Date: 10 August 2016

Please note that this meeting will commence at the rising of the previous meeting or at 10am whichever is the later Town Hall, Penrith, Cumbria CA11 7QF Tel: 01768 817817 Email: [email protected]

Dear Sir/Madam Planning Committee Agenda - 18 August 2016 Notice is hereby given that a meeting of the Planning Committee will be held on Thursday, 18 August 2016 at the Council Chamber, Town Hall, Penrith at the rising of the previous meeting or at 10.00 am whichever is the later.

1 Apologies for Absence

2 Minutes

To sign the public minutes Pla/30/07/16 to Pla/45/07/16 of the meeting of this Committee held on 21 July 2016

3 Declarations of Interest

To receive any declarations of the existence and nature of any private interests, both disclosable pecuniary and any other registrable interests, in any matter to be considered or being considered.

4 Appeal Decision Letters (Pages 7 - 16)

To receive the decision letters from the Planning Inspectorate for the appeals relating to:

Matthew Neal www.eden.gov.uk Deputy Chief Executive Application Applicant / Appeal Appeal Number(s) Decision 15/0653 Anesco Ltd The appeal is Land at Wreay, Southwaite, Carlisle allowed

The appeal is made under section 78 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 against a refusal to grant planning permission.

The development proposed is the construction of a temporary solar farm, to include the installation of solar panels with transformers, sub-station, security fence and gate (incorporating infra-red beam system) and other associated infrastructure. 15/0653 Anesco Ltd The Land at Wreay, Southwaite, Carlisle application for an award of The application is made under the Town costs is and Country Planning Act 1990, allowed sections 78, 322 and Schedule 6, and the Local Government Act 1972, section 250(5).

The appeal was against the refusal of planning permission for the construction of a temporary solar farm, to include the installation of solar panels with transformers, sub-station, security fence and gate (incorporating infra-red beam system) and other associated infrastructure.

5 Planning Issues (Pages 17 - 26)

To note the attached lists of the Deputy Chief Executive. a) Applications determined under office delegated powers for the month of July 2016. b) Reasons for refusal on delegated decisions for the month of July 2016.

6 Planning Issues - Applications for Debate (Green Papers) (Pages 27 - 70)

a) To consider the reports of the Head of Planning Services on the following applications: www.eden.gov.uk 2 Item Officer Page Application Details No Recommendation Number 1 Planning Application No: 16/0162 Recommended to: Conversion of barn to single dwelling APPROVE 3 Wigton Road Barn, Hutton in the Forest Subject to Inglewood Estate Conditions 2 Planning Application No: 16/0318 Recommended to: Sub division into two separate dwellings REFUSE with demolition and rebuild of north west With Reasons gable to reduce width of building 12 Brook House, Overburn, Alston Mr A Carr 3 Planning Application No: 16/0359 Recommended to: Erection of 20 affordable dwellings and associates car parking and access APPROVE Subject to 26 Ridley Court Penrith Conditions

Atkinson Homes Ltd - Mr B Turner 4 Planning Application No: 16/0458 Recommended to: Removal of conservatory, new ground floor APPROVE kitchen extension and form new roof Subject to structure over part of the existing ground Conditions floor area to create additional first floor 38 bedroom and en-suite

High Raise, Graham Street

Mr D Horn

7 Confirmation of Site Visits (if any)

To confirm the date and location of any site visits that may have been agreed.

8 Any Other Items which the Chairman decides are urgent

9 Date of Next Meeting

The date of the next scheduled meeting be confirmed as 15 September 2016

10 Exclusion of Press and Public

To consider whether, in accordance with Section 100A(4) to the Local Government Act 1972, members of the public (including the press) should be excluded from the www.eden.gov.uk 3 meeting during discussion of the following items of business on the grounds that they involve the likely disclosure of exempt information as defined in paragraphs 1 and 2 of Part 1 to Schedule 12A of the Act. Paragraph 1 is information relating to any individual Paragraph 2 is information which is likely to reveal the identity of an individual.

11 Minutes

To sign the confidential minutes Pla/46/07/16 to Pla/47/07/16 of the meeting of this Committee held on 21 July 2016.

Yours faithfully

Matthew Neal Deputy Chief Executive (Monitoring Officer)

Democratic Services Contact: Lauren Rushen

Please Note: Access to the internet in the Council Chamber and Committee room is available via the guest wi-fi – no password is required

Encs

Background Papers

Item 6 Application files, letters of consultation, objection and support, internal memoranda and officers’ notes.

For Attention

All members of the Planning Committee, ie

Chairman – Councillor J G Thompson (Conservative Group) Vice Chairman – Councillor J Owen MBE (Conservative Group)

Councillors A Armstrong, Conservative Group W Patterson, Independent Group I Chambers, Conservative Group R Sealby, Conservative Group Miss M Clark, Independent Group J Tompkins, Liberal Democrat Group D Holden, Liberal Democrat Group H Sawrey-Cookson, Independent Group J C Lynch, Conservative Group

Standing Deputies M Eyles, Liberal Democrat Group R Howse, Liberal Democrat Group Ms P Godwin, Independent Group Mrs S Orchard, Conservative Group www.eden.gov.uk 4 A Hogg, Conservative Group M Smith, Independent Group

For information – All remaining members of the Council

www.eden.gov.uk 5 This page is intentionally left blank Agenda Item 4

Report No CD64/16

Eden District Council

Planning Committee 18 August 2016

Appeal Decision Letters

Report of the Deputy Chief Executive

Attached for Members’ information is a list of Decision Letters received since the last meeting:

Application Applicant Appeal Decision Number(s)

15/0653 Anesco Ltd The appeal is Land at Wreay, Southwaite, Carlisle allowed

The appeal is made under section 78 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 against a refusal to grant planning permission.

The development proposed is the construction of a temporary solar farm, to include the installation of solar panels with transformers, sub-station, security fence and gate (incorporating infra-red beam system) and other associated infrastructure.

Anesco Ltd The application Land at Wreay, Southwaite, Carlisle for an award of costs is allowed The application is made under the Town and Country Planning Act 1990, sections 78, 322 and Schedule 6, and the Local Government Act 1972, section 250(5).

The appeal was against the refusal of planning permission for the construction of a temporary solar farm, to include the installation of solar panels with transformers, sub-station, security fence and gate (incorporating infra-red beam system) and other associated infrastructure.

Matthew Neal Deputy Chief Executive

1

Page 7 Page 8

Appeal Decision Site visit made on 7 June 2016 by B.Hellier BA(Hons) MRTPI an Inspector appointed by the Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government

Decision date: 04 August 2016

Appeal Ref: APP/H0928/W/15/3140750 Land at Wreay, Southwaite, Carlisle  The appeal is made under section 78 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 against a refusal to grant planning permission.  The appeal is made by Anesco Ltd against the decision of Eden District Council.  The application Ref 15/0653, dated 21 July 2015, was refused by notice dated 29 October 2015.  The development proposed is the construction of a temporary solar farm, to include the installation of solar panels with transformers, sub-station, security fence and gate (incorporating infra-red beam system) and other associated infrastructure.

Decision

1. The appeal is allowed and planning permission is granted for the construction of a temporary solar farm, to include the installation of solar panels with transformers, sub-station, security fence and gate (incorporating infra-red beam system) and other associated infrastructure on land at Wreay, Southwaite, Carlisle in accordance with the terms of the application, Ref 15/0653, dated 21 July 2015, subject to the conditions set out in the accompanying Schedule. Application for costs

2. An application for costs was made by Anesco Ltd against the Council. This application is the subject of a separate Decision.

Main issues

3. Having regard to the reason for refusal and third party representations I consider the main issues are:  the effect on the character and appearance of the surrounding countryside;  the effect on agriculture; and  whether any harm identified in relation to the above would outweigh the benefits of the development, in particular those benefits associated with renewable energy production.

Reasons

Planning policy

4. The development plan includes the Eden Core Strategy. Policy CS20 gives support to renewable energy proposals where there are no significant

www.planningportal.gov.uk/planninginspectorate Page 9 Appeal Decision APP/H0928/W/15/3140750

unacceptable effects that cannot be mitigated or are not outweighed by the national and regional need for renewable energy development or the wider social and economic benefits that a proposal may bring. Regard should be had to a number of impacts, including those on landscape character and on farming.

5. Policy CS16 sets out principles for the protection of the natural environment. They include requirements that development should reflect and where possible enhance local landscape character, and avoid the loss of the best and most versatile (BMV) agricultural land. This reflects national planning policy in the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) which indicates that local planning authorities should take into account the economic and other benefits of BMV land1. Where significant development of agricultural land is demonstrated to be necessary, local planning authorities should seek to use areas of poorer quality land in preference to that of a higher quality. A written ministerial statement (WMS) from the Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government in March 20152 advises that use of BMV agricultural land would need to be justified by the most compelling evidence.

6. The NPPF also emphasises that support for renewable and low carbon energy is central to the economic, social and environmental dimensions of sustainable development3 and that local planning authorities should recognise the responsibility that rests with all communities to contribute to energy generation from renewable sources4. Paragraph 98 indicates that an application for renewable energy should normally be approved if its impacts are (or can be made) acceptable.

7. Further advice on implementing national policy is set out in the web based Planning Practice Guidance (PPG). This notes that large scale solar farms can have a negative impact on the rural environment, particularly in undulating landscapes. However the visual impact of a well-screened solar farm can be properly addressed if planned sensitively.

8. As with the NPPF the PPG expects the focus to be on using previously developed land and non-agricultural land. Where a proposal involves greenfield land, as in the present case, consideration should be given to whether: the proposed use of any agricultural land has been shown to be necessary and poorer quality land has been used in preference to higher quality land; and whether the proposal allows for continued agricultural use and/or encourages biodiversity improvements around arrays.

Character and appearance

9. The site consists of two fields, some 15.2ha in total area, set within undulating countryside. To the south the site is bounded by poultry sheds and to the north it slopes gently down to Gill Beck. The M6 runs in a cutting about 400m to the east, soon after which the land drops away to the incised and wooded valley of the River Petteril. There is a minor road along the western boundary and an existing agricultural access. A high hedge follows this boundary and, on the opposite side of the road, is a strip of woodland.

1 NPPF paragraph 112 2 Planning Update: Written Statement HCWS488 by the Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government. 25 March 2015 3 NPPF paragraph 93 4 NPPF paragraph 97

www.planningportal.gov.uk/planninginspectorate 2 Page 10 Appeal Decision APP/H0928/W/15/3140750

10. The panel arrays would be in south facing rows set at an angle of 20˚and a maximum height of about 2.3m above ground level. A sub-station (10.2m x 6.2m and 5.2m in height), a containerised energy storage system (12.m x 2.4m and 2.9m in height) and housing for a circuit breaker would be situated close to the entrance and the poultry sheds. Three transformer cabins and associated switch gear would be distributed within the site. Their height would be similar to that of the panel arrays.

11. The surrounding landscape is not designated. In a county-wide landscape character assessment1 it is identified as being within the Intermediate Farmland Landscape Character Type (LCT 6). This is described as a large scale mainly open working farmed landscape but one where hedges, trees and the undulating nature of the land can limit views and provide a more intimate feel. The landscape management guidelines encourage maintaining and enhancing the pattern of hedgerows with supplementary planting of scanty hedgerows. In the vicinity of the appeal site some of the traditional rural character has been lost with the introduction of the M6 motorway, modern farm buildings, three commercial scale wind turbines and a telecommunications mast. I agree with the submitted LVIA assessment that the sensitivity of the landscape to the type of development proposed is low.

12. As recommended in the management guidelines the proposal retains the existing hedgerows and wide field margins and reinforces these features by closing gaps in hedges and by seeding and creating a wildflower meadow habitat within the field margins. The loss of the agricultural fields must count against the proposal but there would be a negligible adverse effect on the wider landscape character.

13. In terms of visual impact the site is remarkably well screened. The ZTV suggests the development would be seen in medium and long distance views from the west. However, in practice, the roadside trees and intervening hedgerows form an effective screen. From the Southwaite road on higher land to the east the panels would be seen only in glimpses and further east in the Petteril valley the site is over the horizon. The land rises again beyond the Petteril to a sandstone ridge followed by the A6 from where there is a fine panorama westwards to the Lake District fells. Views from here would be filtered by vegetation and at a distance of over 3km the panels would be barely discernable.

14. Drivers passing the site would have intermittent views of the development at close quarters from the field access gate and from other breaks in the roadside hedge between the site and Greenlands to the north. Otherwise the only close public viewpoint of any significance is a track/cycle route that runs west from Wreay over the motorway which I observed is used by horse riders. From here the northern sloping field is visible in the middle ground. However the panels would not be on the skyline and would have as a backcloth the poultry houses at Beckstones Farm. There would be a moderate adverse visual effect on horse riders, cyclists and pedestrians using the lane.

15. The Council takes issue with the LVIA judgement that, apart from the long distance view from the AONB, the views are all assessed as being of low value. It considers all landscapes, whether protected or not, should be valued for their rural and unspoilt appearance. Implicit in this is the assumption that all rural

1 Cumbria Landscape Character Guidance and Toolkit. March 2011 www.planningportal.gov.uk/planninginspectorate 3 Page 11 Appeal Decision APP/H0928/W/15/3140750

views should be assessed as having the same high value. This runs counter to current planning policies and practice which distinguishes between low, medium and high value landscapes and gives extra protection to those that have high value, often by designating National Parks and Areas of Outstanding Natural Beauty (AONB). In any event the landscape around the site is not unspoilt. I consider the LVIA assessment of viewpoint sensitivity to be sound.

16. Overall I conclude that the effect on the character and appearance of the surrounding countryside would not be significant.

Agricultural land

17. An assessment of land quality was carried out in accordance with current guidelines. Land that is Grade 1(excellent), Grade 2 (very good) or Grade 3a (good) is considered to be BMV land. The appeal site land is 78% Grade 3a and 22% Grade 3b. Thus, whilst at the lower end of the range, the greater part of the appeal site is BMV and the proposal must be considered in the light of the presumption against development on BMV land.

18. The appellant did not carry out a formal sequential test on sites in the locality. There was however a site search. Early discussions with the Council did not identify any brownfield sites able to accommodate ground base solar development. Lower quality land in the district is limited and is located mainly within the Lake District National Park and the North Pennines AONB. The site is accessible to a grid connection point and free from drainage, access, heritage and other constraints. I find that agricultural land quality was properly considered in the site selection process.

19. The loss of the land would not be permanent. The proposed use would be for a temporary period of 30 years which is the lifespan of the panels. Whilst this is of course a long time the land would retain its intrinsic value and would be available for a return to full agricultural production at the end of this period. In accordance with the advice in the PPG the land under and between the panel arrays would be maintained in agricultural use as grazing for sheep and there would be biodiversity gains as noted above. I have also had regard to the fact that no lower value sites were identified in the site search and that part of the site is not BMV land. Nonetheless the use of BMV land weighs significantly against the proposal.

Scheme benefits

20. The solar energy generated would make an important economic contribution to the national renewable energy resource through the annual production of some 5GWh of electricity. The scheme would help to ensure the viability of the horse livery and riding establishment run on the existing farm holding and there would be a significant social benefit in that the electricity generated would be enough to power about 1500 homes. There would be an environmental gain

through the offsetting of approximately 2000 tonnes of CO2 emissions as a small but nonetheless important reduction in overall global warming. Overall I consider these benefits should attract substantial weight.

Other matters

21. The adjacent landowner at Beckstones Farm is concerned that the glare from the panels would adversely affect the health of his chickens which are housed in the existing poultry units adjacent to the southern boundary. This concern is

www.planningportal.gov.uk/planninginspectorate 4 Page 12 Appeal Decision APP/H0928/W/15/3140750

backed up by his vet who refers to the sensitivity of poultry to disturbed lighting and notes that the farm is one of the leading poultry farms in the north of England and a pioneer in the implementation of modern and welfare conscious farming systems.

22. An assessment of glint and glare for the appellant shows that in the morning (June to early July) and in the early evening (March to September) there would be periods of up to 15 minutes when the sun would be reflected into the windows. However the intensity would be considerably less than direct sunlight and it is not clear how such an event would be any different than the sun coming out from behind a cloud. On the ground it is apparent that many of the windows are screened by an existing hedgerow and would not receive any reflected sun. Having regard to this and the technical assessment on glint and glare before me I am not persuaded that there would be any significant harm to the poultry.

23. A standard letter signed by a number of residents refers to the proximity of the site to neighbouring properties. The nearest properties, Beckstones Farm and Beck House, are 80m and 340m to the south respectively. The poultry units and intervening vegetation prevent any outlook over the development. The site would also be well screened by hedgerows from Greenlands Farm some 650m to the north. I find there would be no adverse effect on the outlook of nearby occupiers.

Planning balance

24. The use of BMV land would normally be expected to rule a site out of contention. However the appeal site has much in its favour: there are substantial benefits associated with the generation of renewable energy; the site is particularly well screened so that, unusually for a solar farm development, there would be little landscape or visual harm; the land beneath the panels would be retained in agricultural use; and there would be benefits to wildlife from the management of the wide field margins.

25. I find that the harm caused by the loss of BMV land would be clearly outweighed by the benefits and that, in this case, these benefits amount to a compelling reason for the use of BMV land. This would conflict with one of the objectives of Policy CS16 but I conclude that the effect would not be unacceptable and that the overall balance clearly favours the proposal and would accord with Policy CS20. Measured against the presumption in favour of sustainable development the environmental, economic and social benefits from the proposal would not be significantly and demonstrably outweighed by the net environmental harm of taking the BMV land out of full agricultural production. I am satisfied that this would be a sustainable development.

Conclusion

26. For the reasons given above and having regard to all other matters before me, including an objection from Hesket Parish Council, I conclude that the appeal should be allowed. Bern Hellier INSPECTOR Schedule of conditions attached

www.planningportal.gov.uk/planninginspectorate 5 Page 13 Appeal Decision APP/H0928/W/15/3140750

Schedule of conditions

1) The development hereby permitted shall begin not later than three years from the date of this decision. 2) The development hereby permitted shall be carried out in accordance with the following approved plans: 001400_100 (location plan); 001400_200 Rev F (site plan); 001400_400 Rev B (solar panel and fence elevations); 001400_401 Rev B (typical buildings); 001400_402 Rev A (energy storage building). 3) This permission shall expire 30 years from the date electricity is first exported to the electricity grid network, excluding initial testing and commissioning. Written confirmation of the first export date shall be provided to the local planning authority no later than one month after the event. 4) Within 6 months of the end of the 30 year period, or if the solar farm ceases to export electricity for a continuous period of 6 months at any time prior to this, the solar panels and associated infrastructure shall be removed from the site and the land reinstated to a condition that has been first agreed in writing by the local planning authority. 5) The development hereby approved shall be carried out in accordance with the scheme of landscaping set out in the Landscape Strategy Plan (Ref 24856/L7) and the Biodiversity Management Plan (Ref 424.05075.00009 Version 3) July 2015. The scheme shall be fully implemented in the first planting season following the commissioning of the installation. Any trees or plants which during the lifetime of the solar farm die, are removed or become seriously damaged shall be replaced in the next planting season with others of a similar size and species. 6) There shall be no fixed lighting installed on the site without the prior approval of the local planning authority. 7) Access alterations, traffic movements and car parking during the construction phase shall be in accordance with the Traffic Management Plan dated 22 July 2015. 8) Prior to the erection/installation of the sub-station, circuit breaker housing, low voltage switch cabins and energy storage system unit, full details of the proposed external materials for these structures shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the local planning authority. The development shall be carried out in accordance with the approved details.

www.planningportal.gov.uk/planninginspectorate 6 Page 14

Costs Decision Site visit made on 7 June 2016 by B.Hellier BA(Hons) MRTPI an Inspector appointed by the Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government

Decision date: 04 August 2016

Costs application in relation to Appeal Ref: APP/H0928/W/15/3140750 Land at Wreay, Southwaite, Carlisle  The application is made under the Town and Country Planning Act 1990, sections 78, 322 and Schedule 6, and the Local Government Act 1972, section 250(5).  The application is made by Anesco Ltd for a full award of costs against Eden District Council.  The appeal was against the refusal of planning permission for the construction of a temporary solar farm, to include the installation of solar panels with transformers, sub- station, security fence and gate (incorporating infra-red beam system) and other associated infrastructure.

Decision

1. The application for an award of costs is allowed in the terms set out below. Reasons

2. National guidance on costs applications is set out in the web based Planning Practice Guidance (PPG) published by the Department for Communities and Local Government. It advises that irrespective of the outcome of the appeal, costs may only be awarded against a party who has behaved unreasonably and thereby caused the party applying for costs to incur unnecessary or wasted expense in the appeal process.

3. Both the application and the response by the Council were in writing. The key complaint of the appellant is that Council Members ignored officer advice and refused the proposal on landscape grounds when all the evidence was that there would be no significant landscape harm. This was not a finely balanced issue. No alternative assessment has been put forward. At Committee six solar farm proposals, all recommended for approval, were before Members. All were refused. Prior to taking these decisions Members adjourned to a private meeting. It appears that they had pre-determined not to permit solar farms in Eden District. In doing so they failed to uphold the standards of conduct set out in their Constitution.

4. The Council points out that Members are entitled to determine applications contrary to officer advice so long as they have proper planning grounds for doing so. In this case they were well informed. They visited the site and heard representations from the appellant and an interested party. There is no pre- determined policy that solar farms will be refused. The NPPF says that planning should recognise the intrinsic character and beauty of the countryside. Members feel strongly that it is not just designated landscapes that should be

www.planningportal.gov.uk/planninginspectorate Page 15 Costs Decision APP/H0928/W/15/3140750

protected from a solar farm which would result in a large industrialised element in an otherwise open countryside setting.

5. I agree that Members do not have to follow the advice of officers. Assessing landscape and visual effects will always involve an element of judgement. In my mind the real issue is whether the reasons for making that judgement have been adequately explained. In its statement in paragraphs 5.1 and 5.2 the Council suggests that in its viewpoint assessments the LVIA underestimates the value of the landscape and therefore the sensitivity of the view.

6. Treating all landscapes as having the same high value may explain why the Council has refused so many solar farm applications but it is an approach that flies in the face of the presumption in favour of sustainable development and the distinction that is made in the NPPF between landscapes that are designated and those that are not. The onus is on the Council to explain why the particular landscape around the appeal site is of high value. This it has failed to do. The evidence before me from the LVIA, the Committee report and my own site visit is that it is not a high value landscape.

7. Though the Council says it is not the case this appears to be a blanket approach that resists all large scale solar farm developments in the open countryside. As noted in my appeal decision this would run counter to national planning policies.

8. I find that the Council has not produced evidence to substantiate its reason for refusal. This is an example of unreasonable behaviour as described in the PPG1. As a direct result of this unreasonable behaviour the appellant was obliged to appeal and to incur the associated costs. I therefore find that unreasonable behaviour resulting in unnecessary expense, as described in the PPG, has been demonstrated and that a full award of costs is justified.

Costs Order

9. In exercise of the powers under section 250(5) of the Local Government Act 1972 and Schedule 6 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 as amended, and all other enabling powers in that behalf, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Eden District Council shall pay to Anesco Ltd, the costs of the appeal proceedings described in the heading of this decision.

10. The applicant is now invited to submit to Eden District Council, to whom a copy of this decision has been sent, details of those costs with a view to reaching agreement as to the amount. In the event that the parties cannot agree on the amount, a copy of the guidance note on how to apply for a detailed assessment by the Senior Courts Costs Office is enclosed. Bern Hellier INSPECTOR

1 Paragraph: 049 Reference ID: 16-049-20140306

www.planningportal.gov.uk/planninginspectorate 2 Page 16 PLANNING COMMITTEE Agenda Item No. APPLICATIONS DETERMINED UNDER OFFICER DELEGATED POWERS FOR THE MONTH OF JULY 2016

App No App Type Parish Description Location Applicant Decision

15/0457 Full Application Crosby Demolition of existing garage and log cabin and STEPPING STONES, MAULDS Eden Architecture: APPROVED Ravensworth erection of a dwelling. MEABURN, PENRITH, CA10 3HN Environmental Design - Mr M Archer

15/1150 Full Application Penrith Proposed change of use of part of shop to bedsit. 3 CASTLEGATE, PENRITH, CA11 Sourced Development- APPROVED 7HZ Mr N Matcham

15/1161 Full Application Penrith Proposed agricultural workers dwelling. AGRICULTURAL FIELD ADJACENT Mr R Thompson - APPROVED AGRICULTURAL BUILDING, Thompson Livestock PENRITH, Ltd.

16/0044 Full Application Temple Sowerby Proposed residential dwelling. SITE ADJACENT TO WHINFELL JIW Properties LTD - REFUSED SPINNEY, TEMPLE SOWERBY, Mr Wilkinson PENRITH, CA10 1RS

16/0071 Reserved by Alston Discharge of condition 5 (historic buildings survey) CENTRAL GARAGE, NENTHEAD, G & I Wright - Messrs APPROVED Cond and condition 6 (drainage) attached to planning ALSTON, CA9 3NP Wright Brothers approval 12/0599.

16/0075 Full Application Hunsonby Redevelopment of vacant farm site by erection of 3 ROAD HEAD FARM, WINSKILL, Messrs Awde APPROVED detached dwellings. PENRITH, CA10 1PB

16/0112 Outline Hesket Outline application for the erection of single a LAND BESIDE 22 LAIKIN VIEW, Mrs Edwards APPROVED Application dwelling and garage with approval sought for access CALTHWAITE, PENRITH, CA11 9QW

16/0133 Outline Dacre Outline application for agricultural workers dwelling EAMONT CROFT, STAINTON, Lakes Free Range Egg APPROVED Application with approval sought for access. PENRITH, CA11 0DQ Company

16/0148 Full Application Lazonby Loft conversion and three storey rear extension to SOUTH COTE, LAZONBY, PENRITH, Mr A Kaye APPROVED dwelling. CA10 1AJ

16/0158 Full Application Penrith Proposed demolition of existing garage and erection 19 CARLETON PLACE, PENRITH, Mr D Crubilier & Miss M APPROVED of two storey extension. CA11 8LW Green Agenda Item 5

16/0210 Full Application Kirkoswald Two storey extension to farmhouse. BLUNDERFIELD EAST, G L Armstrong & Son - APPROVED KIRKOSWALD, PENRITH, CA10 1EX Mr M Armstrong

16/0213 Full Application Dacre PROPOSED ALTERATIONS & EXTENSIONS TO LYNWOOD, STAINTON, PENRITH, Mr & Mrs R D Cookson APPROVED EXISTING BUNGALOW DWELLING CA11 0EB

Page 17 Page 16/0222 Change of Use Crosby Garrett Proposed notification of proposed conversion of field BARN AT CHAPEL WELL, BECK The Trustees - APPROVED PD/PN barn to form two bedroom residential dwelling. LANE, KIRKBY STEPHEN, CA17 4HG Hewetson 1976 Settlement

05 August 2016 Page 1 of 8 Page 18 Page App No App Type Parish Description Location Applicant Decision

16/0240 Full Application Ravenstonedale Change of use from residential farmhouse to holiday STREET FARM, Ms A Sixsmith APPROVED let and conversion of existing barn to residential unit. RAVENSTONEDALE, KIRKBY STEPHEN, CA17 4LL

16/0241 Outline Penrith New proposed strategic command centre, Penrith THE GREEN, CARLETON HALL, Police & Crime APPROVED Application Police Station and 15 bed hostel accommodation CARLETON AVENUE, PENRITH, Commisioner - Mr R and demolition of existing police houses. CA10 2AU Rhodes

16/0268 Listed Building Appleby Listed building consent for flood defence measures. 5 BRIDGE STREET, APPLEBY-IN- Eden Bridge APPROVED WESTMORLAND, CA16 6QH Enterprises Ltd

16/0269 Listed Building Appleby Listed building consent for rails attached to far left APPLEBY BUSINESS CENTRE, 7 Eden Bridge APPROVED and far right of shop front for flood defence. BRIDGE STREET, APPLEBY-IN- Enterprises Ltd WESTMORLAND, CA16 6QH

16/0274 Full Application Kirkby Stephen Construction of improved road access onto Appleby LAND OFF APPLEBY ROAD, Mr N Lee-Shield APPROVED Road KIRKBY STEPHEN, CA17 4PD

16/0281 Full Application Kirkoswald Creation of a new window. WHITE COTTAGE, ALSTON, CA9 Mrs P Livesey APPROVED 3BW

16/0289 Listed Building Penrith Listed building consent for internal and external 26 GREAT DOCKRAY, PENRITH, Mrs J House APPROVED alterations. CA11 7DE

16/0310 Listed Building Kirkby Stephen Listed building consent for removal of existing dash MITRE HOUSE, MARKET SQUARE, Mr R Bright APPROVED to expose existing stone and repair and replacement KIRKBY STEPHEN, CA17 4QT of windows.

16/0314 Full Application Milburn Proposed extension to rear of dwelling. LAUREL HOUSE, MILBURN, Mr & Mrs A Wood APPROVED PENRITH, CA10 1TW

16/0315 Full Application Ainstable Agricultural livestock building of steel portal frame HOLME HOUSE, THE DALE, Mr A Ryder APPROVED design AINSTABLE, CARLISLE, CA4 9RH

16/0319 Full Application Ravenstonedale Proposed single storey extension and internal BRIDGE FARMHOUSE, Mr & Mrs H Hutchinson APPROVED alterations. RAVENSTONEDALE, KIRKBY STEPHEN, CA17 4LN

16/0331 Full Application Crackenthorpe Part-retrospective application for access track and WAYSIDE, CRACKENTHORPE, Mr D Hall APPROVED consolidated hardcore areas around approved APPLEBY, CA16 6AF building ref 13/0448.

16/0333 Notice of Intention Shap Application for prior notification of steel portal frame LAND ADJ TO A6, SHAP, PENRITH, Mr M Harrison APPROVED lean-to. CA10 3NE

16/0347 Full Application Hutton Proposed Temporary Agricultural Workers Dwelling LAND AT GREYSTOKE GILL, Mr & Mrs D Morrison APPROVED (Mobile Home) in association with the Agricultural GREYSTOKE, PENRITH, Business.

05 August 2016 Page 2 of 8 App No App Type Parish Description Location Applicant Decision

16/0350 Notice of Intention Dufton Application for prior notification of agricultural KEEPERS COTTAGE, Mr R Tonks APPROVED building. FLAKEBRIDGE, APPLEBY-IN- WESTMORLAND, CA16 6JU

16/0358 Full Application Ravenstonedale Convert barn to single residential unit (C3). BLEAFLATT, RAVENSTONEDALE, Mr G Jackson APPROVED KIRKBY STEPHEN, CA17 4NL

16/0368 Full Application Greystoke Change of use of two domestic garages to holiday let COLBY HOUSE, BERRIER ROAD, Mr D Hutton APPROVED accommodation (revised proposal). GREYSTOKE, PENRITH, CA11 0UB

16/0369 Reserved by Hesket Discharge of conditions 5 and 6 relating to turbine LAND WEST OF MONKCASTLE Mr P Sanderson - APPROVED Cond position, height of construction equipment, traffic FARM, SOUTHWAITE, CARLISLE, Birchwood Farms Ltd management plan and construction dates on CA4 0PZ application 14/0838.

16/0384 Full Application Penrith Demolition of garage, replaced with the erection of a 1 SCOTT YARD, PENRITH, CA11 Mr A Smyth APPROVED bungalow and the creation of two new residential 7PU units.

16/0386 Full Application Penrith Erection of warehouse and associated hardstanding. 4 MILESTONE HOUSE BUSINESS Mr B Johnston APPROVED PARK, MILESTONE HOUSE, PENRITH, CA11 9NQ

16/0387 Advertisement Penrith Erection of externally illuminated signage on new 4 MILESTONE HOUSE BUSINESS Mr Brian Johnston APPROVED building PARK, MILESTONE HOUSE, PENRITH, CA11 9NQ

16/0398 Change of Use Little Strickland Notification for prior approval for a proposed change FIELD HOUSE, NEWBY, PENRITH, Lord Lonsdale APPROVED PD/PN of use of agricultural building to a dwellinghouse. CA10 3EF

16/0403 Full Application Ravenstonedale Proposed residential garages and stores. TOWN END BARN, Mr & Mrs D & S Murray APPROVED RAVENSTONEDALE, KIRKBY STEPHEN, CA17 4NG

16/0406 Full Application Penrith Erection of single storey extension to staff room ST CATHERINES RC SCHOOL, Atkinson Building APPROVED facilities. DROVERS LANE, PENRITH, CA11 Contractors - Mr T 9EL Ripley

16/0408 Full Application Penrith Extension to existing garage and first floor extension FUNERAL PARLOUR, TYNEFIELD Mrs E Messenger APPROVED to create annex accommodation. HOUSE, BRIDGE LANE, PENRITH, CA11 8HY

16/0409 Listed Building Penrith Listed building consent for the extension to existing FUNERAL PARLOUR, TYNEFIELD Mrs E Messenger APPROVED garage and first floor extension to create annex HOUSE, BRIDGE LANE, PENRITH, accommodation. CA11 8HY

Page 19 Page 16/0412 Full Application Orton Installation of slurry lagoon. HALL FARM, ORTON, PENRITH, Capstick APPROVED CA10 3RF

05 August 2016 Page 3 of 8 Page 20 Page App No App Type Parish Description Location Applicant Decision

16/0418 Full Application Hesket Change of use of shop to granny annex and garage. POST OFFICE, PLUMPTON, Mr L Pakalski APPROVED PENRITH, CA11 9NS

16/0420 Advertisement Penrith 1x Freestanding entrance sign, 5x Twin post sign, 2 ARNOLD CLARK, HAWESWATER Mr G Bradford APPROVED wall mounted sign, and 2x dealer name sign. ROAD, PENRITH, CA11 9EU

16/0421 Full Application Mallerstang Proposed single storey garden room. INTAKE, MALLERSTANG, CA17 4JX Mr H Eadon APPROVED

16/0423 Reserved by Bolton Approval of condition 3 of application 15/1163 LAMBERT CROFT, BOLTON, APPROVED Cond relating to surface water drainage. APPLEBY, CA16 6AT

16/0428 Full Application Penrith Proposed change of use from shop to tattoo and 2 CASTLEGATE, PENRITH, CA11 Ms C McCabe APPROVED piercing studio. 7HZ

16/0432 Listed Building Appleby Proposed fire damage repairs. 16 BOROUGHGATE, APPLEBY-IN- Mr A Bell APPROVED WESTMORLAND, CA16 6XB

16/0433 Full Application Alston Proposed general purpose agricultural building. MEADOW FLATT, ALSTON, CA9 3DE Mr N J Ridley APPROVED

16/0434 Full Application Crosby Remedial works to existing west gable to prevent SCHOOL HOUSE, SILVER STREET, Mr and Mrs Nl & J APPROVED Ravensworth rainwater penetration. CROSBY RAVENSWORTH, Harrison PENRITH, CA10 3JA

16/0436 Full Application Temple Sowerby Erection of stainless steel flue for bio mass boiler to 3 MOSS VIEW, TEMPLE SOWERBY, Mr C Quinn APPROVED side elevation of property. PENRITH, CA10 1RZ

16/0443 Hedge Removal Ainstable Application for removal of hedgerow at front of BELL HOUSE, AINSTABLE, Mrs A Cosgrove APPROVED Notice property for driveway widening. CARLISLE, CA4 9RE

16/0448 Full Application Yanwath & Amendment to condition 2 of approved single GLADE HOUSE, YANWATH, Ms F Barton APPROVED Eamont Bridge dwelling 14/0190 to have surface water running into PENRITH, CA10 2LF public drain.

16/0449 Reserved by Kirkby Stephen Application for approval of details regarding LEVENS CLOSE, KIRKBY Mr A Davis REFUSED Cond materials, landscaping, drainage, road layout and STEPHEN, CA17 4RR retaining wall relating to 09/0231 for six market led dwellings and three affordable dwellings.

16/0452 Full Application Penrith Extension to existing rear decking area 78 PENNY HILL PARK, PENRITH, Mr J Hope APPROVED CA11 9JW

16/0453 Full Application Ravenstonedale New windows to barn and single storey extension to RIGG END, NEWBIGGIN-ON-LUNE, Mr & Mrs Penhallurick APPROVED existing dwelling house. KIRKBY STEPHEN, CA17 4NB

16/0454 Full Application Culgaith Erection of two holiday units. LAND NEAR BECK MILL, Mr & Mrs R Udale APPROVED LANGWATHBY, PENRITH, CA10 1NZ

05 August 2016 Page 4 of 8 App No App Type Parish Description Location Applicant Decision

16/0455 Full Application Skelton Proposal to demolish the existing flat roof kitchen for LOW HOUSE, UNTHANK, SKELTON, Mr & Mrs P Jackson APPROVED a larger ground floor domestic extension. PENRITH, CA11 9TG

16/0457 Reserved by Dacre Application to discharge conditions 4, 5, 6 and 8 of STOLLER HOUSE, REDHILLS LANE, Annie Mawson's APPROVED Cond approved new workshop 12/0167 relating to access, REDHILLS, PENRITH, CA11 0DQ Sunbeam Music Trust drainage and external details.

16/0463 Advertisement Kirkby Stephen The dental practice in individual cut letters, applied to 25 MARKET SQUARE, KIRKBY The Dental Practice - APPROVED the exterior stone wall above entrance door. Flat STEPHEN, CA17 4QT Dr & Mrs K Mirza screen displays within ground floor windows x3, showing promotional images relating to dental care.

16/0467 Full Application Crackenthorpe Change of use from barn to domestic annex. CRACKENTHORPE STUD ROGER Mr & Mrs Chappelhow APPROVED HEAD, CRACKENTHORPE, APPLEBY-IN-WESTMORLAND, CA16 6AD

16/0469 Reserved by Appleby Discharge of condition 11 on approval 15/1097 LAND ADJACENT TO CROSS Mrs J Taylor - Story APPROVED Cond relating to footpath. CROFT, APPLEBY, Homes

16/0472 Listed Building Kirkby Stephen Listed building consent for exterior signage and THE DENTAL PRACTICE, 25 Dr K Mirza APPROVED interior remodelling and window display. MARKET SQUARE, KIRKBY STEPHEN, CA17 4QT

16/0475 Reserved by Soulby Discharge of conditions 3, 4, and 5 relating to flood SITE ADJACENT TO OLD HALL JIW Properties Ltd APPROVED Cond risk, drainage and access on approved residential FARM, SOULBY, KIRKBY STEPHEN, development 15/0556 (as amended).

16/0476 Full Application Ravenstonedale Proposed shower and toilet amenities and extension LOW GREENSIDE, GREENSIDE Miss R Dent APPROVED of hard standing for parking, change of use to part of LANE, RAVENSTONEDALE, KIRKBY field for agriculture and camping and placement of STEPHEN, CA17 4LU two yurts.

16/0477 Change of Use Ravenstonedale Prior approval of change of use for agricultural BARN ADJ TO THE WATH, Mrs M Baldwick APPROVED PD/PN building to dwellinghouse and associated NEWBIGGIN-ON-LUNE, KIRKBY development. STEPHEN, CA17 4NB

16/0486 Full Application Ravenstonedale Construction of single storey stone store/workshop LOW STENNERSKEUGH, Mr R Greaves APPROVED on location of current wooden outbuilding. RAVENSTONEDALE, KIRKBY STEPHEN, CA17 4LL

16/0489 Listed Building Waitby Listed building consent for repairs to include WHARTON HOUSE, WAITBY, Miss M Harrington APPROVED replacement of roof tiles with local slate, rebuild KIRKBY STEPHEN, CA17 4HF chimney and replace guttering, replacement of lintels and rainwater goods and wall ties to barn.

16/0490 Full Application Kirkby Thore Rear extension to dwelling 4 RED SQUIRREL TERRACE, Mr & Mrs B Levene APPROVED Page 21 Page CROSS END, KIRKBY THORE, PENRITH, CA10 1US

05 August 2016 Page 5 of 8 Page 22 Page App No App Type Parish Description Location Applicant Decision

16/0491 Full Application Penrith Proposed family annexe 4 WINTERS PARK, CARLETON Mr & Mrs J Lund APPROVED ROAD, PENRITH, CA11 8RE

16/0493 Full Application Penrith Rear single storey extension to dwelling. 13 BEACON SQUARE, PENRITH, Mr A Huddart APPROVED CA11 8AJ

16/0495 Full Application Ravenstonedale Extension of existing agricultural building for LOCKHOLME HALL, Messrs J H Capstick APPROVED livestock, feed and machine storage. RAVENSTONEDALE, KIRKBY STEPHEN, CA17 4NN

16/0497 Full Application Hunsonby Proposed alterations and extension to domestic STATION HOUSE, LITTLE Mr S Heap & Ms B APPROVED outbuilding. SALKELD, PENRITH, CA10 1NJ Thornborrow

16/0500 Change of Use Ravenstonedale Prior notification for change of use from agricultural BARN ADJ THE HOLLOW, Mr J Parsler APPROVED PD/PN building to dwelling. RAVENSTONEDALE, KIRKBY STEPHEN, CA17 4NZ

16/0502 Change of Use Crosby Garrett Prior notification for change of use from agricultural BARN TO THE EAST OF CROSBY Mr J Little APPROVED PD/PN to residential GARRETT, CROSBY GARRETT, KIRKBY STEPHEN,

16/0503 Full Application Dacre Single storey side and rear extension to dwelling. STONE DYKES, STAINTON, Mr A Mayhew APPROVED PENRITH, CA11 0EB

16/0504 Full Application Ravenstonedale 15M lattice tower mast supporting antennae and STREETSIDE, RAVENSTONEDALE, EE UK Ltd REFUSED dishes with fencing enclosure with ancillary KIRKBY STEPHEN, CA17 4LN equipment.

16/0505 Full Application Temple Sowerby Demolition of existing garage and erection of new BARK MILL, TEMPLE SOWERBY, Mr & Mrs J & J Higgins APPROVED garage. PENRITH, CA10 1SD

16/0506 Listed Building Temple Sowerby Listed building consent for demolition of existing BARK MILL, TEMPLE SOWERBY, Mr & Mrs J & J Higgins APPROVED garage and erection of new garage. PENRITH, CA10 1SD

16/0510 Non-Material Hunsonby Non material amendment to approved extension IVY COTTAGE, WINSKILL, Mr & Mrs N Cook APPROVED Amend 14/0342 for enlargement of roof lights, change of PENRITH, CA10 1PD porch roof material and main roof material to natural imported slate.

16/0513 Outline Long Marton Proposed dwelling and detached garage. SITE ADJ TO KNOCK HALL, Mr & Mrs Dixon APPROVED Application KNOCK, APPLEBY-IN- WESTMORLAND, CA16 6DN

16/0524 Full Application Culgaith Two storey extension and replacement of windows to GLEN COTTAGE, BLENCARN, Mr A Stones APPROVED front elevation and installation of rooflight. PENRITH, CA10 1TX

16/0525 Notice of Intention Murton Prior notification of proposed manure store. STONERIGGS, MURTON, APPLEBY- Mr A Slack APPROVED IN-WESTMORLAND, CA16 6LS

05 August 2016 Page 6 of 8 App No App Type Parish Description Location Applicant Decision

16/0530 Tree Works Murton End Sycamore in G1: 1) Remove lowest branch back CRAGG HOUSE, MURTON, Mrs E M Hall APPROVED (TPO) to attachment point of large limb on south-east side; APPLEBY-IN-WESTMORLAND, 2) Shorten back branches to create 3-4m seperation CA16 6ND distance to Redstone Chapel; Reason: Proximity to dwelling; Tree Preservation Order No 80 1997, Land adjoining Cragg House, Murton.

16/0532 Change of Use Ravenstonedale Prior approval for change of use from agricultural to BARN TO THE SOUTH-WEST OF Mrs A Richardson APPROVED PD/PN residential. ARTLEGARTH, RAVENSTONEDALE, KIRKBY STEPHEN, CA17 4NW

16/0533 Tree Works (CA) Orton Remove 2 individual Cypresses; Remove 3 groups of ALL SAINTS CHURCH, ORTON, Mrs Mary Jenkin APPROVED Cypress and 2 Ash trees (in Group 3); Orton PENRITH, CA10 3RQ Conservation Area.

16/0535 Notice of Intention Orton Prior notification of proposed machinery store and ACRES SHED, FIELD NO 2433 Mr J Thorpe - JP & S APPROVED lambing shed. SUNBIGGIN, ORTON, PENRITH, Thorpe CA10 3SQ

16/0540 Tree Works (CA) Asby Reduce height of Rowan to 4m and prune sides to ION HOUSE, GREAT ASBY, Mr G Parkin APPROVED match; Great Asby Conservation Area. APPLEBY-IN-WESTMORLAND, CA16 6HD

16/0542 Full Application Orton Erection of new single storey detached domestic DICK BARN, BRETHERDALE, Mr & Mrs Towers APPROVED garage and carport. PENRITH, CA10 3TE

16/0546 Tree Works (CA) Great Salkeld T1 Cherry: Reduce crown spread radius to 4m, 1 BARNES CROFT, GREAT Mr T Smith APPROVED crown raise to 3m over field; G1: Remove 4 small SALKELD, PENRITH, CA11 9LS Cypresses; G2: Remove 3 small Cherries; G3: Annually prune Cypresses at gutter height and remove 2 Crab Apples; Great Salkeld Conservation Area.

16/0547 Tree Works Great Salkeld T1: Remove longest branch over garden to west and BIRCHFIELD, GREEN LANE, GREAT Mr G Davis APPROVED (TPO) crown raise to 4m (to clear garden buildings and SALKELD, PENRITH, CA11 9LW garden); Tree Preservation Order No 166, 2014, Land adjacent to Birchfield, Great Salkeld.

16/0548 Tree Works (CA) Great Salkeld G1: Group of Cypresses - Reduce height to 5m LAND BEHIND EASTFIELD AND Mr G Davis APPROVED above ground level in Birchfield site; Cypress and BRENTWOOD, GREAT SALKELD, Whitebeam: Reduce overhang back to boundary; PENRITH, CA11 9LW Great Salkeld Conservation Area.

16/0549 Non-Material Penrith Non material amendment to approved works to retail HOMEBARGAINS, ROBERT VIRTUE T J Morris Ltd APPROVED Amend unit refurbishment 15/0742. BUILDING, ULLSWATER ROAD, PENRITH, CA11 7JQ Page 23 Page

05 August 2016 Page 7 of 8 Page 24 Page App No App Type Parish Description Location Applicant Decision

16/0550 Tree Works (CA) Penrith Lime tree near house: Reduce the crown height by CHADWELL HOUSE, NICHOLSON Mrs Rachael Bonham APPROVED 30%; Lime trees x 2 at rear of workshop: Crown LANE, PENRITH, CA11 7UL height reduce by 30%; Leylandii x 2: Reduce height by 30% to allow sunlight into garden; Remove Leylandii tree blocking light; Leylandii: Reduce height by 30% to allow more light into plot; Trees overhanging drive: Prune back branches overhanging drive; Remove Fir tree right up against the property due to potential risk; Remove Leylandii to open up site to more light; Penrith New Streets Conservation Area.

16/0560 Non-Material Soulby Non material amendment to approved reserved SITE ADJ BARNEY SCAR, SOULBY, Mr Braithwaite & Ms APPROVED Amend matters application 15/0929 comprising of brick KIRKBY STEPHEN, CA17 4PL Telfer facing to south and west elevations and bi-fold doors to east and north elevations

16/0603 Non-Material Temple Sowerby Replacement of existing porch and conversion of HILLSIDE VIEW, TEMPLE Mrs J Spence APPROVED Amend rear outbuildings. SOWERBY, PENRITH, CA10 1SD

16/0628 Tree Works (CA) Crosby T1 and T2: Sycamore trees - crown raise to 5m and SUMMERFORD, SILVER STREET, Mr Malcolm Ridgeway APPROVED Ravensworth reduce garden overhang by 3m; T3 Ash tree - crown CROSBY RAVENSWORTH, raise to 5m and cut back growth to fence; Crosby PENRITH, CA10 3JA Ravensworth Conservation Area.

16/0629 Tree Works (CA) Asby T1 Pear tree: Reduce split stem over road by 2.5m HOLLY BANK HOUSE, GREAT Mr Mandelson APPROVED and thin by 10%; Reduce remaining crown by 2m ASBY, APPLEBY-IN- and thin by 10% and re-shape; Great Asby WESTMORLAND, CA16 6HD Conservation Area.

In relation to each application it was considered whether the proposal was appropriate having regard to the Development Plan, the representations which were received including those from consultees and all other material considerations. In cases where the application was approved the proposal was considered to be acceptable in planning terms having regard to the material considerations. In cases where the application was refused the proposal was not considered to be acceptable having regard to the material and relevant considerations. In all cases it was considered whether the application should be approved or refused and what conditions, if any, should be imposed to secure an acceptable form of development.

05 August 2016 Page 8 of 8 Notice of Decision

Carriage Return

To: Graham K Norman (Architect) Ltd. Mansion House, Penrith, Cumbria CA11 7YG Unit 4 Mereside Tel: 01768 817817 Eden Business Park Fax: 01768 212320 Greenbank Road Penrith Cumbria CA11 9FB

Town and Country Planning Act 1990 Town and Country Planning (Development Management Procedure) Order 2015

Application No: 16/0044 On Behalf Of: JIW Properties LTD - Mr Wilkinson

In pursuance of their powers under the above Act and Order, Eden District Council, as local planning authority, hereby REFUSE full planning permission for the development described in your application and on the plans and drawings attached thereto, viz:

Application Type: Full Application Proposal: Proposed residential dwelling. Location: SITE ADJACENT TO WHINFELL SPINNEY TEMPLE SOWERBY PENRITH CA10 1RS

The reason(s) for this decision are:

1) The application would leads to the creation of a dwelling that by way of its design, location and lack of mitigation measures fails to demonstrate that it provides an acceptable amenity for future occupiers due to the level of noise that will be audible both internally in the dwelling and in the proposed garden area of the property contrary to Policy CS18(5) Eden Core Strategy policy and paragraph 109 of the NPPF with the adverse impact of the proposed development not being significantly outweighed by the benefits of the proposal when assessed against the policies in the NPPF as a whole.

Where necessary the local planning authority has worked with the applicant in a positive and proactive manner seeking solutions to problems arising in relation to dealing with the planning application and to implement the requirements of the NPPF and the adopted development plan.

Date of Decision: 21 July 2016

Signed:

Ruth Atkinson BA PGCE DMS MBA

Ruth Atkinson BA PGCE DMS MBA www.eden.gov.uk Communities Director Page 25 Notice of Decision

Carriage Return

To: Dales Surveying - Miss K Seal Mansion House, Penrith, Cumbria CA11 7YG Cow Pasture Barn Tel: 01768 817817 Hawes Fax: 01768 212320 DL8 3PS

Town and Country Planning Act 1990 Town and Country Planning (Development Management Procedure) Order 2015

Application No: 16/0504 On Behalf Of: EE UK Ltd

In pursuance of their powers under the above Act and Order, Eden District Council, as local planning authority, hereby REFUSE full planning permission for the development described in your application and on the plans and drawings attached thereto, viz:

Application Type: Full Application Proposal: 15M lattice tower mast supporting antennae and dishes with fencing enclosure with ancillary equipment Location: STREETSIDE RAVENSTONEDALE KIRKBY STEPHEN CA17 4LN

The reason(s) for this decision are:

1) The lattice tower mast would be a prominent and intrusive addition to the otherwise unspoilt landscape of the Mallerstang Valley. The mast would not be adequately screened and would therefore appear as a discordant and jarring feature at odds with the intrinsic landscape value. The site will be absorbed into the Yorkshire Dales National Park on 1 August 2016. The development would fail to conserve the landscape and scenic beauty of the area. As such the proposal is considered to be contrary to Eden Core Strategy policies CS16, CS18, saved Local Plan Policy SE6, and Paragraph 115 set out in the NPPF.

Where necessary the local planning authority has worked with the applicant in a positive and proactive manner seeking solutions to problems arising in relation to dealing with the planning application and to implement the requirements of the NPPF and the adopted development plan.

Date of Decision: 29 July 2016

Signed:

Ruth Atkinson BA PGCE DMS MBA

Ruth Atkinson BA PGCE DMS MBA www.eden.gov.uk Communities Director Page 26 Agenda Item 6 Agenda Item REPORTS FOR DEBATE

Eden District Council Planning Committee Agenda Committee Date: 18 August 2016 INDEX

Item Officer Page Application Details No Recommendation Number

1 Planning Application No: 16/0162 Recommended to: Conversion of barn to single dwelling APPROVE 3 Wigton Road Barn, Hutton in the Forest Subject to Conditions Inglewood Estate

2 Planning Application No: 16/0318 Recommended to: Sub division into two separate dwellings with REFUSE demolition and rebuild of north west gable to reduce width of building 12 With Reasons Brook House, Overburn, Alston Mr A Carr

3 Planning Application No: 16/0359 Recommended to:

Erection of 20 affordable dwellings and associates REFUSE car parking and access 26 With Reasons Ridley Court Penrith Atkinson Homes Ltd - Mr B Turner

4 Planning Application No: 16/0458 Recommended to: Removal of conservatory, new ground floor kitchen APPROVE extension and form new roof structure over part of the existing ground floor area to create additional Subject to Conditions first floor bedroom and en-suite 38 High Raise, Graham Street Mr D Horn

1 Page 27 Agenda Item REPORTS FOR DEBATE

Page 28 2 Agenda Item REPORTS FOR DEBATE

Item 1 Date of Committee: 18 August 2016

Planning Application No: 16/0162 Date Received: 17 February 2016

OS Grid Ref: 342523 537122 Expiry Date: 14 April 2016

Parish: Skelton Ward: Skelton

Application Type: Full

Proposal: Conversion of barn to single dwelling

Location: Wigton Road Barn, Hutton in the Forest

Applicant: Inglewood Estate

Agent: PF&K Planning

Case Officer: Daniel Addis

Reason for Referral: The officers recommendation to approve the application is contrary to policy

3 Page 29 Agenda Item REPORTS FOR DEBATE 1. Recommendation

It is recommended that planning permission be granted subject to the satisfactory response from the Highway Authority, and subject to the following conditions/for the following reasons: Time Limit for Commencement 1. The development permitted shall be begun before the expiration of three years from the date of this permission. Reason: In order to comply with the provisions of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 as amended by Section 51 of the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004. Approved Plans 2. The development hereby granted shall be carried out in accordance with the drawings hereby approved: i) Location and block plan, drawing No 8826/1 received 18 February 2016 ii) Proposed plans and elevations, drawing No 8826/3D received 13 July 2016. Reason: To ensure a satisfactory development and to avoid any ambiguity as to what constitutes the permission. Before the Development is Commenced 3. The development shall not commence until visibility splays providing clear continuous visibility of 2.4 by 215m metres down the centre of the access road and the nearside channel lines of the major road have been provided at the junction of the access road with the county highway. Notwithstanding the provisions of the Town and Country Planning (General Permitted Development) (England) Order 2015 (or any Order revoking and re-enacting that Order) relating to permitted development, no structure, vehicle or object of any kind shall be erected, parked or placed and no trees, bushes or other plants shall be planted or be permitted to grown within the visibility splay which obstruct the visibility splays. The visibility splays shall be constructed before general development of the site commences so that construction traffic is safeguarded. Reason: In the interests of highway safety. Pre-Occupancy or Other Stage Conditions 4. The access and parking/turning requirements shall be substantially met before any building work commences on site so that constructional traffic can park and turn clear of the highway. Reason: The carrying out of this development without the provision of these facilities during the construction work is likely to lead to inconvenience and danger to road users.

Page 30 4 Agenda Item REPORTS FOR DEBATE 5. The access drive shall be surfaced in bituminous or cement bound materials, or otherwise bound and shall be constructed and completed before the development is brought into use. This surfacing shall extend to a point 5 metres beyond the existing site access gate, from the carriageway edge of the adjacent highway. Reason: In the interests of highway safety. 6. Details showing the provision of parking for 3 vehicles and a vehicle turning space within the site, which allows vehicles visiting the site to enter and leave the highway in a forward gear, shall be submitted to the Local Planning Authority for approval. The development shall not be brought into use until any such details have been approved and the parking and turning space constructed. The parking and turning spaces shall not thereafter be used for any other purpose. Reason: To ensure that provision is made for the parking and turning of vehicles within the site and in the interests of highway safety. Ongoing Conditions 7. Notwithstanding the provisions of the Town and Country Planning (General Permitted Development) Order 2015 (or any subsequent equivalent legislation) no development falling within Schedule 2, Part 1, Classes A, B, C, D, E and G of the said Order shall be carried out without the prior written permission of the Local Planning Authority. Reason: To safeguard the appearance of the building and the amenity of the area. 8. The development shall only be carried out in accordance with the recommendation and mitigation measures identified in the Survey for Bats, Barn Owls & Breeding Birds Survey, received 17 February 2016 and submitted with the application. Reason: To comply with Regulation 39 of the Conservation (Natural Habitats) Regulations 1994 and Section 9 of the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981 (as amended). 9. The whole of the access area bounded by the carriageway edge, entrance gates and the splays shall be constructed and drained to the specification of the Local Planning Authority in consultation with the Highway Authority. Reason: In the interests of road safety.

Note to Developer All bats and their roosts are fully protected under the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981 (as amended by the Countryside and Rights of Way Act 2000) and are further protected under Regulation 41(1) of the Conservation of Habitats and Species Regulations 2010. Should any bats or evidence of bats be found prior to or during development, work must stop immediately and in the first instance contact the National Bat Helpline on 0845 1300 228. Developers/ contractors may need to take further advice from Natural England on the need for a European Protected Species

5 Page 31 Agenda Item REPORTS FOR DEBATE Licence in order to continue the development in a lawful manner. Natural England can be contacted at [email protected], or by calling 0300 060 3900, or Natural England, Consultation Service, Hornbeam House, Crewe Business Park, Electra Way, Crewe, Cheshire, CW1 6GJ 2. Proposal and Site Description 2.1 Proposal 2.1.1 Full planning permission is sought for the conversion of two redundant barns to a three bed dwelling along with a small (9 sqm) ‘link’ extension to connect the two barns. The proposed alterations to the barns would include the creation of new openings - including two windows in the front elevation; a single gable end window; and two roof lights. The existing door and window openings would be re-used. The existing corrugated roofs would be replaced with a new slate roof. 2.1.2 The new single storey extension (amended) would be an extension to the existing single storey building which would have a stone finish to match the existing buildings 2.1.3 Owl entrances in to the building have been provided in order to reflect the findings of a bat and owl survey. 2.1.4 The proposal also involves the change of use of agricultural land to domestic garden. 2.2 Site Description 2.2.1 The barn is adjacent to, and accessed off the B535 linking Wigton to the M6. It is a traditionally constructed field barn comprising of a two storey and a single storey element placed at right-angles to one another. The buildings are stone built however the former slate roof has been replaced with a corrugated roof. There are no adjacent agricultural buildings. 2.2.2 The total floor space of the building measures approximately 190sqm (taking into account the second floor element and also the link). 2.2.3 The site is located within the open countryside, 1 mile outside of Skelton village. 3. Consultees 3.1 Statutory Consultees

Consultee Response Highway Authority Request further information including visibility splay and adequate in-site parking and turning area. Historic England Natural England The proposal is not likely to result in significant impacts on statutory designated nature conservation sites or landscapes. It is for the Local Planning Authority to determine whether or not this application is consistent with national and local policies The following are detailed responses as outlined above: 3.1.1 Name of Consultee - Details of response received

Page 32 6 Agenda Item REPORTS FOR DEBATE 3.2 Discretionary Consultees

Consultee Response Parish Council Skelton Parish Council support this application 4. Parish Council Response

Please Tick as Appropriate Parish No View Object Support No Response Council/Meeting Expressed Skelton  5. Representations

No of Neighbours Consulted 0 No of letters of support 0 No of Representations Received 0 No of neutral representations 0 No of objection letters 0 6. Relevant Planning History

Application No Description Outcome 15/1052 Prior Notification for propose change of Approved use of agricultural building to a dwelling 8 January 2016 house with associated operational development 7. Policy Context 7.1 Development Plan Saved Local Plan Policies:  NE1 - Development in the open countryside Core Strategy DPD Policy:  CS1 - Sustainable Development Principles  CS2 - Locational Strategy  CS3 - Rural Settlements and the Rural Areas  CS7 - Principles for Housing  CS9 - Housing on Rural Exception Sites  CS16 - Principles for the Natural Environment  CS18 - Design of New Development Supplementary Planning Documents:  Housing (2010)

7 Page 33 Agenda Item REPORTS FOR DEBATE

7.2 Other Material Considerations National Planning Policy Framework:  Delivering a wide choice of high quality homes  Requiring good design National Planning Practice Guidance 7.3 The policies detailed above are the most relevant policies relating to this application. 8. Planning Assessment 8.1 Key/Main Planning Issues  Appropriateness of a dwelling in this location  Visual impact on the surrounding area  Previous approval for the conversion of the barn to a dwelling  The existing planning consent 8.2 Principle 8.2.1 The National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) states that housing applications should be considered in the context of the presumption in favour of sustainable development. 8.2.2 To promote sustainable development in rural areas, housing should be located where it will enhance or maintain the vitality of rural communities. However local planning authorities (LPA’s) “should avoid new isolated homes in the countryside unless there are special circumstances such as: where the development would represent the optimal viable use of a heritage asset.” Paragraph 131 of the NPPF adds to this by outlining that in determining planning applications LPAs should take account of “the desirability of sustaining and enhancing the significance of heritage assets and putting them to viable uses.” 8.2.3 The application barn is situated over a mile away from Skelton Village. Policy CS2 Locational Strategy of the Core Strategy classes the barn as being situated within open countryside and therefore a rural exceptions site where development is limited to meeting an identified local need. 8.2.4 Policy CS9 Housing on Rural Exception Sites outlines that small scale housing development in a settlement will only be permitted if it meets certain criteria including providing a 100% affordable dwelling that meets an identified local need. The Housing SPD details a settlement as a coherent group of three dwellings therefore this would not be classed as a settlement as defined by the Core Strategy. No local need has been identified and the property is not proposed to be affordable. 8.2.5 Whilst it is acknowledged that the Core Strategy does not support development of this nature in this type of location, the Council does not currently have a five year land supply for housing in place and therefore as outlined in the NPPF any “housing applications should be considered in the context of the presumption in favour of sustainable development.” The presumption in favour of sustainable development

Page 34 8 Agenda Item REPORTS FOR DEBATE outlines that permission should be granted unless, “any adverse impacts of doing so would significantly and demonstrably outweigh the benefits”. 8.2.6 Furthermore, the application barn currently has an extant permission in place for its conversion into a dwelling under the Prior Notification procedure. This current application seeks to make slight modification (small extension) to the building which requires the application to be considered afresh, and against current planning policy. Although, such a scheme for an unrestricted dwelling in the open countryside, without justification, would not be supported under current policy, it is acknowledged that there is an extant permission to convert the barns to a dwelling - the fallback position - should planning permission for this current application not be supported. 8.2.7 Members need to consider the amount of weight awarded to this fallback position when considering the application. In determining an appeal (ref APP/M5450/W/16/3141685 - Marlborough House, 159 High Street, Wealdstone, Harrow) a Planning Inspector considered that for the fallback position to constitute a material consideration the implementation of the original permission must be shown to be realistic and not purely theoretical. In this particular case, it is considered that there is a realistic chance of the previously approved development being carried out and therefore greater weight shall be given to it. 8.2.8 On the basis of the current extant permission - the fallback position - and the lack of a 5 year housing, it is considered that the principle of the proposed development is acceptable. 8.3 Landscape and Visual Impacts 8.3.1 Part 7 of the NPPF attaches great importance to the design of the built environment and good design of developments should be supported. CS18 Design of New Development of the Core Strategy supports high quality design, which reflects local distinctiveness. 8.3.2 The alterations to the extant permission include a small ‘link’ extension; two flues; and increase in garden area. The changes are considered to be relatively minor and would not significantly differ from what has previously been approved under the prior notification procedure. 8.3.3 The proposals have been carefully considered and reflect the character of the existing barn and adjacent buildings. Minimal external changes have been proposed and show a clear understanding of the form and character of the original barn. The proposals are therefore considered acceptable and comply with the NPPF and the Core Strategy. 8.3.4 It is recommended that permitted development rights, relating to extensions; alterations to the roof; porches; and garden structures are removed, on the basis that it is the Council’s view that traditional farm buildings should remain, as far as possible, unaltered and remain looking like farm buildings even after conversion. 8.4 Residential Amenity 8.4.1 CS18 of the Core Strategy outlines that development should protect the amenity of existing and future residents. It is considered that the separation distances between the application site and the nearest residential properties would ensure that there are not significant adverse impacts in terms of loss of privacy resulting from the proposals. The proposals therefore comply with CS18 of the Core Strategy.

9 Page 35 Agenda Item REPORTS FOR DEBATE 8.5 Infrastructure 8.5.1 The Highway Authority has been consulted as part of the application. They have requested that information relating to the visibility splays and in-site parking and turning be submitted. 8.6 Natural Environment 8.6.1 CS16 Principles for the Natural Environment outlines A survey for Bats, Barn Owls & Breeding Birds has been submitted which revealed that there were signs of barn owls roosting and nesting in the barns, bat activity was observed around the building with roosts in the west and north walls of the west barn. Recommendations have been made on carrying out works on the building and when the works should be carried out. 9. New Homes Bonus 9.1 The prospect of receiving a Bonus is, in principle, capable of being taken into account as a ‘material consideration’ in determining a planning application. Whether potential Bonus payments are in fact a material consideration in relation to a particular application will depend on whether those payments would be used in a way which is connected to the application and to the use and development of land. For example, potential Bonus payments could be a material consideration if they were to be used to mitigate impacts resulting from development. But if the use to which the payments are to be put is unclear or is for purposes unrelated to the development concerned a decision maker would not be entitled to take them into account when making a decision on a planning application. In this particular case, there are no plans to use the New Homes Bonus arising from this application in connection with this development. 10. Implications 10.1 Legal Implications 10.1.1 The following matters have been considered but no issues are judged to arise. 10.2 Equality and Diversity 10.2.1 The Council must have regard to the elimination of unlawful discrimination and harassment, and the promotion of equality under the Equality Act 2010. 10.3 Environment 10.3.1 The Council must have due regard to conserving bio-diversity under the Natural Environment and Rural Communities Act 2006. 10.4 Crime and Disorder 10.4.1 Under the Crime and Disorder Act 1998, the Council must have regard to the need to reduce crime and disorder in exercising any of its functions. 10.5 Children 10.5.1 Under the Children Act 2004, the Council has a duty to safeguard and promote the welfare of children in the exercise of any of its functions.

Page 36 10 Agenda Item REPORTS FOR DEBATE 10.6 Human Rights 10.6.1 In determining applications, the Council must ensure that all parties get a fair hearing in compliance with the provisions of Article 6 under the European Convention on Human Rights, as now embodied in UK law in the Human Rights Act 1998. 11. Conclusion 11.1 It is considered that the proposal accords with the Development Plan for the following reasons which are not outweighed by material considerations: Although, unrestricted residential development in the open countryside is not normally supported without justification, this particular site has an extant permission for conversion to a dwelling, and a realistic chance that the development will take place. This fallback position and the sympathetic conversion of the building is considered acceptable.

Matthew Neal Deputy Chief Executive

Checked by or on behalf of the Monitoring Officer 

Background Papers: Planning File

11 Page 37 Agenda Item REPORTS FOR DEBATE Item 2 Date of Committee: 18 August 2016

Planning Application No: 16/0318 Date Received: 14 April 2016 16/0318

OS Grid Ref: 372002546398 Expiry Date: 1 July 2016, Extended until 5 August 2016

Parish: Alston Ward: Alston

Application Type: Full Planning with Demolition in Conservation Area

Proposal: Sub division into two separate dwellings with demolition and rebuild of north west gable to reduce width of building

Location: Brook House, Overburn, Alston

Applicant: Mr A Carr

Agent: Mr John Widdaker Countryside Consultants

Case Officer: Shaun Wells

Reason for Referral: The Parish Council support the application contrary to Officer recommendation for refusal.

Page 38 12 Agenda Item REPORTS FOR DEBATE 1. Recommendation

It is recommended that planning permission be refused for the following reasons: 1) The proposed layout would not provide an adequate level of useable amenity space for the occupier of the 1 bed dwelling, and the overall design including an unacceptable level of hardstanding to the rear of the property is considered to be a contrived and cramped form of development contrary to policies CS7 and CS18 of the Eden District Core Strategy and the Housing SPD. 2) The introduction of a large area of hardstanding, the reduction on width of the cart house extension and use of PVCu material in windows and doors would harm the character and appearance of the building and its contribution to this part of the conservation area, to a degree that would not be outweighed by equivalent public benefit, contrary to CS17 of the Core Strategy and paragraph 132 of the NPPF. 3) Safe Vehicular Access to the site including acceptable visibility splays have not been effectively demonstrated by the Applicant, contrary to policy CS18 of the Core Strategy.

2. Proposal and Site Description 2.1 Proposal 2.1.1 Planning permission (including demolition in a conservation area) is sought for the subdivision of Brook House into two separate dwellings with the demolition and rebuild of the north west gable to reduce the width of the building. This would allow vehicular access for parking to the rear of the property where one parking space would be provided. The proposal would result in two dwellings - a 1 bed, and separate 2 bed dwelling. The works include a new door in the side elevation of the rebuilt gable as an entrance for the 1 bed unit, and introduction of a porch and new doorway, with window introduced to replace the existing door to the front elevation of the 2 bed unit. Timber windows in the property would be replaced with PVCu windows. 2.2 Site Description 2.2.1 The property Brook House is located at Overburn, a secondary road which runs parallel to the rear of Front Street. Brook House is an amalgamation of what was originally 2 cottages. The coach house to the left is clearly an extension probably of the later C19th to the original early 19th century dwelling. The property is within the Alston Conservation Area.

13 Page 39 Agenda Item REPORTS FOR DEBATE 3. Consultees 3.1 Statutory Consultees (In summary)

Consultee Response Local Highway Authority Object - It is acknowledged that the existing dwelling presently has no off-street parking provision. The Applicant intends to sub divide the dwelling into 2 units and provide off-street parking for the new unit. As the proposal would appear to result in the creation of a new access to/from the public highway the access must be constructed to current highway standards. The applicant has not shown that a vehicle can turn into/out of the site from the public highway safely - the adjacent public highway is narrow and the proposed access is restricted by the layout of the adjacent properties. The visibility splays shown do not follow standards within the Cumbrian Design Guide which recommends a visibility splay of 2.4m by 90m in each direction where the speed limit is 30 mph. The Highways Authority would be willing to accept spays of 2.4m by 60m in each direction at this site location. It is likely that vehicles travelling down this section of highway will be travelling slow due to the nature of the highway, however the Applicant has not provided evidence to justify this (e.g. speed survey). This may have justified an even lesser splay in accordance with Manual for Streets. The visibility splay should not cross third party land. The Applicant would also have to show that a vehicle can turn into/out of the proposed vehicle access. The Highways Authority confirm that inadequate information has been submitted to satisfy the Local Planning Authority that the proposal is acceptable in terms of: a) Access b) Visibility splays The Highways Authority have confirmed that they would require an additional parking space, which is provided however the visibility splays have not been demonstrated to acceptable standards[and would not be enforceable over third party land]. Lead Local Flood Authority No comments received

Page 40 14 Agenda Item REPORTS FOR DEBATE

3.2 Discretionary Consultees (In summary)

Consultee Response Design and Conservation Objects: Officer Heritage Asset Significance The recently drafted but as yet adopted Conservation Area Character Appraisal and Management Plan identifies the building as one that makes a positive contribution to the special architectural and historic interest of the conservation area. The coach house to the left is clearly an extension, probably of the later C19th, to the original early C19th dwelling, even though it shares a common roof. As both the appraisal and the applicant note the house has been subject to numerous changes and the fact these are still largely legible in the building’s fortuitously asymmetrical front elevation is a key aspect of the building’s significance. In this regard the building confirms broadly to other buildings on the Overburn, and in this distinctive and historically important part of the conservation area more generally, which frequently reveal evidence of formerly stepped first floor entrances and elevations whose appearance is dictated almost entirely by functional rather than formal design considerations. The postcard photograph included within the HS reveals the position of the first floor entrance, which is still readable as blocked feature in the frontage; and that the first floor windows appear to have been enlarged vertically. It also suggests that the current LH entrance is likely to have been an early doorway, either serving a house on the ground floor, or more probably, an early cow byre. The position of the stone steps also clearly indicates that the central doorway (now blocked and converted into a window) must postdate the stone base that supports the steps; and that both this entrance and the RH ground floor window must postdate the photograph. The domestic part of the building thus had some symmetry at first floor level but never, seemingly, on the ground floor. The current timber windows are balanced sashes with a 2/2 thin glazing bar pattern and horns to the meeting rails. They probably relate to a partial conversion or refurbishment of the building in the C20th but they are clearly based on later Victorian sashed windows that may have been in some of the openings previously. They certainly have a

15 Page 41 Agenda Item REPORTS FOR DEBATE harmonious appearance in the building and so have some aesthetic value; while a close examination suggests that are in a serviceable condition requiring only ongoing maintenance or easy to achieve localised repairs. The rear garden space is typical of the small rear plots that characterise this part of the conservation area. They represent an important transitional interface between the broad green charterer of the rural countrywide immediately behind the houses on the east side of Overburn and the developed and almost continuous urban edge of the settlement. The Impact of the Proposals The photograph included in the Heritage Statement is very useful for understanding the evolution of the building in the C20th. It shows that the house part has never had a balanced or symmetrical arrangement, except for part of its history at first floor height. The proposal to move the current entrance to the centre of the elevation in order to create a double fronted appearance would thus be at odds with its architectural and historic interest. Given that many of the buildings on Overburn share such conspicuous asymmetry in their public elevations, such changes would also have an adverse impact on the conservation area. The outbuilding extension to the LH side is later than the main house part but its value is in how it evidences the building’s development as a functional, artisanal structure that served the main house. The cart entrance is well conceived with good quality shaped voussoirs and the opening above probably functioned a taking-in door for wool, hay or other agricultural foodstuffs. The length of this extension was directed by its functional requirements and specifically by the need to have storage/unloading space to the side of any cart. Reducing this extension by almost a metre would alter the buildings appearance as well as distorting our understanding of this historic arrangement; by suggesting that the role of this extension was purely for the garaging of a vehicle. Its contribution to the building’s architectural and historic interest, as well as to the special character and appearance of this part of the conservation area would thus be substantially diminished, resulting in harm occurring to the conservation area.

Page 42 16 Agenda Item REPORTS FOR DEBATE This part of the settlement has been designated conservation area and an Article 4(2) Direction has been implemented expressly to counter the loss of traditional features that were eroding the character of the CA, by removing, among other things, permitted development rights to alter windows and doors on elevations fronting a highway. Nevertheless, I acknowledge that each development proposal has to be considered on its merits. I note that several original windows have been replaced with new timber and PVCu windows but the original openings, doorways and other features continue to contribute much to the special character of the designated area. Unfortunately, the applicant does not provide any details of the PVCu windows that he wishes to install in the building and so it is not possible to evaluate their probable impact. Despite this I must advise you that PVCu windows invariably look completely different to traditional windows. Manufacturers have not been able to replicate the sections/glazing bars used in timber and steel windows due to the relative weakness of the framing material and the stresses brought about by the additional weight of the secondary glazing units. As a result, in appearance they tend to be heavier in section, smoother and glossier in finish. False ‘glazing bars’ which are merely thin strips of plastic inserted within the glass sandwich of a double glazed unit inevitably change the character and appearance of any window. The present windows, while unlikely to be original, are likely to be based on Victorian antecedents, and so they are an important part of the building’s character, and their replacement with PVCu units would cause harm to the appearance of the main dwelling, the local street scene and the Conservation Area as a whole. The proposal to include a vehicle turning area and parking space in the rear garden will completely transform this compact green space by introducing hard surfacing and edging materials across over half of the area. This would not only reduce the amenity space associated with this dwelling it would also be at odds with the established character of these back property areas, such that it would weaken and reduce this distinctive morphology. Legislative and Policy Considerations The Planning (Listed Buildings and Conservation

17 Page 43 Agenda Item REPORTS FOR DEBATE Areas) Act 1990 sets out a clear duty and presumption that gives considerable importance and weight to the desirability of preserving heritage assets, including designated conservation areas and the settings of listed buildings or scheduled ancient monuments. Section 66.1 of the 1990 Act states that: In considering whether to grant planning permission for development in conservation areas Section 72 of the 1990 Act requires that: “In the exercise, with respect to any buildings or other land in a conservation area, of any functions under or by virtue of any of the provisions mentioned in subsection (2), special attention shall be paid to the desirability of preserving or enhancing the character or appearance of that area”. The NPPF advises that when considering the impact of a proposed development on the significance of a designated heritage asset, great weight should be given to the asset’s conservation (NPPF, para 132); and that as heritage assets are irreplaceable, any harm or loss should require clear and convincing justification (para 132). NPPF Policy 137 states that: Local planning authorities should look for opportunities for new development within Conservation Areas and World Heritage Sites and within the setting of heritage assets to enhance or better reveal their significance. Proposals that preserve those elements of the setting that make a positive contribution to or better reveal the significance of the asset should be treated favourably. The issue of harmful impacts arising from development proposals is dealt with in paragraphs 132-134 and these must be weighed against any public benefits, including securing the optimum viable use for the building. Less than substantial harm’ and ‘substantial harm’ are identified but not defined in the NPPF, but the PPG and recent planning appeal decisions and court cases have provided helpful guidance. There is no advice that suggests there is a scale within ‘less than substantial harm’ or where any threshold lies, but if considerable importance and weight is to be given to a finding of harm, then an attempt to calibrate the range of ‘less than substantial harm’ can be helpful. This guidance has also confirmed that while a finding of ‘substantial harm’ is a very high test, even slight

Page 44 18 Agenda Item REPORTS FOR DEBATE harm is a material consideration that must be weighed in the planning balance. Conclusions My advice is that, in applying the statutory duty of the 1990 Planning (LBCA) Act, the proposal would cause more than moderate harm to the special character and appearance of the Alston Conservation Area; and in doing so it would not preserve or enhance the designated area’s heritage asset significance. When considered against the terminology contained within the specific historic environment polices of the NPPF, I consider that the harm that would occur would be less than substantial. Having paid special attention to the desirability of preserving this heritage asset my advice is that having found the degree of harm to be more than moderately adverse, the presumption against granting planning permission should be a compelling one. However, the NPPF confirms that such harm can be outweighed by other material considerations, including any public benefits that might be delivered by the proposals, providing they are sufficiently powerful enough to outweigh the more than moderate but less than substantial harm that I have identified above. The applicant does not claim any public benefits for the proposal and I am not able to recognise any benefits that would accrue to the historic environment. The applicant has not been able to compellingly justify this proposal in line with paragraph 132 of the NPPF; nor demonstrate that it would enhance the special character or appearance of the conservation area; and so my advice is that the proposal would introduce harm that would not be outweighed by equivalent public benefits, and so the test of NPPF policy 134 is not met. As a consequence, the proposal would not comply with the duty of Section 72 of the 1990 Planning (LBCA) Act 1990; nor with policy CS.17 in the Local Development Plan’s Core Strategy. I therefore object to the proposal.

19 Page 45 Agenda Item REPORTS FOR DEBATE

4. Parish Council/Meeting Response

Please Tick as Appropriate Parish No View Object Support No Response Council/Meeting Expressed Alston ✓ 4.1 The Parish Council recommend Approval of the application. 5. Representations 5.1 Letters of consultation were sent to nearby neighbours and a site notice was posted on 19 May 2016. No of Neighbours Consulted 35 No of letters of support 0 No of Representations Received 5 No of neutral representations No of objection letters 5 5.2 Letters of objection raised the following material considerations to the application:  Overburn floods regularly.  The road is a danger and narrow with parked cars.  The Proposed access would bring vehicles within inches of neighbouring Chapel House, the occupiers of which are concerned with the impact on amenity, exhaust fumes and possible encroachment on their property.  The structure and character of the building would be compromised. 5.3 Letters of objection raised the following non-material considerations:  This property already has off street parking (garage and yard across the street).

 Dismantling the gable end of the property and rebuilding to make an access is not financially viable, unless there is another motive. Neighbours claim they have been offered space to park in Mr Carr’s Field to the rear of the site.

 There is a surplus of single occupancy dwellings in Alston. 6. Relevant Planning History

Application No Description Outcome 05/0272 Conversion of Annex to house to form small Application refused dwelling. 19th May 2005. 7. Policy Context 7.1 Development Plan Saved Local Plan Policies: Eden Local Plan 1996: Saved Policies  NE2 Development in the North Pennines AONB  BE2 Demolition in Conservation Areas

Page 46 20 Agenda Item REPORTS FOR DEBATE Core Strategy DPD Policy:  CS1 Sustainable Development Principles  CS2 Locational Strategy  CS3 Rural Settlements and the Rural Areas  CS4 Flood Risk  CS7 Principles for Housing  CS16 Principles for the Natural Environment  CS17 Principles for the Built (Historic) Environment  CS18 Design of New Development Supplementary Planning Documents:  Housing (2010)  North Pennines AONB Planning Guidelines (July 2011)  North Pennines AONB Building Design Guide (2011) 7.2 Other Material Considerations National Planning Policy Framework:  Delivering a wide choice of high quality homes  Requiring good design  Promoting healthy communities  Meeting the challenge of climate change, flooding and coastal change  Conserving and enhancing the natural environment  Conserving and enhancing the historic environment National Planning Practice Guidance 7.3 The policies detailed above are the most relevant policies relating to this application. 8. Planning Assessment 8.1 Key/Main Planning Issues  Principle  Scale and Design  Impact on the Built and Historic Environment  Landscape and Visual Impacts  Residential Amenity  Infrastructure  Highways 8.2 Principle 8.2.1 Under policy CS2 of the Core Strategy Alston is identified as a key service centre where moderate development appropriate to the scale of the town, including new

21 Page 47 Agenda Item REPORTS FOR DEBATE housing would be supported. Consideration is given to the NPPF which confirms that planning applications must be made in accordance with the development plan unless material considerations indicate otherwise. 8.2.2 The site is within a sustainable location within a Key Service Centre and it is considered therefore that the principle of the development to divide the property into two separate residential units is acceptable. 8.3 Scale and Design 8.3.1 Policies CS7, CS18 and the adopted Housing SPD require good design. Conservation issues aside, the proposal involves a reduction in the width of an existing building. The scale of the development therefore is considered acceptable in this context. The general layout however, with the need to demolish the gable of the building in an attempt to provide off street parking, is considered to be contrived. The arrangement would result in the under provision of useable amenity space for the future occupier of the one bedroomed unit, the rear garden area mainly being taken up by hardstanding and turning area. The large area of hardstanding to the rear would not respect or enhance the grain and character of the built environment in this locality and on the proposal is therefore considered to be at odds with policies CS7, CS18 and the Housing SPD in this context. 8.4 Impact on the Built and Historic Environment 8.4.1 Policy CS17 of the Core Strategy and Chapter 12 of the NPPF seek to conserve and enhance heritage assets and their settings. The property is within the Alston Conservation Area, however is not a listed building. The Conservation Officer objects to the application, and advices that the proposal to move the current entrance to the centre of the elevation in order to create a double fronted appearance would be at odds with its architectural and historic interest. Given that many of the buildings on Overburn share such conspicuous asymmetry in their public elevations, such changes would also have an adverse impact on the conservation area. 8.4.2 The reduction of the cart- house extension by almost a metre would alter the buildings appearance as well as distorting our understanding of this historic arrangement; by suggesting that the role of this extension was purely for the garaging of a vehicle. Its contribution to the building’s architectural and historic interest, as well as to the special character and appearance of this part of the conservation area would thus be substantially diminished, resulting in harm occurring to the conservation area. 8.4.3 Whilst it is noted that that there are examples of the use of PVCu windows in the locality, generally the Planning Authority would discourage this and the Conservation Officer considers that the replacement of the traditional timber windows with PVCu windows, would not be desirable and would cause harm to the appearance of the main dwelling, the local street scene and the Conservation Area as a whole.

8.4.4 The Conservation Officer is of the opinion that the proposal to include a vehicle turning area and parking space in the rear garden will completely transform this compact green space by introducing hard surfacing and edging materials across over half of the area. This would not only reduce the amenity space associated with this dwelling it would also be at odds with the established character of these back property areas.

Page 48 22 Agenda Item REPORTS FOR DEBATE 8.4.5 The proposal would cause more than moderate harm to the special character and appearance of the Alston Conservation Area; and in doing so it would not preserve or enhance the designated area’s heritage asset significance. When considered against the terminology contained within the specific historic environment polices of the NPPF, the Conservation Officer considers that the harm that would occur would be less than substantial. 8.4.6 However, the NPPF confirms that such harm can be outweighed by other material considerations, including any public benefits that might be delivered by the proposals, providing they are sufficiently powerful enough to outweigh the more than moderate but less than substantial harm that I have identified above. 8.4.7 The applicant does not claim any public benefits for the proposal, and the addition of a single small dwelling unit would not be a significant contribution to meeting the shortfall in the District’s housing supply. The applicant has not been able to compellingly justify this proposal in line with paragraph 132 of the NPPF; nor demonstrate that it would enhance the special character or appearance of the conservation area. The proposal would introduce harm that would not be outweighed by equivalent public benefits, and so the test of NPPF policy 134 is not met. As a consequence, the proposal would not comply with the duty of Section 72 of the 1990 Planning (LBCA) Act 1990; nor with policy CS.17 in the Local Development Plan’s Core Strategy. 8.4 Landscape and Visual Impacts The site is within the AONB designation. Saved Policy NE2 of the Local Plan seeks to protect the special character of the North Pennines AONB. The policy does permit development within settlements however, and as the proposal relates to an existing property within the settlement, and would be for a reduction in size of that property, then the proposal is considered to be in general accordance with saved policy NE2 as there would be no impact upon the wider landscape and AONB designation. 8.5 Residential Amenity 8.5.1 Policy CS18 of the Core Strategy requires inter alia that development protect the amenity of existing residents and business occupiers and provides an acceptable amenity for future occupiers. As the only opening would be a new door in the side elevation of the Brook House, there is unlikely to be any impact upon neighbours in terms of loss of privacy, overlooking or loss of light. In this regard the proposal is considered to be generally acceptable and in accordance with policy CS18 of the Core Strategy. 8.6 Impact on Infrastructure (including Highways) 8.6.1 Polices CS1 and CS7 of the Core Strategy require that appropriate provision of infrastructure to serve the development is provided. Policy CS4 of the Core Strategy requires that the development take account of Flood Risk. The building exists and is plumbed to the mains sewer. An additional connection into the sewer would be required on division of the building which is unlikely to be a problem. The site is within Flood zone 1, and is not considered therefore to be at a high risk of flooding. The proposal is considered to have no significant impact in terms of general infrastructure and is considered therefore to be in accordance with the relevant planning policies in this context.

23 Page 49 Agenda Item REPORTS FOR DEBATE 8.6.2 Policy CS18 of the Core Strategy requires amongst other criteria that new development provides safe access to the site. The Local Highway Authority object to the proposal, and whilst an amended plan has been submitted in an attempt to overcome the concerns, the objection stands. The Local Highways Authority have confirmed that they would require one off street parking space as one new residential unit is being proposed. Whilst the applicant has indicated a visibility splay this is over third part land and is not enforceable. The visibility splay indicated is 2m x 18m to the west of the access and 2m x 20m to the east. This is far lower than that required by the Local Highway Authority, who would be willing to accept in this locality splays of 2.4m by 60m in each direction at this site location. Safe access to the site has not been demonstrated and the proposal is therefore at odds with policy CS18 of the Core Strategy. 9. New Homes Bonus 9.1 The prospect of receiving a Bonus is, in principle, capable of being taken into account as a ‘material consideration’ in determining a planning application. Whether potential Bonus payments are in fact a material consideration in relation to a particular application will depend on whether those payments would be used in a way which is connected to the application and to the use and development of land. For example, potential Bonus payments could be a material consideration if they were to be used to mitigate impacts resulting from development. But if the use to which the payments are to be put is unclear or is for purposes unrelated to the development concerned a decision maker would not be entitled to take them into account when making a decision on a planning application. In this particular case, there are no plans to use the New Homes Bonus arising from this application in connection with this development. 10. Implications 10.1 Legal Implications 10.1.1 The following matters have been considered but no issues are judged to arise. 10.2 Equality and Diversity 10.2.1 The Council must have regard to the elimination of unlawful discrimination and harassment, and the promotion of equality under the Equality Act 2010. 10.3 Environment 10.3.1 The Council must have due regard to conserving bio-diversity under the Natural Environment and Rural Communities Act 2006. 10.4 Crime and Disorder 10.4.1 Under the Crime and Disorder Act 1998, the Council must have regard to the need to reduce crime and disorder in exercising any of its functions. 10.5 Children 10.5.1 Under the Children Act 2004, the Council has a duty to safeguard and promote the welfare of children in the exercise of any of its functions.

Page 50 24 Agenda Item REPORTS FOR DEBATE 10.6 Human Rights 10.6.1 In determining applications, the Council must ensure that all parties get a fair hearing in compliance with the provisions of Article 6 under the European Convention on Human Rights, as now embodied in UK law in the Human Rights Act 1998. 11. Conclusion 11.1 It is considered that the proposal does not accord with the Development Plan for the following reasons which are not outweighed by material considerations: 1) The proposed layout would not provide an adequate level of useable amenity space for the occupier of the 1 bed dwelling, and the overall design including an unacceptable level of hardstanding to the rear of the property is considered to be a contrived and cramped form of development contrary to policies CS7 and CS18 of the Eden District Core Strategy and the Housing SPD. 2) The introduction of a large area of hardstanding, the reduction on width of the cart house extension and use of PVCu material in windows and doors would harm the character and appearance of the building and its contribution to this part of the conservation area, to a degree that would not be outweighed by equivalent public benefit, contrary to CS17 of the Core Strategy and paragraph 132 of the NPPF. 3) Safe Vehicular Access to the site including acceptable visibility splays have not been effectively demonstrated by the Applicant, contrary to policy CS18 of the Core Strategy.

Matthew Neal Deputy Chief Executive

Checked by or on behalf of the Monitoring Officer 

Background Papers: Planning File

25 Page 51 Agenda Item REPORTS FOR DEBATE Item 3 Date of Committee: 18 August 2016

Planning Application No: 16/0359 Date Received: 21 April 2016

OS Grid Ref: 351934 530026 Expiry Date: 3 August 2016

Parish: Penrith Ward: Penrith East

Application Type: Full

Proposal: Erection of 20 affordable dwellings and associates car parking and access

Location: Ridley Court, Penrith

Applicant: Atkinson Homes Ltd - Mr B Turner

Agent: None

Case Officer: Mr Daniel Addis

Reason for Referral: The application has been called in by a Ward Member

Page 52 26 Agenda Item REPORTS FOR DEBATE 1. Recommendation

It is recommended that delegated authority is given to Planning Officers to grant planning permission subject to the provision of a S106 Legal Agreement to; secure the houses as affordable; to secure the provision and retention of the open space; and to secure the maintenance of the access road and subject to the following conditions OR should the S106 Legal Agreement fail to be secured for the application to be refused: Time Limit for Commencement 1. The development permitted shall be begun before the expiration of three years from the date of this permission. Reason: In order to comply with the provisions of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 as amended by Section 51 of the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004. Approved Plans 2. The development hereby granted shall be carried out in accordance with the drawings hereby approved: i. Proposed Site Layout PSL1A ii. Proposed Contextual Elevations PCE1A iii. Proposed Ground and First Floor Layouts PSL1A iv. Proposed Roof Plan and Drainage PRID1A v. Proposed House Type 1 - PHT1A vi. Proposed House Type 2 PHT2A vii. Proposed House Type 3 PHT3A viii. Proposed House Type 4 PHT4A ix. Proposed House Type 5 PHT5A x. Proposed House Type 6 PHT6A Reason: To ensure a satisfactory development and to avoid any ambiguity as to what constitutes the permission. Before the Development is Commenced 3. Prior to the commencement of the development a revised remediation strategy as detailed in the initial remediation strategy 45934P1R0, shall be submitted to and approved in writing with the local planning authority. The conclusions and any recommendations for additional remediation work shall be included within the revised remediation strategy and shall be carried out in full. Reason: To ensure that the site is decontaminated. The condition is pre- commencement as an exception as contamination could significantly affect the

27 Page 53 Agenda Item REPORTS FOR DEBATE delivery of the site. 4. Prior to the commencement of any development, a surface water drainage scheme, based on the hierarchy of drainage options in the National Planning Practice Guidance with evidence of an assessment of the site conditions shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The surface water drainage scheme must be in accordance with the Non- Statutory Technical Standards for Sustainable Drainage Systems (March 2015) or any subsequent replacement national standards and unless otherwise agreed in writing by the Local Planning Authority, no surface water shall discharge to the public sewerage system either directly or indirectly. The development shall be completed in accordance with the approved details. Reason: To promote sustainable development, secure proper drainage and to manage the risk of flooding and pollution. This condition is imposed in light of policies within the NPPF and NPPG. The condition is pre-commencement as an exception on the basis that the type of drainage needs to be agreed prior to work on site as if they are found to be unacceptable at a later stage they may need to be dug up. 5. Prior to the commencement of the any development full details of the design of all aspects of the scheme (including the soakaway, the access road and elements of units 1-4) that have the potential to affect the underground gas main which crosses the site shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the local planning authority. Reason: To ensure that the proposed works are designed around the gas main and to ensure that the gas main is not affected by the development. This condition is pre-commencement as an exception on the basis that even the earliest works could affect the gas main with significant safety implications. Pre-Occupancy or Other Stage Conditions 6. Prior to the construction of any of the dwellings hereby approved details of the how the open space will be laid out and maintained in perpetuity shall be submitted to and agreed in writing with the local planning authority. The open space shall include a multi-play system over safety grass surfacing, grassed areas and seating for parents, planting and boundary treatments including a self-close gate. The open space shall be constructed in accordance with the agreed specification and capable of use prior to the occupation of any of the houses hereby approved and shall be maintained as such in perpetuity in accordance with the approved details. Reason: To ensure that the open space is provided to an acceptable standard and that it is maintained as such in perpetuity. 7. Prior to the construction of any of the dwellings hereby approved details including longitudinal/cross sections, drainage details etc of the carriageway, footways, footpaths, cycleways etc shall be submitted to an agreed in writing with the local planning authority. The carriageway, footways, footpaths, cycleways etc will thereafter be constructed and drained in accordance with the

Page 54 28 Agenda Item REPORTS FOR DEBATE approved details. Any works so approved shall be constructed before the development is complete. Reason: To ensure a minimum standard of construction in the interests of highway safety. 8. Prior to the construction of any of the dwellings hereby approved sample panels of the materials proposed for the development shall be displayed on site for approval by the Local Planning Authority and approved before they are used on site. The sample panels shall be retained on site until the work is completed in accordance with the approved plans. Reason: To ensure that the materials used are acceptable in this location. 9. Prior to the occupation of any of the dwellings hereby approved: a) The approved remediation works shall be carried out in full compliance with the approved methodology and best practice. If during the works new areas of contamination are discovered then all work shall stop until the nature and extent of the contamination has been evaluated and the remediation strategy revised and approved by the Local Planning Authority. b) Upon completion of the remediation works a verification report prepared by a competent person shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The verification report shall include details of the remediation works and Quality Assurance/Quality Control results to show that the works have been carried out in full and in accordance with the approved methodology. Details of any verification sampling and analysis to show the site has achieved the approved remediation standard, together with the necessary waste management documentation shall be included. Reason: To ensure that the site is decontaminated to the satisfaction of the Local Planning Authority. Details of materials to be agreed prior to their use on the site Ongoing Conditions 10. The proposed windows in the northeast elevation approved shall be fitted with non-opening or top-hung windows fitted with obscure glazing with a minimum level four privacy rating and shall be permanently maintained as such in perpetuity. Reason: To protect the privacy and amenity of neighbouring properties. 11. Foul and surface water shall be drained on separate systems. Reason: To secure proper drainage and to manage the risk of flooding and pollution.

29 Page 55 Agenda Item REPORTS FOR DEBATE

Note to Developer i. A contract will be required between the developer and Eden District Council to allow the Council to enter onto the site and collect and household waste and recycling.

2. Proposal and Site Description 2.1 Proposal 2.1.1 The application proposes the erection of 20 affordable dwellings at land off Ridley Court, Penrith. 2.1.2 The site will be accessed off Old London Road utilising a stretch of existing road which serves an area already called Ridley Court. The access would sweep round the eastern boundary of the existing houses, through an area to the back of Baker’s Place before entering the site. 2.1.3 The houses are laid out in a courtyard effect featuring 10 blocks of semi-detached properties - a total of 20 units made up of six 2-bedroom houses and 14 three-bedroom houses. The properties are proposed along boundaries of the site, facing in and addressing the public parking court area and minor landscaping treatment. 2.1.4 With regards to design the properties are modern and uniform with a mixture of materials including brick and render, all under a slate roof. Details have been submitted which show surface treatments throughout the site. 2.1.5 An area of open space has been provided in the northern corner of the site adjacent to the Friars Bowling Green. This will also serve as an area for the surface water to drain into through a soakaway though this will be underground. 2.1.6 The application is supported by a Remediation Strategy, A Tree Report, Planning Statement and Design and Access Statement, a noise assessment, Geotechnical Investigation, 2.2 Site Description 2.2.1 The site is well related to Penrith and with good connectivity to the town and amenities. 2.2.2 To the north of the site are allotments, to the east and southeast of the site is the existing Council Service Yard (currently leased to Amey), to the south of the site is a Gas Holder which is likely to be demolished later this year and to the west of the site is residential development including Ridley Court and Baker’s Place. 2.2.3 The site historically formed part of an industrial area of Penrith and due to its historic use issues of contamination have been identified and addressed. The site will be subject to significant decontamination works prior to the houses being constructed. 2.2.4 There are a number of trees on the site and due to the land contamination issues on the site all of the trees will need to be removed to allow the soil to be decontaminated. 3. Consultees 3.1 Statutory Consultees

Consultee Response Local Highway Authority No objection subject to conditions Lead Local Flood Authority No objection subject to conditions

Page 56 30 Agenda Item REPORTS FOR DEBATE

3.2 Discretionary Consultees

Consultee Response Environmental Health Noise No response at time of report Contract Manager No objection subject conditions United Utilities No objection subject to conditions Northern Gas Networks No objection subject to condition Housing Officer Fully supports the application for 100% affordable housing Environmental Health No objection subject to condition Contamination

4. Parish Council/Meeting Response

Please Tick as Appropriate Parish Object Support No Response No Objection Council/Meeting Penrith Town X Council 4.1 Response - No Objection however the Committee did have concerns regarding a) the contamination of the site and the density of the proposed development. In relation to the contamination, the committee would request stringent conditions on the application, should it be approved, requiring the developer to provide detailed decontamination plans to be approved by the Local Planning Authority prior to the commencement of the scheme. Concern was also expressed about the density of the development although it was appreciated that a minimum density was set out in CS8 of the Core Strategy. 5. Representations 5.1 Letters of consultation were sent to nearby neighbours and a site notice was posted on 12 May 2016.

No of Neighbours Consulted 124 No of letters of support 0 No of Representations Received 7 No of neutral representations 0 No of objection letters 7 5.2 A petition signed by 12 tenants of Ridley Court was submitted. The points that were raised have been summarised as below. 5.3 Letters of objection raised the following material considerations to the application:  Road safety - children playing in existing streets  Constrained access - difficulty for cars to pass and poor visibility onto the public road.

31 Page 57 Agenda Item REPORTS FOR DEBATE  Construction traffic disruption/road safety/damage to road  Lack of play area for children  Lack of parking 5.4 Letters of objection raised the following non-material considerations:  An alternative access route should be considered 6. Relevant Planning History There is no relevant planning history. 7. Policy Context 7.1 Development Plan Core Strategy DPD Policy:  CS1 - Sustainable Development Principles  CS2 - Locational Strategy  CS5 - Transport and Accessibility  CS6 - Developer Contributions  CS7 - Principles for Housing  CS8 - Making Efficient Use of Land  CS10 - Affordable Housing  CS16 - Principles for the Natural Environment  CS17 - Principles for the Built (Historic) Environment  CS18 - Design of New Development  CS19 - Energy Conservation, Efficiency and Production in New Developments  CS21 - Principles for Services, Facilities, Sport and Informal Recreation  CS24 - Open Space and Recreation Land Supplementary Planning Documents:  Housing (2010) 7.2 Other Material Considerations National Planning Policy Framework:

 Building a strong, competitive economy  Ensuring the vitality of town centres  Promoting sustainable transport  Delivering a wide choice of high quality homes  Requiring good design  Promoting healthy communities  Conserving and enhancing the natural environment  Conserving and enhancing the historic environment National Planning Practice Guidance 7.3 The policies detailed above are the most relevant policies relating to this application.

Page 58 32 Agenda Item REPORTS FOR DEBATE 8. Planning Assessment 8.1 Key/Main Planning Issues  Principle  Design  Residential Amenity  Infrastructure  Natural Environment  Built Environment 8.2 Principle 8.2.1 This Council is unable to demonstrate a five year housing land supply and in accordance with the National Planning Policy Framework (the NPPF) paragraph 49 “relevant policies for the supply of housing should not be considered up-to-date if the local planning authority cannot demonstrate a five-year supply of deliverable housing sites”. In light of this the development plan policies which relate to the supply of housing are considered out-of-date and they are therefore afforded less weight in the planning assessment. The NPPF requires in paragraph 14 that “where the development plan is out-of-date, planning permission should be granted unless….the adverse impacts would significantly and demonstrably outweigh the benefits when assessed against the policies in the NPPF…..or specific policies in the NPPF indicate development should be restricted”. It is considered that Penrith is a sustainable location for new housing which is supported by the NPPF. 8.2.2 The site is within the Key Service Centre of Penrith as defined within the adopted Core Strategy (CS) policy CS2. Development in the Key Service Centre of Penrith includes “sustained development appropriate to that of a large town” including the “provision of new housing” and the “redevelopment of important brownfield sites”. 8.2.3 Policies CS6, CS9 and CS10 consider developer contributions and affordable housing. Usually for sites of this size the Council would require 30% affordable housing however given that the scheme is for 100% affordable housing it is not considered necessary to seek further contributions. 8.2.4 In accordance with the NPPF and the location strategy of the development plan - CS1, CS2, CS7, CS5 - Penrith is considered to be a sustainable location for new housing. 8.3 Design 8.3.1 With regards to the layout of the site, the houses and the parking have been laid out to maximise the use of the site. This has resulted in a dense scheme with the properties being pushed up against the boundaries to the north, east and south of the site with very shallow rear gardens measuring between three to five metres between the properties and the boundaries of the site. The car parking for the properties is set out mainly in front of the houses that they propose to serve. An area of open space has been set aside in the northernmost corner of the site and whilst full details of how this

33 Page 59 Agenda Item REPORTS FOR DEBATE will be laid out are not available at this time a condition has been applied to secure the details and their implementation prior to the occupation of any of the houses. 8.3.2 With regards to the appearance of the buildings, the application proposes ten blocks of semi-detached properties. Their appearance is modern with simple fenestration detailing under pitched roofs. The houses will be finished in a mixture of stone, brick and render all under a tile roof which is in keeping with this suburban area and most notably the adjoining residential schemes to the west of the site. 8.3.3 With regards to design it is considered that the proposal reflects the vernacular in the area and this is particularly relevant to the neighbouring housing schemes at Bakers Place and Ridley Court. The scale, massing, form layout and use of materials respect the local area with the layout optimising the use of the site in accordance with CS18. 8.4 Residential Amenity 8.4.1 In response to the high density of the scheme and the shape of the site there are pressure points where the Council’s usual stance on Separation Distances as set out in the Housing SPD have not been met. This includes the tightness of units 1-4 to the gable of unit 5 and also the separation of units 19 and 20 from the units to the north/east of them. Despite the tensions with the prescribed separation distances mitigation through design has been accepted by officers to allow the scheme to progress. This includes internal rearrangements to unit 3 and a redesign of units 19 and 20 to include gables and opaque glazed windows to ensure that amenity is maintained. 8.4.2 There are two adjoining land used which would affect the development of the site for housing - the Council Service Yard and also the Gas Tank. The impact of these neighbouring uses on the future residents of the proposed houses has been assessed through a noise impact assessment which concluded that with suitable mitigation both uses could coexist. The Council’s Environmental Health department has reviewed the assessment and agree with the recommendations. 8.4.3 With regards to residential amenity it is considered that the proposal will protect the amenity of future residents in accordance with CS18 despite the tensions with some aspects of the proscribed separation distances set out in the Housing SPD. 8.5 Infrastructure 8.5.1 Cumbria County Council as Highways Authority has responded that it is happy with the proposed highway arrangements and has no objection subject to the imposition of a number of planning conditions. The access road to the scheme will be made up to adoptable standards however it may then not be adopted by Cumbria County Council. Officers have concerns that this could cause uncertainty in the future about the maintenance of the road and also it has implications of how domestic waste and recycling will be collected. Cumbria County Council does not share these concerns and confirms that they do not always adopt a road though if it is made up to adoptable standards it may be adopted. The Council’s Contracts Manager has confirmed that subject to a suitable agreement being entered into the domestic waste could be collected. The maintenance of the road in the future would be at the discretion of the affordable housing association and the future tenants/owners of the properties. 8.5.2 Cumbria County Council as Lead Local Flooding Authority has responded that subject to a number of planning conditions it is satisfied that the site can be adequately drained

Page 60 34 Agenda Item REPORTS FOR DEBATE with surface water being discharged to a soakaway and foul water being discharged to the public main sewer. 8.5.3 United Utilities has been consulted on the application and has raised no objection subject to a number of conditions relating to drainage being applied to the permission. 8.5.4 A significant gas main passes underneath the site to the adjoining gas tank. Whilst the gas tank is proposed to be demolished the underground infrastructure is to remain. Northern Gas Networks has been consulted on the application and has raised no objection to the proposal subject to a condition requiring details of how the underground gas main will be protected both during the construction stage and in the future. 8.5.5 Due to the site’s historic industrial use a Remediation Strategy has been submitted to and reviewed by the Council. The findings of the report have been agreed by the Council’s Environmental Health team and contamination can be suitably addressed by a planning condition requiring further works during the development stage. 8.5.6 With regards to infrastructure it is considered that the site can be suitably accessed and there is sufficient level of parking and turning for the proposed houses. All consultees are satisfied, subject to planning condition in some cases, that the site can be adequately drained and that the contamination of the site can be suitably addressed. The proposal is therefore considered to accord with Core Strategy policies CS1, CS4, CS5 and CS18. 8.6 Natural Environment 8.6.1 The site is brownfield land with a historic industrial use and therefore it is considered to be of low ecological value. In order for the site to be decontaminated all of the soil will need to be stripped and the treated. This leaves no opportunity for the trees to be retained and alongside the loss of the trees the scrubland will all be removed. Whilst any loss of trees is regrettable the environmental benefits of decontaminating the land are clear and there is an area of open space which will come forward as part of the proposal. 8.6.2 On balance it is considered that the natural environment has been enhanced by the proposal in accordance with CS16. 8.7 Built Environment 8.7.1 The site is not within the Conservation Area and there are no nearby listed buildings that will be adversely affected by the proposal. 9. New Homes Bonus 9.1 The prospect of receiving a Bonus is, in principle, capable of being taken into account as a ‘material consideration’ in determining a planning application. Whether potential Bonus payments are in fact a material consideration in relation to a particular application will depend on whether those payments would be used in a way which is connected to the application and to the use and development of land. For example, potential Bonus payments could be a material consideration if they were to be used to mitigate impacts resulting from development. But if the use to which the payments are to be put is unclear or is for purposes unrelated to the development concerned a decision maker would not be entitled to take them into account when making a decision

35 Page 61 Agenda Item REPORTS FOR DEBATE on a planning application. In this particular case, there are no plans to use the New Homes Bonus arising from this application in connection with this development. 10. Implications 10.1 Legal Implications 10.1.1 The following matters have been considered but no issues are judged to arise. 10.2 Equality and Diversity 10.2.1 The Council must have regard to the elimination of unlawful discrimination and harassment, and the promotion of equality under the Equality Act 2010. 10.3 Environment 10.3.1 The Council must have due regard to conserving bio-diversity under the Natural Environment and Rural Communities Act 2006. 10.4 Crime and Disorder 10.4.1 Under the Crime and Disorder Act 1998, the Council must have regard to the need to reduce crime and disorder in exercising any of its functions. 10.5 Children 10.5.1 Under the Children Act 2004, the Council has a duty to safeguard and promote the welfare of children in the exercise of any of its functions. 10.6 Human Rights 10.6.1 In determining applications, the Council must ensure that all parties get a fair hearing in compliance with the provisions of Article 6 under the European Convention on Human Rights, as now embodied in UK law in the Human Rights Act 1998. 11. Conclusion 11.1 It is considered that the proposal accords with the Development Plan for the following reasons which are not outweighed by material considerations:  The application proposes a 100% affordable housing scheme on brownfield land in the Key Service Centre of Penrith, well related to the town in a sustainable location.  The design of the site is considered on balance acceptable notwithstanding some tensions with the separation distances set out in the Housing SPD.  The site is well served by all necessary infrastructures and the residential amenity of future occupants will be suitable protected.  All consultees have no objection the application subject, where necessary, to suitably worded planning conditions.

Page 62 36 Agenda Item REPORTS FOR DEBATE

Matthew Neal Deputy Chief Executive

Checked by or on behalf of the Monitoring Officer 

Background Papers: Planning File

37 Page 63 Agenda Item REPORTS FOR DEBATE Item 4 Date of Committee: 18 August 2016

Planning Application No: 16/0458 Date Received: 23 May 2016

OS Grid Ref: 351546 531051 Expiry Date: 20 July 2016

Parish: Penrith Ward: Penrith North

Application Type: Householder

Proposal: Removal of conservatory, new ground floor kitchen extension and form new roof structure over part of the existing ground floor area to create additional first floor bedroom and en-suite

Location: High Raise, Graham Street

Applicant: Mr D Horn

Agent: Mr R Hughes, 2030 Architects Ltd

Case Officer: Karen Thompson

Reason for Referral: This application is before Members as an objector has requested a hearing.

Page 64 38 Agenda Item REPORTS FOR DEBATE 1. Recommendation

It is recommended that planning permission be granted subject to the following conditions/for the following reasons: Time Limit for Commencement 1. The development permitted shall be begun before the expiration of three years from the date of this permission. Reason: In order to comply with the provisions of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 as amended by Section 51 of the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004. Approved Plans 2. The development hereby granted shall be carried out in accordance with the drawings hereby approved: i) Location Plan, drawing No 1337-PP-01 received 25 May 2016 ii) Proposed Plans, Elevations and Section, drawing No 1337-PP-02A received 1 July 2016 Reason: To ensure a satisfactory development and to avoid any ambiguity as to what constitutes the permission. Pre-Occupancy or Other Stage Conditions 3. The whole of the access area bounded by the carriageway edge, entrance gates and the splays shall be constructed and drained to the specification of the Local Planning Authority in consultation with the Highway Authority. Reason: In the interests of road safety. 4. The 1.8 m high screen shown on drawing no. 1337-PP-02A hereby approved shall be installed prior to the raised terrace being brought into use. Reason: To safeguard the privacy of occupiers

2. Proposal and Site Description 2.1 Proposal 2.1.1 Proposal is for extensions to a bungalow located within New Streets Conservation Area. Works would include increasing the height of the roof by 1 metre to allow for an en-suite bedroom in the roof space. The roof would be covered in concrete inter- locking tiles to match the existing. 2.1.2 The original proposal included a balcony on the western elevation and accessed through inward opening doors from the new bedroom. However, as a result of comments from neighbouring occupiers regarding overlooking, the scheme has been amended to replace the balcony with a glazed guarding across the door/window opening.

39 Page 65 Agenda Item REPORTS FOR DEBATE 2.1.3 At the rear, the existing conservatory will be replaced by a larger dining/kitchen extension and a partly covered terraced area will be created. Along the rear edge of the terrace there will be a 1.8 metre high screen and at the public side, a timber privacy screen would be erected. 2.1.4 The existing attached garage would be extended at the rear by 2 metres and the vehicular access would be slightly widened and alterations made to the internal parking arrangements. 2.1.5 All the extensions would be finished in colour textured render with sandstone feature panels, interlocking roof tiles, timber doors and windows would be high performance timber with external aluminum cladding (RAL 7015 - Slate grey paint). 2.2 Site Description 2.2.1 The application relates to a detached ‘modern’ bungalow within the New Streets Conservation Area. The neighbouring properties on the opposite side of Graham Street and below on the south side include fairly substantial, red sandstone Victorian properties. However, the character and building type changes from the application property extending up the hill (north) with some modern dwellings finished in modern materials. 3. Consultees 3.1 Statutory Consultees

Consultee Response Highway Authority Considered that the proposal will not have a material affect on the public highway. The proposed relocated gate stoops should be maintained at the existing low height. Recommend condition. 3.2 Discretionary Consultees

Consultee Response Penrith Town Council No objection

4. Parish Council/Meeting Response

Please Tick as Appropriate Parish No View Object Support No Response Council/Meeting Expressed Penrith Town  Council

Page 66 40 Agenda Item REPORTS FOR DEBATE

5. Representations 5.1 Letters of consultation were sent to nearby neighbours and a site notice was posted on 16 June 2016.

No of Neighbours Consulted 8 No of letters of support 0 No of Representations Received 3 No of neutral representations 0 No of objection letters 3 5.2 Letters of objection raised the following material considerations to the application:  Loss of privacy and overlooking from the balcony.  Overshadowing - the bungalow is already on an elevated position and the raised roof and screen to the terrace will block out light.  The balcony is made of glass which is not in keeping with the rest of Graham Street.  The raised decking area will allow users to look over high hedge resulting in overlooking of private garden.  The windows to the new dining area appear to be higher than the existing windows.  The velux windows will over-look private rear garden.  Out of character with Graham Street which is in a conservation area. 6. Relevant Planning History There is no relevant planning history 7. Policy Context 7.1 Core Strategy DPD Policy:  CS17 - Principles for the Built (Historic) Environment  CS18 - Design of New Development 7.2 Other Material Considerations National Planning Policy Framework:  Requiring good design  Conserving and enhancing the historic environment National Planning Practice Guidance 7.3 The policies detailed above are the most relevant policies relating to this application. 8. Planning Assessment 8.1 Main Planning Issues  Impact on the privacy and amenity of neighbouring occupiers  Impact on the visual amenity of the area

41 Page 67 Agenda Item REPORTS FOR DEBATE 8.2 Principle 8.2.1 Planning permission is required in this instance because the proposal is to increase the height of the roof; the dining room extension; the widening of the access, all fall outside the scope of normal residential permitted development rights. The District Council will support high quality design which shows a clear understanding of the form and character of the built environment and where the amenity of existing residents is protected (Policy CS18 Design of New Development). 8.2.2 The application site lies within the Penrith New Streets Conservation Area. Development which preserve or enhance the character and appearance of conservation areas and promote enhancement through the use of high standards of design will be supported (Policy CS17 Principles for the Built (Historic) Environment). 8.3 Visual Impacts 8.3.1 An objector to the scheme is concerned that the proposed development would be out of character with the surrounding area which is a conservation area. The properties in Graham Street are mostly red sandstone properties with terraced properties at the bottom (south) end of the street and as the properties rise up Graham Street they tend to be larger and often detached. However, the application site, along with the next property, another bungalow, followed by a new build house, are ‘modern’ buildings finished in modern materials. It is accepted that the character of the conservation area does alter as you approach this part of Graham Street. 8.3.2 The roof of the bungalow would be increased by 1 metre to allow for the creation of a third bedroom. It is considered that the increase is slight and would not have an adverse impact on the appearance of the building or on the surrounding conservation area. In terms of the proposed materials - render, timber, glass, tiles - these are materials used in the construction of the application property and other properties within the immediate vicinity of the conservation area. 8.3.3 Although some of the alterations could be described as modern additions ie the glazed guarding or decking, along with the timber screen to the proposed decking, the development is considered in-keeping with the style of the host property and would preserve the character and appearance of the conservation area. 8.4 Residential Amenity 8.4.1 Concerns regarding a balcony on the southern gable end were raised initially by three immediate neighbouring occupiers on the basis that the balcony would result in overlooking of private amenity areas. The applicant responded to these concerns by omitting the balcony and is now proposing a glazed guard across the new bedroom door opening which would have a fixed full height window and two inward opening doors to the new bedroom. However, the occupier at ‘Beaumont’ is still concerned that the design will still result in overlooking of his property. The door opening is directly in line with the front garden at ‘Beaumont’. On the basis that this garden is at the public face of the property, directly on to Graham Street, it is considered that there would not be any increased privacy issues. At the rear of ‘Beaumont’ closest to the application property is a garage building and car parking area. Any overlooking of this area would be obscured by the existing garage building, a large tree in the garden of ‘Heathfield’, a high hedge which is within the ownership of ‘Beaumont’ but also the angle (approx 45 degree) at which the rear garden is to the proposed bedroom doorway. It is therefore

Page 68 42 Agenda Item REPORTS FOR DEBATE considered that there would not be an adverse impact on the privacy or amenity of the occupiers of Beaumont. 8.4.2 Likewise, the omission of the balcony and replacement of a glazed guard, would not result in overlooking of those properties to the front (Highfold) and rear (Heathfield). 8.4.3 Another concern raised relates to the increase in the height of the roof and that this would result in overshadowing. The application property is detached with the ridge of the roof being approximately 8 metres from the rear garden of ‘Heathfield’ and approximately 20 metres from the front of ‘Highfold’ and ‘Oakbank’. It is considered that the increase in the height of the ridge would have no adverse impact on the amenity of occupiers of properties adjacent to the application site. 8.4.4 A condition is recommended that the 1.8 metre high screen on the rear side of the raised decking is erected prior to it being brought into use, to prevent overlooking. Although the side windows are lightly higher than the existing conservatory windows, it is not considered that there would be any adverse overlooking of the neighbouring property at ‘Heathfield’. 9. New Homes Bonus 9.1 The prospect of receiving a Bonus is, in principle, capable of being taken into account as a ‘material consideration’ in determining a planning application. Whether potential Bonus payments are in fact a material consideration in relation to a particular application will depend on whether those payments would be used in a way which is connected to the application and to the use and development of land. For example, potential Bonus payments could be a material consideration if they were to be used to mitigate impacts resulting from development. But if the use to which the payments are to be put is unclear or is for purposes unrelated to the development concerned a decision maker would not be entitled to take them into account when making a decision on a planning application. In this particular case, there are no plans to use the New Homes Bonus arising from this application in connection with this development. 10. Implications 10.1 Legal Implications 10.1.1 The following matters have been considered but no issues are judged to arise. 10.2 Equality and Diversity 10.2.1 The Council must have regard to the elimination of unlawful discrimination and harassment, and the promotion of equality under the Equality Act 2010. 10.3 Environment 10.3.1 The Council must have due regard to conserving bio-diversity under the Natural Environment and Rural Communities Act 2006. 10.4 Crime and Disorder 10.4.1 Under the Crime and Disorder Act 1998, the Council must have regard to the need to reduce crime and disorder in exercising any of its functions.

43 Page 69 Agenda Item REPORTS FOR DEBATE 10.5 Children 10.5.1 Under the Children Act 2004, the Council has a duty to safeguard and promote the welfare of children in the exercise of any of its functions. 10.6 Human Rights 10.6.1 In determining applications, the Council must ensure that all parties get a fair hearing in compliance with the provisions of Article 6 under the European Convention on Human Rights, as now embodied in UK law in the Human Rights Act 1998. 11. Conclusion 11.1 It is considered that the proposal accords with the Development Plan for the following reasons which are not outweighed by material considerations: The proposed development complies with Policy’s CS17 Principles for the Built (Historic) Environment and CS18 Design of New Development of Eden’s Core Strategy. It is considered that the proposed development is considered acceptable in terms of scale, design and use of materials and would preserve the character and appearance of the conservation area with neutral impact. It is not considered that the proposed design would have an adverse impact on the privacy or amenity of occupiers living adjacent to the application site.

Matthew Neal Deputy Chief Executive

Checked by or on behalf of the Monitoring Officer 

Background Papers: Planning File

Page 70 44