland.gov.uk/fastweb/detail.asp?AltRef=SL/2012/ 0977 E328852 N478482 28/03/2013

SUMMARY: Outline application for the redevelopment of a former garage site within a residential area on the edge of the town centre. Amendments have been sought to reduce the scale of the development. Outstanding consultation responses awaited.

DESCRIPTION AND PROPOSAL: Site Description The site comprises a former commercial garage complex, adjoining the minor access routes off Back Lane and Tarn Side to the north of Hart Street. The site amounts to approximately 0.2 hectares in area and is located within a predominantly residential area. A row of cottages fronting onto the pedestrianized part of Tarn Side face towards the western boundary of the site, the grounds of a respite care centre border the northern boundary and residential properties adjoin the eastern side of the site. The gable end of a dwelling fronting onto Tarn Side directly adjoins the southern boundary of the site, adjacent to one of the access points. There are currently a number of mostly modern sectional buildings which occupy the site and it is enclosed by a high stone wall. There is also a mature sycamore tree which overhangs the site along the north east boundary. There are currently two vehicular access points to the site off Tarn Side. The site is located within the development boundary of Ulverston and adjoins the Ulverston Conservation Area along its western boundary.

Proposal The outline proposal relates to the redevelopment and change of use of the site to residential. The indicative scheme originally submitted related to the construction of

Page 81 10 cottages, in the form of two pairs of semis adjacent to either side of the access and a row of six cottages across the rear of the site. A single access is proposed off the site frontage on Tarn Side close to one of the existing access points. A total of 10 parking spaces were indicated. The scheme has been amended following negotiations with the developer in an attempt to address concerns raised regarding the scale of the proposal, the impact of the layout upon adjoining residential properties and the amount of parking and amenity space. The amended scheme now indicates five two-storey, three bedroomed cottages and four, two bedroomed flats on a smaller footprint within the site. Two flats would be positioned at the front of the site and a terrace of five cottages and two flats would be sited along towards the rear boundary. The same access point is proposed and 9 parking spaces are indicated although there appears to be room to increase this number. Three of the units would be provided as affordable housing.

CONSULTATIONS:

Town Council The Town Council have submitted comments on the original scheme. They have recommended refusal of this application on the grounds that the development is considered to be too intensive and there are concerns about the access egress arrangements on a blind corner. The Highways Authority are requested to carry out a full assessment of this application. The Town Council have been consulted on the amended proposal.

Cumbria Highways To be reported.

SLDC Environmental Protection Officer Recommends a number of conditions to be attached to any consent to control noise and dust arising for the construction works, hours of construction, surface water drainage, and a stage 2 contamination investigation.

Strategic Housing Officer On the basis of 10 new homes the Core Strategy requires 3 affordable homes to be provided. As this is only an outline application the details of affordable homes will need to be agreed at a later date. There is evidenced affordable housing need in Ulverston, hence this scheme can make a small contribution towards meeting those needs.

Historic Environment Officer The site lies within an area of some archaeological potential, located on the edge of the core of the medieval town. Consequently, I recommend that an archaeological evaluation and where necessary a scheme of archaeological recording of the site be undertaken in advance of the development. This programme of work can be secured through the inclusion of a condition in any planning consent.

Page 82 Other One letter of objection and four letters commenting upon the original proposal have been received from neighbouring residents. Their main comments and concerns are as follows: • Although we support the concept of developing this land for residential as it is currently an eyesore, the current plans would cause overshadowing and loss of amenity because of the close proximity of one of the units to our house. This unit is shown only 3 feet from a window to a room which is occupied by a disabled relative and it will block the natural daylight. • The scale of the proposed development for 10 dwellings is too great for this site. • There is insufficient parking provision for the development. The site is located in an historic area where there is limited off road parking and as a consequence the area is always congested with parked vehicles. The development would exacerbate this situation. • The number of vehicle movements generated by the development would add to the problems of this congested area with narrow access points. Tarn Side and Back Lane are used as a cut through from Soutergate to Hart Street to gain access to the A590. School warning lights were installed but do not work and cars park illegally on double yellow lines. • The boundary wall along the eastern side of the site should be retained to protect the privacy and amenity of the adjoining residents. Neighbouring residents have been consulted with regard to the amended proposal and any further comments will be reported at the meeting.

POLICY ISSUES: National Planning Policy Framework Section 6 of the National Planning Policy Framework states that housing applications should be considered in the context of the presumptions in favour of sustainable development. It also states that Planning Authorities should normally approve applications for change to residential use from commercial buildings where there is an identified need for additional housing in that area.

Section 7 states that good design is a key aspect of sustainable development.

South Lakeland Core Strategy Policy CS1.2 of the South Lakeland Core Strategy seeks to concentrate in Kendal and Ulverston and Policy CS3.1 seeks significant residential development within Ulverston with priority given to previously developed sites in the urban area. Policy CS6.3 states that on all schemes of nine or more dwellings in the principle service centres, no less than 35% of the total number of dwellings proposed are affordable.

Page 83 South Lakeland Local Plan Saved Policy H4 of the Local Plan indicates that small scale residential development will be permitted on suitable sites within the development boundary of Ulverston, providing this does not result in the loss of important open space and subject to satisfactory density, siting, layout, landscaping and access details. Policy S10 seeks to ensure appropriate car parking provision. Saved Local Plan Policy E6 relates to the protection of existing employment sites and states that “proposals to change the use of existing employment land and buildings to a non employment use will not be permitted except where: the existing use is un neighbourly, or the change of use could assist a move to alternative and more suitable premises in the vicinity”.

HUMAN RIGHTS ACT: This application has been determined to accord with the rights and limitations of the Act in relation to Article 6 (Right to a fair and public hearing), Article 8 (Right to respect for private and family life, home and correspondence), Article 14 (Prohibition of discrimination) and Article 1 of Protocol 1 (Right to peaceful enjoyment of possessions and protection of property).

ASSESSMENT: The principle of residential development on this site is acceptable. Although the former use of the site as a commercial repair garage is classified as an employment use, it adjoins an established residential area and as such the redevelopment of the site for residential purposes is appropriate. It is a sustainable brown field site located close to the centre of Ulverston and as such accords with national and local policy. The main issues to be considered relate to the proposed scale and layout of the scheme, highway considerations and parking provision.

Scale and Layout The original scheme included the construction of 10 two-storey dwellings. This has been reduced to 9 dwellings in the form of 5 dwellings and 4 flats which has resulted in a reduction of the overall footprint of the development and an increase in amenity space. The units adjacent to the existing dwelling on Tarn Side have been removed from the scheme and the semi detached units positioned to the front of the site have been changed to two flats, which has improved the relationship with the adjacent properties. The site is located within a relatively high density area, it is outside but adjoins the Conservation Area. As such the final details of the scheme in terms of design and materials would need to respect the character of the area and would be the subject of a reserved matters application. The proposed layout is considered to be appropriate in principle.

Parking and Highways Although the site is located close to the town centre, it is within an historic part of the town within an area of restricted access and limited on-street parking opportunities. Adequate off-street parking should be provided to serve the development to reduce

Page 84 it’s impact on the restricted on-street parking availability. Whilst the reduction in the scale of the development to 9 units still indicates only one parking space per unit, there appears to be scope to increase the number of spaces provided on the site. The applicant has been asked to increase the number of parking spaces. In terms of the impact of the proposed development on the adjacent highways and the acceptability of the proposed access, the response from the Highways Officer is still awaited at the time of writing. The consideration will be whether the level of vehicular activity arising from the proposed development is likely to have an adverse impact on the adjoining road network, bearing in mind the previous use of the site as a commercial garage, and whether the proposed access to the site is acceptable.

Conclusion In conclusion, the proposed development is acceptable in principle and accords with local and national policy. The amended proposal has resulted in a reduction in the overall scale development although the level of off-street parking provision is still considered to be insufficient.

RECOMMENDATION: The Director (People and Places) to report on the amended scheme and outstanding consultation responses. At present no written response has been received from the Highways Officer and Ulverston Town Council regarding the amended scheme and subject to no adverse comment being received from them it is recommended that delegated authority be given to the Director (People and Places) to grant outline planning permission with all matters reserved subject to the following conditions, and subject to a Section 106 Agreement in respect of the provision of 3 affordable dwellings.

The Director (People and Places) be authorized to grant planning permission subject to an S106 Agreement and subject to the following conditions:

(1) Standard outline condition. (2) Amended plans. (3) External materials. (4) Landscaping. (5) Surface water drainage. (6) Provision and retention of parking spaces. (7) Construction Management Scheme. (8) Contaminated Land Assessment. (9) Archaeology Assessment.

Page 85

Page 86 SCHEDULE A

Complex Planning Applications

SCHEDULE No: 6 SL/2012/1055

KENDAL: LAND TO THE REAR OF: 19 HILL PLACE OXENHOLME KENDAL LA9 7HB

PROPOSAL: ERECTION OF AGRICULTURAL STORAGE BUILDING, STABLES AND EQUINE STORAGE Website Link: http://www.southlakeland.gov.uk/fastweb/detail.asp?AltRef=SL/2012/ MRS J BAGGULEY 1055 E353285 N489761 28/03/2013

SUMMARY It is proposed to erect a large stable and machinery storage building within a field to the west of The Helm and adjacent to the road which runs along the bottom side of the main part of the hill. The proposed building would create an unduly dominant feature in the landscape contrary to the aims of Policy CS8.2 of the Core Strategy and saved Policy L9 of the South Lakeland Local Plan.

DESCRIPTION AND PROPOSAL Site Description The site is located within a field to the west of the road which runs along the bottom of The Helm. The fields to the west of the road form a slight plateau at the lower part of The Helm and slope down toward Oxenholme. The field subject to this application rises to the west but falls steeply to the rear of Hill Place. There is a small group of buildings to the north of the site. These buildings are a mixture of rendered block, concrete block, timber cladding and grey sheeting. They are separated from the application site by a yard and a small group of trees. Proposal It is proposed to erect a building to provide three stables, a tack room and machinery store. The proposed building would measure 16.6 metres long, 7.6 metres deep and 4.6 metres to the ridge. It would be built of blockwork and timber cladding with a grey profile cement fibre sheet roof.

Page 87 HISTORICAL CONTEXT A retrospective application for the retention of a track extending from the road across The Helm to the rear of Hill Place was considered by the Planning Committee in November last year (SL/2012/0816). Members will recall visiting the site. The application originally proposed a large stable and storage building on the site of this scheme. The building was withdrawn from the application following advice that a building in this location, particularly of the scale proposed was unacceptable. Retrospective planning permission was granted for the retention of the track subject to conditions requiring the installation of a surface water drainage scheme at the rear of Hill Place.

CONSULTATIONS: Kendal Town council The Town Council recommends refusal stating that the proposals are inappropriate in a sensitive area.

Friends of the Lake District If need is established than a minimum size building should be considered. The number of roof lights should be reduced, roof covered with dark coloured sheeting and the walls faced in vertical rather than horizontal boarding as proposed. As submitted the application is considered unacceptable in this very visible location.

Neighbours / Others Three emails of support have been received. The emails raise concerns with regard to welfare and the need to provide shelter for the animals. It is stated that the building will be in a dip and will not be seen from Kendal or Oxenholme, that trees can be planted to screen the building and concern is expressed that if a building is not permitted mobile structures will be used to provide shelter. Three emails of objection have been received. Issues raised include the prominent location adjacent to The Helm which is well used by the public; the size and visual impact of the building views would be severely compromised by the size and position of the building; light pollution; the roof lights will accentuate the visual impact of the building; the size of the building is excessive and will not be sympathetic to its surroundings; the horses should be housed elsewhere.

APPLICANT’S REPRESENTATIONS The building is required to provide shelter for horses kept on the land at The Helm and to store haylage and machinery required to maintain the 7 acres of land she owns. The applicant has three horses and has no indoor facilities which is causing health concerns and illness due to exposure. A letter from the Westmorland Veterinary Group has been submitted in support of the application. The letter advises that the applicant has a obligation under the Animal Welfare Act to provide shelter for the horses and the field adjacent to The Helm is in an open and exposed position. If horses are lame, sick or injured it is necessary to stable them elsewhere. It is necessary to house horses so that they do not damage

Page 88 the land. One of the horses suffers from laminitis which means grazing must be restricted in spring and summer.

POLICY ISSUES National Planning Policy Framework: Conserving and enhancing the natural environment Paragraph 109 - The planning system should contribute to and enhance the natural and local environment by protecting and enhancing valued landscapes and minimise the impacts on biodiversity and providing net gains where possible.

South Lakeland Core Strategy: Policy CS8.2 of the Core Strategy relates to the protection and enhancement of landscape character. The policy states that development proposals should demonstrate that their location, scale, design and materials will protect, conserve and where possible enhance the special qualities and local distinctiveness of the area. Policy CS8.10 seeks to ensure that the siting, design, scale and materials of all development is of a character which maintains or enhances the quality of the landscape.

Local Plan Policy: Saved Policy L9 states that stables will be permitted where each of the following criteria are satisfied: • the building would form part of an existing group of buildings; • the building would be of an acceptable standard of design incorporating materials sympathetic to the landscape; • there would be no adverse impact on the landscape; • there is adequate access and parking provision.

HUMAN RIGHTS ACT This application has been determined to accord with the rights and limitations of the Act in relation to Article 6 (Right to a fair and public hearing), Article 8 (Right to respect for private and family life, home and correspondence), Article 14 (Prohibition of discrimination) and Article 1 of Protocol 1 (Right to peaceful enjoyment of possessions and protection of property).

ASSESSMENT

The key issues relate to: • the criteria and aims of the Core Strategy and Local Plan policies; • the impact on the character and appearance of the landscape;

Page 89 • whether animal welfare and storage requirements outweigh the landscape impact.

Saved Policy L9 states that stables will be permitted where they form part of an existing group. There are buildings to the north of the site but these are separated by a yard area and trees along the boundary. While close to the existing building, the proposed building will not appear as part of a group but as a new large structure within an adjacent field. The second and third parts of the criteria require that the building is an acceptable standard of design incorporating materials sympathetic to the landscape and that there would be no adverse impact on the landscape. The proposed stables and machinery shed would measure 16.6 metres long (3m shorter than the previous scheme), 7.8 metres deep and have a ridge height of 4.6 metres (1.8m less than before). As the field rises toward The Helm the building would be set below the level of the road. Whilst in a dip in the landform, this will not diminish the scale of the building or its visual impact from higher public viewpoints from The Helm. The roof and top part of the building would have a significant impact upon the openness of the field. It would create a large expanse of grey concrete sheeting with a hard surfaced apron around it. A building of this scale would create an unduly dominant feature in the landscape, particularly the large expanse of roof when viewed from the Helm. Trees could be planted to the rear and around the sides of the building to provide some screening. Such trees would not improve the appearance from higher vantage points on the Helm or the visual impact created by a proliferation of buildings along the roadside. As the application site has been drawn tightly around the building and concrete apron adjacent the building, conditions could not be used to require tree planting. The applicant was advised to consider a smaller building tucked in the corner of the field. While the proposed building is slightly smaller than the previous scheme, the reduction is insignificant. The applicant has submitted information in support of the application and argues that a building of this scale is necessary for horse shelter, haylage and machinery storage. The applicant has stated that the height and width of the proposed building is necessary to accommodate a trailer and other machinery for taking grass and hay from the land. It is also necessary for the health and wellbeing of the horses. Without the building the equipment would be stored outside creating an unsightly appearance. The applicant purchased the fields without shelter or storage. While the applicant is responsible for the health and wellbeing of her horses this does not justify the erection of large scale buildings in this sensitive location. The lack of shelter should have been taken into account before the fields were purchased and alternative indoor accommodation provided. The fields cover 7 acres which is a relatively small parcel of land. The applicant states that this will provide 125 cubic metres of haylage per cut and storage is required to allow year round use. The haylage cut will however be significantly lower on grazed land and each cut produces a reduced level. While some haylage may be taken from the fields it is unlikely to yield the levels suggested by the applicant. The

Page 90 keeping of horses is a recreational use and does not fall within the definition of agricultural. The exceptions made for agricultural buildings therefore do not apply. In this location proposals for agricultural buildings would cause similar concerns with regard to the landscape impact. The level of haylage to be taken from the land does not justify an additional building in this sensitive location. It should also be noted that if buildings of this scale were to be built on each similar small parcel of land there would be a proliferation of buildings and the impact on the landscape would be significantly adverse.

Conclusion The proposed building is of an excessive scale and will result in an adverse visual impact on the landscape contrary to the aims of saved Policy L9 of the Local Plan and Policies CS8.2 and CS8.10 of the Core Strategy. The supporting information with regard to animal welfare and storage is not sufficient justification for a building of the scale proposed within this sensitive location.

RECOMMENDATION: REFUSE for the reason below - The proposed building would be of a scale, design and in a location which would adversely affect the appearance of the landscape in this sensitive location. The proposal is therefore contrary to saved Policy L9 of the South Lakeland Local Plan and Policies CS8.2 and CS8.10 of the adopted South Lakeland Core Strategy. The applicant’s circumstances do not justify provision of such a building contrary to these policies.

The Local Planning Authority has acted positively and proactively in determining this application by identifying matters of concern with the proposal and discussing those with the applicant. Unfortunately, it has not been possible to resolve those matters within the timescale allocated for the determination of this planning application. However, the Local Planning Authority has clearly set out, within its report, the steps necessary to remedy the harm identified within the reasons for refusal – which may lead to the submission of a more acceptable proposal in the future. The Local Planning Authority is willing to provide pre-application advice in respect of any future application for a revised development.

Page 91 This page is intentionally left blank

Page 92 SCHEDULE A

Complex Planning Applications

SCHEDULE No: 7 SL/2012/1058

PRESTON PATRICK: MILLNESS HILL CARAVAN PARK, CROOKLANDS, MILNTHORPE LA7 7NU

PROPOSAL: REPLACEMENT RECEPTION BUILDING/SHED AND LPG STORE Website Link: MR CHARLES http://www.southlakeland.gov.uk/fastweb/detail.asp?AltRef=SL/2012/ STEWART 1058 E353746 N482543 28/03/2013

SUMMARY: The building would be damaging to the appearance and character of the surrounding landscape. The benefits to the applicant do not outweigh the effect on the locality.

DESCRIPTION AND PROPOSAL: Site Description The Millness Hill Caravan Park is located close to Junction 36 and the roundabout that marks the junction of the A65 with the A6070 which runs south towards Holme and Burton. The application site lies to the south of the access into the caravan park from the A65. It comprises the eastern edge of a field and fronts onto the highway. There is a copse of poplar trees alongside the highway boundary and the site currently contains a field shelter and a container; neither of which have planning permission. Although the site adjoins the caravan park and is near to the new auction mart site which is approaching completion, the area is predominantly rural in character. Despite the overall elevation of the caravan park it fits well into this area of attractive landscape, although the chalets alongside the access road are not particularly well screened and are prominent in view when seen from the south.

Proposal The proposed development comprises a storage building and a single-storey reception / office building attached to its north-facing gable. The main building has a floor area measuring 13.5 m by 10 m and stands 3.425 m high to the eaves and 5.05 m high to the ridge. It is to be used for the storage of a tractor and trailer, mowers and hedge trimmers and other tools and equipment used in the maintenance of the caravan park. The materials of construction are a mix of render and timber-boarding

Page 93 with steel sheeting used as the roof covering. The reception building is to be rendered with a hipped slate roof. It has a floor area measuring 5 m by 7 m, an eaves height of 2.4 m, and a ridge height of 4.55 m. A compound for the storage of LPG and other items is attached to the southern gable of the building, with a rendered wall measuring 1.8 m in height enclosing an area 10 m wide and 6.5 m in depth. A hardstanding will be created adjacent to the building on three sides, and new planting belts of native species are proposed to the south east and south west of the building. The present reception and storage building is located within the caravan park at the head of the access road where it is well screened.

Applicant’s reasons for needing the Building At present there is a timber maintenance shed located within the park which is inadequate for a park of this size and which is sited amidst the holiday caravans. There are significant areas of grass and large landscaping belts to maintain. For this purpose the owners have two articulated grass cutting mowers, a large grass roller, a tractor, hedge cutting machinery and strimmers. A digger and dumper are also needed for groundworks. At present some of the equipment has to be stored 4 miles away. If the equipment could be stored on site, the carbon footprint of the park would be reduced. Furthermore there is no onsite storage area available for materials such as sand, gravel, landscaping materials, pipework and plumbing. The reception is also located in the middle of the park, away from the entrance which is not ideal in terms of supervision and security. The individual caravans are served by LPG gas bottles for which there is currently no secure and dedicated storage, and delivery drivers delivering the gas bottles have to traverse the park. Having a dedicated LPG storage area at the entrance would minimise the number of deliveries that would be necessary, thus reducing the carbon footprint for the holiday park. Should planning permission be granted, the existing information kiosk on the site could be relocated into the existing reception building along with a library to create a “reading room”.

HISTORICAL CONTEXT: The Millness Hill Caravan Park has a lengthy planning history which does not relate to the site of the current development proposal. There are only two applications which relate to this land: 5/93/0345 – Budget hotel – refused – May 1993, subsequently dismissed at appeal SL/2011/0914 – Implement shed and reception building – Refused December 2011, following a site visit:- “The building will occupy a prominent and isolated site outside the screened boundaries of the Millness Hill Caravan Park. It would be clearly visible and intrusive within the landscape and would substantially damage the intrinsic rural character and attractive appearance of the area. The proposal is, therefore, in conflict with the aims and objectives of Policies CS7.6, CS8.2 and CS8.10 of the adopted South Lakeland Core Strategy, saved Policy E37 of the Cumbria and Lake District Joint Structure Plan and Policy EC6 of Planning Policy Statement 4. Finally, by failing to protect and

Page 94 enhance the natural environment, the building does not accord with one of the key sustainable development principles contained in the draft National Planning Policy Framework.” As part of the current application the scheme has been amended. The length of the building has been reduced by 6.5 m to be replaced by the storage compound, and the eaves and ridge height of the building have been reduced by 1 metre.

CONSULTATIONS: Preston Patrick Parish Council The Parish Council acknowledges a reduction in the size and scale of the building, but considers that it should be reduced further to be less obtrusive at the entrance to the site. The Council remains concerned that the parking area for visitors is still too close to the entrance for safety.

Cumbria Highways No objections as it is considered that the proposal does not affect the public highway.

Canal and River Trust No comments to make.

POLICY ISSUES: National Planning Policy Framework The purpose of the planning system is to contribute to the achievement of sustainable development, which comprises social, economic, and environmental dimensions. Advancement in these spheres should be sought jointly and simultaneously through the planning system.

Core Planning Principles The NPPF sets out 12 core land-use planning principles which should underpin decision making. Of most relevance to this application are the following: Planning should take account of the different roles and character of different areas… recognising the intrinsic character and beauty of the countryside and supporting thriving rural communities within it. Planning should contribute to conserving and enhancing the natural environment. Part 3 Supporting a prosperous rural economy supports the sustainable growth and expansion of businesses and enterprise in rural areas, through conversion of existing buildings and well designed new buildings. Sustainable rural tourism and leisure developments that benefit businesses in rural areas, communities and visitors, and which respect the character of the countryside are also supported, including the provision and expansion of tourist and visitor facilities in appropriate locations where identified needs are not met by existing facilities.

Page 95 Part 7 Requiring good design emphasizes the importance of design to the built environment. Good design is a key aspect of sustainable development and should contribute positively to making places better for people. Part 17 Conserving and enhancing the Natural Environment affirms the role of the planning system in contributing to and enhancing the natural and local environment.

North West Regional Spatial Strategy Policy RDF 2 Rural Areas indicates that exceptionally, development outside key and local service centres will be permitted where: • it has an essential need for a rural location which cannot be accommodated elsewhere; • is needed to sustain existing businesses; • provides for exceptional needs for affordable housing; • is an extension of an existing building; or • involves the appropriate change of use of an existing building. Policy W6 Tourism and Visitor Economy promotes sustainable tourism in line with the principles outlined in Policy W7. Policy W7 Principles for tourism development are designed to ensure high quality, environmentally sensitive well-designed tourist attractions, infrastructure and services. The maintenance and enhancement of existing tourism development will be supported, providing that improvement, intensification and expansion proposals meet environmental and other development control criteria. Policy EM1 Integrated enhancement and protection of the region’s environmental assets EM 1 (a) relates especially to Landscape, and sets out how proposals should identify, maintain, protect and enhance natural features that contribute to the character of landscapes. With the introduction of the Localism Bill, the revocation of the Regional Spatial Strategies (RSS) is imminent. Nevertheless, the RSS remains a material planning consideration although the planning authority may choose to give little weight to it.

Cumbria and Lake District Joint Structure Plan Saved Policy E37 Landscape Character requires that development and land use change should be compatible with the distinctive characteristics and features of the county’s landscape types, with proposals being assessed in relation to a number of criteria including visual intrusion, scale in relation to landscape and features, public access, biodiversity, openness, remoteness and tranquillity.

South Lakeland Core Strategy Policy CS8.10 Design requires that the siting, design, scale and materials of all development proposals should be of a character which maintains or enhances the quality of the landscape or townscape. Policy CS8.2 Protection and enhancement of landscape and settlement character asserts the high priority that must be given to the protection, conservation and

Page 96 enhancement of South Lakeland’s highly valued landscape. Development proposals should demonstrate that their location, scale, design and materials will protect, conserve, and where possible enhance their surroundings. Policy CS7.6 Tourism Development supports the creation and enhancement and expansion of tourist attractions and tourism infrastructure in accordance with the development strategy for the District outlined in Policy CS1.2, which seeks to focus tourism development in the principal and key service centres. Tourism will generally be supported in rural areas where it is shown to have no environmental harm.

South Lakeland Local Plan Saved Policy S2 The South Lakeland Design Code requires development applications to take proper account of its principles. Saved Policy T6 Caravan site development outside the Arnside-Silverdale AONB will permit small scale extensions to existing sites and new caravan development only where there is no adverse impact on: • the conservation of the landscape and built environment; • the capacity of the surrounding road system and the adequacy of parking and access; • the protection of wildlife, archaeological and geological features.

HUMAN RIGHTS ACT: This application has been determined to accord with the rights and limitations of the Act in relation to Article 6 (Right to a fair and public hearing), Article 8 (Right to respect for private and family life, home and correspondence), Article 14 (Prohibition of discrimination) and Article 1 of Protocol 1 (Right to peaceful enjoyment of possessions and protection of property).

ASSESSMENT: The main issue raised by this application is the effect of the proposed storage building, enclosure and hardstanding on the character and appearance of the landscape in the locality. Notwithstanding the existence of the trees along the highway boundary and the supplementary planting proposed by the applicant, the building would be readily visible from the A65 which passes in front of the site and from the Kirkby Lonsdale direction towards the Crooklands roundabout. It is a utilitarian structure which, if built, would represent a particularly unfortunate development as it would bring about a significant change to the generally successful visual relationship that the majority of the caravan park enjoys within the wider landscape. In this particular case, the building and hardstanding would occupy an isolated site which is divorced, both physically and visually, from the main caravan park, and the development would represent an intrusion of the built form into the countryside. The building and associated hardstanding will become the focus of activities associated with the park, the hardstanding being used for the parking of vehicles and the storage of materials. It would substantially damage the intrinsic rural character and attractive appearance of the locality. Although the applicant has set out his reasons for the proposals, it is

Page 97 judged that there is no substantive operational need requirement for the proposals which would outweigh the adverse effects of the development on its immediate surroundings. Some of the advantages of the development to the applicant could be achieved by internal re-organisation within the park. The applicant makes reference to the new auction mart buildings which are located close to the caravan park. The auction mart was granted planning permission as an exception to serve the wider needs of agriculture. The auction mart does not justify other buildings in the countryside. Although divorced from the chalets, the building is nevertheless associated with the caravan park, and the fact that it will cause harm to the environment renders the development incompatible with the objectives of Core Strategy Policy CS7.6. The building is not consistent with the aims and objectives of Policies CS7.6, CS8.2 and CS8.10 of the adopted Core Strategy, saved Policy E37 of the Structure Plan and saved Policy T6 of the South Lakeland Local Plan. Finally, the proposals would conflict with one of the key sustainable development principles contained in the National Planning Policy Framework which aims to protect and enhance the natural environment.

RECOMMENDATION: REFUSE for the following reason: The building will occupy a prominent and isolated site outside the screened boundaries of the Millness Hill Caravan Park. It would be clearly visible and intrusive within the landscape and would substantially damage the intrinsic rural character and attractive appearance of the area. The proposal is, therefore, in conflict with the aims and objectives of Policies CS7.6, CS8.2 and CS8.10 of the adopted South Lakeland Core Strategy, saved Policy E37 of the Cumbria and Lake District Joint Structure Plan and saved Policy T6 of the South Lakeland Local Plan. Finally, by failing to protect and enhance the natural environment, the building does not accord with one of the key sustainable development principles contained in the National Planning Policy Framework. The advantages of the scheme to the applicant do not outweigh the harm to the character and appearance of the area.

The Local Planning Authority has acted positively and proactively in determining this application by identifying matters of concern with the proposal and determining the application within a timely manner, clearly setting out the reason for refusal, allowing the applicant the opportunity to consider the harm caused and whether or not it can be remedied by a revision to the proposal. The Local Planning Authority is willing to meet with the applicant to discuss the best course of action and is also willing to provide pre-application advice in respect of any future application for a revised development.

Page 98 SCHEDULE A

Complex Planning Applications

SCHEDULE No: 8 SL/2012/1073

ALDINGHAM: SKELDON MOOR LITTLE URSWICK ULVERSTON

PROPOSAL: ERECTION OF SINGLE WIND TURBINE (45.4M TO BLADE TIP) ASSOCIATED ACCESS TRACK

AND EQUIPMENT Website Link: KIOSK http://www.southlakeland.gov.uk/fastweb/detail.asp?AltRef=SL/2012/

MR B DAWSON 1073 E326764 N472916 28/03/2013

SUMMARY: Proposed siting of 45.4 metre high wind turbine on elevated agricultural land between the villages of Scales and Little Urswick. The main issue arising from the application relates to visual impact upon the surrounding landscape.

DESCRIPTION AND PROPOSAL: Site Description The turbine would be sited centrally within an agricultural field in a generally rising area of landscape known as Skeldon Moor. Access to the site is via a private track to the north of the main road running through the village of Scales. The nearest residential properties are at Rothay Bank and Brook Cottage some 380m and 400m to the north west, and Moorhouse Farm some 420m to the south. The western edge of the village of Scales is located approximately 420m to the south east of the site and Little Urswick is located some 700m to the north west of the site. The nearest public road is 400m to the south and west of the site. A public bridleway is located approximately 150m to the east of the proposed turbine. The site forms part of an area of grazing land which is detached from the applicants main land holding based in Baycliff.

Proposal The 250 kW turbine would be a three bladed structure measuring 30.4 metres to the hub and 45.4 metres to the tip of the blades, which would be 30 metres in diameter. The base of the turbine would be 2.50 metres in diameter and would comprise of a galvanised steel tower with pale coloured blades and hub. The turbine would require a reinforced concrete foundation and an area of hardstanding to support the crane for

Page 99 the erection of the turbine. The proposal includes the construction of a transformer kiosk and HV switchgear enclosure at the base of the turbine, and a surfaced access track and turning area leading from the nearest public road to the south. The electricity generated would be connected directly to the grid. The application is accompanied by an Environmental Report which covers the issues of noise impact, Ecology and ornithology and Landscape and Visual Impact. The submitted noise report has assessed the potential impact upon the nearest 20 residential properties to the site at distances of between 382 metres and 485 metres. based upon the manufacturers noise emission data. The predicted noise levels will be less than 35dB up to a wind speed of 10 metres per second and the report concludes that the noise emissions associated with the turbine would achieve current government recommendations on noise from wind farms. Members will note that the Environmental Protection Officer has not raised any objections in relation to this aspect. The submitted Ecology Statement concludes that the turbine is unlikely to have an impact on any habitats of conservation significance. The habitats considered to have local conservation value at the site are either outside the development footprint or not scheduled for removal as part of the development. The report recommends that further pre-construction surveys are carried out to ensure that no protected species have colonised the site and mitigation measures should be implemented to negate any potential risk to protected species and birds, including undertaking work outside the main bird breeding season. The Landscape and Visual Impact report includes mapping the Zone of Theoretical Visibility of the proposed turbine and the submission of a number of visualisations from viewpoints from around the site. The report concludes that whilst the turbine would introduce a new element to the landscape, it is predicted that the impact on landscape character would not be significant and the proposed development would not form a defining element. It also refers to the potential for the turbine to have some effects on visual amenity. Whilst it identifies that a particularly significant effect would be in relation to the views from Moorhouse Farm to the south, the impacts would be restricted to the areas in close proximity to the site.

HISTORICAL CONTEXT: There have been two recent applications for the siting of wind turbines in the local area. A proposal to site a 34m high turbine on land at Bolton Manor Farm approximately 1 km to the west of this site (Reference SL/2012/0241) was refused consent in June last year on landscape impact grounds. A subsequent appeal was dismissed. The inspector concluded that the harm to the landscape and risk of harm to wildlife was not outweighed by the acknowledged environmental and economic benefits. A proposal to site a 79m high turbine on land at Aurora Park Farm to the north of Scales approximately 800 metres to the east of this site (Reference SL/2012/0352) was refused consent under delegated procedures in June last year on landscape and wildlife impact grounds.

Page 100 CONSULTATIONS: Urswick Parish Council The Parish Council has considered the application carefully and a number of objections have been raised. The visual impact of a large structure in an area with open views of the surrounding countryside would be detrimental to the rural landscape for both residents and visitors. There may also be detrimental effects on wildlife. Such a turbine would be clearly visible from Birkrigg Common. Concerns have also been expressed about the cumulative effect of such turbines as recently a number of similar applications have been received in the Parish.

Aldingham Parish Council The Council do not consider that the energy benefits from this structure outweigh the negative impacts. The proposal will be of no direct benefit to the neighbouring properties or any rural businesses. The following are considered to be negative impacts of the proposal :

1. This is a very large perpendicular structure which will have a significant impact on the visual amenity of the area, it will be visible from a wide area, particularly to the north. 2. The proximity to numerous properties, especially Moor House, could have a significant impact on the lives of residents there with regard to noise, shadow flicker and visual amenity. 3. There are no reasonable plans in place regarding the restoration of the site following decommissioning and their report refers to the retention of access tracks and crane pads which will reduce the quality of agricultural land.

In addition the proposal is likely to create a precedent for several other proposals around Scales, Stainton and Urswick, the result of which would be a cumulative effect of numerous isolated turbines across the landscape.

Neighbours and Other Members of the Public A total of 14 letters of objection have been received from local residents, the main concerns are as follows: • Impact of the turbine upon the amenity of neighbouring residents in terms of noise and visual impact. • The proposal is a large isolated structure which will be visible on the skyline for miles around. It will spoil a beautiful area of Low Furness, close to Birkrigg Common and will have a detrimental impact upon the landscape of Skeldon Moor and surrounding area. The size and scale of the turbine is more suited to an industrial area. • There is no evidence that it will not harm the bird interest of Morecambe Bay Special Protection Area. The proposal is on the flight path of many birds including geese and swans which fly between Urswick Tarn and Mere Tarn.

Page 101 • The proposal will have a detrimental effect upon the surrounding farmland which is host to a wide diversity of wildlife and which is integral to the character of the Furness Peninsular. • The proposal will have an adverse impact upon the local footpath network. The historic Cistercian Way runs through the Urswick valley and the turbine would be clearly seen from this route. • The applicant does not live in the area and it will be of no benefit to the local community. • A similar application for a turbine at Aurora Park Farm close to this site was recently refused. The refusal reasons are relevant to this proposal.

SLDC Environmental Protection Officer The Environmental Protection Group has no observations to make regarding this proposal.

Natural England The application site is in close proximity to the Morecambe Bay and South Walney and Piel Channel Flats Site of Special Scientific Interest (SSSI), part of the Morecambe Bay Special Area of Conservation (SAC) and Special Protection Area (SPA). However, given the nature and scale of this proposal, Natural England is satisfied that there is not likely to be an adverse effect on this site as a result of the proposal being carried out in strict accordance with the details of the application as submitted. It is noted that a survey for European Protected Species has been undertaken in support of this proposal. On the basis of the information available, the proposed development would be unlikely to affect a European Protected Species. Natural England does not object to the proposed development. We would expect the LPA to consider other possible impacts resulting from the proposal on local sites, landscape and priority habitats and species.

Historic Environment Officer No observations to make regarding this proposal 8

Ministry of Defence No objections.

Arqiva (television transmission) No objections.

NATS No objections.

Page 102 Radio Link Infrastructure JRC No objections.

Friends of the Lake District The turbine would appear as a strident vertical feature in this open farmland landscape. It would have a significant visual impact on users of the nearby footpath network. Through its form and movement it would be conspicuous and detract from the largely uncluttered skyline and thus be inappropriate in the locality.

POLICY ISSUES: National Planning Policy Framework Section 10 Meeting the challenge of climate change, flooding and coastal change , states that planning plays a key role in supporting the delivery of renewable and low carbon energy and associated infrastructure. When determining applications, LPAs should approve the application if its impacts are (or can be made) acceptable. Section 11 Conserving and enhancing the natural environment , states that the planning system should seek to protect and enhance valued landscapes and to minimise impacts upon biodiversity.

Regional Policy Policy EM17 of the Regional Spatial Strategy for North West England (RSS) specifically promotes renewable energy sources and states that significant weight should be given to the wider environmental, community and economic benefits of renewable energy schemes. It lists wide-ranging criteria which should be taken into account when assessing renewable energy proposals, including the effects on local amenity, visual impact and nature conservation. The visual impact of such schemes is a matter to be taken into account but should not be used to rule out or place constraints on the development of all, or specific types of, renewable energy technologies. RSS Policy DP7 promotes the protection and enhancement of environmental quality, including green infrastructure, but at the same time respecting the character and distinctiveness of landscapes and the maintenance and enhancement of the tranquillity of the open countryside.

Structure Plan Policy Saved Structure Plan Policy R44 states that outside the Lake District National Park and the AONB proposals for renewable energy will be favourably considered if : (1) there is no significant adverse effect on the landscape character, biodiversity and the natural and built heritage of the area either individually or cumulatively through their relationship with other utility infrastructure; (2) there is no significant adverse effect on local amenity, the local economy, highways or telecommunications;

Page 103 (3) the proposal takes all practicable measures to reduce any adverse impact on the landscape, environment, nature conservation, historical and local community interests. In considering applications for planning permission in relation to the above criteria, and other policies in the Structure Plan, the environmental, economic and energy benefits of renewable energy proposals should be given significant weight. Saved Structure Plan Policy E37 requires development to be compatible with the distinctive characteristics and features of Cumbria’s landscape types Policy E37 requires proposals to be assessed in relation to : (1) locally distinctive natural or built features; (2) visual intrusion or impact; (3) scale in relation to the landscape features; (4) the character of the built environment; (5) public access and community value of the landscape; (6) historic patterns and attributes; (7) biodiversity features, ecological networks and semi-natural habitats; and (8) openess, remoteness and tranquillity.

South Lakeland Core Strategy Policy CS 7.7 supports in principle appropriately located renewable energy schemes. It is acknowledged that there are some energy sources which need to be remote from residential areas and other sensitive land uses, and projects should avoid any harmful impact upon the historic environment. Policy CS 8.2 states that development proposals should be informed by and be sympathetic to the distinctive character landscapes identified in the Cumbria Landscape Character Guidance and Toolkit. Proposals should demonstrate that their location, scale, design and materials will protect and conserve the special qualities and local distinctiveness of the area.

Local Plan Policy Saved Policy C26 of the Local Plan covers wind energy proposals and states that their acceptability will be judged according to whether a number of defined criteria can be satisfied. One of the criteria is that the proposal’s energy contribution and other benefits outweigh any significant adverse impact on the character and appearance of the landscape, the amenity of residential properties, nature conservation, archaeological or geographical interests.

Supplementary Planning Documents The Cumbria Wind Energy Supplementary Planning Guidance, which was adopted in 2007, provides guidance for the consideration of wind energy developments. Part 2 of the guidelines provides specific guidance on landscape and visual issues and identifies the potential capacity of various landscape types throughout the county to accommodate different scales of wind farms. The landscape type for this location is judged to have a low capacity to accommodate turbine development. It states that

Page 104 any type of turbine development would have potential to compromise the picturesque coastal limestone scenery around Morecambe Bay. It would also be liable to upset the sensitive balance of hills, pastureland, woodland, winding lanes, visible archaeological remains, historic buildings and field patterns, with little or no scope for visual linkage or association with comparable structures or regular land cover patterns.

OTHER MATERIAL CONSIDERATIONS: The Cumbria Landscape Character Guidance and Toolkit document was prepared by Cumbria County Council in conjunction with the district authorities in March 2011. The application site lies within the landscape character type of “Open Farmland and Pavements”. The key characteristics of this landscape type are steep scarp limestone slopes, limestone pavement or rocky outcrops; grazed land with stone wall field boundaries; rough pasture as open common or fell in higher areas; sporadic scrub and woodland on steep scarp slopes; stately homes and parklands in lower areas; and extensive open uninterrupted views from high ground. The guidance recommends that, in these areas, uncluttered skylines and key views to and from the area should be protected from large-scale energy infrastructure developments such as large scale wind turbine, pylons or telecommunication masts.

HUMAN RIGHTS ACT: This application has been determined to accord with the rights and limitations of the Act in relation to Article 6 (Right to a fair and public hearing), Article 8 (Right to respect for private and family life, home and correspondence), Article 14 (Prohibition of discrimination) and Article 1 of Protocol 1 (Right to peaceful enjoyment of possessions and protection of property).

ASSESSMENT: There have been no concerns raised from the various consultees in relation to aviation, telecommunications and ecology. The main issues in this case are, therefore, the visual impact of the proposed turbine on the character and appearance of the surrounding rural landscape, and the impact upon residential amenity.

Landscape Impact The proposed 45 metre high turbine is a significant structure. It would be installed within an area of open and gently undulating landscape and, as a consequence, it will be highly visible from the surrounding area. The elevated and open nature of the landscape in this area is such that the turbine would appear as an isolated and extremely prominent vertical structure when viewed from the surrounding public vantage points, both from the road network and footpaths which pass close to the site and from further afield to the north, south and west. This substantial structure would loom above these vantage points and there are no trees, landforms, buildings or other structures in the immediate vicinity of the site that would serve to act as a foil for the turbine which might reduce its prominence. The landscape is such that it would be silhouetted against the skyline from many

Page 105 viewpoints, thus accentuating its height and prominence. In dismissing the appeal for the Bolton Manor Farm proposal, which was for a smaller turbine, 34 metres in height, the Inspector concluded that a turbine of the proposed scale would have a significant visual impact and not be sympathetic to the distinctive character of this landscape type.

Visual Impact and Residential Amenity The location of the proposed turbine would be visible from a number of residential properties and from a wide range of public vantage points. The proximity of the turbine to the closest properties, road and footpath network would have a significant impact on their visual amenity. The proposal would not appear to raise any noise impact issues. In conclusion, although it is recognised that the wind turbine will have wider environmental, economic and energy benefits, it is considered that in this case the harmful visual impact of the proposed turbine in particular, outweighs the potential benefits in this particular case and the application is recommended for refusal.

RECOMMENDATION: REFUSE for the reasons below - Reason (1) The proposed turbine would appear as an isolated and prominent vertical structure which would appear incongruous in its surroundings. As a consequence, the turbine will have a harmful effect on the character and appearance of the landscape and would thus be in conflict with the aims and objectives of Policy CS8.2 of the adopted South Lakeland Core Strategy; saved Policies R44 and E37 of the Cumbria and Lake District Joint Structure Plan and saved Policy C26 of the South Lakeland Local Plan. Reason (2) The proposed development would have an adverse visual impact upon the amenity of the area and neighbouring residential properties, by reason of its scale and prominence, contrary to the aims and objectives of Policy CS8.2 of the adopted South Lakeland Core Strategy; saved Policies R44 and E37 of the Cumbria and Lake District Joint Structure Plan and saved Policy C26 of the South Lakeland Local Plan.

The Local Planning Authority has acted positively and proactively in determining this application by identifying matters of concern with the proposal and determining the application within a timely manner, clearly setting out the reason for refusal, allowing the applicant the opportunity to consider the harm caused and whether or not it can be remedied by a revision to the proposal. The Local Planning Authority is willing to meet with the applicant to discuss the best course of action and is also willing to provide pre- application advice in respect of any future application for a revised development.

Page 106 SCHEDULE A

Complex Planning Applications

SCHEDULE No: 9 SL/2012/1075

PENNINGTON: LAND ADJACENT TO VALE VIEW PENNINGTON ULVERSTON LA12 0RR

PROPOSAL: TWO DWELLINGS

DR S AND J COSTIGAN AND Website Link: WATKIN http://www.southlakeland.gov.uk/fastweb/detail.asp?AltRef=SL/2012/ 1075 E326463 N477041 28/03/2013

SUMMARY: Outline application for the construction of two dwellings. Main issues relate to whether the proposal constitutes infilling or rounding off of a hamlet.

DESCRIPTION AND PROPOSAL: Site description The site comprises a paddock area associated with a detached dwelling known as Vale View, which is located adjacent to a small group of dwellings to the west of Pennington School. The site extends to 0.3 hectares and has frontages onto Pennington Lane and Seg Lane. The applicants dwelling adjoins the southern boundary of the site, a detached dwelling known as Windy Ash is located to the east of the site. To the north of the site, on the opposite side of Pennington Lane is a commercial garage and group of 12 dwellings collectively known as Rowe Head.

Proposal This outline proposal relates to the construction of two detached dwellings. The indicative layout plans show two relatively substantial dwellings set in large plots positioned centrally within the site, orientated towards Seg Lane. Each property would have a driveway, access, parking and turning areas. A new sewerage treatment plant would be installed to serve the new property.

CONSULTATIONS: Pennington Parish Council

Page 107 The Parish Council object to the proposal. There are concerns regarding the loss of an open field with no buildings and the development of this area has not been identified in the Local Development Framework. There is a designated LDF site only a matter of metres away for 160 residences already providing saturation for an area which has existing vehicular access difficulties. The site has restricted access due to the narrow nature of the lane. It is currently used for parking by the garage across the road and by parents at school time. Any development of driveways would reduce the parking spaces and merely move the parking problem further into the dangerous areas such as the railway bridge which has a sharp corner. Parking in and around the school is an ongoing problem and residents experience the blocking of access to their properties by parked cars.

Highways Officer To be reported.

Other Four letters of objection have been received from neighbouring residents. The main concerns are as follows: • The access road is extremely narrow and gets congested during school time to the detriment of residents. • The proposed development would not be in keeping with the existing houses at Rowe Head or sympathetic to the character of the area, which are built circa 1700 or have been converted from original barns. There have been no new build developments allowed in the hamlet. • There are already a number of houses in the area which are on the market. Considering the current market and the slow movement of properties for sale, the additional houses are not required in this small hamlet. The type of property suggested will not ease the shortfall of housing highlighted. • The site allocated for 161 dwellings at Swarthmoor will meet the needs of the area. • The site has no amenities, drainage, gas etc. • The proposed development will affect light to the adjoining property. Two further letters have been received, one requesting that the site should be connected to mains drainage to enable the other properties to have access to the mains, and one requesting that any driveways have a gated access to aid livestock movement in the area.

POLICY ISSUES: National Planning Policy Framework Section 6 of the National Planning Policy Framework states that housing applications should be considered in the context of the presumptions in favour of sustainable development. Local Planning Authorities should avoid new isolated homes in the countryside unless there are special circumstances.

Page 108

South Lakeland Core Strategy The Development Strategy (Policy CS1.2) explains that development will be concentrated in Kendal and Ulverston, then in the Key Service Centres, followed by a number of designated Local Service Centres and, finally, the smaller villages, hamlets and the open countryside. The Strategy states that approximately 11% of new housing and employment development will be in the network of smaller villages and hamlets. Development boundaries are not identified for these settlements; instead, new, small-scale development, in the form of infilling and rounding-off, will be permitted in order to satisfy local need in the smaller villages and hamlets scattered across the District. Exceptionally, new development will be permitted in open countryside where it has an essential requirement for a rural location, is needed to sustain existing businesses or provides for exceptional needs for affordable housing. The terms “infilling” and “rounding-off” are defined in paragraph 2.25 of the Core Strategy. Infilling is defined as building taking place on a vacant plot in an otherwise built-up street frontage; rounding-off is defined as the completion of an incomplete group of buildings on land which is already partially developed, in such a way that will either complete the local road pattern or finally define and complete the boundaries of the group. Policy CS3.1 of the Core Strategy explains the spatial strategy for the west of the District and, in the context of this current application, makes provision for small-scale housing development in the Local Service Centres and, to a lesser extent, in the smaller rural settlements in order to ensure a readily available supply of affordable housing. Policy CS6.4 relates to the rural exceptions policy, whereby housing development proposals outside development boundaries and not constituting infilling and rounding off will only be considered where they provide 100% affordable housing.

Policy CS8.2 of the Core Strategy requires the siting, design, scale and materials of all developments to be of a character which maintains or enhances the quality of the landscape or townscape and, where appropriate, should be in keeping with the local vernacular tradition. The policy concludes by stating that designs that support and enhance local distinctiveness will be encouraged.

South Lakeland Local Plan Saved Policy S2 of the South Lakeland Local Plan requires all new development to take account of the South Lakeland Design Code. The protection of residential amenity, in one or more of its various aspects, is a recognised material consideration in deciding whether planning permission should be granted.

HUMAN RIGHTS ACT: This application has been determined to accord with the rights and limitations of the Act in relation to Article 6 (Right to a fair and public hearing), Article 8 (Right to respect for private and family life, home and correspondence), Article 14 (Prohibition

Page 109 of discrimination) and Article 1 of Protocol 1 (Right to peaceful enjoyment of possessions and protection of property).

ASSESSMENT: The main planning issues raised by this application are whether the group of buildings at Rowe Head can be regarded as a small village or hamlet and whether the proposal can be regarded as appropriate infilling or rounding off, bearing in mind the adopted planning policies for the area. Although there is no adopted definition of what constitutes a small village or hamlet, it is generally considered that they comprise a contiguous cluster of a number of dwellings with a community facility and have a collective historic name. Rowe Head is centred upon a former farmstead comprising a number of dwellings converted from former farm buildings during the 1980’s and the original farmhouse and cottage. Two further dwellings, including the applicants house are located to the south of the group, the school is located immediately to the east and a commercial garage, converted from a former agricultural building is at the western end of the group with an associated residential dwelling. The total number of dwellings in the group is 14 and it is considered that Rowe Head could be regarded as a hamlet. Policy CS1.2 of the Core Strategy states that new, small-scale development, in the form of infilling and rounding-off, will be permitted in order to satisfy local need in hamlets and small villages. The definition of infilling and rounding off is clearly set out in the Core Strategy: Infilling: Building taking place on a vacant plot in an otherwise built-up street frontage . Rounding-off: The completion of an incomplete group of buildings on land which is already partially developed, in such a way that will either complete the local road pattern or finally define and complete the boundaries of the group. Such rounding off should not: • change or distort the character or tradition of the group or the settlement in any undesirable way; • extend the grouping in such a manner that, when the development has taken place, undeveloped areas remain or further land is opened up where pressure for development is likely to occur. Rowe Head, including the school consists of a recognisable building group centred upon Pennington Lane. The site is located immediately to the south of the main building group between the applicants’ property and Windy Ash. The site is relatively level and open on the highway boundaries and as such any development would be visually prominent within the immediate locality. However it is well related to the existing settlement and the development of this site could therefore be regarded as falling within the definition of rounding-off. The site is however large in area relative to the size of the hamlet extending to 0.3 hectare. Whilst the proposed number of dwellings would be appropriate in the context of the hamlet, the proposed form of development, two large detached dwellings, would not relate particularly well to the character of the settlement.

Page 110 In conclusion, the principle of development on this site accords with policy and the number of dwellings proposed is appropriate. However, the layout and form of the development is out of keeping with the locality and the outline consent should specifically exclude this element from the permission to be the subject of the Reserved Matters application. In terms of other matters raised, the comments of the highways officer are awaited at the time of writing and will be reported at the meeting. The proposed access to the site would however be via the side lane rather than Pennington Lane and should not interfere with the current on road parking arrangements. The need for the development is not a relevant planning matter and it does not raise any issues which would affect the privacy or amenity of neighbouring dwellings.

RECOMMENDATION: The Director (People and Places) At present no written response has been received from the Highways Officer regarding the scheme and, subject to no adverse comment being received, it is recommended that delegated authority be given to the Director (People and Places) to grant outline planning permission with all matters reserved subject to the following conditions:

(1) Standard time limit. (2) Standard outline. (3) Exclude reference to the submitted layout.

Page 111 This page is intentionally left blank

Page 112 SCHEDULE A

Complex Planning Applications

SCHEDULE No: 10 SL/2013/0055

KIRKBY LONSDALE: QUEEN ELIZABETH SCHOOL, KIRKBY LONSDALE LA6 2HJ

PROPOSAL: ALTERATIONS TO THE MATERIAL FINISHES TO THE ROOF, AND CLADDING OF THE 3 STOREY BLOCK Website Link: http://www.southlakeland.gov.uk/fastweb/detail.asp?AltRef=SL/2013/ MR STEVEN 0055 HOLMES E360707.3 N478609.4 28/03/2013

SUMMARY: The zinc roofing material and cedar boarding proposed are acceptable materials for this modern building situated within the school complex; the character of the area will not be adversely affected.

DESCRIPTION AND PROPOSAL: Site Description The Queen Elizabeth School complex is situated between Kendal Road and Biggins Road on the south-western edge of Kirkby Lonsdale. The site consists of a collection of largely modern rendered and slated school buildings featuring elements of timber cladding, although there are more traditional stone and slated buildings of historic interest which face Biggins Road. The mid-19 th century school room is listed. This application relates to the centrally located three storey modern block which is most visible from Biggins Road, where it appears sandwiched between the traditional Springfield House which accommodates the sixth form, and the listed school room. The eastern and western gables of the building are rendered, whilst the northern and southern elevations have painted glazed panels and incorporate vertically hung tiled panels. The roof is slated. Proposal The development involves replacing the slate with a duo-pitched standing seam zinc roof incorporating replacement zinc fascias and abutments. The colour selected for the roof is described as “pre-weathered pigmento blue”, a sample of which has been supplied. The applicant’s architect describes this colour as being a close match to a Burlington slate.

Page 113 In addition, it is proposed to add horizontal cedar boarding to the southern and northern elevations of the building in place of the tiled panels. Insulation will be fixed to the existing vertical battens of the removed panels and finished with the cedar cladding.

HISTORICAL CONTEXT: SL/2012/1009 – Removal and raising of roof on music block to form additional accommodation (revised scheme of SL/2012/0795) – Approved conditionally March 2012. SL/2012/0796 – Alterations and single storey extension to provide additional sixth form common room accommodation and disabled WC facilities – Approved October 2012. SL/2012/0795 – Removal and raising of roof on music block to form additional accommodation – Approved October 2012. SL/2012/0296 – Alterations and two storey extension – Approved June 2012. The school has continued to extend in recent years; the applications above represent those submitted within the last 12 months. Other applications of relevance to this proposal are: SL/2012/1070 – Burton Morewood School – Extensions and alterations. Members will recall approving a zinc roof at last month’s meeting. SL/2012/0147 – An appeal against the refusal of the Local Planning Authority to accept a Spanish slate on the roof of the adjoining Masters’ Grange estate currently under construction by Russell Armer was dismissed at appeal. The inspector considered that the dark colour, sheen and uniformity of the proposed slates would be at odds with the prevailing character of Biggins Road and the town as a whole. The proposed material would be prominent when viewed from Biggins Road and the carparks serving the medical centre.

CONSULTATIONS: Kirkby Lonsdale Parish Council The Town Council is concerned that the use of zinc rather than slate may set a precedent for future developers who seek to avoid the use of traditional slate.

Kirkby Lonsdale Civic Society Strongly objects to the proposals as do not agree with the architect’s statement that the materials proposed are appropriate. Nearly all the school buildings on the site, like most private dwellings in the vicinity have slate roofs, mostly as a condition of past planning consents. Believe that to replace the existing slates by zinc is unnecessary and incongruous in its surroundings. Replacing the out-of-place vertically hung tiled panels with an alternative is less of an issue, but point out the poor appearance of cedar cladding after only a few years

Page 114 exposure to the elements in this climate, which is evident in buildings within the locality.

POLICY ISSUES: National Planning Policy Framework Core Planning Principles The NPPF sets out 12 core land-use planning principles which should underpin decision making. Of most relevance to this application are the following: Planning should be a creative exercise in finding ways to enhance and improve the places in which people live their lives; planning should always secure high quality design and a good standard of amenity for all existing and future occupants of land and buildings. Part 7 Requiring good design emphasizes the importance of design to the built environment. Good design is a key aspect of sustainable development and should contribute positively to making places better for people. Planning decisions should aim to ensure that developments respond to local character and history, and reflect the identity of local surroundings and materials, while not preventing or discouraging appropriate innovation. Part 8 Promoting healthy communities gives weight to the need to create, expand or alter schools.

South Lakeland Core Strategy Policy CS8.10 Design requires that the siting, design, scale and materials of all development proposals should be of a character which maintains or enhances the quality of the landscape or townscape. CS7.3 Education and skills supports the modernisation and enhancement of provision for education. CS8.6 Historic Environment supports the safeguarding and enhancing of historic environment assets including their characteristic settings.

South Lakeland Local Plan Saved Policy S2 The South Lakeland Design Code requires development applications to take proper account of its principles. Materials used in new buildings should respect the local context and any local vernacular tradition. Local or traditional materials such as stone, slate, painted woodwork and renders should predominate in important historic settings such as conservation areas or listed buildings. These materials, or high quality substitutes will also be encouraged in other urban or rural settings, particularly where an important or distinctive vernacular tradition forms the local or wider context. Saved Policy C15 Listed buildings and their settings states that proposals will not be permitted for the carrying out of development where this would adversely affect the character or setting of a listed building.

Page 115 HUMAN RIGHTS ACT: This application has been determined to accord with the rights and limitations of the Act in relation to Article 6 (Right to a fair and public hearing), Article 8 (Right to respect for private and family life, home and correspondence), Article 14 (Prohibition of discrimination) and Article 1 of Protocol 1 (Right to peaceful enjoyment of possessions and protection of property).

ASSESSMENT: The key issue to consider in the determination of the application is whether the proposed materials maintain and enhance the townscape, or whether they will exert an adverse impact on the character and appearance of the locality or the setting of the grade II listed school room. The relevance of other recent decisions relating to roofing materials is also a consideration. This is a relatively modern building which is now in need of repair. The zinc roofing material proposed has an anticipated lifespan of 100 years, and is considered by the applicant’s architect to represent a cost effective option. The works associated with the cladding will also improve the thermal efficiency of the building. Both the Town Council and the Civic Society have expressed concern over the appearance of the zinc roof in particular. The cladding is less of an issue, and is already evident within the school site and on the large sports hall located close to the A65. The cladding will not be detrimental to the exterior of this building. The existing roof is of a traditional subdued appearance characteristic of the locality, although it should be noted that not all the roofs within the school site are slated, and nor are all identical in colour. The school has undertaken a number of building works in recent years, the applications submitted within the last 12 months being listed above. Zinc has not previously been put forward as a possible roofing material for any of the buildings on the site, and much of the work has been undertaken. Although a zinc roof of a different shade was recently accepted as appropriate by Members of the Planning Committee for Burton-in-Kendal primary school, the two contexts are not comparable. Burton Morewood Primary is a modern, single storey school constructed from a variety of modern materials, situated within a modern, housing estate with mostly tiled roofs. Members will also be aware that a slate put forward by Russell Armer for use on the adjoining development on Biggins Road, Masters’ Grange, was rejected by the Planning Authority, a decision upheld on appeal. Nevertheless, the roofing of these dwellings is not judged to be similar to the consideration of the re-roofing of this large modern educational building within the school site. The issue is whether the colour and appearance of the proposed roofing material is appropriate to its context, or whether it will adversely affect the character and appearance of the area. Given the variety of school buildings close to the listed old school room, the roofing material of this modern three-storey block is not considered to exert a significant effect on its setting. In general terms, the new roof will be viewed as part of the building group, mainly from distant viewpoints. The material proposed should not be unduly prominent on this building set back from any road frontages, and on this basis the application is recommended for approval.

Page 116 Conclusion The proposals are consistent with national planning guidance as set out in the NPPF and local planning policies in respect of design. The colour and appearance of the roofing material will not adversely affect the locality, and nor will it harm the setting of the old school room, a listed building.

RECOMMENDATION: GRANT

Page 117 This page is intentionally left blank

Page 118 SCHEDULE A

Complex Planning Applications

SCHEDULE No: 11 SL/2013/0072

KIRKBY LONSDALE: BIGGINS HALL, HIGH BIGGINS, CARNFORTH LA6 2NP

PROPOSAL: ERECTION OF TWO DWELLINGS AND SITING OF SEPTIC TANK

MR and MRS S Website Link: ROSS http://www.southlakeland.gov.uk/fastweb/detail.asp?AltRef=SL/2013/ 0072

E360147 N478229 28/03/2013

SUMMARY Although a housing development on the footprint of the portal-framed agricultural buildings can be supported, the absence of any affordable units raises doubts over whether the proposal is compatible with the aims and objectives of adopted Core Strategy policy.

DESCRIPTION AND PROPOSAL Site Description High Biggins, together with the neighbouring hamlet of Low Biggins, stands to the south of Kirkby Lonsdale on the opposite side of the A65. The application site lies on the eastern periphery of High Biggins and was formerly part of a farmsteading. It is currently occupied by two portal-frame agricultural buildings, a shed and an area of hardstanding. To the west is a former barn converted into four houses. The application site is separated from the converted barn by a substantial wall; part stone, part concrete. Open countryside lies to the east, south and north.

Proposal The buildings that occupy the site are to be demolished and a pair of houses, built in an L-shaped plan, are to be erected. Although submitted in outline form, the application is accompanied by drawings indicating one 5-bedroom house and one 4- bedroom house. Each property is two storeys in height and both are to be faced with stone. The roofing material is not specified.

Page 119 HISTORICAL CONTEXT Planning permission for five dwellings and a workshop was refused in May 2011 following a site visit by Members of the Committee. In April last year, planning permission was refused for seven dwellings; a subsequent appeal was dismissed. The refusal was based on the fact that the whole of the development did not constitute a rounding-off of the hamlet, as required by Policy CS1.2 of the Core Strategy, but instead would have extended High Biggins into the surrounding countryside, to the detriment of the character and appearance of the area. The Inspector’s reasoning in dismissing the appeal is pertinent to the determination of this current application and a copy of the decision letter is included as a appendix to this Report.

CONSULTATIONS:

Kirkby Lonsdale Town Council The Town Council supports this application.

Cumbria Highways To be reported.

SLDC Environmental Protection Officer No objections. The final design and specification of the effluent treatment plant should be submitted together with percolation test results for the soakaway.

Neighbours’ representations Five letters and e-mails in support of the application have been received. The main arguments in favour of planning permission being granted are : • The development would conclude this part of High Biggins. The site is already developed by reason of the barns and the proposal cannot be considered as new housing in the countryside. • In its current state the site is not in keeping with the hamlet of High Biggins and it lets down an important entrance route. • Housing would be a far more positive use of the site than the two remaining barns which are out of scale with the surrounding residential properties. • The agricultural use of the buildings generates all types of agricultural traffic on the narrow lanes in the locality whereas a housing development would reduce the impact of meeting the ever-increasing sized vehicles. • The proposed housing is well-designed and uses traditional materials which would follow the style of the surrounding buildings. The development will retain the character of High Biggins. • The housing development will be an asset to High Biggins and will enhance the area.

Page 120 PLANNING POLICIES: National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) Section 6 of the NPPF states that, in order to promote sustainable development in rural areas, housing should be located where it will enhance or maintain the vitality of rural communities. The NPPF also requires housing applications to be considered in the context of the presumption in favour of sustainable development. The NPPF requires local planning authorities to be responsive to local circumstances and plan housing development to reflect local needs, particularly for affordable housing, including through rural exception sites where appropriate. In particular, planning authorities should consider whether allowing some market housing would facilitate the provision of significant additional affordable housing to meet local needs. Land that is, or has been, occupied by agricultural buildings is excluded from the definition of previously-developed land contained in the NPPF.

South Lakeland Core Strategy Policy CS1.2 of the adopted Core Strategy states that development will be concentrated in Kendal and Ulverston; then in Grange, Kirkby Lonsdale and Milnthorpe; in the designated Local Service Centres followed, finally, by the smaller villages and hamlets and the open countryside. Some 11% of new housing and employment development will be in the network of smaller villages and hamlets. Under Policy CS1.2, priority is given to the re-use of existing buildings and previously-developed land for all new housing. Development boundaries are not identified for the smaller villages and hamlets; instead, new small-scale housing developments in the form of infilling and rounding-off * will be permitted in order to satisfy local need across the numerous smaller villages and hamlets scattered across the District. Exceptionally, new development will be permitted in the open countryside where, amongst other criteria, it has an essential requirement for a rural location or provides for exceptional needs for affordable housing. Policy CS5 of the Core Strategy explains the spatial strategy for the east of the District and, in the context of this current application, makes provision for small-scale housing development in the Local Service Centres and, to a lesser extent, in the smaller rural settlements in order to ensure a readily available supply of affordable housing. Under Policy CS6.4 (the Rural Exception Policy) housing development proposals outside of the settlement boundaries in the Service Centres and where they do not constitute infilling or rounding-off in the smaller villages and hamlets will only be considered where they provide 100% affordable housing subject to defined exception site criteria. Policy CS6.3 states that, in hamlets such as High Biggins, 35% of the total number of dwellings are to be affordable in developments of three or more units. On the subject of design, Core Strategy Policy CS8.10 requires the siting, design, scale and materials of all developments should be of a character which maintains or enhances the quality of the landscape or townscape and, where appropriate, should be in keeping with the local vernacular tradition. The policy concludes by stating that designs that support and enhance local distinctiveness will be encouraged. New development should protect and enhance key local views and features or

Page 121 characteristics of local importance and incorporate layouts that reinforce specific local distinctiveness.

* The terms “infilling” and “rounding-off” are defined in paragraph 2.25 of the Core Strategy. “Infilling” is defined as building taking place on a vacant plot in an otherwise built-up street frontage; “rounding-off” is defined as the completion of an incomplete group of buildings on land which is already partially developed, in such a way that will either complete the local road pattern or finally define and complete the boundaries of the group. Such rounding-off should not:

- change or distort the character or tradition of the group or the settlement in any undesirable way; - extend the grouping in such a manner that, when the development has taken place, undeveloped areas remain or further land is opened up where pressure for development is likely to occur; - cause undesirable backland development unrelated to a proper street layout; - cause development which pre-empts the provision of public services or gives rise to demands for improvements or extension to services which may not be proposed at that time.

HUMAN RIGHTS ACT This application has been determined to accord with the rights and limitations of the Act in relation to Article 6 (Right to a fair and public hearing), Article 8 (Right to respect for private and family life, home and correspondence), Article 14 (Prohibition of discrimination) and Article 1 of Protocol 1 (Right to peaceful enjoyment of possessions and protection of property).

ASSESSMENT The main issues raised by this application are the effect of the development on the character and appearance of the area and the absence of affordable housing within the proposed development. In the smaller villages and hamlets, such as High Biggins, Core Strategy Policy CS1.2 restricts new residential development to small-scale infilling and rounding-off in order to satisfy local needs. In dismissing the appeal following the refusal of permission for seven dwellings, the Inspector indicated that development on the footprint of the existing agricultural buildings would be acceptable but development beyond the developed area and into the adjacent field could not be supported (see paragraphs 7 and 8 of the appeal decision appended to this Report). The rejected scheme proposed four dwellings on the site of the agricultural buildings and three within the adjacent field. This latest proposal limits development to the ground currently occupied by the portal-framed buildings and, in the context of the appeal decision, represents a form of development compatible with the objectives of Policy CS1.2.

Page 122 Under the provisions of Policy CS6.3, 35% of the total number of dwellings in hamlets such as High Biggins are to be affordable in developments of three or more units. The form of development proposed is limited to two houses, containing four and five bedrooms respectively, whereas the previous scheme proposed a terrace of four houses with rear gardens on the footprint of the agricultural buildings. The application site is clearly large enough to accommodate more than two houses without encroaching into the surrounding countryside. The form of development now being proposed does not include any affordable provision whatsoever and is thereby incompatible with Core Strategy policy.

Conclusion Although the principle of a housing development on the footprint of the agricultural buildings can be supported, the absence of any affordable housing on a site clearly large enough for four houses is a matter of concern and raises doubts over whether the proposal is compatible with the aims and objectives of the Core Strategy.

RECOMMENDATION: The Director (People and Places) will report on the question of affordable housing.

Page 123


  
 
  
 !
$%
&%
'(


 
" 
 #  !
$%
&%
&%


 




  





)
) *


+ ,
-

)-.
5
-6!
 7$7$$&

* /
   
" 

* /
 
8
-6!
7)$3&&7 77%%&&79:
0
 
1 /
!
%
 2
$

"2 
3
4



)




 







 


 



 
 


 ! 
"#
$%

.
  


6

.   ;
/  


2#
<

.6

#
 

 
2

/  


0
0
 //



/
2

  =

O:/2 *P
02=

000<  = <=#<*7  =7 7  =   76/2 * <


=
 
 
 6 


 
  / 
 /

=
6
 =


=
" 

 
/
2
0 

/  

2
  / /<

.6

/

#
  
  

0/
 6
 /

6

 6 


=

 =
 /

 
  / 
 
  


  
 

$%
&%
'(


0  =


// 
2#<

 


  =
.   



/    =
2/
6
=
" 
 = <

.6

0/
*
 
 6 


  
 6 /
// 
6
 = =



6

6 
6
/= =

 =
 
  

/   #
" 

$$
%34%
((<

5
  

 /
*

"8@A- 

Page 124



                               
       

             !" # !  !$   !       

Page 125






   







  
           !!"    # $ % ! 

 &'(! ')*'

 &
+),--+
+*'+'*((-.-  //   0 / // 01  # 0  0 #   0#
.'2 





  

!

 

"  #
$
%
&&
 

!



  





#
'
(
' 
 
(
 
) 
 

 
!
  
*
 
" 


  
)!
*+
 

,  #
+

!
#
 
 
-
% 



  
  

 


   
!

 #
  
. 
/
. 
 

 

 +

!

 
  

!! 


 







 " 


 
 




 

!
+
 
 0
1*

%+
1*

%+
1*
2
%+

1*
3
%





 4!
4
!
$

#
 
 
5

! 
!
 

6 

 
 


  #

 


  +


 

 7

  
!
#
 #+
8
 
  







9 
  


   
!

  +


: 


Q   
!

 #
  
. 
/
. 
 R

/   +
! 
#
 

8
 


   
 
    
! 


  

+
 

 #
!
  #



 

8


  

#
!

  



!



8
 
 ! 
  






  "

2





!!
!

  


  

 
!

 

 

   

3
/ 
. 



 

  
 
 
 : #



!
1 #
* 

9 

:  
!
   
 


   
#
  
 
 +
! 
 

   
!
. 

      
Page 126 %
 
%$$'&% -

*

$
*


! 

  
 
 
!



 #
 
 +

 

-
8

 

 


/ 
. 
  
*
" 
   #
$ #
"
  

  

4
!


!!



 !#
 





 
  



 
!


!  


  
 
 
!
/ 
. +
 

 
 
    





  #


 

  


  #
!
/ 
. 

 
!
 
  +
  #
!


   
 
 #
!

 
!


! 


 
 

  
  



  #
# 


%

!

  

: 
 
 


#


!
! 
 
  
 

 



!   

/   +


 
  
 
: 
# 

: 
  
 



7
!


 #
  
#

!



 7  
 

# 

  
  #
!
/ 
. +

: 
 
  

 
  
  +

  +

 

!    



  #

&
) 

! +
   +

Q 
!!R
 
  
  #+

  
 
: 



#
 
   

 
!

  

 
!

 


 

 
 

 



!  
!
Q 
!!R




! 



 



 
=)!
%$$'&%- >

9
!

 
 


 
8
 

8
! 

  
O               P =  
>

8
   +
/ 
. 






!

 
 
 




: 




  #+


 ! 
  #
!!  


9
8
  

 


  
+



!
  
   
 


 
!


 


 

  
 

 
  #

%

 +
   

 

 




 
 +

 

7 !#

  
 

 
8
 
 !

 #+


  
  
#
 





   
 +

 

7 !#

 7  
!
 
  


 
!

  #


8
 

 
  
  

! 4#
 

#
   +


 
?  
!

 

 

9
8
 
! 

 


  
  +
 
!
 




#+
8
 

    

  
 

 
 

 #
 

  

 


 



  

 
!

 

8


  
8
 

  

  
2
M
2&
!

A  
$
$ #
,  
=Q 
,  R>



  

# 

!  
!

!!

 
: 
 
  
# 

  
  
!
/ 
. 




  #0


 
!

  

 
!

 



   #




7  
!
  
*
" 

      











Page 127 %
 
%$$'&% -

   #
$ #
"



 

  

  
!
 
#
  
  



!


!!


  


  

 ! 
 

,  R
" 
$
$ 
=  
 >

 

 
? 
!

  #

3 

2
8
 

  
*
" 
   #
$ #
"-2
 
 
!
  



 

$ #
"
 
B
!! 
 



/   +






  


 

" ? #+

  
!
" 
   #
$ #
"-2




,  
 

 
:  
 


#

3
A   
+

  
!
!! 
 


!


  

! 

 
 
 


 
 


 




 
!

  

 
   


 
 +
  
  #
!

 
 
 
 : #

1 #
* +
 
! 



!
 


  
 
. 
*+


!

  
! 
 
!

 
 




  
 
 

 

-
8
 

#
  




8
 

 
!

! +

8
 

 

  
!

  


/   +

 !
 
 
 

  

 #



!

  
  
  

! 




" 

 
,

 
 
 

 
  


  
+
8
 +

+



 




 
 

8A$C"D)

      











Page 128 SCHEDULE A

Complex Planning Applications

SCHEDULE 12 SL/2013/0075 No:

KENDAL: LAND AT HALLGARTH COTTAGE, WINDERMERE ROAD, KENDAL LA9 5NS

PROPOSAL: ERECTION OF 27 AFFORDABLE DWELLINGS, Website Link: FORMATION OF http://www.southlakeland.gov.uk/fastweb/detail.asp?AltRef=SL/2013/0075 VEHICULAR ACCESS, CAR E350515 N493977 28/03/2013 PARKING AND LANDSCAPING

Mr Gregory Denwood

SUMMARY This application seeks planning permission for 27 dwellings on land at Hallgarth Cottage, Windermere Road, Kendal. The site is within the adopted Development Boundary for Kendal and the northern part of the site is within an area the Council is proposing for residential development in the Proposed Land Allocations Development Plan Document (DPD). The NPPF and the policies within the Core Strategy encourage new residential development. The scheme proposes 100% affordable housing and will provide a significant contribution to meeting the identified affordable housing need. It is acknowledged that the proposal will affect the character and appearance of the entrance into Kendal from the north and the National Park. The development will be accommodated within an area bound by residential development on two sides and Windermere Road on the third. A development can be accommodated within this site without significant harm to the landscape and the impacts are outweighed by the positive support for the provision of affordable housing within the NPPF and the Core Strategy. The technical issues surrounding the access, layout surface, land and foul drainage can be appropriately dealt with. The design of the proposed houses includes detailing and materials appropriate to the site and Kendal vernacular.

Page 129 DESCRIPTION AND PROPOSAL Site Description The site is located on the northern edge of Kendal between Windermere Road and the Hallgarth Estate. It consists of Hallgarth Cottage together with its driveway and garden plus the field to the north. The open parts of the site have been used for growing Christmas trees and grazing. The land falls steeply away from Windermere Road to the rear of High Garth. The properties on High Garth have steeply sloping and terraced back gardens and the houses are located at a significantly lower level than the application site. Properties on Windermere Road overlook the site from higher ground. A public footpath runs through the site from High Garth around the eastern side of Hallgarth Cottage and up the driveway out onto Windermere Road. Proposal The application proposes 100% social rented affordable housing. The development would be accessed via a new road from Windermere Road located immediately adjacent to the boundary with Lavender Croft (the last house on Windermere Road). Due to the gradient of the land the access road would be elevated as it leaves Windermere Road and slope in a long loop down into the site. It is proposed to erect a total of 27 dwellings on the site. Ten pairs of semi-detached houses, two sets of terraces of three houses and a bungalow. This includes 14 two- bed houses, 10 three-bed houses and 2 four-bed houses. The proposals require a considerable amount of cut and fill to enable the dwellings to sit on the hillside. A retaining wall would run along the rear (southwest) of the houses on the upper side of the hill. A Flood Risk Assessment and Surface Water Drainage Strategy Report has been included in the submission. The scheme involves new and additional land drainage and surface water drainage pipes, an increase in the volume of land and surface water storage and bunding along the rear of High Garth. Highway drainage would be connected to the public sewer in High Garth. Other reports submitted with the application include an Ecology Report and an Arboricultural Report.

HISTORICAL CONTEXT A planning application for a similar scheme was submitted last year (SL/2012/0742). The application was withdrawn following objections from the highway authority with regard to the detail of the junction onto Windermere Road and the level of parking provision.

CONSULTATIONS: Kendal Town Council The Town Council policy is to support applications for affordable homes within the Town. The fact that this is a 100% scheme of social rented housing, plus the changes made since the first application, gave the Members sufficient grounds to move to conditional acceptance of the application.

Page 130 However it is still considered to be important that the properties are well designed, particularly since the location is an entrance to the town. The decrease in the number of homes, from 30 to 27, and the addition of solar panels to the dwellings, whilst to be welcomed, do not demonstrate that our previous concerns have been wholly appreciated or taken into account, and the results are still relatively disappointing. The Design and Access Statement provides examples of how the developers have improved the design of properties on other similar sites; the plans for this site should benefit from similar work. The Council would encourage the Planning Department to insist on a higher design standard. The Council is also committed to ensuring that new homes are not only constructed sustainably but are also sustainable to live in. We understand that the developers will not commit to the strategic aims of the Code for Sustainable Homes Level 4 or above, in line with 9.24 of the Core Strategy, and can only reiterate how important it is that “affordable” housing should be economical to run for the residents. In summary, the Council believes that the application should be considered for approval subject to the Planning Department securing further improvements to the proposed scheme as outlined above.

Cumbria County Council Strategic Planning The County Council will not be responding from a strategic planning perspective. We take this view because of the scale and location of the proposed development within the Key Service Centre of Kendal. The County Council will not be seeking a contribution towards education infrastructure as the development falls below the threshold as set out in the County Council’s Draft Developer Planning Obligations Policy Document.

Cumbria Highways The Highway Authority has no objection to this application if the standard condition for highways for adoption is included in any consent you may grant and it is also agreed to secure contributions (totalling £49,071) towards school transport and mitigation for the wider cumulative traffic impact on Kendal via a Section 106 agreement . It should be noted that a public footpath crosses this site and that an Order will be required to modify its route. The development is within 400 metres of the nearest bus stop, which is served by a regular bus service, therefore it is considered that the development will not have any impact on public transport provision. The proposed development is projected to result in a yield of 6 pupils, with no spaces available in the catchment school. Since one of the schools with requisite spaces to house the overspill is St. Oswald's primary school in Burneside, it will be necessary to provide school transport for this overspill on the grounds that there are no safe walking routes to Burneside from the development site. The County Council would therefore seek a contribution towards the provision of this transport. It is considered that one 4-seat vehicle will be sufficient to accommodate the proportion of the overspill that might reasonably be expected to attend St. Oswald's. Based on the best available price, therefore, the County Council would seek a developer contribution of £26,600. In addition to this, a contribution to cover the

Page 131 associated staff costs for administration of the school transport from this development will be required. This administration fee is therefore £1,330. Cumbria County Council has produced two studies which have informed the identified need for highways and transport infrastructure improvements in Kendal. The two studies are: • Kendal LDF Transport Study Revised Modelling Results (January 2012) • Kendal LDF Transport Improvements Study (September 2012) The January 2012 study considered the potential traffic impacts of the proposed land allocations. The results identified junctions on the highway network in Kendal which would be operating within, approaching or over capacity in 2010, 2022 and 2022 with LDF allocations. A further study was carried out in September 2012 to identify and cost what measures are required to mitigate against the predicted highways impacts from the proposed Land Allocations Development Plan Document. The study found that the total costs of the required mitigation measures for the allocated sites would be £2.065-£2.305 million. For both studies, the cumulative impacts of development at this site were considered as it is part of the proposed South Lakeland District Council Land Allocations Development Plan Document. It is therefore considered that the developer of the proposed development should contribute to the mitigation measures identified as part of the studies. In order to fairly apportion the identified mitigation costs across developments in Kendal, Burneside, Natland and Oxenholme, it was decided to divide the cost for the mitigation measures by the numbers of dwelling equivalents (taking into account proposed employment sites) proposed in the plan; this gave a cost of £783 per dwellings towards the highways and transport improvement measures As this proposal is for 27 dwellings, the required contribution towards the Kendal highways and transport improvement measures equates to £21,141 (27 units x £783).

United Utilities The network has just enough capacity to accommodate this development. United Utilities will have no objection to the proposed development providing specific conditions are included in the planning permission. These conditions are shown as follows: 1. Prior to commencement of development, details for how foul and surface water shall be drained on a separate system shall be submitted to the local planning authority and approved in writing. The development shall be completed in accordance with the approved details. 2. Prior to the commencement of development, a scheme for drainage (inclusive of how the scheme shall be maintained and managed after completion) shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The drainage scheme submitted for approval shall be in accordance with the principles set out in the email from Troy Melhuish of R G Parkins & Partners LTD dated 9 January 2013, the drawings of “adopted surface water drainage plan”, ref. no. K29111/A1/10 A and “Highway & land drainage diversion plan”

Page 132 ref. no. K29111/A1/20 B”. No part of the development shall be occupied until the drainage scheme has been constructed in accordance with the approved details. The development shall be completed, maintained and managed in accordance with the approved details.

Environment Agency That application is accompanied by a detailed surface water drainage scheme that is acceptable to your Councils drainage engineer and Cumbria County Council (as Lead Local Flood Authority). On this basis, we are satisfied that the surface water drainage condition set out in our previous response is unnecessary and we withdraw our recommendation that it be attached to any subsequent approval.

Cumbria County Council LFRM (Drainage) The LFRM authority have no objections to the drainage proposals.

SLDC Environmental Protection Officer The surface water and land/highway drainage layouts are satisfactory. This site has had special consideration due to the recent flooding of adjacent properties. The developer had gone to some lengths to ensure that there will be improved flood protection to the adjacent properties. The features incorporated into the design deal with all of the concerns raised regarding a previous application. The two outstanding items regarding provision of a maintenance plan and the widening of the access strip to accommodate tanker access are to be provided in advance of the committee approval or conditioned as part of the application.

Strategic Housing and Enabling Team Leader This is a 100% affordable housing scheme which is being developed by Two Castles Housing Association (a not for profit organisation) in partnership with South Lakeland District Council (the landowner). All of the proposed homes will be let on an affordable rent basis. As such the scheme is only financially viable with grant funding from the Homes and Communities Agency and the Council selling the site for a notional £1. Any requirement for infrastructure or educational funding will make the scheme unviable, hence the affordable homes will not be developed.

Conservation Officer There are only a few interesting items surviving in the cottage. Its general form, some aspects of floor plan, a Georgian cupboard door and two probable mid C17th ceiling beams at the east end, but nothing that amounts in total to any major significance, at either a locally or national level.

Cumbria County Council Historic Environment Officer It is recommended that an archaeological building recording programme be undertaken in advance of development. This recording should be in accordance with a Level 3 survey as described by English Heritage Understanding Historic Buildings A Guide to Good Recording Practice, 2006. This should be secured by attaching a condition to any planning consent you may otherwise be minded to grant.

Page 133 Arboricultural Consultant From an arboricultural perspective, the impact upon trees by the position of the units on the site layout plan appears to be acceptable. However the AIA will need to be updated to detail the impact of the proposed layout shown on the site layout plan, particularly unit 3 next to T1687 a large Oak tree, and units 13, 14 and 15, for clarity.

Lake District National Park The scheme would not have a detrimental impact on the landscape. There is therefore no objection to the proposal.

Kendal Civic Society The Civic Society objects to the proposal. This is a greenfield site and Policy CS8.1 states “We will seek to protect and enhance important open spaces” and “ Priority will be given to re-use of existing buildings and previously developed land”. This field, at the grand entrance to Kendal from the Lakes is not the place for a highly visible and non-descript housing estate. Hallgarth Cottage is believed to date from the 18 th century and was once part of the Garth Estate or Helsfell Hall. It should not be demolished. No imagination or architectural skill has been brought into the design for the cramped miserable little boxes proposed for the site. The application falls far short of the high standards which the District Council should demand. Little consideration has been given to the very real problems of flooding, foul water overload or the traffic dangers which are bound to arise from this site. The Housing Association will not provide the low-cost housing for local people, which is so desperately needed.

Friends of the Lake District The new application fails to overcome the fundamental objections to the scheme and FoLD continue to object to the scheme. FoLD has submitted a fully reasoned objection to the development of this site in respect of the Land Allocations DPD. In brief it considers that the development of the site for housing purposes, on greenfield land, would result in a detrimental impact upon the character of the open countryside and the setting of Kendal. A very clear demarcation between developed urban and undeveloped rural exists in this location. The site is very prominent in the local landscape as a key gateway to the town in landscape and visual terms.

Ramblers No response received. The response was due by 5 March 2013. The following response was received in respect of the previous application: The current plans make no satisfactory proposals to accommodate the current Public Footpath FP566005. The current path is a pleasant indeed scenic path used as easy access from the existing Hallgarth Estate to the services such as buses etc) on A5284 Windermere Road. The Ramblers (Ramblers Association) will object to any stopping up of this path. There will also be objections to any solution which does not provide easy access to Windermere Road and which will require at least a route between the buildings to the same or another exit to the main highway.

Page 134

Electricity North West The proposal could have an impact on infrastructure. The development is shown adjacent or affecting operational land or electricity distribution assets. Where development is adjacent to operational land the applicant must ensure that the development does not encroach over either the land or any ancillary rights of access or cable easements. If planning permission is granted the applicant should verify such details by contacting Electricity North West. The applicant should be advised that great care should be taken at all times to protect both the electrical apparatus and any personnel working in its vicinity.

Hallgarth Action Committee The Hallgarth Action Committee represents over 200 local residents in opposing development on this green field site. The Committee has submitted several documents in response to this application. The application is opposed on the following grounds: • We have reviewed the new plan and are absolutely unanimous that this planning application should be rejected. The proposal will destroy the beautiful landscape of the town and we vehemently question the legitimacy of this planning application. • This is a sensitive prominent site in the local landscape which is recognised as a key gateway to the town from the National Park. Development would terminally damage the distinctive landscape and the green gap between Kendal and Burneside. The screening is totally insufficient for the prominent site. • The timing seeks to pre-empt the Inspector’s evaluation of the DPD. Lack of conformity with the DPD in any event. The proposal increases the density by 25%. The density is too many for this site. • During the very controversial Land Allocations DPD consultation process it has been recognised by all that this site is classified as being sensitive to development, this fact has been completely overlooked with this planning application and in fact disregarded. Numerous comprehensive representations on the Land Allocations DPD opposing the development of site R44 have been made. T he Inspector has raised specific matters in relation to this site (Matter 3.15, He specifically questions whether the Green Gap between Kendal and Burneside is sufficient to maintain the identity, landscape setting and character of the two settlements . Any decision to approve this application in advance of a decision by the Inspector could have legal ramifications. • The level of traffic congestion was recognised as the second highest priority for local residents, above the need for affordable homes. • The only vehicle access to the development is via the new access road on Windermere Road on a section which is both on a narrow bend and on a steep incline, it is also the main corridor and HGV route into Kendal. There is absolutely no allowance for vehicles wishing to turn into the site heading in

Page 135 either direction. Due to both the speed and the fact that this is the main HGV route into Kendal there is no room for error whatsoever, HAC cannot stress enough the dangers of implementing such a poor plan! On Windermere Road there is in fact an allowance for turning at all other junctions on the road into town and all other junctions form part of a much wider carriageway. This allowance for turning on Windermere Road is critical to manoeuvring on such a road and it is critical for any access junction on this extremely busy fast and steeply sloping HGV route into the town. The proposed access junction is on an extremely narrow carriageway which physically has no allowance for turning. • HAC wish to once again point out the inevitable dangers of the proposed new access road right next to Lavender Croft, Windermere Road. The planned access has not had the attention which it deserves. The group urge the council to reject this unsafe design which will undoubtedly lead to fatalities. The new access junction and road will be completely unsafe for pedestrians and especially children. • The gradient of this site means that houses on the boundary (the majority which have been there since the 1950s) will now be overlooked and suffer a major loss of both privacy and light. We believe the government is committed to protecting the public’s right to light and recognise it’s importance for local amenity. This scheme is an invasion of those public rights. In addition, the proposed 2.6 metre high retaining wall will also create similar living conditions for those houses which are proposed to be built and form part of the scheme. The over shadowing of the retaining wall on the new houses and the over shadowing of the complete scheme on the existing houses on the boundary will create poor uninspiring living conditions for all. The d esign does not instill any sense of community whatsoever, indeed some houses face the side of other houses on this small cramped isolated site. This scheme demonstrates over-intensive development, again this is the basis of an extremely poor design and one that cannot and must not be considered a credible planning application at this very visual location. • The design is distasteful and does not reflect the identity of the local surroundings and materials. It does not respond to the local character or distinctive landscape and crucial visual aspect of this site. The prominence of the site should be used to demonstrate exemplary architectural design and place making. The new plan continues to fail to deliver this even to the point of failing to place chimney pots on the houses! • HAC members are extremely concerned at the high risk of surface water flooding cascading downstream into the Hallgarth estate and an increase of pressure on the sewage network with potential to contribute to overload and pollution of the River Kent special area of conservation. • The applicants have spent some time looking at the drainage however HAC members are yet to be convinced that they will not be adversely impacted by downstream flooding as a direct result of this scheme. At a public flood impact meeting scheduled in December United Utilities representatives advised that the Hallgarth estate was found to have more encrustations on their pipe-work than normally expected, it was stated that surface water was constantly

Page 136 running throughout their network of pipes and also outside their pipe network. They believed the source of the surface water was from the fells above. The representatives also stated that this fact explained why it was possible to hear running water in the pipes on a dry day. • HAC believes that the existing network is actually at full capacity and the addition of this scheme to the network will be too many. This question was raised at the meeting and the United Utilities representatives at the meeting stated that their acceptance was merely based upon a computer desktop model. HAC questions the legitimacy of the United Utilities acceptance and based upon the experience of residents impacted by flooding urges the rejection of the planning application. The removal of the natural drainage which the existing site provides will exacerbate flooding downstream. In fact, residents have noticed an increase in flooding since there has been a reduction in the xmas trees which are normally grown on the existing site, these trees being known for soaking up water. • The air quality in Kendal already is a recognised concern which has seen the introduction of an Air Quality Management Zone. The development will exacerbate congestion on Windermere Road and impact on junctions towards the town centre therefore worsening air quality. • A letter has been included from St. Thomas’s CE Primary School. The letter expresses concern over the number of additional homes. Both St. Thomas’ and Stramongate are full at the moment and this could potentially be a very significant increase in the student population. • Wildlife would be severely affected by this development. • There is no credible infrastructure delivery plan for this site. The local primary school is already at full capacity. • Photographs and information with regard to the flooding in Hallgarth has been provided. The flooding in this area was severe as rainwater poured into residents homes. • HAC urges the council to look beyond the very fact that this planning application is for affordable homes to rent and actually listen to local people who have raised their concerns to a number of consultees involved in this process and pointed out the justifiable reasons as to why this site is not suitable for development. HAC urges the council to actually look at the plan and consider all objections as if they were for private homes and review the plan without bias. HAC urges the council to take into account the huge public opposition on the green gap. HAC believes this approach would result in a flat refusal and urges the council to reject the plan on this basis. 214 standard signed and addressed letters of objection have been received. The letters state the proposal will: • Represent a gross over development of a cherished green field site. • Destroy the green gap between Burneside and Kendal. • Significantly damage wildlife habitats.

Page 137 • Erode a distinctive drumlin landscape on the border of the National Park and a striking asset of the Kendal Landscape. • Increase traffic noise and air pollution down Windermere Road and overload junctions on the approaches to Kendal. • Introduce an accident black spot on the proposed access road next to Lavender Croft at the top of Windermere Road. • Exacerbate existing sewage and flooding problems in many areas but especially in the Hallgarth area. • Introduce new and additional areas of flooding and sewage problems with reduction of green field site leaving no where for the surface water drain. • Lead to loss of privacy and overshadowing of neighbouring properties due to the gradient of the site. • Cause havoc during construction and blasting of rock on the main entrance into Kendal. • Cause havoc for residents on Windermere Road with parking manoeuvres becoming even more difficult.

Neighbours / Others Six individual letters of objection have been received from residents on High Garth and Windermere Road. The objections raised reiterate those raised by the Hallgarth Action Committee. Additional issues raised also include: • the access should be via High Garth not Windermere Road;

• if the access must be from Windermere Road it must be further along the road, the obvious point being the road down to the farm;

• the 40mph limit should be moved back and a countdown to the 30mph provided. Eight separate letters of objection were received in response to the previous application.

APPLICANTS’ REPRESENTATIONS: The South Lakeland Housing Needs Survey 2011 estimated annual affordable housing requirements in Kendal from 2011 to 2015 as being 194. Housing Officers working for Two Castles in Kendal state that the demand for affordable housing in Kendal is acute. These new homes would be let under the Cumbria Choice Based Lettings Scheme. There are few vacancies arising in Two Castles stock in Kendal and since the inception of the Choice Based lettering there have been multiple bids against each vacancy from applicants in need. The Homes and Communities Agency recognise the housing need in Kendal and as such have been supportive of this scheme. Within the funding programme framework 2011-2015, there is £675,000 allocated funding against this scheme. The proposed houses are laid out to address the new road frontage and define a street scene. Major factors determining the precise alignments are:

Page 138 • The road geometry. • Site contours. • Tree roots. • Relationship to existing development in the surrounding area and between the units within the development. A total of 50 parking spaces will be available. In practice Two Castles Housing Association locally estimate only about 60% of their tenants have cars. The houses will have a simple rectangular form with slate roofs but with detailed elevation interest from typical local features. These include visible rafter ends, slate drip course over windows, slate cills to upper windows and concrete cills to ground floor windows and varied porch designs. POLICY ISSUES: National Planning Policy Framework Paragraph 14 sets out a presumption in favour of sustainable development. This means approving development proposals that accord with the development plan without delay. Implicit is that development not proven to be sustainable or not in accordance with the development plan does not benefit from this presumption. Where the development plan is absent, silent or relevant policies are out-of date, planning permission should be granted unless:

• any adverse impact of doing so would significantly and demonstrably outweigh the benefits, when assessed against the policies in the Framework as a whole; or • specific policies in the Framework indicate development should be restricted.

Promoting Sustainable Transport Paragraph 30 - Encouragement should be given to solutions which support reductions in greenhouse gas emissions and reduce congestion. In preparing plans, local planning authorities should therefore support a pattern of development which, where reasonable to do so, facilitates the use of sustainable modes of transport. Paragraph 31 - Local authorities should develop strategies for the provision of viable infrastructure necessary to support sustainable development. Paragraph 32 - Development should only be prevented or refused on transport grounds where the residual cumulative impacts of the development are severe. Paragraph 34 – Decisions should ensure that developments that generate significant movement are located where the need to travel will be minimised and the use of sustainable transport modes can be maximised. Paragraph 35 – Development should be located where practical to give priority to pedestrian and cycle movements, and have access to high quality public transport facilities. Paragraph 38 – For larger scale residential development key facilities such as primary schools and local shops should be within walking distance.

Delivering a wide choice of high quality homes

Page 139 Paragraph 47 - Requires that local authorities significantly boost the supply of housing. To do this local authorities should identify and update a supply of deliverable sites to provide for five years worth of housing with an additional buffer of 5%. This buffer is increased to 20% where there is a persistent record of under delivery. To be deliverable sites should be available now and be achievable with a realistic prospect that housing will be delivered on the site within five years and in particular that development of the site is viable. Sites are considered deliverable until permission expires or unless there is clear evidence that schemes will not be implemented within five years, for example where they are no longer viable. Paragraph 48 – Local planning authorities may only make allowance for windfall sites in the five-year land supply if they have compelling evidence that such sites have consistently become available. This should not include residential gardens. Paragraph 49 – Housing applications should be considered in the context of the presumption in favour of sustainable development. 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 50 – Where there is an identified affordable housing need, policies should be set for meeting this need on site. Such policies should be sufficiently flexible to take account of changing market conditions over time.

Promoting healthy communities Paragraph 72 - The Government attaches great importance to ensuring that a sufficient choice of school places is available to meet the needs of existing and new communities. Local authorities should take a proactive, positive and collaborative approach to meeting this requirement, and to development that will widen choice in education. They should give greater weight to the need to create, expand or alter schools. Paragraph 73 - Access to high quality open spaces, sport and recreation can make an important contribution to the health and well being of communities. Paragraph 76 – Green areas of particular importance may be designated as Local Green Spaces. These spaces should be consistent with the local planning of sustainable development and complement investment in sufficient homes, jobs and other essential services. Paragraph 77 - Local Green Space designation will not be appropriate for most green areas or open space.

Meeting the challenge of climate change and flooding Local planning authorities should plan for new development in locations and ways which reduce greenhouse gas emissions, set local requirements for building sustainability and expect new development to minimise energy consumption. When determining applications local planning authorities should ensure that flood risk is not increased elsewhere.

Conserving and enhancing the natural environment

Page 140 Paragraph 109 - The planning system should contribute to and enhance the natural and local environment by protecting and enhancing valued landscapes and minimise the impacts on biodiversity and providing net gains where possible.

North West Regional Spatial Strategy (RSS): The RSS provides a spatial context for development. Policies L4 and L5 require local authorities to monitor and manage the availability of housing land and to set out a range of mechanisms for the delivery of affordable housing.

Structure Plan Policy: Saved Policy ST5 states that development will be focused and of an appropriate scale to the size and role of a Key Service Centre such as Kendal. Saved Policies T30 and T31 require Transport Assessments and Travel Plans. Saved Policy E37 requires proposals to be assessed in relation to locally distinctive features, visual intrusion, the value of the landscape and biodiversity features.

South Lakeland Core Strategy: CS1.1 Sustainable Development Principles provides criteria for new development. CS1.2 The Development Strategy states that 35% of new development in the district will be concentrated in Kendal. The exact scale and level of development will be dependant on individual character, the impact on environmental capacity and infrastructure provision and the desire to meet the need for affordable housing. Revised town development boundaries will be identified as part of the Allocations of Land DPD. CS2 Kendal Strategy states that Kendal will be developed as a Principle Service Centre. It states that provision will be made for 3,080 new residential dwellings between 2003 and 2025. The policy seeks to ensure that 35% of new housing delivered meets identified needs for affordable housing and that up to 60% is social rented based on local need. The policy aims to implement the development and mitigation strategy within the Kendal Transport Assessment and ensure developers include and duly implement a Travel Plan. CS6.1 Meeting the Housing Requirement states that 8,800 dwellings will be built between 2003 and 2025. These dwellings will be built in locations which accord with the Spatial Strategy (Policy CS1.2). Allocations of new residential development will be identified in the Allocations of Land DPD. Consideration of unallocated sites will be assessed against a sequential approach, the prioritisation and assessment of suitability, availability and achievability of sites within the Council’s Strategic Housing Land Availability Assessment and over available evidence and the phasing targets and overarching development strategy in Policy CS1. CS6.3 Provision of Affordable Housing states that the Council will consider the appropriateness of allocating sites in every community to ensure delivery of affordable housing to meet local need. Schemes in Kendal must include a minimum of 35% affordable dwellings. The Council will ensure that any planning permission is subject to appropriate conditions and / or planning obligations to secure the provision of affordable housing in perpetuity. The mixture and tenure of affordable housing

Page 141 should reflect the identified housing needs as demonstrated in the Housing Market Needs Assessment and waiting list information. Policy CS6.6 Making Effective and Efficient Use of Land and Buildings states that the Council will seek to make effective and efficient use of land and buildings. It will seek to ensure at least 28% of housing development takes place on previously developed land and buildings. The policy provides a target density of at least 30 dwellings per hectare. Higher densities will be sought on appropriate sites, particularly those close to transport hubs, and in or adjoining Kendal. Policy CS7.3 Education and Skills states that where appropriate, development proposals should make a contribution to education and training needs. Policy CS8.1 Green Infrastructure Policy states that the Core Strategy will seek to: • Ensure green infrastructure is incorporated into new developments, particularly where it can be used to mitigate the negative impacts of the development. • Protect and enhance important open spaces within settlements to contribute towards an improved network of green corridors of value for wildlife, recreation and the amenity needs of the community. • Protect species and habitats and create new habitats and wildlife corridors where biodiversity conservation and enhancement is affected by development. Ensure the protection and enhancement of watercourses and wetlands which are important contributors to the network of blue and green corridors for wildlife, recreation and the amenity needs of the community. Policy CS8.2 Protection and Enhancement of Landscape and Settlement Character states that development proposals should be informed by and be sympathetic to the distinctive character landscapes identified in the Cumbria Landscape Character Guidance and Toolkit. Proposals should demonstrate that their location, scale, design and materials will protect and conserve the special qualities and local distinctiveness of the area. Policies CS8.3a and CS8.3b Open Space, Sport and Recreation provide accessibility standards for the provision of facilities. Where development is located within the accessibility standards, contributions will be required towards improving the local open space that will serve local residents. Policy CS8.4 Biodiversity and Geodiversity states that all development proposals should protect, enhance and restore the biodiversity and geodiversity value of land and buildings. It also states that development proposals that would have a direct or indirect adverse effect on nationally, sub-regional, regional and local designated sites will not be permitted unless they cannot be located on alternative sites that would cause less or no harm; the benefits of the development clearly outweigh the impacts on the features of the site and the wider network of rural habitats; and prevention, mitigation and compensation measures are provided. Policy CS8.6 Historic Environment seeks to ensure that heritage assets of significance are protected. Policy CS8.7 Sustainable Construction, Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy states that new development will be required to meet the Code for Sustainable Homes as required by Building Regulations.

Page 142 Policy CS8.8 Development and Flood Risk seeks to ensure most new development is located in flood risk zone 1. New development will only be permitted where it can be demonstrated that it would not have a significant impact on the capacity of an area to store flood water, measures required to manage any flood risk can be implemented and surface water is managed in a sustainable way. CS8.10 Design requires that the siting, design, scale and materials of all new development is of a character which maintains or enhances the quality of the landscape or townscape and should in keeping with local vernacular. Policy CS9.1 Social and Community Infrastructure seeks to improve the health and wellbeing of residents. This will be achieved through tacking air pollution where necessary through Air Quality Management Plans ensuring appropriate social and community infrastructure (including health and cultural facilities) are in place from the onset. Policy CS9.2 Developer Contributions the Council will require new development to secure improvements which are necessary to make the development acceptable by planning condition or obligations. Planning obligations may also be required for maintenance payments, to meet the initial running costs of services and facilities. Infrastructure contributions could include improvements to highways, public transport and Travel Plans, health care and education facilities, recreations provision, biodiversity and enhancement of public realm. Policy CS10 Transport Impact of New Development requires that development be designed to reduce the need to travel and to maximise the use of sustainable forms of transport. Development proposals should provide for safe and convenient access and foot, cycle, public and private transport, be served by safe access to the highway network without detriment to the amenity or character of the locality, the expected nature and volume of traffic generated by the proposal can be accommodated by the existing road network without detriment to the amenity or character of the surrounding area, local air quality or highway safety. Where a development would have significant transport implications, it should be accompanied by an air quality assessment, transport assessment and a travel plan. Policy CS10.1 Accessing Services promotes the improvement of accessibility by improving bus and rail services, promoting a network of safe cycle and walking routes linking residential areas with employment areas, town and local centres, schools and recreational open space facilities.

Proposed Land Allocations Development Plan Document: The Proposed Land Allocations DPD proposes to allocate the northern 0.73 hectares of this site for a small affordable housing development subject to effective screening from Windermere Road to mitigate impacts on the Lake District National Park and measures to overcome local drainage constraints. Trees along the northern boundary should be retained.

The Kendal Fact File: The fact file provides an assessment of potential allocation sites. With regard to this site it states: The site is within the existing Local Plan Development boundary. There is good access to services and facilities and public transport. The impact on the

Page 143 setting of the Lake District National Park needs careful consideration. Development could have an adverse impact on River Kent and Tributaries SAC by putting pressure on the sewage network and consequences of development may mean overloading and polluting of the River. United Utilities stated there are significant serious issues regarding the existing sewer network. The Kendal Transport Assessment concluded any development in this location would increase traffic congestion on Windermere Road. Mitigation measures will be required to provide screening from Windermere Road to mitigate the impact on the Lake District National Park, an ecological assessment will be required and large trees on the northern boundary should be retained, local drainage issues require addressing, possible mitigation measures needed to address local and wider highway impacts and measures to offset negative impact on the River Kent SAC and to ensure the sewer network is not overloaded will be required.

Local Plan Policy: Policy H5 I s saved only in terms of the development boundaries for some settlements such as Kendal. The application site is within the Kendal Development Boundary. Saved Policy C3 states that development will not be permitted which would result in the loss of the best and most versatile agricultural land.

Localism Act: The Localism Act 2011 is aimed at empowering local agencies and people to deliver and better the Government agenda. It is not directed to deliver less, but to deliver at levels to maximise or exceed Government’s strategic objectives. The NPPF and development plan policies are not altered by the Localism Act. The Localism Act introduces local finance considerations as a planning consideration in so far as they are material to the application.

Council Plan 2013-2017: The Council has four priorities, the economy, housing, environment and culture and wellbeing. It states that: “by 31 March 2015 the Council will increase the supply of housing land enabling an increase in the number of net additional homes in South Lakeland” and that affordable homes will make up 35% or more of the total number of homes securing planning consent within the South Lakeland Planning Authority Area.

HUMAN RIGHTS ACT This application has been determined to accord with the rights and limitations of the Act in relation to Article 6 (Right to a fair and public hearing), Article 8 (Right to respect for private and family life, home and correspondence), Article 14 (Prohibition of discrimination) and Article 1 of Protocol 1 (Right to peaceful enjoyment of possessions and protection of property).

Page 144 ASSESSMENT The key issues of this application are: 1. the planning policy framework;

2. the impact of the proposal upon the landscape;

3. the provision of affordable housing;

4. the access arrangements and the impact upon highway infrastructure;

5. flood risk and surface water drainage;

6. layout and design;

6. footpath diversion and open space provision; and

7. Impact on ecology.

Planning policy framework At the heart of the NPPF is a presumption in favour of sustainable development. It states that there are three dimensions to sustainable development, economic, social and environmental. In order to achieve this, the planning system must ensure that there is sufficient land to support growth, support the provision of housing to meet the needs of present and future generations and protect and enhance the natural, built and historic environment. The NPPF requires that local planning authorities seek opportunities to meet the development needs of their area. Where applications are in accordance with the development plan they should be granted without delay. Where the development plan is absent, silent or relevant policies are out-of-date, planning permission should be granted unless the adverse impacts of doing so would significantly and demonstrably outweigh the benefits. Paragraph 47 of the NFFP requires that Local Authorities boost the supply of housing. Five years worth of deliverable housing sites should be identified with an additional buffer of 20% where there is a record of under delivery. To be considered deliverable sites must be available now, offer a suitable location and be achievable with a realistic prospect that housing will be delivered within five years. The Core Strategy was adopted in October 2010. While adopted prior to the NPPF the majority of its provisions are up to date and in conformity with the framework. Policy CS2 aims to make provision for 3,080 new residential dwellings in Kendal between 2003 and 2025. The site is within the adopted Kendal Development Boundary and the scheme proposes 100% social rented affordable housing. The Land Allocation DPD proposes the northern 0.73 hectares of the site for residential development. This application includes the proposed allocation site plus Hallgarth Cottage together with its garden and driveway which were omitted from the allocation. Development of this site therefore accords with the principles within the NPPF and Policies CS1.1, CS1.2 and CS2 of the Core Strategy. Accordance with these policies is not dependant upon the proposals within the Land Allocations DPD.

Page 145

The impact of the proposal upon the landscape The site is located on the inner side of the Kendal Development Boundary and it enclosed by residential development along the eastern and southern sides and Windermere Road along the western side. The National Park Boundary runs along the opposite side of Windermere Road and includes the higher land to the west. The site is prominent within the landscape but it is seen within the context of housing at Hallgarth and on higher land along Windermere Road. The site is well associated with the surrounding built up area and is separated from the National Park Boundary by Windermere Road. The proposed dwellings will be located over 30 metres back from Windermere Road and on lower land. There is scope for some tree planting along the banking adjacent Windermere Road but this will require careful siting and choice of species to ensure the land drainage proposed for this area is protected. The rear of a terrace of three houses and a gable end would be located between two and six metres from the northern boundary. The existing trees along the boundary will be retained and the boundary wall can be increased in height to afford some screening of the rear gardens. The proposals will result in the development of a greenfield site, will increase the prominence of development in this area and there is no doubt that the character and appearance of the site and the entrance to Kendal from the National Park will be affected. The proposals will encapsulate this site into the built form of Kendal and round off this corner of the town within the Development Boundary. The site is visually associated with the adjacent residential development and the impacts will not be extensive. The impact must be balanced against the requirements within the NPPF for local planning authorities to increase housing delivery. In this case, the positive contribution the development of this site would have upon the provision of affordable housing and meeting the requirement for a five year land supply, outweigh the impact upon the landscape. The proposals therefore accord with Policy CS8.2 of the Core Strategy.

Affordable housing The NPPF makes it clear that a key housing objective is to deliver a wide choice of high quality homes. Local authorities should plan for a mix of housing and where there is an identified affordable housing need set policies for meeting that need on site. This scheme will provide 27 social rented affordable dwellings of a type identified in the South Lakeland Housing Needs Survey. The affordable housing will be subject to a Section 106 Agreement. The agreement will restrict occupation of the dwellings to people with a local connection and includes a list of parishes within South Lakeland. It includes definitions of a “local connection” and includes people who have been resident in the locality for three years, have had a permanent job offer, in the armed forces or tertiary education and previously lived in the locality for three years, a person who needs to live in the locality to support or to receive support from relatives and people who have previously lived in the locality for most of their lives. The definition is widened to the District if no persons are found within a month of the letting.

Page 146 The access arrangements and the impact upon highway infrastructure It is proposed to close the existing access and install a new road access adjacent to the last house on Windermere Road. The Highway Authority has confirmed that the junction arrangements and visibility splays available in each direction are acceptable. A condition has been requested with regard to construction detailing. Windermere Road becomes congested in the morning and evening with extensive tailbacks. The development will result in additional traffic joining and adding to this congestion. The additional amount generated from an additional 27 dwellings in this location will not have a significant impact on Windermere Road. The Highway Authority has requested contributions to the Kendal LDF Transport Improvements stating that this site has been used to determine the measures and quantify the contributions requested for each development. Contributions for school transport have also been requested. 100% affordable housing schemes provide significant benefits in terms of meeting the housing need within the district. Such schemes are not expected to subsidise transport improvements or the costs to be attributed to open market housing. The benefits arising from the provision of affordable housing outweigh the limited contribution to the general highway infrastructure improvements in Kendal.

Flood risk and surface water drainage Hallgarth has experienced severe flooding during excessive rainfall events. Residents of High Garth experience water flowing through the properties from surface water running across the site from Windermere Road and the fells above. These events result in damage to properties and distress to occupiers. Development of this site must ensure that it does not exacerbate the flooding experienced on lower land and should contribute to improvements. A significant amount of investigation has been carried out to determine surface flows through the site and how the current drainage system works. Water flows off Windermere Road and down the existing drive into the rear gardens of properties on High Garth. The alternative access arrangements, use of raised kerbs, ponding areas in the site and a bund and drainage along the rear of High Garth will divert the flow of water away from the rear of these properties. There are a number of surface water pipes running through the site, some of which are broken and other which surcharge during heavy rain. There is standing and flowing water through the site at such times. The proposed scheme includes dwellings and retaining walls running at right angles to the flow of water and increased surface water capture, replacement and additional pipework to provide attenuation on the site. The County Council as Lead Flood Authority, the Council’s Environment Protection Team and the Environment Agency are satisfied that the scheme will not exacerbate flooding and has the potential to improve the surface and land drainage. United Utilities are also satisfied that the proposals will not adversely affect the mains system. A condition has been requested requiring the approval of the final detailed drainage scheme. Conditions to require approval and implementation of the maintenance scheme are also required. The proposals therefore accord with Policy CS8.8 of the Core Strategy.

Page 147

Layout and design The layout of the scheme is determined by the gradient required for the access road. The road enters the site at the southern end adjacent to the last house on Windermere Road and runs in an elongated loop northwards then ‘U’ turns back toward the south on lower land. The majority of the proposed houses are to be sited either side of the bottom part of the road with three houses along the northern boundary. This type of layout follows the predominately north south orientation of the roads and houses close to the site. The scheme requires a significant amount of cut and fill to create level areas for the road and houses. This is not an unusual occurrence for development in Kendal and is similar to the housing adjacent to the site. The proposed houses are of a simple design with appropriate detailing. The design includes exposed rafters, slate cills and drip courses, a mixture of porch designs. The majority of the properties would be finished in roughcast with two of the houses and the gable end of one of the houses adjacent to the northern edge of the site being finished in stone. Stone detailing would also be provided at the base of the porches and around the steps leading up to some of the houses. Slate and solar panels would be provided on some of the roof slopes. The design detailing of the proposed houses reflects the simple smaller terraces toward the town. The houses do not reflect the hip roofs within Hallgarth or along Windermere Road. The properties with hipped roofs are relatively modern and it is not necessary to recreate this detail to provide a suitable design. The use of a mixture of surfacing within the site, a sub-dued roughcast colour, increases in the height of boundary walls and stone for the retaining walls will help assimilate the development into the surrounding area. The detailing can be controlled by the use of conditions. The houses on the eastern side of the site will be at a significantly higher level than the properties on High Garth with the ground floor level of the new houses at a similar to the eaves of properties on High Garth. The rear elevation of the proposed houses will be at least 15 metres away from the boundary of the properties on High Garth. A surface water drainage area would be provided between the rear gardens which would be within a locked but accessible area for maintenance. The distances and elevation will ensure that the proposed houses do not adversely affect the privacy within the houses. There will be overlooking between the new gardens but the drainage strip will provide a degree of separation to ensure that privacy is not affected to an unacceptable degree. The proposed roadway will enter the site in close proximity to the boundary of Lavender Croft, Windermere Road. The road will be at an elevated level and allow over looking directly into the rear garden. Use of stone walling adjacent to the road in this area will provide some protection. While of 18 th century origin Hallgarth Cottage contains little in terms of historic interest. English Heritage has rejected a request for listing. Its demolition will not result in the loss of a significant heritage asset. Subject to conditions requiring a recording prior to demolition the proposal accords with Policy CS8.6 of the Core Strategy.

Page 148 The proposed houses are of a simple design and while they do not reflect the adjacent houses, traditional vernacular detailing appropriate to Kendal will be included. The proposals therefore accord with Policy CS8.10 of the Core Strategy. The layout is orientated to take account of solar gain and the proposal will meet the requirements within Policy CS8.7. The policy only requires that development can meet the requirements within the Building Regulations at the time. If these requirements increase, the sustainability criteria within the build will therefore be increased.

Footpath diversion and open space provision The submitted scheme includes a footpath diversion along the proposed new estate road. Such a diversion is contrary to the aims of the footpath regulations and an alterative position is being considered. The alternative would run around the site boundary on a grassed area with steps up to the road access at Windermere Road. Such a scheme will ensure that a right of access is maintained through the site. The diversion will require a separate consent. In terms of the planning application the revised position is acceptable and the benefits arising from the provision of affordable housing outweigh the objections raised. The proposal will result in an increase in the use of the public footpath between the houses down to High Garth. The footpath does however already exist and people use it at present. An increase in use will result in some additional noise and disturbance but in a residential area such relationships are not unusual. An increase in noise and disturbance to the adjacent properties will be outweighed by the provision of affordable housing. The site is small and inappropriate for the provision of a play area. The applicants have agreed to provide £13,400 for improvements to the play area in Hallgarth. This provision accords with Policies CS8.3a and CS8.3b of the Core Strategy.

Impact on Ecology Part of the site is grazed by horses, part is used for growing Christmas trees and part includes the long driveway to Hallgarth Cottage. These uses all limit the support that the site provides for birds and other species. A survey carried out by E3 Ecology Ltd. found no evidence of protected species on the site. The development may cause limited impact which can be mitigated by a nesting bird check to determine the timescale for development, protection of the oaks on the site and appropriate native planting.

Conclusion There is clear and strong support within the NPPF and continued encouragement for local authorities and local people to facilitate the provision of new housing development. The site is within the Development Boundary for Kendal and its development can be assimilated into the landscape and townscape. The benefits provided in terms of the housing provision are supported by the NPPF and Policies CS1.1, CS1.2, CS2 and CS6.1 of the South Lakeland Core Strategy. The development of this site accords with current policies and is neither reliant on nor prejudicial to the Allocation DPD process.

Page 149 The site is sustainable in terms of location and the technical and ecological constraints can be appropriately dealt with. Planning permission should therefore only be refused where the adverse impact in terms of the lack of affordable housing provision and the impacts upon infrastructure significantly and demonstrably outweigh the benefits. In this case, the provision of affordable housing significantly outweighs the objections raised.

RECOMMENDATION: That delegated authority be issued to GRANT planning permission subject to the completion of the S106 Agreement with regard to the provision of affordable housing and off site play contributions and a satisfactory conclusion to negotiations over the relocation of the footpath and drainage maintenance area, the application be GRANTED subject to conditions relating to the following:

(1) Standard time limit. (2) List of approved plans. (3) Submission, approval and implementation of technical highway details. (4) Implementation of the road layout, turning areas and car parking prior to occupation and retention thereafter. (5) Submission, approval and implementation of a detailed surface, land, highway and foul water drainage scheme in accordance with the principles with the RJ Parkins report and plans. (6) Submission, approval and implementation and a maintenance scheme for the drainage system. (7) Submission, approval and implementation of a landscaping scheme. (8) Submission, approval of the materials to be used for the external surfaces of the houses, all hard surfaces, boundary and retaining walls. (9) Implementation of the architectural detailing shown on the approved plan. (10) Submission, approval and implementation of boundary treatments and means of enclosure for the drainage maintenance area and footpath. (11) Implementation of the footpath diversion prior to commencement of the built development. (12) Submission, approval and implementation of a scheme for the protection of protected species during development.

Page 150 Item No.7

PART I

South Lakeland District Council

PLANNING COMMITTEE

Meeting Date: 28 March 2013 Report Author: Mark Balderson, Planning Enforcement Officer Portfolio: Cllr Jonathan Brook (Housing and Development Portfolio Holder) Report from: David Sykes - Director (People and Places) Wards affected: All Key Decision: Not applicable Key Decision Notice : Not applicable

A REPORT ON MONTHLY ENFORCEMENT ACTIVITY BETWEEN 1 JANUARY TO 31 JANUARY 2013 INCORPORATING QUARTERLY AND ANNUAL REPORT

1.0 PURP OSE OF REPORT 1.1 To inform Members about enforcement activity between 1 January and 31 January 2013, and quarterly and annual activity. This report aims to provide a brief and informative insight into current enforcement cases, action taken and on-going investigations.

2.0 RECOMMENDATIONS

It is recommended that Members:- 1) Note the contents of Appendix 1,2, 3 and 4 2) Provide comments and instructions at the meeting to refine the priorities identified by officers if considered necessary. 3.0 BACKGROUND 3.2 Enforcement Activity : January 2013 Cases on hand at 1 January 2013 299

New cases 14

Total cases closed 12

Cases on hand at 31 January 2013 301

Page 151 3.3 Enforcement cases for which Committee consideration is sought: No cases to report at this committee.

3.4 An update on enforcement cases involving enforcement action: 3.4.1 An update on those cases involving formal enforcement action is attached as Appendix 1 for Members information. 3.4.2 Appendix 2 is a quarterly report informing Members of the current number of cases on hand grouped by parish. 3.4.3 Appendix 3 is a quarterly report informing Members of activity on selected priority cases for the last quarter and selected cases for action in the following quarter.

3.4.4 Appendix 4 is an annual report informing Members of the current number of cases dealt with over the year and the number of statutary notice.

4.0 RESEARCH AND CONSULTATION 4.1 Not applicable. 5.0 PROPOSAL 5.1 Not applicable. 6.0 ALTERNATIVE OPTIONS 6.1 Not applicable. 7.0 NEXT STEPS 7.1 Continue dealing with priority cases in Appendices 2 and 3 and those listed in Appendix 1, receiving and prioritising all new cases, and taking appropriate action where necessary in accordance with the relevant Acts and guidance.

8.0 IMPLICATIONS 8.1 Financial and Resources 8.1.1 Cost implications only arise if the matter ultimately requires court or direct action in default. 8.2 Human Resources 8.2.1 The recommendations in this report do not have any staffing implications. 8.3 Legal 8.3.1 See report. 8.4 Social, Economic and Environmental Impact 8.4.1 This report does not have any registered significant environmental effects. 9.0 RISK ASSESSMENT 9.1 Risk Consequence Controls required The failure of a Ombudsman To maintain sufficient statutory requirement maladministration resources in planning to investigate investigation. Result in enforcement and breaches of planning inappropriate forms of prioritise and co-

Page 152 law with an effective development, which would ordinate the investigative have an adverse impact on investigation of compliance and the character, and breaches of planning enforcement system. appearance of the District’s control. rural landscape.

10 .0 EQUALITY AND DIVERSITY 10.1 The Statement of Community Involvement takes account of the equalities issues in seeking to define South Lakeland’s community and interests relevant to the Local Development Framework, which will influence the determination of individual planning applications.

11 .0 LI NKS TO THE CORPORATE PLAN AND PERFORMANCE INDICATORS 11.1 This report links to the aim of enhancing the environment in which we live and supports national performance indicators. 11.2 Having an effective robust planning enforcement regime involving people will help make South Lakeland the best place to live, work and visit. Dealing with unauthorised development in an efficient, firm and fair manner, fosters strong links with the community, increased public confidence in the Council and value for money.

12 .0 CONCLUSION AND EXPECTED OUTCOMES 12.1 See report and Appendices 1, 2, 3 and 4

APPENDICES ATTACHED TO THIS REPORT: 1 A report on enforcement cases where authorisation to take enforcement action has been sought .

2 Quarterly report of cases on hand.

3 Quarterly report of cases prioritised for action in past quarter and the following quarter.

4 Annual report on cases dealt with throughout the year and number of statutary notices issued.

CONTACT OFFICERS: Mark Balderson, Planning Enforcement Officer, Tel: 01539 797566 email: [email protected]

BACKGROUND DOCUMENTS AVAILABLE: Various planning files.

Page 153 TRACKING Assistant Portfol io Solicitor to the CMT Scrutiny Director Holder Council Committee 08 March 2013 N/A 08 March 2013 N/A N/A Executive Committee Council Section 151 Monitoring (Cabinet) Officer Officer N/A 14 March 2013 N/A N/A N/A Human Resource Services Manager N/A

Page 154 APPENDIX 1 The purpose of this appendix is to provide a brief summary of authorised enforcement cases. REF No. PARISH SITE ADDRESS BREACH / PROGRESS / NEXT STEP CONTRAVENTION 06/068 ALDINGHAM Low Sunbrick Farm Installation of uPVC windows Enforcement action authorised in Listed Building. with a 10 year compliance period. Prior to serving Listed Building Notice, Officers serving a Section 330 to obtain up to date information on ownership of property. 08/345 SKELSMERGH Holme House Farm Unauthorised development Following Judge Hughes order that

Page 155 Garth Row Lane involving the construction of Mr Steele must comply with caravan / chalet structures Paragraphs 2 and 3 of the and business uses. injunction order dated 10 October 2012 otherwise the defendant shall be committed to prison, Enforcement Officers visited the th site on March 13 2013 and confirm that Mr Steele has complied with paragraphs 2 and 3 of the Injunction. 10/208 LOWER Blenkett wood caravan park Laying new 300m access An appeal has been lodged with ALLITHWAITE track. the the Planning Inspectorate against the Enforcement Notice. Appeal decision awaited. 10/209 KENDAL Boundary Bank Unauthorised use of site for Part of site has been cleared, the storage of machinery and further monitoring will be hardcore. undertaken.

10/318 URSWICK Lawn Roc, Bardsea Residential carvan in Drafting enforcement Notice. agricultural field

REF No. PARISH SITE ADDRESS BREACH / PROGRESS / NEXT STEP CONTRAVENTION 11/256 SKELSMERGH Holme House Farm Material Change of Use of The caravan is no longer used as agricultural barn to a structure a dwelling. No further action, the used as a dwellinghouse. case will be closed. 11/257 KENDAL 55 Helmside Road Untidy land to front of dwelling. Contractors are nearing completion. Officers have received positive comments from Page 156 neighbours, and passers by. 11/078 SKELSMERGH Holme House Farm Engineering operation. Large In accordance with the 2008 scale excavation to public Enforcement Notice and footpath. paragraph 2 (d) of the Oct 2012 injunction, the tenant confirms after removing the large water container, the area of land including the footpath has been reinstated and graded. 12/134 EGTON with Field adjacent Alpine Road Removal of 85m of field The hedge has been planted. NEWLAND hedge. Owner has stated that he will erect stock proof fencing. Waiting confirmation from tree officer. 12/290 KENDAL 114/116 Kirkland Untidy site Negotiating with the prospective buyer to include the work in his renovation of the building.

APPENDIX 2 To provide Members with the number of cases on hand grouped by parish. Outstanding Enforcements by Parish 01/01/2006 to 31/01/2013 15:35:05

Parish Number Of Cases

ALDINGHAM 780 5

ARNSIDE 700 3

BARBON 680 3

BEETHAM 710 11

BROUGHTON WEST (Duddon) 280 1

BURTON IN KENDAL 730 5

CASTERTON 760 7

DOCKER 230 2

CROSTHWAITE WITH LYTH 1

EGTON WITH NEWLAND 561 9

FIRBANK 260 1

GRANGE OVER SANDS 590 11

GRAYRIGG 250 2

HELSINGTON 340 4

HEVERSHAM 610 2

HINCASTER 630 1

HOLME 720 7

HUTTON ROOF 740 1

KENDAL 350 12

KENDAL 351 15

KENDAL 352 5

KENDAL 353 2

KENDAL 354 14

KENDAL 356 4

KILLINGTON 380 3

KIRKBY IRELETH 401 4

Page 157 KIRKBY LONSDALE 750 12

LEVENS 460 3

LOWER ALLITHWAITE 570 29

LOWER HOLKER 790 3

LUPTON 660 3

MANSERGH 670 1

MANSRIGGS 550 3

MIDDLETON 500 3

MILNTHORPE 620 7

NATLAND 360 2

NEW HUTTON 370 5

OLD HUTTON AND HOLMESCALES 490 5

OSMOTHERLY 540 2

PENNINGTON 530 15

PRESTON PATRICK 650 11

PRESTON RICHARD 640 10

SCALTHWAITERIGG 220 1

SEDGWICK 470 1

SKELSMERGH 210 11

STAINTON 480 2

STRICKLAND KETEL 201 3

STRICKLAND ROGER 121 5

ULVERSTON 690 18

ULVERSTON 691 5

URSWICK 770 1

WHINFELL 140 1

WHITWELL AND SELSIDE 131 1

Total Number of Outstanding Cases 317

Page 158 APPENDIX 3 Quarterly report informing Members of activity on selected priority cases for the last quarter and selected cases for action in the following quarter. Action/Activity on selected priority cases during last quarter. REF No. PARISH SITE ADDRESS ALLEGED BREACH ACTION / ACTIVITY 08/345 SKELMERGH Holme House Unauthorised • Officers attended a further hearing in the Combined Garth Row Lane development involving Courts Carlisle. Judge Hughes gave Mr Steele a final the construction of opportunity to comply with his court order of the 10 caravan / chalet October 2012 structures and business • The Judge requested Mr Steele provide the Council uses. with names of people still on the site and in which units they are living. Page 159 • Officers have visted the site and can confirm that most of the unauthorised units have been demolished and are in the process of been removed from the site. • Officers have visited and confirm compliance with paragraph 2 and 3 on the Injunction. • This case commenced in 2008 and has involved considerable amount of officer time and Council resources, but the case is nearing completion. 11/257 KENDAL 55 Helmside Road Untidy land to front of • This has been a long protracted case involving a Oxenholme dwelling. considerable amount of officer time. • Officers are assisting the contractors as the owner is resisting access on to his land. • Contractors have almost completed the work to the front of the dwelling . Enforcement Officer will report to when the work is complete.

10/253 KENDAL 55 Helmside Road, Engineering operation, • The engineering operation to the rear and the untidy Oxenholme excavation of rear front has been devided into two separate cases. garden. • The untidy state of the front of the property has been tackled by using a Section 215 Notice and the rear using the original enforcement notice served in 2006. • The rear is a little more involved, requiring an engineers report and a scheme to support and satablise the land adjacent neighbouring properties. • Instruction has been sent to contractors to provide costings and engineer’s report. Page 160

Cases Prioritised for Action in the Following Quarter REF No. PARISH SITE ADDRESS ALLEGED BREACH ACTION / ACTIVITY 12.139 PENNINGTON Whicks Whinfield Material change of use • Officers have carried out site visit and confirm the Works, Lindal, from recycling site to owners are in breach of the Lawful use of the site. LA12 0LE storage of scrap • Officers to write to the owner and tenant of the site, to vehicles, skips and cease all unauthorised storage and activity on the waste. site. • Officers will prepare and a serve Planning Contravention Notice.

Page 161 12.150 DOCKER Land at Old field Storage of builders • Officers to survey the site and identify in detail all the wood, Pattern Hall materials and caravan materials on the land. • Identify all those with an owner’s interest in the land. • Draft and serve a Planning Contravention Notice. 08/345 SKELMERGH Holme House Unauthorised • Officers continue to the monitor site to achive Garth Row Lane development involving compliance with the Enforcement Notice and the the construction of court injunction dated 10 October 2012. caravan / chalet structures and business uses.

APPENDIX 4 The purpose of this appendix is to provide a brief summary of annual enforcement activity . 2012 2011 1 Cases on hand at start of year : 318 287 Total number of cases received in year 309 258 Total number of cases resolved in year 190 227 Cases on hand at end of year 437 318 2 Number of Notices served • Planning Contravention Notices 4 2 • Hedge replacement notice 2 2 • Section 330 Notices (Requisition for Information) 6 18 • Breach of Condition Notices 0 1 • Section 215 Notices (Land that adversely affects the 1 7 amenity of the area) • Enforcement Notices 2 8 0 0 • Prosecutions 1 0 • Injunctions

Page 162 Item No.8

PART I

South Lakeland District Council PLANNING COMMITTEE

Meeting Date: 28 March 2013 Report Author: Mark Shipman (Development Management Group Manager) Portfolio: Jonathon Brook (Housing and Development Portfolio Holder) Report from: David Sykes (Director People and Places) Wards affected: All Key Decision: Not applicable

APPEALS UPDATE

1.0 PURPOSE OF REPORT 1.1 To provide Members with information about the receipt and determination of planning appeals from the start of the financial year in April 2012. 2.0 RECOMMENDATIONS 2.1 Note the report.

3.0 BACKGROUND 3.1 Appeals as set out in Appendix 1.

3.2 Whilst the national performance indicator has been deleted, Members will recall the consultation document and the Government’s proposal to measure the performance of Councils to determine whether they should be placed in special measures. One of the indicators proposed was whether more than 20% of appeals of major applications were being lost over a two year period. It is considered prudent to start measuring performance against this target as well as to continue to measure against an overall target of 30% to test policy efficiency. 3.3 Two decisions are of interest to Members. The first is the appeal to erect the poultry unit and manure store at High Sampool and the Inspector concluded that there was an impact in the landscape and on residential amenity. The second relates to the conservatory to the front of 30 Oak Tree Road, where the Inspector agreed that there would be an adverse impact on the character of the area.

4.0 RESEARCH AND CONSULTATION 4.1 Not applicable

Page 163 5.0 PROPOSAL 5.1 Not applicable

6.0 ALTERNATIVE OPTIONS 6.1 Not applicable

7.0 NEXT STEPS 7.1 Not applicable

8.0 IMPLICATIONS 8.1 Financial and Resources 8.1.1 The recommendations in this report do not have any cost implications. 8.2 Human Resources 8.2.1 The recommendations in this report do not have any staffing implications. 8.3 Legal 8.3.1 Not applicable 8.4 Social, Economic and Environmental Impact 8.4.1 This report does not have any registered significant environmental effects.

9.0 RISK ASSESSMENT 9.1 Not applicable

10.0 EQUALITY AND DIVERSITY 10.1 The Statement of Community Involvement takes account of the equalities issues in seeking to define South Lakeland’s community and interests relevant to the Local Development Framework which will influence the determination of individual planning applications. 11.0 LINKS TO THE CORPORATE PLAN AND PERFORMANCE INDICATORS 11.1 This report links to the aim of “Enhancing the environment in which we live .”

11.2 Indicator BVPI 204 sets a target of a maximum number of appeals allowed as 33%. All enforcement appeals are discounted from the indicator because it shows the efficiency of planning policy. The current overall performance, calculated from those decisions received since 1 April 2012, is 16.67% (ie 83.33% success to date in defending appeals against refusal).

11.3 The Government is proposing to measure appeal performance on major applications over a two year period and set the target at 20%. The performance on appeals for major development is 0% measured from April 2011 (i.e. 100% success for this period).

12.0 CONCLUSION AND EXPECTED OUTCOMES 12.1 It is anticipated that targets and objectives will continue to be achieved at the year end.

Page 164 APPENDIX ATTACHED TO THIS REPORT Appendix 1 Appeals table (commencing 1 April 2012), updated to include new appeals and appeal decisions received between 13 February and 11 March 2013.

CONTACT OFFICERS Mark Shipman, Development Management Group Manager – Tel: 01539 797564.

BACKGROUND DOCUMENTS AVAILABLE Various planning files.

TRACKING Assistant Portfolio Solicitor to the CMT Scrutiny Director Holder Council Committee 13.3.2013 N/A 13.3.2013 N/A N/A Executive Committee Council Section 151 Monitoring (Cabinet) Officer Officer N/A 28 March 2013 N/A N/A N/A Human Development Resource Management Services Group Manager Manager N/A 13.3.2013

Page 165 APPENDIX 1

Site Description SLDC Decision Planning Inspectorate Ref Planning and start date Inspectorate

South Lakeland Planning Ref Decision

LOWER Use of land for siting one static Refused 27/10/11 APP/M0933/A/11/2166797 DISMISSED ALLITHWAITE: holiday caravan (Committee) 16/12/11 11 May 2012 Blenkett Wood Lodge PO Recommend: SL/2011/0730 Park, Jack Hill, Refuse Allithwaite

Page 166 KENDAL: Redevelopment of site to form retail Refused 25/11/11 APP/M0933/A/11/2166628 DISMISSED Kendal Rugby Union development with associated car (Committee) 22/12/11 21 June 2012 Football Club parking and servicing facilities PO Recommend: SL/2010/0180 Shap Road Grant

KIRKBY IRELETH: Removal of conditions 9, 10 and 11 Refused 24/11/11 APP/M0933/A/11/2167375 DISMISSED The Boat House on PP SL/2005/0493 4/1/12 1 May 2012 Soutergate SL/2011/0793 Kirkby in Furness

EGTON with Agricultural building Refused 30/12/11 APP/M0933/A/11/2168927 DISMISSED NEWLAND: 19/1/12 30 April 2012 Field adj to Oak Bank SL/2011/0860 Broughton Beck

Site Description SLDC Decision Planning Inspectorate R ef Planning and start date Inspectorate

South Lakeland Planning Ref Decision

ALDINGHAM: Appeal against issuing of Enforcement APP/M0933/C/12/2170352 ALLOWED Land at Baycliff Farm, Enforcement Notice 13/2/12 15 June 2012 Main Street, Baycliff SL/2011/0994

EGTON with Change of Use of Public House to Refused 25/8/11 APP/M0933/A/11/2169517 DISMISSED NEWLAND: dwelling (Committee) 15/2/12 - Hearing 19 June 2012 Britannia Inn PO Recommend: SL/2011/0233 Penny Bridge Refuse Page 167 KENDAL: First floor extension Refused 6/2/12 APP/M0933/C/12/2171660 DISMISSED 46 Sandylands Road 5/3/12 (Householder) 2 May 2012 SL/2011/1020 PRESTON RICHARD: Erection of 15m high (to tip of blade) Refused 28/2/12 APP/M0933/A/12/2173166 ALLOWED Carter House wind turbine 29/3/12 27 September Crooklands SL/2011/0991 2012 ULVERSTON: Erection of four dwellings Refused 6/3/12 APP/M0933/A/12/2173314 DISMISSED Land at Old Hall Road 2/4/12 30 August 2012 SL/2011/0974 GREAT URSWICK: Dwelling, detached garage and Refused 24/11/11 APP/M0933/A/12/2176000 DISMISSED Land adjacent to Daisy access (Committee) 14/6/12 20 September Hill Cottage PO Recommend: SL/2011/0741 2012 Refuse Site Description SLDC Decision Planning Inspectorate Ref Plann ing and start date Inspectorate

South Lakeland Planning Ref Decision

LOWER Variation of Condition No 4 (Proof of Refused 20/4/12 APP/M0933/A/12/2176328 ALLOWED ALLITHWAITE: main residence elsewhere) on PP 19/6/12 25 October 2012 SL/2011/0862 Old Orchard SL/2012/0155 The Pastures Templands Lane WHINFELL: Change of Use of agricultural land to Refused 22/12/11 APP/M0933/A/12/2176737 DISMISSED Patton Hall Farm form extension to existing caravan 22/6/12 28 September site for the siting of 12 static caravans

Page 168 Patton 2012 and associated landscaping SL/2011/0808 LUPTON: Change of Use of partially completed Refused 26/1/12 APP/M0933/A/12/2177360 DISMISSED Thompson Fold holiday accommodation units to four 22/6/12 2 October 2012 permanent dwellings SL/2011/0950 KIRKBY LONSDALE: Completion of the partially developed Refused 26/4/12 APP/M0933/A/12/2177363 DISMISSED Biggins Hall Barn site Biggins Hall Barn site to provide (Committee) 3/7/12 27 December seven dwellings (two of which are to High Biggins PO Recommend: SL/2012/0103 2012 be affordable) Refuse KENDAL: Erection of 25 dwellings Refused 14/3/12 APP/M0933/A/12/2176802 DISMISSED Gallowbarrow Mill 6/7/12 10 October 2012 Natland SL/2011/1069 HOLME: Alterations to provide first floor Refused 17/4/12 APP/M0933/D/12/2177787 ALLOWED Green Acre accommodation and replacement 10/7/12 (Householder) 5 September 2012 single storey extension Milnthorpe Road SL/2012/0124

Site Description SLDC Decision Planning Inspectorate Ref Planning and start date Inspectorate

South Lakeland Planning Ref Decision

HELSINGTON: Conversion and alterations to Refused 23/3/12 APP/M0933/D/12/2178010 DISMISSED Hill House, Brigsteer attached outbuilding to form 16/7/12 (Householder) 4 September 2012 additional domestic accommodation SL/2012/0084 LUPTON: Dwelling with new vehicular access Refused 31/5/12 APP/M0933/A/12/2178225 ALLOWED Tavern House, Nook, drive 20/7/12 28 December Cow Brow SL/2012/0295 2012 KIRKBY LONSDALE: Discharge of Condition 5 (roofing Refused 13/4/12 APP/M0933/A/12/2179979 DISMISSED slates) on PP SL/2009/0838 (housing Page 169 Land off Biggins Road 26/7/12 29 November development) SL/2012/0147 2012 PRESTON PATRICK: Residential development Not Determined APP/M0933/ A/12/2178909 DISMISSED Former School playing 27/7/12 11 January 2013 field, A65, Crooklands SL/2012/0372 LOWER Appeal against the issuing of an Enforcement APP/M0933/C/12/2181345 Awaited ALLITHWAITE: Enforcement Notice APP/M0933/C/12/2181343 Blenket Farm, Jack Hill APP/M0933/C/12/2181344 20/8/12 SL/2012/0730 URSWICK: Wind turbine (34.2 m to blade tip) Refused 28/6/12 APP/M0933/A/12/2180859 DISMISSED Bolton Manor Farm 20/8/12 20 November SL/2012/0241 2012 Site Description SLDC Decision Planning Inspectorate Ref Planning and start date Inspectorate

South Lakeland Planning Ref Decision

HEVERSHAM: Dwelling with vehicular access Refused 27/6/12 APP/M0933/A/12/2181825 DISMISSED Ghyll Cottage, Leasgill 22/8/12 23 January 2013 SL/2012/0371 KENDAL: Replacement exterior doors and Refused 25/7/12 APP/M0933/D/12/2182610 DISMISSED The Old Post Office uPVC sliding sash window frames 30/8/12 (Householder) 25 October 2012 10 Greenside SL/2012/0356

Page 170 LOWER HOLKER: Proposed building for storage of Refused 28/6/12 APP/M0933/ A/12/2182072 DISMISSED Land to the east of agricultural contractor’s machinery 4/9/12 18 December Trino, Willow Lane, SL/2012/0265 2012 Flookburgh MILNTHORPE: Detached dwelling Refused 22/3/12 APP/M0933/A/12/2182378 PART ALLOWED/ PART DISMISSED Crosby House 7/9/12 14 January 2013 Ackenthwaite SL/2011/0867 GRANGE over Cert of Lawful Dvpt for storage of Refused 25/7/12 APP/M0933/ X/12/2184048 Awaited SANDS: vintage cars (non-domestic garaging) 24/9/12 Former Wilson SL/2012/0313 Robinson workshop, Hampsfell Road

NEW HUTTON: Single Wind Turbine (79.6 M to blade Refused 29/6/12 APP/M0933/A/12/2183618 Awaited Hawkrigg Hill tip) and associated metering units 2/10/12 SL/2012/0289 Site Description SLDC Decision Planning Inspectorate Ref Planning and start date Inspectorate

South Lakeland Planning Ref Decision

LEVENS: Erection of poultry unit with manure Refused 17/4/12 APP/M0933/A/12/2185699 DISMISSED Land at High Sampool store (Committee) 30/10/12 21 February 2013

PO Recommend: SL/2011/0647 Refuse

URSWICK: Erection of a single turbine (maximum Refused 5/9/12 APP/M0933/A/12/2185234 Awaited Field adjacent to blade tip height of 62 metres), 13/11/12 Harbarrow Farm widening of an existing field access, creation of a new access track and SL/2012/0448 associated infrastructure Page 171 HELSINGTON: Erection of one wind turbine (32.4M Refused 31/7/12 APP/M0933/A/12/2187511 Awaited High House Farm to blade tip) (Committee) 20/11/12

PO Recommend: SL/2012/0327 Refuse

HUTTON ROOF: Conservatory Refused 29/8/12 APP/M0933/D/12/2187883 DISMISSED 9 Lowther Court 21/11/12 (Householder) 14 January 2013 SL/2012/0579

KENDAL: Extension of time condition on Refused 20/6/12 APP/M0933/A/12/2188436 Awaited Land off Kent Lea planning permission SL/2008/1208 11/12/12 (two dwellings) Kentrigg SL/2012/0346

Site Descript ion SLDC Decision Planning Inspectorate Ref Planning and start date Inspectorate

South Lakeland Planning Ref Decision

ARNSIDE: Variation of condition 3 on planning Refused 3/7/12 APP/M0933/A/12/2188781 Awaited Hollins Farm permission SL/2009/1135 to allow 12/12/12 extension of season Far Arnside SL/2012/0398

ARNSIDE: Use of land for touring caravans (in Refused 3/7/12 APP/M0933/A/12/2188784 Awaited Hollins Farm excess of the period allowed for the 12/12/12 Far Arnside siting of caravans by virtue of a Certificate of Lawful Use SL/2012/0399 Page 172 SL/2008/0344)

BEETHAM: Dwelling Refused 27/9/12 APP/M0933/A/12/2188474 Awaited 3 Chapel Close, Storth 12/12/12 SL/2012/0660

ULVERSTON: Rear extension Refused 02/11/12 APP/M0933/A/12/2188751 Awaited Masonic Hall 04/01/13 Kings Road SL/2012/0717 ALDINGHAM: Change of Use from studio to Refused 03/12/12 APP/M0933/A/12/2189205 Awaited Driftwood Studio, Long dwelling 07/01/13 Lane, Goadsbarrow SL/2012/0773 KENDAL: Conservatory and Car Port Refused 20/12/12 APP/M0933/D/13/2191309 DISMISSED (Committee) 30 Oak Tree Road 23/01/13 (Householder) 21 February 2013 PO Recommend: SL/2012/0870 Refuse Site Description SLDC Decision Planning Inspectorate Ref Planning and start date Inspectorate

South Lakeland Planning Ref Decision

PENNINGTON: Single wind turbine (27M to tip) Refused 31/07/12 APP/M0933/A/13/2191966 Awaited (Committee) land near Sea View 20/02/13

PO Recommend: SL/2012/0255 Refuse LOWER Erection of detached garden room, Refused 06/12/12 APP/M0933/A/13/2192580 and Awaited ALLITHWAITE: garage, utility room, wc, workshop APP/M0933/E/13/2192579 and greenhouse, refurbishment of Priory Gradens, Priest 04/03/13 Lane, Cartmel gazebo, removal and rebuilding of boundary wall and demolition of SL/2012/0674 and 0675 existing detached garage Page 173

This page is intentionally left blank

Page 174 Item No.9

PART I

South Lakeland District Council PLANNING COMMITTEE Meeting Date: 26 March 2013 Report Author s: Dan Hudson, Development Strategy Manager & Mark Shipman, Development Management Group Manager Portfolio: Jonathon Brook (Housing and Development Portfolio Holder) Report from: David Sykes (Director People & Places) Wards affected: All Key Decision: Not applicable Notice of Key Not applicable Decisions: TIME SCALES FOR RURAL HOUSING POLICY REVIEW 1.0 PURPOSE OF REPORT 1.1 This report is presented to inform Members about the time scales for progressing Local Plan Policy Documents. Members have expressed a view that the Core Strategy objective of 11% of housing should be constructed in smaller villages and hamlets. 1.2 This report sets out the current policy situation, policy application and when and how the policy review will be undertaken. 2.0 RECOMMENDATIONS It is recommended that members note the report. 3.0 BACKGROUND 3.1 It is understood that the one of the original objectives of the Core Strategy was to provide the opportunity for local people to construct homes in their village and that occupation would be controlled by a Local Occupancy condition. This was a continuation of the objectives set out in the Interim Planning Approach to Housing (IPATH) document.

3.2 One of the results of this was to create market housing of a reduced value because of the nature of the condition and this was an additional

1 Page 175 benefit for local communities. This would have created a range of housing opportunities in smaller villages from affordable housing through homes that could only be occupied by local people to full market housing. The Core Strategy examining Inspector concluded that there was insufficient evidence for restrictions to only local occupancy in this part of the document and so it was deleted from the policy and a number of applications to remove the condition were submitted following adoption of the Core Strategy in October 2010. Similarly S106 legal agreements were also altered.

3.3 As a result we now have a policy position where the only reduced value housing is that provided by Affordable Housing and all other housing is at market value. In a recent appeal decision, the Inspector concluded that the 35% proportion should be applied. South Lakeland is an area where the average value of a dwelling is approximately 9 times the value of the average wage.

3.4 Most new housing in South Lakeland is built within towns and large villages. The Council does not normally permit housing outside villages except where there is special justification. This report explains:

• the existing policies which the Council uses when it has to decide whether to grant planning permission for houses in the Countryside and the circumstances when an exceptional approval may be made; • the implications of the National Planning Policy framework; • proposals for the review of the current policy framework and the timetable for implementing this as set out in the revised Local Development Scheme

3.5 Core Strategy - Aims

The Council’s most up to date Local Plan document, the Core Strategy aims to achieve the following in rural parts of the District;

• Deliver new housing where people don’t have to travel far and where it will help the viability of local services; • To give people fairer access to homes, services, education, healthcare and jobs; • To create a diverse rural economy and support for agriculture and tourism; • To enable development which meets local needs in the places where they are needed including accommodating current residents and people with a family or employment connection; • To maintain viable sustainable, mixed communities; • To ensure that development has a positive impact on landscape and settlements;

2 Page 176 3.6 Core Strategy - Policies

The two main Core Strategy policies used to determine applications for new housing in the countryside are the following;

• Policy CS1.2 – Development Strategy which directs 89% of development to towns and large villages but allows ‘infill’ and ‘rounding off’ development in small villages and hamlets; • Policy CS6.4 which sets out the exceptional circumstances when a development proposal which was not in line with Policy CS1.2 might be acceptable. This normally requires that housing development be 100% affordable and sets out the following requirements; o Clear and robust evidence of housing need. o Housing to be affordable in perpetuity and for people with a local connection; o appropriate scale and style; o Clear evidence of viability of the scheme; o Good design that is sympathetic to the local area; It should be noted that the locational criteria for determining sites for housing in smaller villages and hamlets has not changed. It was always intended that affordable housing or housing subject to local occupancy or market housing would accord with the “rounding off and infilling” criteria. The diagram in Appendix 1 shows the process by which the policies are applied.

3.7 The National Planning Policy Framework

The National Planning Policy Framework (“NPPF”) , published in March 2012, is an important material consideration. It is more recent than the Core Strategy and is a material consideration with substantial weight. The key elements are;

Para 54 • In rural areas, exercising the duty to cooperate with neighbouring authorities, local planning authorities should be responsive to local circumstances and plan housing development to reflect local needs, particularly for affordable housing, including through rural exception sites where appropriate. • Local planning authorities should in particular consider whether allowing some market housing would facilitate the provision of significant additional affordable housing to meet local needs.

Para 55 • To promote sustainable development in rural areas, housing should be located where it will enhance or maintain the vitality of rural communities. For example, where there are groups of smaller settlements, development in one village may support services in a village nearby. Local planning authorities should avoid new isolated

3 Page 177 homes in the countryside unless there are special circumstances such as: o the essential need for a rural worker to live permanently at or near their place of work in the countryside; or o where such development would represent the optimal viable use of a heritage asset or would be appropriate enabling development to secure the future of heritage assets; or o where the development would re-use redundant or disused buildings and lead to an enhancement to the immediate setting; or o the exceptional quality or innovative nature of the design of the dwelling. Such a design should: – be truly outstanding or innovative , helping to raise standards of design more generally in rural areas; – reflect the highest standards in architecture ; – significantly enhance its immediate setting ; and – be sensitive to the defining characteristics of the local area. 3.8 The general thrust of both local and national policy is that new housing should in general be located where it supports and has access to existing facilities and services. The provision of affordable housing is a key driver. There is a general presumption against isolated houses in the countryside except in the specific circumstances set out above. The NPPF gives greater flexibility than the Core Strategy to consider factors such as key worker housing, the optimal use of a heritage asset and the use of redundant buildings as well as the scope for introducing an element of market housing to support affordable delivery.

4.0 RESEARCH AND CONSULTATION 4.1 All Planning Policies should be kept under review to make sure that they are achieving what they were intended to, that they remain in compliance with Government policy and that they remain relevant in the light of changes to the evidence base. The Council publishes an Annual Monitoring Report which monitors performance against plan objectives. 4.2 The Council draws on the Annual Monitoring Report in preparing a Local Development Scheme (LDS). The Local Development Scheme sets out what Local Plan documents the Council proposes to prepare and when it proposes to do it. An updated Local Development Scheme is being considered by Council on March 26 th 2013. The current focus is on the Land Allocations Plan. The next main areas of work are: • A Community Infrastructure Levy Charging Schedule; • A Local Plan for the Arnside and Silverdale Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty;

4 Page 178 • A planning policy on Gypsies and Travellers; • Updated Development Management Policies; • A Canal Head Area Action Plan. 5.0 PROPOSAL 5.1 The Diagram in Appendix 2 sets out the proposed timetables for the preparation of these documents. The intention is that the suite of former Local Development Framework (“ LDF”) documents be superseded by a single Local Plan document to be adopted in Mid 2021 which will cover the period 2021-2035. 5.2 It is intended that the review of the Rural Housing Policy will be incorporated into the Development Management Document. Members will note from the diagram, the complexities of the process of adopting and changing a policy. The existing staff resources that are needed to complete this process are sufficient to meet the timetable. The risks of jeopardising the process are set out in the matrix in section 9 and are not over stated. 5.3 Whilst it is acknowledged that this review will not be concluded until 2017, there are more critical documents that need to be adopted before the Planning Strategy Team deal with the Rural Housing issue and these are set out in diagram 2. 6.0 ALTERNATIVE OPTIONS 6.1 Not carry out a planned review and continue with the current policy position. 6.2 Create a non-statutory Guidance Note. 6.3 Encourage communities to adopt their own approach through Neighbourhood planning. 7.0 NEXT STEPS 7.1 Development Strategy Team commence the work programme to achieve the adoption of the Policy Documents as set out in Appendix 2 8.0 IMPLICATIONS 8.1 Financial and Resources 8.1.1 There are no financial or resource implications 8.2 Human Resources 8.2.1 The recommendations in this report do not have any staffing implications 8.3 Legal 8.3.1 Save as set out in 8.3.2 to 8.3.4 below the legal implications are set out in the report. 8.3.2. Planning Committee’s role is to implement policy. The report is therefore for information for Planning Committee.

5 Page 179 8.3.3 Section 38(5) of the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004 provides that: “If to any extent a policy contained in a development plan for an area conflicts with another policy in the development plan the conflict must be resolved in favour of the policy which is contained in the last document to be adopted, approved or published (as the case may be).” 8.3.4 Section 38(6) of the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004 goes on to say that: “If regard is to be had to the development plan for the purpose of any determination to be made under the planning Acts the determination must be made in accordance with the plan unless material considerations indicate otherwise.” 8.4 Social, Economic and Environmental Impact 8.4.1 The report does not have any registered significant effects. 9.0 RISK ASSESSMENT Risk Consequence Controls required Community favoured Loss of policy Policy Review in the development is credibility and long term. contrary to policy. inconsistent decision Reading policy in making. conjunction with Unjustified decision NPPF.

making. Proper examination of

Loss of control of justified exceptions.

development in the Retaining NPPF countryside. control of Looser policy is Undesirable development in the adopted. development harder to countryside. resist. Unsustainable development contrary to national Policy.

10.0 EQUALITY AND DIVERSITY 10.1 The Statement of Community Involvement designates those persons to be consulted for each application and policy review. 11.0 LINKS TO THE CORPORATE PLAN AND PERFORMANCE INDICATORS 11.1 The determination of this type of application should contribute to the Councils housing strategy. 12.0 CONCLUSION AND EXPECTED OUTCOMES 12.1 Applications to be determined in accordance with policy.

6 Page 180 APPENDICES ATTACHED TO THIS REPORT Appendix No. 1 Policy application. 2 Development Strategy Work Programme

CONTACT OFFICERS Mark Shipman, Development management Group Manager, Tel: 01539 797564 email: [email protected] BACKGROUND DOCUMENTS AVAILABLE None. TRACKING Assist ant Portfolio Solicitor to the CMT Scrutiny Director Holder Council Committee 11.3.2013 N/A 11.3.2013 N/A N/A Executive Committee Council Section 151 Monitoring (Cabinet) Officer Officer N/A March 2013 N/A N/A 11.3.2013 Human Resource Services Manager N/A

7 Page 181 8 Page 182 TIME SCALES FOR RURAL HOUSING POLICY REVIEW – APPENDIX 1

PURPOSE OF APPENDIX 1 To show diagrammatically shows the process by which the policies are applied.

9 Page 183 Policy CS1.2 applies IS THE SITE WITHIN A LOCAL Policy CS6.4 applies YES SERVICE CENTRE ? HOUSING HOUSING DEVELOPMENT IS No DEVELOPMENT IS ACCEPTABLE IN CONTRARY TO PRINCIPLE POLICY IS THE S ITE WITHIN A SMALL Development in Subject to detailed VILLAGE/HAMLET? NO site specific factors exceptional circumstances only. and other policy Yes requirements including affordable

housing proposals YES IS THE SITE AN INFILL SITE ? being met.

NO

YES IS THE SITE A ROUNDING OFF NO SITE ?

ARE THERE ANY IS THE PROPOSAL FOR 100% NO ARE THERE ANY OTHER SPECIFIC AFFORDABLE HOUSING? OTHER SPECIFIC CIRCUMSTANCES YES CIRCUMSTANCES WHICH WOULD WHICH WOULD JUSTIFY A REFUSAL? IS THERE CLEAR EVIDENCE OF JUSTIFY AN COMMUNITY SUPPORT? NO APPROVAL YES

IS THERE ROBUST EVIDENCE OF NO HOUSING NEED?

YES

DOES IT MEET LOCAL AFFORDABLE NEEDS IN NO PERPETUITY? YES

IS THE PROPOSAL VIABLE? NO YES

IS THE LOCATION, SCALE, STYLE AND DESIGN APPROPRIATE? NO

YES

YES NO NO

APPROVE YES REFUSE 10 Page 184

TIME SCALES FOR RURAL HOUSING POLICY REVIEW – APPENDIX 2

PURPOSE OF APPENDIX 2 To show diagrammatically shows the process by which policies are reviewed.

11 Page 185 STRATEGIC, DEVT DETAILED SITE NEIGHBOURHOO INFRASTRUCTURE AND MANAG PLANNING D PLANNING CROSS-BORDER PLANNING EMENT

CORE STRATEGY ADOPTED

OCT 2010 NEIGHBOUR

HOOD PLANS Timetables to LAND be set by 2013 ALLOCATIO neighbour NS COMMUNITY hoods Conclude INFRA SCROGGS examination STRUCTURE WOOD DEVT ADOPT LEVY BRIEF BRIEFS (1) NOV 2013 Charging ADOPTION Kendal S Schedule MAR 2014 Kirkby L AONB PLAN Examination Milnthorpe 2014 Holme ADOPT Issues and SOUTH ADOPTION JULY 2014 Options ULV ERSTON DEVT DEC 2014 MANAGE BRIEF

MENT ADOPTION CANAL Preferred END 2014 Options HEAD GYPSY AND

2015 Submission TRAVELLER S Examination Preferred ADOPTION Options JAN 2016 BRIEFS 2 2016 Kendal N Burton Rd Publication Burton Endmoor Grange Swarthmoor Examination ADOPTION DEC 2016 2017 ADOPTION MARCH 2017

SINGLE LOCAL PLAN 2018 2021-2035

Visioning

Evidence Base 2019

Issues and Options

Preferred Options

2020 Publication

Examination 2021

ADOPTION MARCH 2021

12 Page 186