Allerdale Borough Council
Planning Application 2/2014/0350
Proposed Demolition of up to seven buildings including School House, Development: Hodgson House and Howard House. Full planning application for M Sport Evaluation Centre (B1), testing and evaluation facility (2.5km in length) (Sui Generis), car parking (242 spaces), earthworks including sound attenuation bunds, surface water attenuation ponds, grounds maintenance shed incorporating fuel store (B1 & B8) and separate underground fuel tank. Temporary widening of eastern access from A594 for construction vehicles. Outline planning application for future expansion space of 5000sqm (use class B1), Offices 2450sqm (B1), 60 bed Hotel 6000sqm (C1) all to include associated parking and external works Loc ation: Dovenby Hall Dovenby Cockermouth Applicant: M-Sport Limited
Recommendation: Approved
Subject to conditions, and Legal Agreements in relation to Travel Plan requirements and sports provision.
Summary/Key Issues
Issue Conclusion
Principle of Use In principle, saved Policy REM10 of the Allerdale Local Plan 1999 is supportive of the majority of the proposed land uses.
The principle of expanding the existing business is considered to be supported by relevant employment policies of the Allerdale Local Plan, Part 1 2014. National and Local Plan policies relating to hotel and offices uses encourage a town centre first approach to the location of these uses. However they are considered to be acceptable having regard to saved Policy REM10 of the Allerdale Local Plan 1999.
Scale of The Dovenby Hall Estate is a designated employment site under Development saved Policy REM10, which is a bespoke saved policy specifically for this site. Policy S12 of the new Plan provides support for new employment/expanding businesses on allocated employment sites and S14 supports the expansion of rural businesses. Policy S2 also recognises the need to allocate land and premises of the right quality to meet the expansion needs of existing businesses. It is considered that development at this location of a scale in excess of that envisaged by policies S3 and S5 in the hierarchy, i.e. very small scale, but that a larger scale of development is reasonably justified by the retained allocation of the site for employment uses.
The scale of the proposed development is extensive, however, the applicant has put forward information to demonstrate that there is a need for this level of expansion to secure the future success and growth of the business. Development in excess of the original footprint of the Dovenby Hall Estate can be justified under policy REM10 where there are overriding environmental, landscape, social or economic beneficial impacts. The economic benefits of the proposal have been set out above and are considerable, attracting significant weight. It is considered that these benefits override the requirement within policy REM10 to limit development to the aggregate floor space.
Noise Impacts On the basis of advice from EH Officers, it is considered that subject to a robust noise management plan, the proposed testing facility could be operated in a manner that maintains an appropriate standard of residential amenity for residents within the locality. Whilst it would not be possible to eliminate all noise for residents, it is considered that subject to the mitigation measures proposed and the recommended conditions, the adverse effects on living conditions would not be unacceptable. The proposal is therefore considered to be acceptable in this respect with regards to Policy S32 of the Allerdale Local Plan (Part 1) 2014.
Other elements of the proposal also have the potential to create noise and disturbance, such as the hotel or the evaluation centre, or from associated plant/machinery. It is considered that residential amenity can be protected to an acceptable standard from these other uses through either conditions, or where applicable, at the detailed design stage.
Heritage Impacts The effects of the proposal in relation to archaeological interests & Design and the Hadrian’s Wall World Heritage site are not considered to be significant subject to mitigation. In this respect, the proposal is acceptable in relation to policies S27 and S28.
The proposal will not preserve or enhance the setting of Dovenby Hall listed building, the impact on the setting of Dovenby Hall through the loss of much of what remains of its parkland setting will be harmful. Whilst the proposal would result in further harm to the setting than presently exists, the effects of this on the heritage asset itself would not be ‘substantial’. Both the NPPF and Policy S27 recognise that in some circumstances, public benefits may outweigh the harm caused to heritage assets. It is considered that in this instance, the economic benefits would be a significant public benefit, and as such, the proposal is acceptable in relation to Policy S27 in this regard.
The change to setting of the listed Medieval Cross is not considered to be a substantial loss to the value of this heritage asset. The loss of a number of unlisted buildings within the grounds of Dovenby Hall would not be significant in heritage terms. Harm to the boundary wall of the estate resulting from the widening of the eastern access would be temporary in nature, reversed, and therefore not significant. In these respects, the proposal is considered to be acceptable in relation to policy S27.
The proposed buildings subject of the full planning application are considered to be acceptable in design terms, in accordance with the requirements of policies S4 and DM14 of the Allerdale Local Plan.
Ecology Impacts In considering the loss of trees/woodland, whilst the application details indicate replacement planting of an area of 19, 500sqm (greater than the area stated to be removed), the 1:1 basis, will not achieve the 2:1 ratio required by Policy DM17. This higher ratio requirement is acknowledgement that loss of a mature tree is not mitigated sufficiently by the replanting of young trees. However, Policy DM17 states that tree felling/removal may be permitted in exceptional circumstances where wider benefits outweigh the loss incurred, Policy S35 provides for a similar exception. The economic benefits of the proposal are considerable, attracting significant weight. It is considered that these benefits, in combination with the mitigation planting proposed would outweigh the loss incurred, and in this respect the proposal is considered to be acceptable in relation to policies DM17 and S35.
In terms of ancient woodland, the proposed area of PAWS to be lost (Plantation on Ancient Woodland) will equate to 2.7% of the overall area of ancient woodland at this location. In considering the overall impact to this habitat, this loss is not considered to equate to ‘significant harm’ in relation to Policy S35, particularly as the works predominantly relate to plantation on ancient woodland, rather than ancient woodland itself and on the basis that woodland management will result in further benefits to the habitat overall. The proposal does provide for mitigation native tree planting elsewhere within the site, and a Woodland Management Plan for the remaining woodland. Taking into account that the proposal will present significant economic benefits and the mitigation measures proposed, in this respect the proposal is considered to be acceptable in relation to advice contained within the NPPF and policy S35 of the Local Plan.
With regards to impacts on the various species identified and their habitat, it is considered that subject to conditions requiring suitable mitigation measures, including phasing, the proposal is acceptable in relation to Policy S35 of the Allerdale Local Plan.
Impact on the Subject to conditions, the Highways Authority has confirmed that highway network the proposal is acceptable.
Sport Provisions The proposal involves the loss of a cricket facility at Dovenby Hall. Mitigation is proposed by way of an additional cricket pitch at Netherhall Community Sports Centre This would be secured by way of a Unilateral Undertaking and has the support of Cumbria Cricket.
Landscape Impact The proposal will result in the substantial loss of the remnant parkland character of the Estate. Whilst it is acknowledged that existing commercial development has degraded this landscape to a degree, the proposal will add substantially to the built form, removing much of the open parkland that remains. As such, it is considered that the impact on the landscape of the Estate will to some extent be harmful. Further, development of the scale and nature proposed, will undoubtedly impact upon the tranquillity of the Estate. For these reasons, it is considered that the proposal does raise some conflict with the aims of policies S32 and S33 of the Allerdale Local Plan insofar as the proposal would not protect, conserve and where possible enhance the landscape character and local distinctiveness of the Dovenby Hall Estate.
Given the local topography and mature trees/woodland along many of the Estate boundaries, the proposal is not considered likely to impact on the wider landscape to any significant degree. Given the enclosure of much of the Estate from the wider area by mature trees and woodland, adverse landscape and visual effects beyond the Estate are not considered to be significant and in this respect the proposal would not conflict with policies S32 and S33 of the Allerdale Local Plan.
Economic Impacts The submission states that proposed scheme will generate an estimated 200 temporary employment opportunities for the construction of the MEC and testing and evaluation facility. For the outline planning application, it is estimated that 60 temporary employment opportunities for the construction of the hotel and an estimated 50 temporary employment opportunities for the office and future expansion space, at peak, will be generated during the construction phase.
Once operational, it is anticipated that the proposed scheme will generate an additional 100 permanent employees associated with the testing and evaluation facility. The number of employment opportunities associated with the operation of the proposed hotel development, office and future expansion space, is not known at this stage.
The applicant has also confirmed that the proposal would help to safeguard the existing skilled employment at the Dovenby site.
The applicant has confirmed that the proposed testing and evaluation facility alone would involve an investment of £19 million.
Officers consider that the economic impacts of the proposed evaluation facility by way of increased employment/ level of investment and increased spend generally would be significantly beneficial.
Proposal
The planning application submitted is a hybrid application, part in outline, part in full. Planning permission is sought for:
Full application
• Construction of Evaluation Centre (use class B1) with a total floor area of 9735m² in area and 8.5m in height, testing and evaluation facility of 2.5km in length (Sui Generis) with sound attenuation bunds of 3 to 3.5m in height, car parking (242 car spaces, 6 showroom spaces); 4 lorry parking spaces; 20 covered cycle storage spaces; earthworks and attenuation ponds • Construction of a grounds maintenance shed with a footprint of 437m² and fuel store with a footprint of 142m², 5.5m in height • A separate 1500 litre underground fuel tank • Temporary widening of eastern access from A594 for construction vehicles (upon construction completion, the wall and gate will be reinstated and the entrance used for emergency access only to the testing facility);
As part of the full application, junction improvement works are proposed on the A594, including a central crossing island, section of footpath provided in current grassed verge on the corner of the road to Bridekirk and widening of existing footpath on turn into Dovenby Village.
Outline application
• Future expansion space of 5000sqm (use class B1), • Offices 2450sqm (B1), • 60 bed Hotel 6000sqm (C1) with 92 car parking spaces and 12 secure garages • Ancillary parking and landscaping
The application has been amended post submission to exclude an element of residential development.
The planning application has been accompanied by an Environmental Statement (ES).
Supporting document Planning Statement Rev A indicates that the purpose of the proposal is to allow significant expansion of M Sport to maintain and grow its business. Supporting information states that the facility would provide:
• Proving for both rally and track racing cars (World Rally Championships and GT3 Championships), • Evaluation & development of road cars, which would allow M Sport to expand further into the wider automotive industry • Use for corporate days for sponsors and others, and promotions where a significant number of visitors will come to Dovenby, sometimes with their own vehicles.
Submitted document Planning Statement Rev A states that the nature of the site and proposal would allow for testing by other manufacturers. The existing M Sport workshop and manufacturing facility is stated as being over capacity and restricting further business development and employment. As well as manufacturing the Ford Fiesta WRC, RRC, S2000, R5, R2 & R1 rally cars, M Sport are now manufacturing the GT3 Bentley for competition.
Members will note from the attached appendix that a number of neighbour representations refer to the proposal being used as a motor sports venue or for motor sports activities. It is important to note the distinction, the principle use of the proposed track is for a testing and evaluation facility for rally, track and road cars, with some ancillary corporate uses. The principle use of the proposed track is not as a motor sports venue or for motor sports activities and an approved noise management regime would ensure that this is not the case.
Site
The site is comprised of parts of the Dovenby Hall Estate, which in total extends to approx. 45ha and is positioned directly adjacent to the small village of Dovenby, 4km north-west from the centre of Cockermouth. The Dovenby Hall Estate is enclosed by historic stone walls and much of the site is screened from public view by bands of mature trees. The northern boundary of the Estate is formed by the A594 to Maryport and this provides the main access to the site. The south east boundary is formed by Brides Beck and the south west boundary by open fields, with Dovenby village to the north west.
Currently, the estate is the headquarters of MSport and includes: • office space, including Dovenby Hall and Pele Tower (Grade II listed) • performance car manufacturing facilities • tenanted office space • open parkland; and • associated car parking
The proposed development comprising of the full application (evaluation centre, test track, maintenance shed, fuel stores and associated car parking) would be located on an area currently to the more easterly section of the estate. At present, only a small proportion of this area is developed, hosting two buildings originally constructed for the Dovenby hospital. The remainder of this area is undeveloped and hosts a cricket pitch, open parkland and grazing land with a significant number of mature trees, some of which are aligned and are understood to follow the line of the original driveway into the estate.
The proposed hotel (subject of the outline application) would be located to the west of the existing main estate entrance off the A594. This area is undeveloped and is largely grassed with mature trees to the boundaries.
The proposed future expansion space and office space (subject of the outline application) is proposed to the south of the estate, in an area that is largely already developed and contains a number of 1960’s type buildings and areas of hardstanding used for external storage.
Dovenby Park County Wildlife Site, is part situated within the site boundary. This site consists of designated ancient woodland and covers an area of approximately 7.3ha.
Dovenby Hall and Pele Tower, the Medieval cross base and the Anne Frances Gunson monument are all Grade II listed buildings/structures within the estate boundary. Only the Medieval cross base is located within the application boundary (area of the proposed hotel).
No vehicular driving/testing currently takes place at Dovenby Hall Estate (other than to bring cars on and off site). MSport currently use Kirkbride airfield for some testing and evaluation, although this site is not owned by MSport Ltd and has no engineered features. M Sport also utilise the forest tracks at Greystoke Forest. MSport advise that Greystoke is used for driver practice on off road rally conditions and not for evaluation. The Greystoke facility, owned by MSport Ltd, is thus used for a very specific purpose unrelated to car evaluation and testing. Relevant Policies
National Planning Policy Framework
Building a strong, competitive economy Meeting the challenge of climate change, flooding and coastal change Conserving and enhancing the natural environment Conserving and enhancing the historic environment Ensuring the vitality of town centres Supporting a prosperous rural economy Promoting sustainable transport Requiring good design
Allerdale Local Plan (Part 1)
Policy DM12 - Sustainable Construction Policy DM14 - Standards of Good Design Policy DM17 - Trees, hedgerows and woodland, Allerdale Local Plan (Part 1) Policy DM4 - Expansion and intensification of employment sites, Allerdale Local Plan (Part 1) Policy DM8 - Protecting Town Centre Vitality and Viability, Allerdale Local Plan (Part 1) Policy REM10 - Proposals at former Dovenby Hall Hospital, Allerdale Local Plan, Adopted 1999 (Saved) Policy S1 - Presumption in favour of sustainable development, Allerdale Local Plan (Part 1) Policy S12 - Land and Premises Policy S14 - Rural economy, Allerdale Local Plan (Part 1) Policy S16 - Town centres and retail, Allerdale Local Plan (Part 1) Policy S17 - Tourism, Coastal and Countryside Recreation Policy S2 - Sustainable development principles (excluding highways), Allerdale Local Plan (Part 1) Policy S21 - Developer contributions (excluding viability), Allerdale Local Plan (Part 1) Policy S22 - Transport principles, Allerdale Local Plan (Part 1) Policy S24 - Green infrastructure, Allerdale Local Plan (Part 1) Policy S25 - Sports,Leisure and Open Space Policy S27 - Heritage Assets Policy S28 - Hadrian's Wall World Heritage Site Policy S29 - Flood Risk and Surface Water Drainage Policy S3 - Spatial Strategy and Growth Policy S32 - Safeguarding amenity, Allerdale Local Plan (Part 1) Policy S33 - Landscape Policy S35 - Protecting and enhancing biodiversity and geodiversity, Allerdale Local Plan (Part 1) Policy S36 - Air, water and soil quality, Allerdale Local Plan (Part 1) Policy S4 - Design principles, Allerdale Local Plan (Part 1) Policy S5 - Development Principles
Allerdale Local Plan, Adopted 1999 (Saved)
Policy REM10 - Proposals at former Dovenby Hall Hospital, Allerdale Local Plan, Adopted 1999 (Saved)
Relevant Plan ning History
SCR/2011/0031 – Screening Opinion issued stating that the proposal is considered to be EIA development.
SCO/2011/0009 – Scoping Opinion issued advising the content to be covered by any subsequent Environmental Statement.
2/1998/0178 - Erection of new workshops and associated stores and change of use of hospital, offices and treatment rooms to provide office and corporate accommodation, as shown on the application forms, plans and drawings etc dated 12 March 1998. Approved.
2/2002/0424 - Mixed use scheme of development incorporating the change of use of 4 existing vacant buildings to employment purposes. The change of use of former theatre to a lecture theatre. The demolition of 2 existing buildings and the erection of a multi purpose unit for M Sport Ltd. The demolition of former sanatorium and erection of a hotel, as amended by letter received 7 June 2002, fax received 2 July 2002 and letter and plans received 18 July 2002. Approved.
A number of other applications have been submitted at this site, but none are considered particularly relevant to the current proposal.
Representations
The consultation responses provided are up to date as of the 13 th November 2014. Subsequent to this, a further round of consultation has been undertaken following the submission of further information by the applicant on the 14 th November 2014. Members will be provided with any further comments via the late list. The re-consultation related primarily to matters of clarification, a reduction in noise levels and days use for Category 1 use, the provision of replacement sports facilities, and additional survey work for bats, rather than a significant amendment to the nature of development proposals. In view of this, with the exception of Sport England, it is not anticipated that this further round of consultation would fundamentally change the responses of consultees or limit the opportunity for officers to undertake a robust assessment of the planning application.
The list below provides a brief outline of the position of consultees. Where more detailed comments have been provided, they are summarised at Annex 2 of this report.
Papcastle Parish Council – No objection, supportive of application on economic grounds.
Dearham Parish Council – No comments received.
Broughton Moor Parish Council – No objection
Broughton Parish Council - No objection, supportive of application on economic grounds.
Brigham Parish Council - No comments received.
Bridekirk Parish Council – Recommends refusal, concerns relate to noise, number of houses proposed, loss of biodiversity and heritage, increased flood risk, questionable economic benefits, unsuitability of road infrastructure.
Campaign to Protect Rural England (CPRE), Friends of the Lake District (FLD) – Object to this application on the basis of loss of tranquility in the landscape and loss of a large area of mature woodland, Ancient Semi Natural Woodland, historic parkland trees and part of a County Wildlife Site.
Woodland Trust – Object due to loss of ancient woodland and an area of wood pasture and parkland, lack of appropriate mitigation and buffer to remaining ancient woodland.
Forestry Commission – do not support due to loss of ancient woodland. Provide advice relating to mitigation in the event that the application is approved.
Allerdale Housing Officer – No comment subsequent to removal of housing development from the proposal.
Sport England – Object to loss of cricket pitch at Dovenby Hall. Re-consultation pending following off site mitigation proposed by applicant.
Cumbria County Council –Do not consider the proposal to be a Category 1 Application, and the County Council do not be respond to this application from a strategic planning perspective. Remain concerned in respect to loss of historic parkland but state that the overall impact would be mitigated to an extent given the screening provided by the established woodland surrounding the site, and lack of public access to the site. As a relatively small area of ancient woodland will be removed, and that it is questionable whether this area conforms to the criteria for ancient woodland classification, the Woodland Management Plan can be regarded as a significant net benefit in offsetting the adverse impact arising from the loss of the area proposed.
No contribution requirement for education provision or school transport. Raise no objection subject to conditions/legal agreement in relation to flood risk, drainage and highways.
Allerdale Access Officer – No objections.
Allerdale Drainage Engineer – No objections subject to conditions.
Coal Authority – Standing advice as an informative note to the applicant in the interests of public health and safety.
Cumbria Constabulary – No comments received.
Cumbria Wildlife Trust – Object to the proposal based on the loss of deciduous woodland BAP priority habitat, loss of County Wildlife Site and loss of foraging habitat for bats.
English Heritage – No objection.
Natural England – Raise no objection in relation to European Sites and SSSI. Refer to standing advice in relation to Ancient Woodland. In relation to Bats, Natural England does not object subject to conditions. Confirm agreement of no likely significant effects for Habitats Regulation Assessment purposes.
County Archaeologist – No objections subject to conditions relating to archaeological survey and mitigation measures for the protection of archaeological remains.
Environment Agency – No objection subject to conditions for flood risk/drainage, contaminated land.
Fire Officer – No objection. Advise on the installation of sprinklers. Allerdale Environmental Health – No objection subject to conditions relating to noise management, contamination/remediation, odour control, lighting, etc.
Health and Safety Executive - No comments received.
United Utilities – No objection.
The application has been advertised by press advert, neighbour letter and site notice. Two sets of ‘Further information’ have been provided during the consideration of the application and this has been advertised by press advert in accordance with the requirements of the EIA Regulations, as well as by neighbour letter.
The publicity period relating to the additional information received on the 14 th November 2014 is ongoing until 5 th December 2014. Members will be updated with any further representations by way of the late list. As set out above given the nature of the information to which the re-consultation related, this has not prejudiced Officers ability to undertake a robust assessment of the application proposals.
In response to the first round of consultation, 8 letters of Support were received and 58 letters of objection were received. Following the 1 st round of revised information (received August 2014), a petition with 25 signatures has been received requesting that Dovenby Hall be de-allocated for employment and protected for its heritage and ecology value, 30 letters of support have been received and 160 letters of objection have been received.
In addition, two reports have been provided by Acoustic Consultancies on behalf of members of the public. Two further letters have been received from Clarke Saunders Acoustics, the first highlights that a number of aspects of the Council’s Scoping Opinion have not been addressed and the second highlights that the re-submission does not address the Council’s request for additional information.
The representations received, the two consultants reports and additional letters are summarised within Annex 2.
Main Issues:
Sustainable Development
Policy S1 of the Allerdale Local Plan (Part 1) reflects advice contained within the NPPF requiring a presumption in favour of sustainable development. The Council is committed to work proactively to secure development that improves the economic, social and environmental conditions in the area.
Economic Benefits
The NPPF has as one of a number of core planning principles, the need to proactively drive and support sustainable economic development to deliver business and industrial units. It requires that every effort should be made objectively to identify and then meet the business and other development needs of an area, and respond positively to wider opportunities for growth, taking account of the needs of business communities.
Paragraph 19 of the NPPF states that, ‘The Government is committed to ensuring that the planning system does everything it can to support sustainable economic growth. Planning should operate to encourage and not act as an impediment to sustainable growth. Therefore significant weight should be placed on the need to support economic growth through the planning system’. (Italics added).
Of particular relevance to achieving economic growth are Strategic Objectives SO3a and SO3d of the Allerdale Local Plan 2014, which respectively seek to diversify the urban and rural economic base of Allerdale to enable a prosperous mixed, low carbon economy, including creative knowledge based industries, specialist engineering, energy and tourism sectors and to provide a wide range of modern, high quality employment sites and premises to meet existing business needs and emerging sectors.
A number of policies of the Allerdale Local Plan recognise that whilst some developments may result in harm to recognised important assets, there may be circumstances where public benefits from a proposal and/or, significant economic or social benefits, may outweigh the identified harm. In order to assist with this policy assessment, the economic benefits of this proposal are set out here.
M Sport has been established at the Dovenby Hall Estate for over 10 years, which includes its headquarters and its base for developing rally cars for the World Rally Championship. The applicant’s submission indicates that the current operation on site employs approx. 200 people and its spend within the local supply chain, currently runs in excess of £1.7M per annum, representing around 40 indirect jobs throughout Cumbria. Subsequent to the withdrawal of Ford Motor Co. from rallying in 2012, M Sport has secured a new partner for sponsorship in the WRC programme – the State of Qatar. M Sport are now also working with Bentley Motors, to design, develop and manufacture then manage their return to the GT3 Series with the Continental GT. The Research and Development work at M Sport is stated as being cutting edge in the context of motor engineering, requiring a very skilled work force at a world class level, most of whom are West Cumbrian based.
The existing M Sport workshop and manufacturing facility is stated as being over capacity and restricting further business development and employment. The submission indicates that without the ability to expand at Dovenby, it would be necessary to consider re-location of the business nationally or globally. Should M Sport relocate their core business away from West Cumbria, this would result in the loss of skilled jobs and would adversely impact on the local economy and therefore the support that this development provides for the retention of the existing jobs and related benefits is in itself significant.
A number of documents within the applicant’s submission include details on the benefits of the proposal to M Sport, these are summarised as:
• Expanded facilities will support M Sport’s aspiration to become accredited under the “FIA Sustainability Program”. McLaren F1 are the only Team/Company currently accredited in the UK and M Sport aim to become the first Rally Team. • All the major WRC teams have their own facilities at their home base, including Citroën, Volkswagen and others who are in direct competition with M Sport. The proposal would therefore address this disadvantage. • It will provide M Sport with an excellent and unique platform to enter wider very specialised motorsport sectors, ensuring greater security of existing jobs whilst creating further high value employment locally. • The facility proposed will provide M Sport with the ability to offer unrivalled research & development coupled with testing & evaluation facilities. • The road car development opportunities would provide M Sport with longer term and more definable growth as this side of the business needs far greater advance planning. M Sport can position itself as an integral part of the manufacturers thought process from the outset. • The proposal would allow for an enhancement of the profile of the business through corporate and sponsor activity events and development of a world class training facility.
The submission confirms that: • The auto sport sector is worth around £9 billion to the UK economy and the M Sport facility is the only part of that industry based in Cumbria. • The automotive sector is the fastest growing area of manufacturing within the UK. • The proposal will help to maintain the existing local work force at the current level of circa 200 (the majority of the workforce are skilled manual labour - approximately 70%, around 20% technical and scientific and the remaining employees in administrative roles (or similar).The majority of these roles are full- time, permanent positions. • Increased business will also impact upon spend within the local supply chain • The proposed scheme will generate an estimated 200 temporary employment opportunities for the construction of the MEC and testing and evaluation facility. For the outline planning application, it is estimated that 60 temporary employment opportunities for the construction of the hotel and an estimated 50 temporary employment opportunities for the office and future expansion space, at peak, will be generated during the construction phase. • Once operational, it is anticipated that the proposed scheme will generate an additional 100 permanent employees associated with the testing and evaluation facility. The types of skills for these additional roles are likely to be the same as the proportions above for existing employees. However, the number of employment opportunities associated with the operation of the proposed hotel development, office and future expansion space, is not known at this stage. • In the financial year 2012/13, M-Sport had 285 companies in its supply chain, of which 225 were located in Cumbria. The annual spend on supply chain was £2.5 million, with £1.7 million of the total being spent on those Cumbria-based businesses. The M-Sport facility is host to about 2,000 visitors a year and in 2012/13 M-Sport booked approximately 750 bed-spaces, thereby making a direct contribution to local businesses. The proposed scheme would safeguard the retention of this contribution and the additional business activities associated with the proposed scheme are expected to increase this contribution.
Under separate cover, the applicant has confirmed that the proposed testing and evaluation facility alone would involve an investment of £19 million.
Officers concur with the conclusions of the Socio – Economic Technical Appendix that the economic impacts of the proposed evaluation facility by way of increased employment/ level of investment and increased spend generally would be significantly beneficial, particularly to the local area where employment levels are below the national average. Further, the value of those jobs to be created is considered to increase as a result of the proportion that would be skilled or relate to technical/scientific. Further employment and spend within the supply chain could be expected from those uses subject to the outline application also, but which cannot be estimated at this time.
In accordance with Paragraph 19 of the NPPF, the economic benefits of the proposal and the resulting support to economic growth carries ‘significant weight’. The proposals would make a positive and significant contribution to those identified strategic objectives of the Allerdale Local Plan relating specifically to economic growth and those policies which seek to support expanding businesses (particularly S2 and S14).
Principle of Uses
Saved Site Allocation Policy REM 10 The Allerdale Local Plan (Part 1) 2014 has ‘saved’ policy REM10 of the previous plan pending review as part of the production of the Site Allocations DPD This Policy is site specific to Dovenby Hall. The policy provides guidance on the future of the then vacant Dovenby hospital, whilst seeking to safeguard the significant amenity value of the hospital site as a whole. The policy contains a number of criteria and concludes by listing an extensive number of uses that would be acceptable, most pertinent to this proposal; business accommodation, Class B1 high tech development, and a hotel, whilst other uses will be treated on merit.
The existing re-development by M-Sport has achieved the intention of the policy to an extent by securing the re-use of the listed Dovenby Hall and a number of ancillary buildings, whilst retaining much of the parkland grounds. However, there does remain a number of buildings on site which are not fully utilised. The Local Plan review will need to recognise that this is an existing high quality employment site and has a role to play in the local economy. Therefore it remains for the proposal to be considered in the context of this policy and in the round with relevant policies of the Allerdale Local Plan (Part 1) 2014.
In principle, saved Policy REM10 is supportive of the majority of the proposed land uses.
With regards to other relevant policies of the plan, the principle of the proposed uses are considered as follows:
Principle of expanded business operations (Evaluation centre and test facility) Both national and local policy supports sustainable economic growth. Policy S12 of the Adopted Local Plan explicitly supports the upgrade, extension or intensification of existing business where the scale and use are appropriate for the local area and the proposal does not result in overriding adverse impacts on the surrounding area. Further, policy S14 of the Adopted Local Plan supports the expansion of existing rural businesses, subject to similar criteria outlined in Policy S12. As such, the principle of expanding an existing business is considered to be encouraged by policy at the national and local level.
Principle of future expansion space, and proposed offices The applicant has confirmed that the future expansion space and proposed offices could be for either related future development of M Sport or non-related occupancy. The site currently contains a number of businesses, not just M Sport and the site is noted within the Local Plan for its high quality office provision. Whilst the principle of expanding existing businesses by way of additional expansion space and offices would be supported in principle by policies S12, D14 and DM4, the provision of office space that is unrelated to existing businesses should normally be assessed against national and local policies promoting town centre locations first. Set against this is the inclusion of offices, in saved policy REM10 and the established role of the site which includes providing office space for businesses not connected with M Sport. The Local Plan recognises the role of Dovenby Hall as a location for high quality office space.
Principle of Hotel Use The NPPF and the Allerdale Local Plan recognise the importance of promoting the vitality and viability of town centres, by encouraging a diverse mix of uses and directing appropriate develop to a recognised hierarchy of settlements. Proposals for Town Centre uses, including hotels are expected to be located within existing centres. Where development is proposed outwith the recognised centres, Policy S16 of the Allerdale Local Plan states that a sequential approach following that set out in the NPPF (Paragraph 24-25) will be required to justify the location. Applications for main town centre uses outside of these defined centres will be refused where the applicant has not demonstrated compliance with the sequential approach to site selection, or where there is clear evidence that the proposal would have a significant adverse impact on the vitality and viability of a nearby centre. Where proposals are sequentially justified, an impact assessment will be required if they have a floor area above 300sqm (Policy DM8).
In accordance with Policy S16, the application includes a sequential assessment in relation to Cockermouth, which is the closest service centre to the application site. The assessment considers one alternative site within Cockermouth, the former Fire Service Headquarters. The site is dismissed on the basis that there is residential interest, which makes the site prohibitively expensive, and its size (1.4ha) and irregular shape (long and thin), would mean that the site was not sufficiently large to accommodate the desired development. However, no further information has been provided to demonstrate that the cost is prohibitive or that an appropriate layout could not be achieved (i.e. through illustrative plans). The only additional information states that ‘the remainder of the town centre does not have any sites of sufficient size for the proposed developed’. No ‘edge of centre’ sites are referred to, which would remain sequentially preferable.
The covering letter relating to the submitted ‘Further Information’ indicates that the required ‘Impact Assessment’ has been provided within the Socio Economic Technical Appendix. It is noted however that this assessment is general in nature rather than a detailed assessment of the impact of the development on the vitality and viability of existing town centres.
Policy S17 of the Allerdale Local Plan Part 1, 2014 is also relevant and is specific to tourism accommodation such as hotels. This specifies that visitor accommodation will only be supported within Principal, Key and Local Service Centres, rural villages and other locations where the attraction is locationally dependent upon an existing heritage or environmental asset, or where it relates to a farm diversification scheme or existing tourist accommodation business.
In conclusion, the principle of expanding the existing business is considered to be supported by relevant employment policies of the Allerdale Local Plan, Part 1 2014 and the additional office development is considered to be acceptable when considered in relation to saved policy REM10.
If assessed simply with reference to Local Plan Polices S16 and S17 it could be argued that the policy case for the hotel development has not been fully demonstrated. However it should be noted that a hotel has been previously been approved at this location under planning reference 2/2002/0424, (albeit, this hotel scheme was of a smaller scale than that currently being considered) and a hotel is an acceptable use having regard to saved Policy REM10. On balance therefore it is considered that the proposed hotel is acceptable as part of the overall development proposal for the Dovenby Hall Estate.
Scale/Location of Development
Policy S3 of the current Plan sets the framework for development across the Plan Area, outlining the Council’s approach to the scale, location and distribution of growth. It defines the settlement hierarchy, which sets out the role of settlements, including the form and scale of development that would be expected within the towns and villages and what is acceptable in the open countryside. Policy S5 supports this approach and gives additional advice as to the scale of development appropriate to settlements within the hierarchy. Dovenby is classed as an Infill/Rounding Off Village, where development should be of a ‘very small scale and relative to its size’.
However, the Dovenby Hall Estate is a designated employment site under saved Policy REM10, which is a bespoke saved policy specifically for this site. Policy S12 of the new Plan provides support for new employment/expanding businesses on allocated employment sites and S14 supports the expansion of rural businesses. Policy S2 also recognises the need to allocate land and premises of the right quality to meet the expansion needs of existing businesses. It is considered that development at this location of a scale in excess of that envisaged by policies S3 and S5 in the hierarchy, i.e. very small scale, is reasonably justified by the retained allocation of the site for employment uses. Saved policy REM10 recognised, notwithstanding the position of Dovenby in the settlement hierarchy, that the need to secure the reuse of the site did require an individual approach and a scale of development that would not normally be supported in such a location.
Policy REM10 advises that the aggregate area of building, including new development should not exceed the total floor space of the then existing development, in order to safeguard the amenity value of the site, unless there are overriding environmental, landscape, social or economic beneficial impacts. In relation to scale, Policies S12 and S14 advise that development should be appropriate to the local area.
The scale of the proposed development is extensive and it is considered to exceed that envisaged for the site by saved policy REM10 and Policy S12/Policy S14. However, the applicant has put forward information to demonstrate that there is a need for this level of expansion to secure the future success and growth of the business, particularly by way of the proposed evaluation centre and testing facility subject of the full application. The business would have to re-locate from the present site, or operate as a split site to achieve this expansion by other means, or to conform to the settlement hierarchy. Both options are considered likely to have significant financial implications and/or operational difficulties, not least in terms of land acquisition, which would have implications for viability.
Development in excess of the original footprint of the Dovenby Hall Estate can be justified under policy REM10 where there are overriding environmental, landscape, social or economic beneficial impacts. The economic benefits of the proposal have been set out above and are considerable, attracting significant weight. It is considered that these benefits override the requirement within policy REM10 to limit development to the aggregate floor space.
Noise Impacts
The proposal has the potential to generate noise from a number of different sources, including but not limited to; demolition of existing buildings, construction of all aspects of the proposal, operation and use of the hotel, operation and use of the evaluation centre, external plant areas, operation and use of offices and future expansion space, and in particular, the outdoor proving and testing facility for track and rally cars, and road cars, and ancillary recreational noise associated with driving of cars associated with corporate events, as well as increased noise arising from the intensified use of the site, particularly vehicles entering and exiting.
The proposed testing facility is considered to have the most potential for noise generation. In relation to residential properties within Dovenby village, the testing track at its closest point will be approx. 250m (to Linden House) on the A594. Nearest properties within the village itself will be approx. 310m from the testing track at its closest point (1 The Cottages). With regards to the proximity of other villages, Bridekirk, Tallentire, Papcastle and Little Broughton are all within 2km of the Dovenby Hall Estate.
With regards to the assessment of noise, the NPPF at Paragraph 109 states that the planning system should contribute to and enhance the natural and local environment by amongst other things, ‘preventing both new and existing development from contributing to or being put at unacceptable risk from, or being adversely affected by unacceptable levels of noise pollution.
Paragraph 123 states that planning decisions should aim to avoid noise from giving rise to significant adverse impacts on health and quality of life as a result of new development; mitigate and reduce to a minimum other adverse impacts on health and quality of life arising from noise from new development, including through the use of conditions; recognise that development will often create some noise and existing businesses wanting to develop in continuance of their business should not have unreasonable restrictions put on them because of changes in nearby land uses since they were established; and identify and protect areas of tranquillity which have remained relatively undisturbed by noise and are prized for their recreational and amenity value for this reason.
Further advice in relation to noise is provided within the online Planning Practice Guidance: Noise. This advice references the Noise Policy Statement and outlines the consideration of noise in respect to ‘Observed Effects Levels’. In particular, the advice indicates that: • where the perception of noise is noticeable and intrusive (observed adverse effect), the noise should be mitigated and reduced to a minimum. • where the perception of noise is noticeable and disruptive (significant observed adverse effect), the noise should be avoided. • where the perception of noise is noticeable and very disruptive (unacceptable adverse effect), the noise should be prevented. Policy S32 of the Allerdale Local Plan 2014 seeks to prevent development which amongst other things, would result in pollution or hazards which prejudice the health and safety of communities and their environments, or result in a detrimental effect on the local area in terms of visual amenity, distinctive character or environmental quality. Further, policy S12 requires that the extension or intensification of existing business should not result in overriding adverse impacts on the surrounding area.
With regards to this issue, the applicant has provided a number of reports, including:
• A Noise Management Plan • An Assessment of Community Noise Levels • Environmental Statement - Main Statement Volume II (Chapter 8 Noise) • Noise Technical Appendix Volume 3 • Construction Environmental Impact Management Plan
The supporting information provided by M Sport indicates the following in terms of their requirements to achieve a successful development:
• potential evaluation requirements for up to 416 vehicle tests per annum for M Sport rally car production, plus private customer vehicle testing. This document states that the majority of testing and evaluation will be carried out by cars fitted with attenuators to control noise emissions. In addition the GT 3 Series potential requirements will be 400+ vehicle tests per annum, thus totalling approx. 900 vehicles tests per annum across Rally and GT 3 Series. In addition are the opportunities for production car evaluation. This usage reflects the existing demands from current and expected contracts in 2014/15.
• A key requirement of the investment plan is to provide for business growth across wider motor sport sectors, road car development, increased sponsorship/franchise and production of rally/race vehicles for the team competition and private customers. It is thus intended as part of the business model to seek an increased requirement of 20% over the next 5 years.
• 10 corporate/sponsor events per year, all of which are stated as requiring a driver experience; most events are for two to three days; this is likely to increase in the future and would involve the current contractual requirement for the two principal WRC drivers to support sponsor events for 30 days each per year. These are likely to be the same events and would thus involve some 30 driver days. To this can be added visits by motor clubs including those who specialise in particular marques. These would normally be a single day activity but again require a driving experience. Provision needs to be made for a minimum of 10 such visits per annum (day event).
• M-Sport are seeking permission for 126 days use above the applicable noise limit relevant to the current operation (45dB at the nearest noise sensitive property)) (see pyramid below for more detail).
• Hours of operation are sought between 8.30am and 5pm during summertime (BST) and 8.30am and 7pm wintertime (GMT), but additional limitations in the hours of use are proposed specific to the requested noise categories.
The following pyramid has been provided by the applicant and sets out their request with regards to noise limits/categories for their operations:
The proposal has a number of measures to provide noise mitigation from the external testing facility, including: • A specifically developed silencer, which would be used where practicable on vehicles using the test facility. The silencer has shown a noise reduction of 16- 20dB. • Earth bunding to sections of the test track facility, approx. 3.0m – 3.5m in height. • Noise Management Plan, including the pyramid approach setting out when certain noise levels can be generated, on which days and for how long (see above).
The specifically developed silencer would not be used for all testing purposes, as it may affect engine performance. Nor is it understood that the silencer would be used by private cars visiting the premises as part of ‘events’ for Motor Clubs etc. The development of this silencer is however important in assisting M Sport to comply with the noise management regime proposed.
Applicant’s Submission
The submitted ‘Noise Technical Appendix’ is the detailed report that provides the applicant’s assessment of the significance of the predicted noise effects of the proposal. The report is summarised as follows:
Use of the testing facility (external) • The assessment criteria for the test track uses LAeq 1 Hour for comparison of existing and proposed noise levels. • In terms of absolute noise level criteria, a noise level of 55 dBLAeq,1hour has been applied as the threshold above which a significant effect will occur. • Where noise levels at receptors are predicted to be between 3 to 4.9dB above existing LAeq levels, the effects are considered to be moderate, with an effect level at ‘Significant Observed Adverse Effect Level’. Where noise levels are greater than 5dB above existing LAeq 1 Hour, the effects are considered to be major, with an effect level at ‘Unacceptable Observed Adverse Effect Level’. • Effects of ‘Moderate’ or greater are considered to be significant in EIA terms, albeit Table 2.2 states that only noise levels of 55dB or above, are considered to be moderate/major and therefore ‘significant’. • The tranquillity of the site and immediate surroundings is assessed as falling within CPRE Zones 5 to 6, medium sensitivity. • For existing commercial occupiers within the Dovenby Hall Estate, external noise levels at Sutton, Pattinson & The Theatre will be similar to those of receptor R2. The predicted noise levels tested are external to the buildings and, therefore, the tenants will experience lower levels of noise. The construction of these buildings are masonry with double glazed windows which will have a sound reduction from the building structure in the region of 30dB. Based on the unmitigated scenario from the test track, the predicted noise level inside the commercial premises as a result of the use of the test and evaluation facility will be 25dBLAeq,1hour and the noise effect will be negligible. • Baseline Noise Monitoring indicates levels at Dovenby Village of 34-46dB LA90 1hour, and 53-62dB LAeq 1 hour. • In relation to motor sport noise, measured trackside noise levels of a WRC is stated as 81/82dB LAeq 1 hour). In a fully unmitigated scenario, Moderate to Major impacts are predicted at 4 out of 8 representative receptor locations, with combined noise levels above 55dBLAeq 1 hour, at all locations. • With a 16dB reduction from the fitted super silencer, the anticipated trackside source noise level would be 66dBLAeq 1 Hour. In a mitigated scenario incorporating the fitted silencer, ‘Negligible’ impacts are predicted for the 8 representative receptor locations. (Table 4.3) • Paragraph 4.15 states that testing with a fitted silencer will comprise the vast majority of the operating time of the test facility.
Use of the MEC facility • Operations will be undertaken internally and it is assumed that roller shutter doors will remain predominantly shut. • Predicted daytime & nightime noise levels are stated to be within required criteria, resulting in a ‘Negligible’ impact.
Road Traffic Noise • Increased road traffic noise as a result of the development (as opposed to without the development) is anticipated to trigger a difference ranging from 0.1 – 1.1dB in the short term and 0.1 – 0.9 in the long term, for the 8 representative receptors. These effects are considered to be ‘Negligible to Minor’.
External Plant (for the MEC, future expansion space, the office and the hotel) • Emission levels for plant in relation to each use are provided, along with noise rating levels for the plant at 11 representative receptor locations, daytime and night-time. • For all receptors, noise levels would be at or below 35dB (daytime) and 30dB (night-time) • These effects are considered to be ‘Negligible’
Proposed Hotel – Internal Noise levels • Internal noise criteria for the hotel to be defined by the end user. The external testing facility is predicted to generate noise levels at this location of 49dB, and the MEC 19dB. • Assuming a 15dB attenuation from an openable window, it is predicted that internal noise levels will fall below 35dB LAeq 16Hour criteria referred to within BS 8233 for good resting conditions during the daytime period. • Higher levels of noise reduction would be achievable with ventilation that does not rely on open windows.
Tranquility • There will be periods when noise from the proposed facility will be audible, however, impacts will be only short term duration and transient. • Negligible change from other noise sources. • On this basis, it is considered that the proposed scheme will not significantly change the character of adjacent footpaths, with no ‘significant’ effects.
Construction Mitigation • The submitted Construction Environmental Management Plan will provide methods of working and control to address construction noise effects. • Specific mitigation for the construction of the hotel would include a 2.5m hoarding to act as a barrier between the construction works and the houses at receptor location 8., reducing site noise levels to 65dB LAeq,T • Such measures are considered to limit any ‘Significant’ effects.
Operational Mitigation • Paragraph 4.3 states that when the silencer is not in use, effects which are significant are likely, therefore noise bunds are proposed to minimise noise as far as practicable. • With bunding (and without the silencer), combined noise levels at the 8 receptors vary from 53 – 57dB LAeq 1 Hour. These impacts are assessed ranging from Minor to Moderate (Moderate for two properties only on the basis that no difference in levels exceeds 5dB). Where the significance of effect is moderate, to the south of the testing and evaluation facility (R1 and R7), the predicted noise level are below 55 dBLAeq,1hour. Therefore, residual effects which are significant are not predicted with or without the use of a super silencer. • Table 4.11 predicts that with bunding and a silencer, there will Negligible effects at all 8 receptor locations. • 60dB days and No Limit days will provide a safety margin, should the anticipated 55dBLAeq 1 Hour be exceeded. • The Noise Management Plan guarantees a maximum amount of noise in any year. • Nominated testing facility controller to ensure compliance.
Predicted effects • Predicted effects for both construction and operation are not considered to be ‘significant’.
Officer Assessment:
In assessing the potential adverse impacts relating to noise, it is important to note that the relevant test relates to the Development Plan in terms of protection of residential amenity/residents living conditions to an appropriate standard and not whether the proposal will result in a ‘nuisance’. ‘Nuisance’ is a separate test under differing legislation (the Environmental Protection Act, 1990).
The element of the proposal which is considered to have the most potential for noise generation is the external testing facility. There is no single criterion to determine the acceptability or otherwise of noise levels from particular sorts of activity associated with vehicle testing relating to motor sports/road cars or for motor sports and recreation. Various planning appeal decisions and case law exists on the subject, but invariably relates to proposals with different circumstances to this current proposal, including differing forms of vehicle activity, areas with a differing noise character, sites with differing physical characteristics or sites where noisy activities have been established historically.
The World Health Organisation (WHO) guidelines indicate that moderate or serious annoyance would be negligible at levels below 50-55dB (A). However, noise emissions associated with vehicle testing relating to motor sport/road cars or for motor sports and recreation are not a steady continuous noise, it is of a non-continuous nature, with the potential for distinct tones.
Albeit the Dovenby Hall Estate contains a number of existing commercial uses, and the A594 to the north of the site is noted, the local area remains rural in character, generally quiet, with relatively low background noise levels.
A number of concerns are noted with the Noise Technical Appendix:
• Calculations have been based on “neutral‟ weather conditions although it is acknowledged that during varying wind conditions a +/- 7dB correction could occur. The assessment states that noise predictions of vehicles using the testing and evaluation facility are based on a worst case scenario, but it is unclear how this can be the case if “neutral” wind conditions have been relied on. The effect of wind direction on noise has the potential to alter the noise levels experienced within the community, both in a positive and negative manner (whether upwind or downwind of the noise source). This could have implications for the achievable reduction in noise levels from trackside to the community from the testing facility and it could mean that the effects of noise within the assessment have been underestimated. • Concerns that the assessment methodology applied may be overly simplistic for such an unpredictable noise source. 1. A comparison of existing noise levels to proposed noise levels using LAeq 1 hour has been used. The assessment of effects within the Noise Impact Assessment does not provide a comparison of background noise levels (L90) (i.e. the noise level experienced 90% of the time) to the source noise level. Background levels (L90) at nearby properties are lower than levels expressed using the LAeq 1 hour (average noise level over 1 hour). The assessment does not include a penalty for tonal characteristics associated with this type of noise source. 2. Use of LAeq 1 hour for predicted noise within the assessment gives a noise average over 1 hour and does not therefore recognise noise peaks, as indicated by LAMax. 3. The submission states, ‘In terms of absolute noise level criteria, a noise level of 55 dBLAeq, 1hour has been applied as the threshold above which a significant effect will occur, referencing the WHO Guidelines. However, the WHO guidelines assume a continuous noise source, the testing of vehicles proposed would not be continuous and may contain characteristics potentially harmful to amenity despite achieving the average hourly level. Whilst some information has been provided on background and maximum levels within the supporting appendix, these do not form part of the main assessment of effects within the NIA/ES. • The sections of the assessment entitled ‘Motor Sport Noise’ consider the significance of effects arising from a World Rally Car (WRC) with and without a silencer/bunding, on the basis that this will be the loudest vehicle used for ‘testing’ purposes. However, the application seeks permission for other uses that do not relate to testing, such as corporate events or use by motor clubs. The assessment does not consider other cars that are likely to use the test track which may have higher noise levels. This could mean that the effects of noise within the assessment have been underestimated. • The sections of the assessment entitled ‘Motor Sport Noise’ do not consider Category 1 Days where noise in the community could reach up to 75dB for 6 days of the year, nor does it assess whether these effects will be significant/harmful to residential amenity. • The submitted assessment indicates that moderate adverse effects will result from an increase greater than 3dB but less than 5dbLAeq, subject to a minimum noise level of 55dB. Moderate adverse effects equate to a ‘Significant Observed Adverse Effect Level, which should be avoided’. Major adverse effects will result from an increase greater than 5dbLAeq, subject to a minimum noise level of 55dB. Major adverse effects are stated as equating to an ‘Unacceptable Observed Adverse Effect Level, which should be prevented’. Category 1 activity (6 days per year at 75dB LAeq) would therefore have a Major adverse effect equating to an ‘Unacceptable Observed Adverse Effect Level, which guidance recommends should be prevented. No justification/assessment as to the acceptability or otherwise of this is provided within the applicant’s submission. • A comparison of the background level to the source level for all categories would indicate a greater magnitude of change to the noise environment than comparison with the hourly average, resulting in a greater overall effect, potentially falling within ‘moderate’ or ‘major’ adverse effects (equating to a Significant Observed Adverse Effect Level, which should be avoided’ or a Unacceptable Observed Adverse Effect Level, which should be prevented’), when the WHO guidelines of 55dB are not relied on.
The queries/concerns raised in the reports prepared by MAS Environmental and Clarke Saunders Acoustics are also noted.
The proposal sets categories for use relating to noise levels and the number of days that these noise levels can be reached. These noise levels would relate to the community, but would be achieved by monitoring trackside noise and securing a reduction in noise levels from trackside to the community. The key issue for the Council is therefore to assess whether the community levels proposed would be acceptable in relation to the living conditions of nearby residents. However, the robustness of the assessment prepared by the applicant is critical to understanding the likely effects of the proposed community levels and whether the reduction in noise levels from trackside to the community is achievable. Ultimately the applicant would be responsible for complying with any applied community levels should permission be granted, but it would not be appropriate for the Council to give planning permission to the scheme if it considered that the necessary reduction from trackside to the community could not be achieved.
Advice on the proposal has been sought from Environmental Health. EH Officers advise that having considered all the information submitted and subsequent discussions with the applicant , the main objective was to consider the impact on surrounding amenity and where possible to minimise the impact of this development. Due consideration was given to the issues raised by objectors, and these concerns been reflected in our recommendations to restrict and control the proposed operations on site. This proposal is unique in some respects as EH Officers are not aware that such a testing facility exists within the UK, therefore it is not possible to make a direct comparison to other similar operations. Account has been taken of the most appropriate assessment criteria in accordance with current UK guidance. EH Officers advise that the use of the test track will meet World Health Organisation (WHO) guideline values, with the exception of Category 1 days which are now limited to 6 days per annum, with only 1 day every 2 months (maximum of three hours a day). It is the view of Environmental Health that the World Health Organisation Guidelines (WHO) and British Standard Code of Practice BS8233: 1999 are the correct guidance documents for the applicant to reference, which they have with their category 2, 3 and 4 days. There have been discussions regarding the use of BS4142 ,the Standard describes a method for rating and assessing sound of an industrial and/or commercial nature. The revised standard (4 th Edition Oct 2014) is not intended to be applied to the rating and assessment of sound from all forms of motorsport or indeed the assessment of low frequency noise which is associated with vehicle emissions.
As part of their assessment, EH Officers have considered the operational restrictions of motor sport venues elsewhere within the UK, however this information had to be treated with caution as this proposal is not a motorsport venue and only a test facility with restricted days and times of operation. Recommended conditions require an operational Noise Management Plan to be in place at the proposed facility prior to first use. This document is a working document and will be updated regularly. EH Officers have set out community levels which must be complied with, and which it is will provide a satisfactory standard of amenity.
EH Officers have recommended a range of noise control measures to control noise levels within the community, and to control activities on site. A draft Noise Management Plan has been provided and is considered broadly acceptable. A final version of this would be required to be agreed by condition to ensure some additional control measures are incorporated. This document would make provision for the day to day operational management of the site, including a complaints procedure, monitoring, and would incorporate measures to account for wind conditions on site.
On the basis of advice from EH Officers, it is considered that subject to a robust noise management plan, the proposed testing facility could be operated in a manner that maintains an appropriate standard of residential amenity for residents within the locality. Whilst it would not be possible to eliminate all noise for residents, it is considered that subject to the mitigation measures proposed and the recommended conditions, the adverse effects on living conditions would not be unacceptable. The proposal is therefore considered to be acceptable in this respect with regards to Policy S32 of the Allerdale Local Plan (Part 1) 2014.
Other elements of the proposal have the potential to create noise and disturbance, such as the hotel or the evaluation centre, or from associated plant/machinery.
With regards to the evaluation centre, Environmental Health is satisfied that suitable conditions can be applied to minimise noise emissions to an acceptable level.
With regards to the hotel, offices and future expansion space, the layout of these elements are indicative at this stage, but indicative measurements suggest separation distances from the hotel to the nearest dwelling at approx. 60m and in excess of 80m for the proposed expansion space (further for the offices). Parking and circulation areas for the hotel could potentially be closer depending on the finalised layout. Amenity issues for these elements of the scheme would need to be fully considered at the detailed design stage, but based on the separation distances involved, it is considered that noise and disturbance from these uses could be adequately mitigated by design or controlled through conditions. Environmental Health concur with this and have recommended a number of conditions in this respect.
Overall, the proposal is considered to be acceptable in relation to policy S32 subject to conditions.
It is noted from a number of public representations that concerns are raised in respect to the applicant’s submission and whether the requirements of the LPA’s Scoping Opinion/Request for additional information have been met. Advice from EH Officers relating to the applicability of BS4142 has been provided above. Officers are satisfied that a sufficient level of information has been provided with the proposal to allow an appropriate level of assessment.
Heritage Impacts including consideration of Design
In relation to heritage, paragraphs 132 – 134 of the NPPF offer specific advice and require 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. The more important the asset, the greater the weight should be. As heritage assets are irreplaceable, any harm or loss should require clear and convincing justification.
Dovenby Hall is Grade II listed, and the NPPF advises that ‘Substantial harm to or loss of a grade II listed building, park or garden should be exceptional. Where a proposed development will lead to substantial harm to or total loss of significance of a designated heritage asset, local planning authorities should refuse consent, unless it can be demonstrated that the substantial harm or loss is necessary to achieve substantial public benefits that outweigh that harm or loss. Where a development proposal will lead to less than substantial harm to the significance of a designated heritage asset, this harm should be weighed against the public benefits of the proposal, including securing its optimum viable use'. Policy S27 of the Allerdale Local Plan 2014 reflects this approach. Further, Policy S28 of the Allerdale Local Plan provides advice specifically for the Hadrian’s Wall World Heritage Site.
Section 66 of the Planning (Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas) Act 1990 (“the Listed Buildings Act”) imposes a general duty as respects listed buildings in exercise of planning functions, “In considering whether to grant planning permission for development which affects a listed building or its setting, the local planning authority or, as the case may be, the Secretary of State shall have special regard to the desirability of preserving the building or its setting or any features of special architectural or historic interest which it possesses.”
In respect to heritage issues, the applicant has provided a number of documents, primarily, a Heritage Technical Appendix, Chapter 5 of the Main Environmental Statement, and Archaeological Evaluation Report. The applicant has also commissioned an extensive programme of archaeological work in order to determine the archaeological impact of the proposed development.
Archaeology The development lies within a landscape which includes Roman and medieval landscape features. Undated earthworks lie within the proposed development areas. It is considered possible that unrecorded archaeological remains may lie within the site, specifically within the western areas. For these reasons, an extensive programme of archaeological work was agreed with the County Archaeologist and undertaken by the applicant prior to submission of the application. This process has involved physical survey/trial trenching of areas of particular interest within the site and has identified further features of archaeological interest.
The applicant’s submission identifies possible impacts on archaeological remains from the proposed hotel and associated surface water drainage, the evaluation centre and testing facility, including sound attenuation bunds to the southern part of the site. Without mitigation, these assets are considered to be of low significance generally and therefore, the applicant’s submission contends that the impacts would be moderate, giving rise to a slight adverse effect overall.
The advice of the County Archaeologist has been sought with regards to the archaeological implications of the proposal. In reference to the full application for the M Sport Evaluation Centre, the results of the archaeological work indicate that it is highly unlikely remains of the Roman road will be affected and also that it is unlikely currently unknown buried remains will be disturbed within this area of the site. No additional archaeological work is considered necessary within this area of the application site.
In reference to the outline application for future expansion space and the hotel, the applicant has confirmed that the proposed development will not physically impact upon the listed grade II medieval cross base and the undesignated assets of the two earthwork remains and the well. The County Archaeologist recommends that the undesignated heritage assets are protected during the course of the construction of the development by erecting fencing around them to ensure separation from the development works, secured by condition.
There is also some potential for currently unknown archaeological remains to survive in the future expansion space and hotel area of the site associated with the medieval village of Dovenby. This area has been unavailable for detailed archaeological investigation because of tree coverage. The County Archaeologist therefore recommends that, in the event planning consent is granted, an archaeological evaluation and, where necessary, a scheme of archaeological recording within this area be undertaken in advance of development, secured by condition.
Based on the advice of this consultee, it is considered that the archaeological implications of the proposal have been assessed to an acceptable level and that the adverse effects will not be significant subject to those conditions recommended. In this respect, the proposal is considered to be acceptable in relation to Policy S27 and advice contained within the NPPF.
Hadrian’s Wall WHS A Roman road, linking from Maryport to Papcastle is considered to fall within the south eastern area of the Dovenby Estate. This road and its links to the wider military features within the area which link to the Hadrian’s Wall World Heritage Site have been considered as part of the revised submission. The submission states that the installation of sound attenuation bunding to the south of the proposed scheme development area has the potential to impact upon the setting of the Roman Road, however, the road is not visible, and there is no discernable trace of the road in the landscape. Nor is it considered within the submission that there is any inter-visibility beyond, with the World Heritage Site or the Roman Fort at Papcastle. The submission states that the location of the estate within a natural hollow, and the extensive woodland surrounding it, mean that the proposed scheme affecting the internal areas of the estate are screened from the Roman Road and wider assets related to the Roman settlement of the area. The archaeological evaluation carried out also found no remains associated with the Roman Road. The submission states that there is a negligible impact on a heritage asset of high value giving rise to a neutral effect.
Advice on this issue has been specifically sought from English Heritage. They concur with the advice of the County Archaeologist with regards to possible impacts on archaeological remains within the site. In respect to the appreciation and understanding of the role of the Roman road connecting Maryport and Papcastle, (allowing movement between the forts and as a visual communication), English Heritage advise that topography of the rolling countryside and screening of site by mature trees mean that it is unlikely that the proposed development would be visible from the sites at Maryport or Papcastle and therefore, the proposal is considered unlikely to impact on the understanding of the line and functioning of the Roman road.
Based on the advice of this consultee, it is considered that the implications of the proposal in relation to the Hadrian’s Wall World Heritage Site would not be significant and in this respect, the proposal is considered to be acceptable in relation to Policies S27 and S28 of the Allerdale Local Plan, and advice contained within the NPPF.
Dovenby Hall Grade II listed building & medieval cross,
With regards to the two listed structures that it is considered have the potential to be affected by the proposal, the following impacts/comments are noted from the applicant’s submitted Heritage Technical Appendix.
Applicant’s submission:
• The setting of Dovenby Hall is a moderate contribution to the overall special interest of the asset. Construction phase effects: • The hotel development, the height of which is indicative at 13m, has the potential to impact directly on the setting of a Grade II listed medieval cross base. This feature is of medium value, reflected by the Grade II listed status. The loss of parkland setting and the creation of a new immediate setting (including the hotel development and attenuation pond) would have a moderate adverse impact, giving rise to a moderate adverse effect. • There will be no impact to the setting of the Grade II listed Dovenby Hall from the outline proposals for a hotel development, due to the presence of a mature and substantial tree line. • The development of the MEC and testing and evaluation facility across the eastern extent of the site will remove an area of historic parkland. • The felling of a line of mixed species trees is necessary for the installation of the proposed testing and evaluation facility; this is likely to remove the historic parkland landscaping which is still in existence across the eastern areas of the development area. The tree lined avenue is considered to be of medium value due to its association with the estate parklands setting. The MEC and testing and evaluation facility has the potential to impact upon the setting of the Grade II listed structure of Dovenby Hall. It is considered that the MEC and testing and evaluation facility will bring a change in the baseline in terms of noise levels and visual changes to the wider setting of the estate. This is as a result of the installation of new 3m - 3.5m earth sound attenuation bunds and a new testing and evaluation facility which will remove greenspace. This element of the proposed scheme would therefore have a moderate adverse impact on medium value assets giving rise to a moderate adverse effect. Cumulative effects: • It is considered that there will be significant cumulative impacts created by the development of the site and during the ten year master plan across the site. The loss of historic parkland associated with the construction of the MEC and testing and evaluation facility, followed by the creation of new hotel accommodation will remove large areas of woodland associated with the estate. These changes all would have an impact upon the setting of the Grade II listed medieval cross base and largely upon the Grade II listed Dovenby Hall, leading to isolation of these features within an increasingly modern developed location. However, there is the potential to utilise the existing topography and enhance the existing landscaping and woodland management which will retain the immediate sense of the place. Heritage assets affected by the proposed scheme are largely of low to medium value across the site. Prior to mitigation these impacts would be moderate adverse, giving rise to a slight adverse to moderate adverse effect. Operational phase effects: • Effects from the operational phase of the M- Sport mixed use development may arise as a result of the creation of a new MEC and testing and evaluation facility to the east of a Grade II listed structure. This asset is of medium, regional value. It is considered that increased visual intrusion and noise both to and from the new MEC and testing and evaluation facility will create a moderate adverse impact upon designated heritage assets, particularly the Grade II listed structures extant at the site, giving rise to a moderate adverse effect. Effects Post mitigation: • The largest impact will be the removal of the historic landscape of the estate parkland and the isolation of listed features within an evolving modern landscape. There are two significant impacts. The impact of a change in setting on the Grade II listed Dovenby Hall will constitute a medium impact on a moderate value asset, resulting in a moderate adverse effect; and the removal of ancient woodland will result in a medium impact on a moderate value asset causing a moderate adverse effect. • Following implementation of the incorporated mitigation measures, the number of adverse effects on locally important buildings and listed structures has been significantly reduced but some significant residual effects impacts remain. These are associated with the loss of the historic parkland leading to isolation of designated features. • Impacts to the setting of listed structures on the site are likely to be reduced following mitigation, but are still considered significant. • There are no significant effects upon the historic environment following mitigation. • The installation of the testing and evaluation facility is reversible and the land will be suitable for reinstatement following the use. There will be a residual impact from the loss of a historic tree line which is largely a nineteenth century insert. There will also be a partial loss of parkland, which remains as a residual impact. • The scheme preserves the elements of the setting which contribute to the special interest of the grade II listed Dovenby Hall through mitigation and design. The original setting of the Dovenby Hall estate parkland has been somewhat altered by the installation of hospital structures during the 1930’s and further during the installation of business properties in the 1990s. However, areas to the east of the site lie within a largely unspoilt and historic aspect. The positioning of the test track has been chosen so that the natural topography partially screens the aspect from Dovenby Hall. This is reinforced by landscaping and planting to screen the MEC and testing and evaluation facility. The construction of a sound bund will aim to preserve elements of rural setting during operation.
Officers have a number of concerns with the Heritage Technical Appendix as revised, in particular, that the impact of the proposed development on the parkland setting of Dovenby Hall has not been addressed comprehensively or consistently. Officers do not concur with a number of the comments reached within the report, which will have impacted upon the assessment and conclusions reached:
• The immediate surroundings of the listed hall are not considered to create an enclosed greenspace • The pasture fence is not considered to create visual disjointing, whilst it is a physical barrier, it is not a visual barrier, intervisibility with the wider park is retained. • Whilst the remains of the parkland setting have been impacted on by modern development, Officers do not concur that it is largely fragment, particularly the eastern and northern areas. • Adverse effects on the setting of the listed Hall are not limited to the construction phase, they will remain for the lifetime of the development and therefore the operational phase effects will have significant adverse effects also. • The submission does not clearly justify conclusions on the magnitude of change, therefore concerns are that adverse effects relating to felling of tree line/loss of parkland has been underestimated. • The impact of the bunding has only been considered in relation to possible direct impacts on the Roman Road, the visual impact on the setting has only been considered as a benefit to screen the testing facility, not as a reduction in the wider visibility of the parkland setting. • The submission concludes that the installation of the testing and evaluation facility is reversible. This would not be the case. This would be a permanent structure. It is unclear how this misunderstanding has influenced the conclusions of the submitted assessment. • The submission concludes that the ‘scheme preserves the elements of the setting which contribute to the special interest of the Grade II listed Hall through mitigation and design’. The proposal will not ‘preserve’ the setting of the listed Hall, it will result in the loss of much of the remaining parkland. Elsewhere, the submission does concur that post mitigation, significant adverse effects on setting will remain.
The Council’s Conservation Officer has provided advice on the proposal, summarised as follows: • It is considered that the historic and architectural interest of the Pele Tower and the architectural interest of the remainder of the Hall together contribute most to the significance of the listed building. The wider landscape is important to the setting of the Pele Tower in that it was located on high ground to be in a strong defensive position, but also, as the Hall was a large house, set within its own grounds, the grounds would have been a very important part of its setting. Since the 19 th century landscape was created/re-modelled, the parkland would have been highly valued, increasing its importance in respect of the Hall’s significance. This parkland setting would also have been important to the setting of the hospital and as such the setting of the hall during this time, even though new hospital buildings will have compromised the historic setting to some extent. • Since then, the visual setting has been compromised, particularly by the addition of the workshop, but also to some extent by other buildings in its land/curtilage and the use(s) of the site. Whilst the original parkland setting has been compromised, it still contributes to the importance and significance of the Hall. • Visually, the Hall’s setting will be further compromised by the proposed MEC building, and loss of trees and green space. However, some positive aspects of its setting will be retained such as its outlook to the front and sides of the Hall’s main elevation and as such that aspect of its significance will not be entirely lost. • The impact upon the setting would be quite significant and the impact upon the overall significance of the Hall, moderate. • The purpose of the Pele tower was defensive and as such its setting was based on far more distant views acquired by its elevation. Long distance views will not be affected by the proposal. However, the loss to the setting of the Hall will lead to a loss of significance of the whole Hall which obviously includes the Pele Tower. • If the Hall had still been in its original use and unaffected by modern buildings, then the harm to its setting would be more significant and the setting would have formed a greater part of its significance. In these circumstances, I may have considered that harm to the Hall to be substantial. • However, the overall impact upon the heritage asset is likely to be moderate. The impact upon the Hall (because of the quite significant impact upon its setting) to be moderate, but the impact on other areas to be less than moderate. As such, the impacts are likely to be significant, but they would not add up to ‘substantial harm’.
The proposal will not preserve or enhance the setting of the listed building, the impact on the setting of Dovenby Hall through the loss of much of what remains of its parkland setting, including areas of mature trees and woodland that contribute to the parkland and the understanding of the role the parkland has made historically to the Hall, will be harmful. Whilst at present, more modern forms of development are restricted mainly to south-western areas of the site, the proposal would extend the built form into a large area of the eastern parkland and to the north. However, the advice of the Council’s Conservation Officer is that existing modern development has already adversely affected the setting to such a degree that whilst the proposal would result in further harm, the effects of this on the heritage asset itself (i.e. the Hall) would not be ‘substantial’.
With regards to the medieval cross, the Council’s Conservation Officer advises that the history is uncertain but it appears that it has been re-sited to its present location. It is not known what the special interest or significance of the asset is but the submission states that the setting makes a minor contribution to the special interest and significance of the asset. It is difficult to determine the importance of the setting to the asset but given that it is not in its original location, it is reasonable to assume that the setting is not fundamental to the asset’s significance. Whilst it is considered most important to protect the asset itself during the construction and operational phase of the proposed hotel, the proposed change to its setting is not considered to be a substantial loss to the value of this heritage asset. Conditions could be proposed to secure protection, if planning permission is granted.
To conclude, it is considered that the proposal will have a harmful impact on the setting of Dovenby Hall. Policy S27 provides a presumption in favour of conserving all heritage assets and against allowing harm. This harm must be considered with the duty under s66 to have a special regard to the desirability of preserving the building or its setting or any features of special architectural or historic interest which it possesses. Where harm is identified either directly or by harming their setting, both the NPPF and Policy S27 require such proposals to be refused unless there is a clear and convincing public benefits that will outweigh the harm caused to the asset. As discussed above, the public benefits of this proposal are economic in the main and are considerable, attracting significant weight. It is considered that in this instance, these benefits outweigh the harm caused to the asset, and as such, the proposal is acceptable in relation to Policy S27 and the duty under s66. in this regard.
Demolition of non-listed buildings and alterations to non-listed structures
Demolition: The construction will require the demolition of up to seven buildings (Old School House (L), Hodgson House (K), Howard House (F), two ‘Y’ shaped storage buildings (G and H), McHugh (J) and Punnet (I)). These relate to twentieth century developments at Dovenby Hall including previous school buildings and hospital buildings. The applicant’s submission considers that the demolition of these buildings is considered to be a major adverse impact on a low value asset giving rise to a slight adverse effect. Officers do not raise any concerns with this assessment, these buildings are not architecturally or historically of importance and their loss is not considered to result in harm to the listed hall or its setting. In isolation from the proposed development, the demolition of these buildings would more than likely have a positive impact on the setting of the listed building.
Eastern access route: The widening of the existing track to 6m wide, at the eastern access entrance will impact upon one gate pier within the stone wall that surrounds large sections of the Dovenby Hall Estate. Whilst the piers are not listed they are linked to the historic entrance to the estate during the nineteenth century and a now demolished lodge house, thus are of some value. The construction works associated with widening the track for a new construction access road will see the temporary removal of the western gate pier. Following the termination of construction based activities, and prior to the reinstallation of the access route for emergency access, the western gate pier will be reinstated to within the same locale. The applicant’s submission states that this temporary movement will lead to a minor adverse impact on a low value asset giving rise to a neutral effect.
Given that the proposed alterations to this entrance way will be temporary in nature, any adverse effects are not considered to be significant, subject to appropriate conditions securing the re-construction of the access gates following the construction phase.
Design
Given the location of the proposed development within the parkland setting of Dovenby Hall, the consideration of the design of the new development is considered to be integral to the assessment of the proposal’s heritage impacts and for this reason, these two issues are considered in conjunction.
The NPPF places a strong emphasis on the achievement of good design, which extends beyond the aesthetics/architectural style of particular buildings. Paragraph 64 advises that, ‘Permission should be refused for development of poor design that fails to take the opportunities available for improving the character and quality of an area and the way it functions’. Policies S4 and DM14 of the Allerdale Local Plan Part 1 seeks to achieve high quality design for all development and includes a number of requirements, including that; development be visually attractive, of appropriate scale and appearance, respond positively to the character, history and distinctiveness of its location and integrate well with existing development, enhance, protect and integrate effectively with the historic and natural environment.
Only those buildings subject to the full planning application require design assessment (the MEC facility and the grounds maintenance shed). The remaining buildings subject of the outline planning approval (hotel, offices and future expansion space) have reserved the matter of design/external appearance for a later stage of planning approval.
The proposed evaluation building will be of a significant scale, larger than the existing workshop premises in terms of floorspace, but of a lower height by approx. 2.0m. The overall floorspace would be 9735m² in area, and the height would be 8.5m.
The submission indicates that the building will be of more contemporary design without stone facades (as adopted in the existing building linked to the Hall itself) using a deep overhang and high level glazing. It will be of blue/black brick plinth with wall cladding likely to be Kingspan Architectural or Optimo feature wall panels. The colours will be silver panels (1000mm deep) with black trim. The vehicle sales/showroom/collection area will have thin profile curtain walling or frameless glass feature walling, this being the predominant feature of the building when entering the site. Roof detailing will be either standing seam composite panel or single ply membrane with rolls to be sympathetic with the lead rolled roof appearance of the existing workshop’s roof cladding. The finish of the roof will be mid grey.
The grounds maintenance shed is designed to have a similar style to the evaluation building, with many of the finishes and details replicated. The height of the single storey building is approx. 5.5m, with a footprint of 142m². Whilst the scale of the building is considered to be very large, particularly in area, the design incorporates three set backs on the northwest facing elevation as well as a large glazed section. It is considered that these design features would help to reduce the physical bulk of the building and therefore the visual impact of the buildings scale when it is seen in views alongside Dovenby Hall (i.e. looking east/south from the front and side of the main Hall). Further, the proposed building would be subordinate in height to the existing workshop, which would sit between the proposal and the listed Hall. Nevertheless, it would remain of a very large scale in comparison to the Hall, but the Council’s Conservation Officer has already advised (as noted above) that overall, the impacts of the proposal on the setting of the Hall would not be substantial.
In design terms, the Council’s Conservation Officer has advised that the simple and modern architecture with structural glass as the most visible element from the Hall does not compete directly or in itself detract from the architecture of the Hall, and certainly no more than the existing attached workshop building. Recommendations are made that the very large single main block, which is a concern, could be broken up further vertically with alternative treatments (e.g. more structural glass or alternative colours). Concerns are also expressed as to the potential shine and reflectivity of the silver horizontal panels that are proposed as the cladding for the majority of the building. However, it is considered that these issues could be addressed satisfactorily by conditions, should planning permission be granted.
On balance, the proposed buildings are considered to be acceptable in design terms, in accordance with the requirements of policies S4 and DM14 of the Allerdale Local Plan.
Impacts on Ecology and Biodiversity
The NPPF has as a core planning principle the need to contribute to conserving and enhancing the natural environment, this forms an important part of the ‘environmental role’ in achieving sustainable development. Also of relevance to the determination of the proposal are a number principles specified within Paragragh 118 of the NPPF:
• if significant harm resulting from a development cannot be avoided (through locating on an alternative site with less harmful impacts), adequately mitigated, or, as a last resort, compensated for, then planning permission should be refused;
• planning permission should be refused for development resulting in the loss or deterioration of irreplaceable habitats, including ancient woodland and the loss of aged or veteran trees found outside ancient woodland, unless the need for, and benefits of, the development in that location clearly outweigh the loss;
Local planning authorities should aim to conserve and enhance biodiversity by applying these principles. A number of policies and objectives of the Allerdale Local Plan reference conservation of the natural environment, including the promotion of green infrastructure, but specific to this issue is policy S35 of the Plan. Policy S35 requires that conditions for biodiversity be maintained and improved and important geodiversity assets be protected. Further, policy DM17 of the Allerdale Local Plan seeks to protect trees and woodland which are considered important to the local community, contribute positively to the character of the area and/or are of nature conservation value. Where their loss is acceptable, appropriate mitigation/compensation should be provided.
Large parts of the Dovenby Hall Estate consist of parkland with mature trees and areas of woodland and the site is bound by two watercourses to the south east (Brides Beck) and north west (Dovenby Beck). To the south of the estate is Dovenby Park Wood, which is a ‘Cumbria Wildlife Site’ (CWS), containing designated Ancient Woodland. The CWS extends to approx. 7.3ha. The proposal has the potential therefore for significant ecological impacts relating to both habitat and species.
The application includes a number of reports that consider ecological issues in detail, primarily the Ecological Technical Appendix to the Environmental Statement, Chapter 6 of the Main ES, an Extended Phase 1 Habitat Survey, a Woodland Management Plan, an Arboricultural Report, a Tree Assessment for Bat Roost Potential, a Botanical Assessment, and Species Surveys (Bats, Badgers, Otters, Reptiles). A Motion Sensor Camera and feeding station was set up to establish the presence of red squirrels.
The supporting information also confirms that separate to this application, works in association with a woodland management plan (prepared by George Bruce Associates, Rev A, August 2014) are to be undertaken on the entire site over 10 years. This will affect the woodland around the site, including the designated ancient woodland. A felling licence for certain works was issued by the Forestry Commission in July 2014. The felling license includes conditions for re-planting, Scots pine and mixed native broadleaved to achieve not less than 1100 plants per hectare, evenly distributed over the site. This must be maintained over a 10 year period. The application and consideration of a felling licence is a separate procedure to the planning process and can be implemented regardless of this proposal.
Applicant’s Submission The submitted ‘Ecology Technical Appendix’ is the detailed report that provides the applicant’s assessment of the significance of the predicted ecological effects of the proposal. The following points are noted from that report:
• A total of 0.2ha of the designated ancient woodland PAWS is proposed to be removed by the works, representing 2.7% of the ASNW present. Dovenby Park CWS is deemed to be of high conservation value. • Deciduous woodland BAP priority habitat and wood pasture and parkland BAP priority habitat are to be removed as part of the works. BAP habitats are deemed to be of medium conservation value. • Red squirrels were detected on site and are afforded high nature conservation value. Due to the number of bat roosts present within the buildings on site and the different species, bats are deemed to be of high nature conservation value. Owls are thought to be off site and are given a high conservation value. Badgers, breeding birds and reptiles are given a medium conservation value. No Otters were detected using the adjacent becks. • A total of six buildings had bat roosts present, two of which are to be demolished as part of the works for the detailed planning application. Four more buildings are highlighted for demolition as part of the works for the outline planning application. • A range of mitigation measures are proposed including; replacement tree planting on a 1:1 basis and any tall ruderal to be removed should be replaced by wildflower mix on a 1:1 basis, sound attenuation bunds that are to be built should be planted with wildflower mix so as to maximise habitat for invertebrates and therefore provide additional food for bats, ecological clerk of works (ECoW) will be present throughout the demolition and construction phase to ensure no species, particularly bats, are affected through the works, Natural England bat licensed ecologist will be present while any buildings are to be removed or trees with bat or red squirrel potential are felled. Construction Phase Management Plan, directional lighting away from roosts/foraging areas, dust suppression, pollution prevention in accordance with EA guidelines, alternative bat roosts within the newly constructed buildings, bird boxes, barn owl boxes. • Specifically for the loss of PAWS and Deciduous BAP woodland habitat - It is proposed that the remainder of this designated ancient woodland is enhanced, in keeping with the ancient woodland designation. Trees to be lost should be planted at a minimum ratio of 1:1. • Monitoring of the impact of the proposal on the remaining ASNW. It is recommended that an NVC survey is conducted prior to the works and after the works so that a comparison can be made to the ancient woodland indicator species survey conducted by OpenSpace in 2014 (Appendix J).
Applicant’s assessment:
• The construction phase of M-Sport will have significant adverse effect on Dovenby Park CWS and designated ancient woodland PAWS, deciduous woodland priority BAP habitat, woodland and parkland priority BAP habitat, habitats including semi- improved neutral grassland, scattered trees, improved grassland, mixed plantation woodland, broadleaved semi-natural woodland, broadleaved plantation woodland, amenity grassland, scrub and tall ruderal, loss of nesting sites for breeding birds, loss of foraging habitat for bats and loss of habitat for red squirrels. This is due to the habitat and tree removal, which is partially mitigated by replanting but will not be established at this point during the construction phase. • After year 1 and year 15 of the operational phase of the development, effects on the Derwent SAC and SSSI will not be significant due to the involvement of pollution prevention measures. • Mitigation planting for BAP woodland and woodland and parkland BAP will not have become established at Year 1.This would therefore remain a Moderate Negative, giving rise to a Moderate Adverse overall effect, which is Significant. By Year 15 the tree planting and habitats should have become established with connectivity fully restored and functioning. The progression towards maturity would act to reduce some of the impacts associated with the scheme. It is therefore predicted that at Year 15, the magnitude of the impacts would be Minor Negative, therefore giving an overall Slight Adverse overall effect on the BAP habitats, which is Not Significant. • As ancient woodland cannot be replaced and any planting to be detailed in the Woodland Management Plan will not have matured to a condition to replicate the designated ancient woodland habitats, the magnitude will remain a Major Negative with an overall Major Adverse effect which is Significant for Year 1 and Year 15. • At Year 1 as mitigation planting will not be established the impact will remain Major Moderate Negative giving a Moderate Adverse effect, which is Significant for tall ruderal, improved and semi improved neutral grassland, mixed plantation woodland, scrub, and scattered trees,. It remains a Moderate Negative impact giving a Moderate Adverse effect on broad leaved semi-natural woodland and broadleaved plantation which is Significant and a Moderate Negative impact leading to a Slight Adverse effect on amenity grassland which is Not Significant. Amenity and improved grassland will remain a Moderate Negative impact which is a Slight Adverse effect which is Not Significant. • At Year 15 while planting will have become established so that some habitats will have been mitigated it is acknowledged that replanting is not replacing what was on site originally. Wildflower mix is more ecologically valuable than tall ruderal habitat and therefore this will be a Minor Positive impact which is a Slight Beneficial effect which is Not Significant. Mixed plantation and scattered trees will be planted at a ratio of 1:1 but will not be fully mature at Year 15, therefore they will not be producing fruit. They will however be established, it is therefore a Minor Negative impact which is a Slight Adverse effect which is Not Significant. Improved grassland will not be replaced by replanting but is of low ecological value, it therefore remains a Moderate Negative impact on improved grassland which is a Slight Adverse effect which is Not Significant. • For breeding birds, the loss of nest sites through vegetation removal at Year 1 will fall to a Minor Negative impact. This will cause a Slight adverse effect which is Not Significant. This is due to the availability of nest boxes that will have been erected as part of the scheme but the planting will be not be established and therefore not suitable for breeding birds. At Year 15 the trees that were planted as mitigation will have become established and the provision of the bird boxes and Woodland Management Plan means that the impact would be Negligible therefore a Negligible effect which is Not Significant. Noise from the scheme will be mitigated by the use of bunds and therefore the impact and effect are deemed as Negligible and Not Significant. • For barn owls, increased lighting and activity around the site will make areas less suitable for barn owl for foraging. After mitigation, the impact and therefore the overall effect is considered to be Negligible and therefore Not Significant (Slightly Adverse at Year 1, Negligible overall effect, which is Not Significant at Year 15). • For bats, operational lighting and increased activity after the implementation of the mitigation would likely cause a Negligible impact and effect which is Not Significant as the lighting will be directional away from areas used for roosting and/or foraging. At Year 1 it is likely that those bats displaced from their roosts will have begun to habituate themselves within the new available roosts through bat boxes, bat tubes and roof spaces but that the habituation would still be in process. This would therefore remain a Minor Negative impact, giving a Slight Adverse effect, which is Not Significant. At Year 15 the bats would be well established within the new roosts. The impact and effect would therefore be Negligible and Not Significant. As any re-planting will not be established at Year 1 the loss of foraging habitat on bats will remain as Moderate Negative which is a Large Adverse effect that is Significant. At Year 15 the wildflower mix and re-planting will have become established, therefore it will be a Minor Positive impact and Slight Beneficial effect that is Not Significant. • Otters – negligible impact, not significant. • Red Squirrels - Increased noise and lighting from the operational phase is predicted to have a Negligible impact and therefore a Negligible overall effect which is Not Significant following directional lighting and the use of bunds. Loss of habitat at Year 1 will not be replaced by mitigation planting as it will not have become established at this point. Therefore this will remain a Moderate Negative impact which will cause a Moderate Adverse effect which is Significant. By Year 15 mitigation planting of trees should have become established Therefore this will become a Minor Negative impact giving a Minor Adverse effect which is Not Significant.
An amended Tree Assessment for Bat Roost Potential was provided on the 14 th November 2014. This now includes additional survey work (bat roost inspection and dusk activity/emergence surveys) for those trees to be removed that are considered to have the greatest potential for bat habitat. This survey work indicated no roosting bats within the trees identified with potential. Roosting potential within the trees is considered to be low/nil. The results indicate there are no major commuting routes or foraging around the trees /woodland proposed for removal. The scale of habitats impacted on site is a small proportion of the total suitable habitat present in the area. Therefore, it is considered the loss of that habitat will have no major significant effect on local population of bats. Revised mitigation measures are proposed that accord with the BCT Bat Surveys Good Practice Guidelines 2nd Edition.
Revisions were also received to the Ecology Technical Appendix on the 14 th November 2014. The revised appendix is summarised here: • Additional justification is provided for the demolition of buildings with roosting bats – conversion of Hodgson House would not provide the evaluation facilities required by the business. The requirements of the track design could not be accommodated with the retention of Hodgson and Howard House. • Buildings G and H are in a very poor condition and beyond economic repair. Leaving the buildings in their current condition is not considered an option. • Mitigation measures will ensure the maintenance of favourable conservation status of bats. • it is accepted that there will be an overall habitat loss of approximately 6.77ha, however the 12.09ha of habitat to be reinstated will provide higher quality ecological habitat, therefore providing an overall benefit • As the works are phased, the high quality species-rich grassland will be in place prior to the complete removal of the ruderal vegetation and will maintain the foraging habitat for bats throughout the development. • Should a pollution incident be followed by extreme rainfall that exceeds the capacity of the pollution incident, any effects on the SPA/SAC would remain negligible given the distance – the volumes of water involved would dissipate any pollutants to the point where it would not be significant. • The days that the super silencer is not to be used has been restricted to 6 days per annum, no more than 1 per calendar month and of no more than three hours per session. This will have a minimal impact on local wildlife including bats. Local wildlife including bats is already accustomed to some level of noise disturbance from the A594 and the noise from the track will be mitigated by the bunds and other mitigation that is proposed, therefore the impact and effect are deemed as Negligible and Not Significant. • A number of ecological receptors will be significantly affected during Year 1 of operation (those that are affected during construction) but by Year 15 only Dovenby Park CWS (comprising the designated ancient woodland and plantation on ancient woodland) will remain significantly affected as the loss of plantation on ancient woodland cannot be mitigated for. This habitat is considered to be rare and by its definition it cannot be recreated and therefore its loss is significant. However, in relation to the whole site, the ecology will be maintained and enhanced as areas of less important habitat (e.g. semi improved grassland) will be replaced with higher quality habitats such as wildflower mix.
Officer Assessment:
From the information available, it is clear that the Dovenby Hall Estate is a valuable and highly sensitive local and national asset in terms of both habitats and species, particularly given the presence of designated Ancient Woodland and species warranting international and national protection.
Drawing 081010/151 confirms that 13,200sqm of woodland is to be removed by the proposal overall, 2150sqm of which is designated Plantation on Ancient Woodland Site (PAWS) which has the same status within the NPPF as Ancient Woodland, as well as 78 individual trees. 19, 500sqm of woodland are proposed to be replanted and the mitigation measures indicate that this would be on a 1:1 basis for tree removal/planting.
The submitted assessment acknowledges that the construction phase of M-Sport would have significant adverse effects on the majority of the identified habitats and species, due to habitat loss and tree removal. Phasing of the works would help to minimise these impacts, nevertheless, the proposed mitigation measures will take time to establish (in the case of replanting) or take effect (in terms of alternative roost provision etc), and therefore these effects will be experienced for a number of years. Mitigation planting of improved species and woodland management has the potential to offer higher quality habitats, once established. However, the effects of the proposal in relation to the Cumbria Wildlife Site and the Ancient Woodland are recognised as Major Adverse and significant because ancient woodland cannot be replicated/replaced.
Loss of Trees/Woodland
Many of the trees to be removed are mature in nature and those within the parkland setting of Dovenby Hall provide a considerable contribution to the setting of the Dovenby Hall listed building. Whilst the heritage implications of the proposal are considered above, it is important to note that the value of these mature trees, particularly the linear parkland trees, is not limited to their nature conservation or amenity value.
The submitted arboricultural report indicates that of the trees to be removed, approximately 30% fall within retention Category B, trees of moderate quality with a life expectancy exceeding 20 years, and 39% within retention Category C, trees of low quality with a life expectancy of at least 10 years, or young trees with a diameter of less than 150mm. The remaining trees indicated for removal fall into Category U, trees which cannot be realistically retained for longer than 10 years. No Category A trees are indicated as being affected by the proposal.
Whilst the application details indicate replacement planting of an area of 19, 500sqm (greater than the area stated to be removed), and on a 1:1 basis, it will take this replacement planting a significant time to mature. Due to the layout of the proposed scheme, replacement planting could not replicate the parkland layout provided by existing trees. Policy DM17 states that trees will be expected to be replaced at a 2:1 ratio. This higher ratio requirement is acknowledgement that loss of a mature tree is not mitigated sufficiently by the replanting of young trees. The proposed mitigation is stated at 1:1 and therefore will not achieve this requirement. However, Policy DM17 states that tree felling/removal may be permitted in exceptional circumstances where wider benefits outweigh the loss incurred, Policy S35 provides for a similar exception. The economic benefits of the proposal have been set out above and are considerable, attracting significant weight. It is considered that these benefits, in combination with the mitigation planting proposed would outweigh the loss incurred, and in this respect the proposal is considered to be acceptable in relation to policies DM17 and S35.
Loss of Ancient Woodland
The proposal will require the removal of 0.2ha of designated Plantation on Ancient Woodland Site (PAWS), which is understood to have the same status as Ancient Woodland. The area of PAWS to be lost cannot be replanted directly because of the position of the southern tip of the proposed test track facility. Regardless of this, it is acknowledged within the submission that the area of ASNW/PAWS to be lost cannot be replaced and planting in other areas will not have matured to a condition to replicate the designated ancient woodland habitats. Further, the clearance of this area has the potential to expose further areas of adjacent ASNW, which has the potential to lead to further deterioration. The remainder of the ancient woodland would also be at increased risk from pollution, albeit the intention of the proposal is that this would be adequately mitigated through pollution prevention measures. A drainage outfall to Brides Beck is proposed which would be laid through area CPT04 on drawing 081010/151, which is also designated Ancient Woodland. No assessment has been provided as to the potential adverse effects that this could have on designated ASNW.
The submission indicates that a felling licence has been issued by the Forestry Commission for the area of PAWS, however where a licence has been granted, there is a requirement to replant and subsequently manage these areas for a further 10 years. The proposal would not allow for direct re-planting and therefore the harm to the PAWS/ASNW from the proposal is considered to be greater than that allowed through the felling licence and the existence of the felling licence would not be justification in itself for the harm resulting from the proposal.
Objections to the loss of ancient Woodland are noted from Cumbria Wildlife Trust and the Campaign to Protect Rural England (Friends of the Lake District) CPRE FLD. The Forestry Commission request that in the event that planning permission is granted, then an area twice the hectarage should be established as new native woodland with a good range of species, to compensate for the loss of ancient woodland flora. The plans do identify areas of new planting up to approx.19,000sqm and therefore it is considered likely that this mitigation could be achieved within the site overall. The Woodland Trust refer to draft DEFRA guidelines requiring a compensatory planting ratio that exceeds 30:1. This would require an area of at least 6ha of new woodland planting. Due to the layout of the proposal and the limitations of the site, it is not considered that this requirement could be achieved.
The Woodland Trust also express concerns regarding the indicated buffer from the remaining ancient woodland (as shown on Figure 8 in Volume IV of the ES) on the basis that an area of proposed sound attenuation bund encroaches on the ancient woodland buffer and that for buffers to be effective, they need to be designed on a case by case basis. However, the submitted Arboricultural assessment indicates that the actual line of trees within the ASNW would be 3-6m from the boundary of the site, and that this should create an adequate buffer, and that no native trees are within 8-10m of the boundary.
Cumbria County Council note that a relatively small area of ancient woodland will be removed, and that it is questionable whether this area conforms to the criteria for ancient woodland classification, that the bulk of the ancient woodland will remain and that the remaining woodland will be sympathetically managed. The County Council considers that this would be a significant net benefit in offsetting the adverse impact arising from the loss of the area proposed.
The NPPF advises that planning permission should be refused for development resulting in the loss or deterioration of irreplaceable habitats, including ancient woodland and the loss of aged or veteran trees found outside ancient woodland, unless the need for, and benefits of, the development in that location clearly outweigh the loss. Policy S35 states that developments that present significant economic or social benefits for the local area may be permitted where they are satisfied that any necessary impacts can be mitigated or compensated. Where development poses significant harm to an irreplaceable habitat which cannot be mitigated, permission will be refused.
Recognising that ancient woodland is an irreplaceable asset, Officers concur with the findings of the applicant’s submission that impacts on the area of PAWS/ASNW to be directly affected will be significantly adverse. The proposed area of PAWS to be lost will equate to 2.7% of the overall area of ancient woodland at this location. In considering the overall impact to this habitat, this loss is not considered to equate to ‘significant harm’ in relation to Policy S35, particularly as the works predominantly relate to plantation on ancient woodland, rather than ancient woodland itself and on the basis that woodland management will result in further benefits to the habitat overall. The proposal does provide for mitigation native tree planting elsewhere within the site, and a Woodland Management Plan for the remaining woodland. Taking into account that the proposal will present significant economic benefits and the mitigation measures proposed, in this respect the proposal is considered to be acceptable in relation to advice contained within the NPPF and policy S35 of the Local Plan.
Species/Habitats
The submitted assessment indicates that for the construction stage in particular, there will be significant adverse effects for nesting sites for breeding birds, loss of foraging habitat for bats and loss of habitat for red squirrels. Whilst the proposed mitigation measures will reduce these impacts by Year 1 of the Operational Stage, some significant adverse effects will remain. However, by Year 15, the applicant’s revised submission indicates that adverse effects in relation to the range of species identified will not be significant.
The proposed mitigation measures and the requirements for a Natural England Licence should significantly reduce any direct impacts on protected species, but potential will remain for adverse impacts on habitat, particularly in the construction phase/short term. Concerns have been raised in relation to the submission regarding a reliance on the proposed bunding/silencer to reduce potential noise impacts during the operational phase of the test facility on those species identified on site, particularly squirrels and bats. The bunding/silencer is designed to minimise noise, but will not eliminate it. The applicant’s revised submission considers that this impact will not be significant, but CPRE FLD do not concur with this. FLD consider that the loss of woodland and parkland habitat coupled with disturbance, lighting and noise from the test track would have a damaging impact on the population of bats which currently use the area. Further, Cumbria Wildlife Trust objects to the loss of foraging habitat for bats.
However, in relation to bats, Natural England do not object to the proposal. Natural England are satisfied that the proposed mitigation is broadly in accordance with the requirements of the bat mitigation guidelines prepared by the Bat Conservation Trust and should adequately maintain the conservation status of bats in this locality.
With regards to impacts on the various species identified and their habitat, it is considered that subject to conditions requiring suitable mitigation measures, including phasing, the proposal is acceptable in relation to Policy S35 of the Allerdale Local Plan.
Derogation Test The Council must have regard to the Habitats Regulations in all of its decisions.
The Habitats Regulations transpose prohibitions against activities affecting European Protected Species. The Directive provides for the derogation from these prohibitions for specified reasons and providing certain conditions are met. These are referred to as the three derogation tests applied by Natural England at the licensing stage. Standing advice indicates that where it is likely that one of the prohibitions of the regulations is offended, it is necessary for the LPA to consider the likelihood of a licence being granted at the planning application stage and therefore the three tests.
The three tests are that:
• There are imperative reasons of overriding public interest or for public health and safety;
• there is no satisfactory alternative; and
• a favourable conservation status of the species is maintained.
In considering the three tests:
Public Interest M Sport consider that these proposals present a significant opportunity to protect existing high value jobs, whilst also delivering a route to unique growth creating further valuable employment. The road car development opportunities would provide M Sport with longer term and more definable growth and the direct and indirect benefits that this delivers through the local supply chain. The immediate local impacts of the proposed development will be to maintain the existing local work force at the current level of circa 200 and provide for approximately 100 additional jobs. Increased business will also impact upon spend within the local supply chain, currently running in excess of £1.7M per annum, representing around 40 indirect jobs throughout Cumbria. An eight figure level of investment will be required in relation to the full application.
The economic benefits of the proposal would certainly be in the wider public interest.
Alternatives Alternative sites have been considered by the applicant, but have been ruled out for a number of reasons, not least because of the additional costs involved in land acquisition and the logistical difficulties of operating from more than one site. Regardless of these concerns, any alternative site would need thorough assessment through the planning process and at the present time, no alternative has been established as being acceptable.
Conservation Status The advice from Natural England (the licensing authority) is that the proposed mitigation is broadly in accordance with the requirements of the Bat mitigation guidelines and should maintain the population identified in the survey report.
Based on the above and the response from Natural England to this proposal, it is considered likely that a license would be forthcoming from Natural England.
An Assessment of Likely Significant Effects has also been undertaken for the proposal with regards to potential impacts on adjacent watercourses which ultimately feed into the River Derwent and tributaries SAC/SPA. The assessment concludes that the proposal would not have significant effects in this regard and this has been confirmed with Natural England.
Landscape and Visual Impact
The NPPF seeks to conserve and enhance the natural environment by protecting and enhancing valued landscapes, protection of landscape areas should be commensurate with their status. Policy S33 of the Allerdale Local Plan seeks to protect, conserve and where possible enhance the landscape character and local distinctiveness of the Plan area and Policy S32 does not support development likely to cause significant adverse environmental impact in relation to landscape, or result in a detrimental effect on the local area in terms of visual amenity, distinctive character or environmental quality.
Within the Cumbria Landscape Guidance and Toolkit (2011), the site lies in the Lowlands (Ridge and Valley) Landscape Character Area (LCA). The Guidance states that the peaceful pastoral atmosphere away from busier parts is sensitive to large scale development. Native broadleaved woodlands, shelterbelts and remnant parklands, species rich hedges and hedge banks, and the interest they provide to the farmed landscape, are sensitive to changes in land management.
The wider landscape surrounding Dovenby village and the Dovenby Hall Estate is largely rural and agricultural in nature, with pockets of woodland, and is considered to be attractive, albeit, it does not benefit from any specific landscape designation. The submission notes that the wooded areas within the Dovenby Hall Estate are part of a much wider connected network of woods that include: Mill Wood, Stone Cross Wood, Snuff Box Wood, School Wood, Kellywell Woods and Peatmoor Wood.
Internally, the Dovenby Hall Estate is a combination of the historic Hall and parkland setting, modified over time by the addition of more recent structures associated with its previous hospital use and the current use by M Sport, with the latest addition being the large stone built extension to the rear of the hall itself. These buildings and ancillary infrastructure (such as parking) are largely located to the western part of the site. The eastern half of the estate and much of the northern part of the estate are largely undeveloped and comprises woodland, pasture, a sweeping line of mature trees demarcating a no longer used driveway, landscaped areas and cricket pitch. These areas retain the parkland setting of the Hall. Despite current uses and notwithstanding busier periods within the M Sport calendar, the estate does retain a degree of tranquillity, particularly within the northern and eastern areas of the estate.
The Estate itself is not highly visible from the wider area due to mature trees/woodland to much of the boundaries. Longer distance views may be possible from the south, due to topography.
The submission includes a landscape and visual impact assessment as a Technical Appendix to the ES. The following comments are noted from the submission:
Applicant’s submission Baseline: • The existing landscape character of the Dovenby Estate LCA has a low sensitivity to change. There are areas of the estate with well-maintained buildings and landscapes and Dovenby Hall is a Grade II listed building, but these elements are intermixed with derelict buildings and land which detract from the condition of the landscape. The site is currently in industrial use, with much vehicle movement and noise generated by the testing of rally vehicles. Consequently existing tranquillity is low. The landscape is undesignated and is of local landscape value. There is a line of mature trees which mark the route of the former drive to Dovenby Hall and mixed woodland on all boundaries of the estate; an area on the eastern boundary is designated as ancient woodland. • The Lowlands (Ridge and Valley) LCA, the Broad Valleys LCA and the Rolling Fringe LCA, which surround the Dovenby Hall Estate LCA, are rural in character and have a high sensitivity to change. • The dense, mature woodland of the Dovenby Hall Estate limits the number of potential visual receptors to residents of Dovenby, Little Broughton and Tallentire, to users of footpaths and public rights of way in the area surrounding the estate and drivers on roads approaching Dovenby. The low-lying nature of the site and the undulating surrounding topography further screens the site from the wider landscape.
Effects during construction: • During construction there would be a minor adverse effect on the Dovenby Hall LCA due to the presence of construction plant, construction activity and lorry movements. There will be a minor adverse effect on the parts of the Lowlands (Ridge and Valley) LCA closest to the development site, due to the presence of construction plant and activity, and in the wider area due to the presence of cranes and the increased number of lorry movements through the area. There would be negligible effects on the Broad Valleys LCA and the Rolling Fringe LCA. • The dense woodland screen around much of the estate would contain most visual effects of construction, but residents of properties in the northern corner of the Dovenby Estate and in Dovenby village would experience a significant major adverse effect on views due to their close proximity to the works. Users of the Craggs Road footpath and residents in Little Broughton, due to their elevated location in the landscape, would experience minor adverse effects on views. The other visual receptors identified in the baseline survey would not experience any change to views.
Operation: • During operation the loss of landscape elements (the woodland and trees lining the former estate drive) and the presence of the new buildings, car park and roads would have a minor adverse effect on the Dovenby Hall LCA and the Lowlands (Ridge and Valleys) LCA. There would be negligible effects on the Broad Valleys LCA and the Rolling Fringe LCA. • Residents of properties in the northern corner of the Dovenby Estate and in Dovenby village would experience a significant major adverse effect on views due to their close proximity to the new hotel, the car park, the new houses and the access road. Users of the Craggs Road footpath and residents in Little Broughton, due to their elevated location in the landscape, would experience minor adverse effects on views. The other visual receptors identified in the baseline survey would not experience any change to views.
In relation to landscape, Cumbria County Council advise that the creation of the Evaluation Centre and track as proposed would result in the remnant parkland character of the site being lost, which remains a concern. However, the wider impact would be mitigated to an extent given the screening provided by the established woodland surrounding the site, and lack of public access to the site. The Campaign to Protect Rural England Friends of the Lake District (CPRE FLD) does not consider that the development of a vehicle testing track at Dovenby Hall to be in keeping with the peaceful and tranquil nature of this area, particularly as it is proposed to be built within the historic parkland setting of the Dovenby Hall Estate.
Officers do not fully concur with a number of the statements contained within the applicant’s submission. The Estate is not considered to be largely fragmented. Albeit, south and western areas are developed on an adhoc basis and therefore fragmented, large areas of the northern and eastern estate are not. Neither is the site considered to be of low tranquillity overall, albeit it is accepted that there are busier areas within the Estate and busier times within the year. Again, eastern and northern areas can be very tranquil. Nor is it considered that the estate has limited landscape value ‘due to the industrial and commercial land uses’, because these areas are currently limited to the southwestern area of the site. The listed Hall and the Ancient Woodland are national designations and therefore it is considered that the assessment underestimates the landscape significance of the Estate itself.
The historic landscape value of the Estate is not distinguishable from the landscape value of the Estate generally, due to the contribution to the value of the heritage asset provided by the parkland setting.
Officers share the concerns expressed by the County Council that the proposal will result in the substantial loss of the remnant parkland character of the Estate. Whilst it is acknowledged that existing commercial development has degraded this landscape to a degree, the proposal will add substantially to the built form, removing much of the open parkland that remains. As such, it is considered that the impact on the landscape of the Estate will be harmful. Further, development of the scale and nature proposed, will undoubtedly impact upon the tranquillity of the Estate. For these reasons, it is considered that the proposal does raise some conflict with policies S32 and S33 of the Allerdale Local Plan insofar as the proposal would not protect, conserve and where possible enhance the landscape character and local distinctiveness of the Dovenby Hall Estate, but would have a detrimental effect.
Officers do concur largely with the submission in so far as it relates to the wider landscape and visual amenity. Given the local topography and mature trees/woodland along many of the Estate boundaries, the proposal is not considered likely to impact on the wider landscape to any significant degree. The loss of trees/woodland may be discernable but would not be significant in the wider landscape. Officer’s concur that adverse visual impacts would be limited to those properties on the north western boundary of the site, albeit, mature trees within this area would provide some degree of screening. The proposal does have the potential to impact on the tranquillity of the wider area, but this wider area is not undisturbed by noise, and it is not understood to be prized specifically for its recreational and amenity value for this reason. Given the enclosure of much of the Estate from the wider area by mature trees and woodland, adverse landscape and visual effects beyond the Estate are not considered to be significant and in this respect the proposal would not conflict with policies S32 and S33 of the Allerdale Local Plan.
Loss of Sports Provision
Part of the parkland includes a grassed cricket pitch which the submission states was historically associated with the use of the site as a hospital, forming part of on site recreation facilities. Since development of the hall by M Sport, it is understood that this pitch has been maintained as a mown grassed area although no work has been done specifically to develop and maintain a cricket square other than providing a roller. It is stated that the pitch does have occasional mid week use on an ad hoc and permissive basis, the users being Tallentire Cricketers who had 8 fixtures at Dovenby in the evenings in 2014. There is no formal lease arrangement or rent paid.
Paragraph 74 of the NPPF states that existing open space, sports and recreational buildings and land, including playing fields, should not be built on unless: • an assessment has been undertaken which has clearly shown the open space, buildings or land to be surplus to requirements; or • the loss resulting from the proposed development would be replaced by equivalent or better provision in terms of quantity and quality in a suitable location; or • the development is for alternative sports and recreational provision, the needs for which clearly outweigh the loss
Policy S25 of the Allerdale Local Plan reiterates this approach.
The latter two points are not applicable in this instance.
The submission does not provide an assessment as to whether this particular cricket pitch is surplus to requirements. Instead, it relies on the assessment of the requirement for cricket facilities within the Allerdale Borough Sports and Recreation Study dated January 2008. At Section 8 of that report, the Allerdale Playing Pitch Strategy 1999 is referenced, which states that there are sufficient cricket pitches in the Borough for existing and expected demand. No further assessment is provided.
The 1999 report was published 15 years ago and it not therefore up to date.
Sport England’s consultation response raises objection to the proposal based on the loss of this sports provision. No replacement provision is proposed. Sport England has contacted the English Cricket Board who has stated that, “The cricket pitch is currently unused as it is privately managed but has been identified in the Allerdale Playing Pitch Strategy (final draft as at August 2014). It is a synthetic pitch site. The Allerdale Playing Pitch Strategy has identified that there is currently no spare capacity in the Cockermouth area and that latent demand is expressed by Cockermouth Cricket Club. This site has been specifically identified as a potential solution to the expressed demand. Given the findings of the playing pitch strategy ECB would expect that any proposal should include re-provision of the cricket pitch though given the current provision, re-provision as a single synthetic pitch would be acceptable (this should be an ECB Approved Non-Turf Pitch System on a suitably sized outfield).”
In their initial consultation response, Sport England did not consider that the proposed loss of the cricket pitch facilities complies with any of the exceptions in Sport England’s policy to protect playing fields and is also contrary to paragraph 74 of the NPPF.
To address the concerns of Sport England and the ECB, off site mitigation has been introduced. The applicant has met with the Director of Netherhall Community Sports Centre and reached agreement in principle and subject to planning, that the applicant will sponsor the supply & installation of a new synthetic cricket wicket alongside the existing cricket wicket. This will provide NCSC with an additional facility providing flexibility of use for varying ages and standards of cricket as a community centre with over 600 members. This would be secured by way of a Unilateral Undertaking. The submission includes representation from the Director of Cumbria Cricket, which confirms that the proposal will increase the capacity of fixtures that can be played and will provide a venue for the teams that played as small amount at Dovenby Hall. The playing experience would also improve given availability of changing facilities, and an increase in participation potentially overall.
Sport England has been re-consulted on this proposed mitigation and their comments are awaited. It is however Officers opinion that in view of the representations from Cumbria Cricket, the lost cricket pitch would be replaced by equivalent or better provision in a suitable location and therefore the proposal complies with the requirements of Policy S25 of the Allerdale Local Plan.
Flood Risk and Dra inage
The Flood Risk section of the ‘National Planning Policy Framework’ (NPPF) requires a site-specific Flood Risk Assessment to be carried out for developments located in Flood Zones 2 and 3, and for those which are 1 hectare (ha) or greater in size. This is to ensure that the development is safe from flooding and to ensure the development will not increase the risk from flooding elsewhere. Whilst other policies reference drainage/flooding, specific reference is made within policy S29, which reflects the NPPF.
The site area exceeds 1ha and therefore the applicant has provided a Flood Risk Assessment and Drainage Strategy. A number of objection letters refer to localised flooding issues within and around Dovenby village.
The site is located within Flood Zone 1, classified as having a low probability of river or sea flooding. Some parts of the adjacent Dovenby Beck and Brides Beck, are located in Flood Zones 2 and 3, and therefore have a medium to high probability of river or sea flooding. In accordance with the NPPF Sequential Test, the supporting documents confirm that no new development is proposed in Flood Zones 2 and 3, and new development is only proposed within areas classified as Flood Zone 1.
The submitted FRA considers the possible risks associated with all types of flooding, and includes mitigation for the site itself to include; minimum finished floor levels for the hotel, participation in the Environment Agency’s flood warning scheme, along with a flood emergency plan for the site, and designation of an emergency evacuation route.
The submitted FRA states that there are separate foul and surface water drainage systems on site, and that the foul drainage drains towards the public sewer system and a wastewater treatment works, west of the site. The applicant has confirmed that foul drainage from the proposal will connect to the existing sewage treatment works, under United Utilities management.
The submitted drawings indicate that the surface water runoff from the site generally drains via gullies, pipes and swales/ditches to the Dovenby Beck, discharging from outfalls at two locations along the watercourse. The development is anticipated to result in approximately 10.2ha of additional impermeable area associated with the new infrastructure. Therefore the primary source of flood risk to, and resulting from, the proposed development, is considered to be surface water run-off.
Supporting documents indicate that the drainage hierarchy has been followed, but that the ground was noted as being of heavy clays, with high levels of perched groundwater. Therefore limited infiltration/soakaway potential was considered likely. Instead, the proposal looks to direct surface water to local watercourses, at an attenuated rate. The required attenuation would be provided using attenuation ponds, with the discharge from these controlled to the required rate using depth / flow relationship devices such as hydrobrakes. Petrol interceptors have also been included as deemed necessary. Curtins have proposed surface water outfalls to Dovenby Beck and Brides Beck as shown on the updated Drainage Strategy drawing revision C.
United Utilities has raised no objections. With regards to surface water drainage, both the Environment Agency (EA) and the County Council have provided advice. The County Council raises no objection to the proposal on flood risk/drainage grounds. Changes to the proposal to incorporate filter drains prior to discharge to attenuation ponds of surplus storm flows before Discharge to St.Brides' Beck are welcomed and comments are provided as to ponding on the test track and in parking areas for rainfall events exceeding 1 in 30 years. However, they conclude that any outstanding issues can be dealt with by condition. The Environment Agency raises no objection to the proposal subject to the conditioning of a surface water management scheme. The EA are satisfied that the submitted Flood Risk Assessment covers the main points in line with the current guidance.
Whilst the concerns of a number of Dovenby residents are noted regarding possible increased flood risk, on the basis of this technical advice from the EA and Cumbria County Council, it is considered that the issues of flood risk and surface water drainage has been adequately addressed as part of the proposal, subject to the attachment of the recommended conditions, should permission be granted. As such, the proposal is considered to be acceptable with regards to policy S29 of the Allerdale Local Plan.
Transport
The NPPF seeks to promote sustainable transport. Policies S21 and S22 of the Allerdale Local Plan are of particular relevance to this issue, which seek to ensure that new developments have the infrastructure improvements necessary to make the development acceptable and establish the transport principles relevant to development.
The proposal has been amended to remove the re-opening of the original Dovenby Hall entrance from the west within Dovenby village (as a result of the removal of the housing element of the development). The proposed uses would all utilise the existing main access into the site from the A594. However, it is also proposed to widen an existing (but not utilised) access to the north east of the site, also off the A594, for the construction phase of the evaluation and testing facility. Subsequently, this access will be used for emergencies only. The plans indicate some increased widening to the footpath adjacent to the entrance to Dovenby village, and a new island crossing and footpath between the main access to the site and the junction with the Bridekirk road leading to Bridekirk and Dovenby Primary School. These works would need to be undertaken under a s278 Agreement with the Highways Authority.
The applicant has provided with the application a Transport Assessment and Interim Travel Plan. Traffic and Transportation are discussed further in the Environmental Statement (ES) chapter 10. These documents consider the local road network, walking and cycling, public transport, traffic flows and highway safety, including recorded accidents. The ES advises that for the construction phase of the detailed element of the application, 198 cars are expected to arrive and leave the site, along with 77 HGV’s over an average working week. For the operational stage, the Transport Assessment concludes that the proposed scheme can be accommodated within the local road network, without the need for mitigation and that the proposal will not have any affect on road safety. The ES concludes that the majority of effects of the proposal in relation to transport issues will be negligible to minor.
The County Council Highways Authority has provided detailed comments on the proposal as amended. Overall, this response raises no objections to the development, subject to the provision of a legal agreement relating to administration and monitoring of a Travel Plan specific to the development (which will require annual review) and a number of detailed conditions.
The following points are noted from the Highways Response: • The financial contribution required is based on the average annual costs (currently £1,320 pa) to undertake the review of the Travel Plan, multiplied by the number of years of the travel plan. Given the 10 Year Masterplan period, in this instance the contribution sought is: • Travel Plan Administration Fee Contribution = £1,320 (average annual costs) x 10yrs = £13,200. The Travel Plan as a whole (including the appointment of a Travel Plan Coordinator for the site) and the Travel Plan Administration Fee will therefore need to be secured via a Section 106 Agreement.
• Recommended provision of ‘request bus stops’ located nearer to the site access.
• Proposed missing length of footway along the A594, between the bus stops and Main Street is required given the additional vehicular traffic and the intensification of use of the facility over the 10 year Masterplan
• Dovenby Parish Council have sought that the Developer pays for the re-roofing of the Maryport bound bus shelter roof, they believe this to be a County Council facility. However the shelter is formed in the boundary wall of the adjacent house, now in private ownership. Whilst it would be appropriate for the developer to enhance these facilities, it should be noted that the consent of a third party would be required.
• The revised information retains the proposal to utilise the disused eastern access for construction and is supported by Northern Developments Drawing 080110/154 which details the proposed improvements to this access. Whilst it is noted the visibility previously conditioned cannot be met to the nearside road edge in the Maryport direction at 1.05m height, it is available at 1.7m height which is visible from vans/lorries/plant etc. In addition 160m of visibility is available to the centre of the Cockermouth/eastbound lane and given there is a 'no - overtaking' roadmarking system in place, this is considered acceptable.
• With regards parking associated with the outline elements, we are advised that 2450 sq.m future office development will have 60 parking spaces; the 60 bed Hotel 92 spaces (plus an additional12 secure garage facilities); and the 5000sq.m 'building' 45 spaces, no specific layout is shown, but it can be reasonably anticipated a 60 bed hotel will see use by Coach Travel, thus we would expect some provision for such. However as Landscaping and Layout are Reserved Matters, the details of parking provision can be dealt with at that stage.
The applicant’s agent has confirmed that they are agreeable to the off site highways works required by the Highways Authority, including request bus stops adjacent to the site entrance. The Travel Plan contribution has been agreed also. The applicant is not willing to accommodate the request from Dovenby Parish Council regarding the re- roofing of the existing bus shelter. As the proposal involves the provision of request bus stops specifically for the proposed development, there is unlikely to be any significant increase in the use of the existing bus stop as a direct result of this proposal now that the housing element has been removed and therefore the re-roofing of the shelter would not be necessary to make this development acceptable. As such, it could not be insisted upon.
It is noted that a number of objection letters relate to the impacts of the proposal in relation to the highway network, and particularly highway safety and the potential for increased road accidents on the A594 and the junctions leading to Dovenby and Bridekirk. However, the technical advice provided by the Highways Authority is that the proposal is considered to be acceptable in terms of highway safety, subject to conditions/legal agreement. In this respect, the proposal is considered to be acceptable in relation to relevant policies of the Allerdale Local Plan, particularly policies S21 and S22, and advice contained within the NPPF on transport/highway safety, subject to those conditions/s106 recommended by the Highways Authority, should planning permission be granted.
Ground Conditions
The NPPF advises that to prevent unacceptable risks from pollution, planning decisions should ensure that new development is appropriate for its location. Policy S30 of the Allerdale Local Plan specifically addresses this issue and requires potentially contaminated land to be investigated.
The application includes a Phase One Contaminated Land Assessment Report and this has been updated to reflect the comments of consultees following the first round of consultation.
The Environment Agency (responsible for pollution prevention to controlled waters) and Environmental Health (responsible for human health) have reviewed the submitted Contaminated Land Assessment and generally agree with the conclusions and recommendations given in sections 7.1 and 7.2 of the report. A condition is requested that requires further site investigation, a remediation strategy and verification plan that identifies that the necessary remediation measures have been achieved. As much of the site is undeveloped and have not therefore been subject to contaminative uses or potential impacts, it is advised that the condition should be specific, concentrating on areas where pollution by fuel tanks or other contaminative storage areas has been defined, especially if redevelopment is proposed.
Based on the advice of the Environment Agency and Environmental Health, sufficient information is considered to have been provided at this stage to satisfy Policy S30 of the Allerdale Local Plan. Should planning permission be granted, it is considered that further site investigation and remediation could be secured by condition, sufficient to ensure the effects of pollution on health, the natural environment or general amenity, by way of possible contamination are appropriately dealt with.
Residential Amenity
The impacts of noise in relation to residential amenity have been considered in the section above.
With regards to potential overlooking and oppressiveness, only the proposed hotel is sufficiently close to have any possible implications in this regard. Although siting of the hotel has been reserved for subsequent approval, the illustrative plans suggest that a 60m separation could be achieved between the proposed hotel and the nearest housing. This distance, combined with existing and proposed planting are considered sufficient to ensure that a satisfactory relationship could be achieved so as to ensure that the proposed hotel building would not be overbearing or result in overlooking to neighbouring residents.
There is potential for disturbance through lighting/dust/odour etc, particularly at the construction phase, but also during operation. However, it is considered that these issues could be adequately dealt with at the reserved matters stage or through condition, should planning permission be granted.
Notwithstanding the issue of noise therefore, the proposal is considered to be acceptable in relation to Policy S32 insofar as it relates to providing an appropriate standard of residential amenity.
Financial Considerations:
There are no financial considerations associated with the proposal other than those specified relating to the required Travel Plan. Conclusion/Planning Balance
The above assessment concludes that the proposal will be contrary to, or will not fully comply with a number of policies of the adopted Allerdale Local Plan 2014. The proposal would result in a larger scale of development than that envisaged for the site by either saved Policy REM10 or policies of the adopted Allerdale Local Plan (Part 1) 2014, and a number of uses on site have not been fully justified in terms of town centre first policies under the Allerdale Local Plan (Part 1) 2014, although under saved policy REM10, hotel and office uses are listed as acceptable for the site. Adverse effects have been identified in relation to noise, ecology/biodiversity (including species/habitat, ancient woodland, trees and woodland), landscape and heritage assets, these adverse effects vary in their significance. Comments from Sport England remain outstanding in relation to the off-site mitigation proposed for sports provision and a further update on this issue will be provided.
Planning law requires that applications for planning permission must be determined in accordance with the development plan, unless material considerations indicate otherwise. Therefore, if planning permission were to be granted for this development, the identified harm would need to be clearly outweighed by other material considerations.
In reaching this balance, harm has been specifically identified to the Grade II listed Dovenby Hall, not directly, but by way of further loss of its parkland setting. In order to give effect to the statutory duty under section 66(1), a decision-maker must accord considerable importance and weight to the “desirability of preserving the setting” of listed buildings when weighing this factor in the balance with other ‘material considerations’ which have not been given this special statutory status.
There are significant benefits to the proposal which weigh in favour of the grant of planning permission and which can be considered against the harm identified and any outstanding conflict with policy. These benefits include that the proposal would create a significant number of jobs (over 100 permanent and skilled positions) permanently from the proposed evaluation facility, as well as a significant number during the construction phase. Further jobs would be created as a result of the hotel, offices and future expansion space. The proposal would increase spending locally through the business supply chain and by bringing additional people to the area. The financial investment in the project would be approx. £19 million and would represent a significant investment within the local area.
These are clear economic benefits associated with the proposal, not only for the applicant, but for the local economy and for the wider motorsport and automotive industry within the UK. This would also accord with the requirements of the NPPF in supporting economic growth and strategic objectives of the Allerdale Local Plan. The NPPF at paragraph 19 requires that ‘significant weight’ should be placed on the need to support economic growth. It is considered that the creation of 100 skilled jobs associated with the evaluation facility and additional jobs arising from the other proposed uses (and construction phase), as well as the additional spend within the business supply chain, will be substantial. Further, a level of investment extending to eight figures is considerable, and attracts great weight.
It has been concluded by the Council’s Conservation Officer that the harm to the Grade II listed Dovenby Hall is less than substantial, but that there will be harm nevertheless. Having particular regard to the need to accord considerable importance and weight to the desirability of preserving the setting of listed buildings when carrying out the planning balance, and in considering the harm arising from the proposal in other respects, it is considered that in this instance, the economic benefits of the proposal do outweigh the social and environmental harm identified, and the recommendation is therefore for approval.
Annex 1
Conditions
Full permission - Demolition of up to seven buildings including School House, Hodgson House and Howard House. Evaluation Centre (B1) including testing and evaluation facility (2.5km in length), car parking (242 spaces), earthworks including sound attenuation bunds, surface water attenuation ponds, grounds maintenance shed incorporating fuel store (B1 & B8) and separate underground fuel tank. Temporary widening of eastern access from A594 for construction vehicles.
General
1. The development hereby permitted shall be begun before the expiration of three years from the date of this permission. Reason: In order to comply with Section 51 of the Planning & Compulsory Purchase Act 2004.
2. Unless otherwise specified by separation condition, the development hereby permitted shall be carried out solely in accordance with the following plans: 081010-004A Demolition Plan 081010-005A Detailed Planning dwg 081010-007 Mitigation Plan amended 29th August 2014 081010-100A Site Boundary Plan 081010 - 102E Masterplan 081010-103G MEC - Level 0 081010-104D MEC - Level 1 081010-105A MEC - Roof Plan 081010-106B MEC - Sections 081010-107C MEC - Elevations 081010- 150A Sound Attenuation Bunds 081010-151C Planting Plan 081010-152A Underground Fuel Store 081010-153A Photovoltaic Panels to MEC 081010-154B Eastern Access 081010-500D Grounds Maintenance Shed & Fuel Store 099-02-T-PL-001B Track Plan Layout - FIA Fills 099-02-T-PL-001B Track Plan Layout - Apex Fills 099-02-3DCL-001A Track Centreline Geometry Plan 099-02-T-3DLS-001B Track Profile Chainage (8 Dwgs) 099-02-T-3DXS-001B Track Cross Sections (7 Dwgs) 099-02-T-3DCT-001B Track Conto urs 099-02-T-3DEW-001B Track Cut and Fill 099-02-G-PL-001B Track Conduit Plan 099-02-G-PL-002A Drainage Plan 48609-DR-S-S2-0010E Drainage strategy plan Reason: To ensure a satisfactory standard of development and for the avoidance of doubt.
Heritage
3. The temporary widening of the eastern access from the A594 hereby approved shall be limited to the duration of the construction works associated with this full planning permission. On completion of the construction works associated with this full planning permission, the eastern access shall be re-instated to its present width and the westerly stone pier re-constructed to match its present form (i.e. before any works commenced). The re-instatement shall be completed within a period of six months from the construction works being substantially completed, unless otherwise agreed in writing by the Local Planning Authority. Reason: In order to ensure that the boundary wall to the listed Dovenby Hall is re- instated in an appropriate manner, in accordance with Policy S27 of the Allerdale Local Plan (Part 1) 2014.
Lighting
4. No part of the development hereby permitted shall commence past foundation level until full details of a lighting scheme (including details of all lamps, plus levels and hours of illumination) for the operational phase of the evaluation and testing facility and track has been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The details shall be accompanied by a lighting impact assessment by a suitably qualified engineer. Any lighting scheme shall be installed in accordance with the approved details and shall be fully operational before the use commences. The measures shall be retained as approved and maintained operational for the lifetime of the development. Reason: In the interests of preserving the amenity and protecting species/habitats, in compliance with the National Planning Policy Framework and Policies S32 and S35 of the Allerdale Local Plan (Part 1), Adopted July 2014.
Demolition/Construction
5. No development shall take place until a Demolition and Construction Method Statement has been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The statement shall include the following: (a) Traffic Management Plan to include all traffic associated with the development, including site and staff traffic, off site parking, turning and compound areas; (b) Procedure to monitor and mitigate noise and vibration from the construction and demolition and to monitor any properties at risk of damage from vibration, as well as taking into account noise from vehicles, deliveries. All measurements should make reference to BS7445. (c) Mitigation measures to reduce adverse impacts on residential properties from construction compounds including visual impact, noise, and light pollution. (d) A written procedure for dealing with complaints regarding the construction or demolition; (e) Measures to control the emissions of dust and dirt during construction and demolition; (f) Programme of work for Demolition and Construction phase; (g) Hours of working and deliveries shall be limited to 8am until 6pm Monday to Friday; 8am until 1pm Saturday and no working on Sunday or Bank Holidays (h) Details of construction lighting on site (i) Environmental monitoring plan (j) Plant usage (k) Measures to prevent pollution to the water environment (l) Measures to prevent polluted run-off into the designated ASNW The approved statement shall be adhered to throughout the duration of the development. Reason: In the interests of the amenity of the occupiers of neighbouring properties, to prevent pollution of the environment and to protect important habitats/species in compliance with the National Planning Policy Framework and Policies S32 and S35 of the Allerdale Local Plan (Part 1), Adopted July 2014.
Noise
6. No operational use of the test track facility shall commence until an updated Noise Management Plan (based on the principles set out in the Noise Management Plan Issue No 1 dated November 2014) has been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority and until the completion of physical testing on site in order to demonstrate compliance with agreed Community Levels.
The Noise Management Plan shall include the following:
• details of M Sport operational and management structure • details of the sound control and monitoring scheme that will be adopted to comply with community levels • details of how the Council will access a noise monitoring system at all times • details of the methodology used to establish community levels • details of the community levels including reference to hours of operation, number of days and sound levels • a detailed complaints procedure • the type of vehicles and activity that will be permitted at the track
A review of the Noise Management Plan shall take place within the first six months of the operational use of the test track facility commencing and then annually thereafter. At all times the test track facility shall operate in accordance with the most recently approved Noise Management Plan.
The test track shall operate at all times in accordance with the Community Levels as set out in the Noise Management Plan. Reason: In the interests of amenity and to minimise disturbance to wildlife, in accordance with Policy S32 of the Allerdale Local Plan (Part 1), Adopted July 2014.
7. Unless otherwise agreed in writing by the Local Planning Authority, there shall be no use of the track for racing of vehicles or competition. There shall be no spectators, other than for M Sports corporate activities, the details of which will have been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority in accordance with the approved Noise Management Plan. Reason: In the interests of amenity, in accordance with Policy S32 of the Allerdale Local Plan (Part 1), Adopted July 2014.
8. All specification details of the proposed bunding shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority before construction of the bunding commences. No use of the test track shall commence until the mitigation bunding has been constructed as approved. Reason: In the interests of preserving amenity, in compliance with the National Planning Policy Framework and Policy S32 of the Allerdale Local Plan (Part 1), Adopted July 2014.
9. Notwithstanding the provisions of the Town and Country Planning (General Permitted Development) Order 1995 or any order revoking or re-enacting that order relating to permitted development, no use of the land falling within Part 4 Temporary Buildings and Uses, Class B, of the said Order shall be carried out without the prior written approval of the Local Planning Authority. Reason: In the interests of preserving amenity, in compliance with the National Planning Policy Framework and Policy S32 of the Allerdale Local Plan (Part 1), Adopted July 2014.
Design
10. Construction of external finishes of any building shall not commence until details and representative samples of all external and roofing materials (including colour finish) have been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. Only the materials so approved shall be used in the development as approved. Reason: To ensure a satisfactory standard of development which is compatible with the character of the surrounding area, in compliance with the National Planning Policy Framework and Policy DM14 of the Allerdale Local Plan (Part 1), Adopted July 2014.
11. The laying of external floor surfaces shall not commence until details of the treatment and finishes of all surfaces within the site have been submitted to and approved by the Local Planning Authority. The details so approved shall be completed prior to the use of the development commencing and shall be retained at all times thereafter. Reason: In order to ensure a satisfactory standard of development in relation to its surroundings, in compliance with the National Planning Policy Framework and Policy DM14 of the Allerdale Local Plan (Part 1), Adopted July 2014.
12. Details of the siting, height and type of any means of enclosure (screen walls/fences/other means of enclosure) shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority prior to being erected. The means of enclosure shall be constructed only in accordance with the approved details. Reason: To ensure a satisfactory standard of development which is compatible with the character of the surrounding area.
Landscaping/Trees/Woodland
13. No part of the development hereby permitted shall commence until there has been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority a scheme/detailed plans of hard and soft landscaping, including: 1. details of any trees to be retained, together with measures for their protection during construction 2. measures for the protection of areas of woodland during construction 3. a buffer zone to the Ancient Semi Natural Woodland (ASNW), to be kept clear of all construction work, plant & machinery 4. Compensatory planting for the loss of ASNW/PAWS by way of new native woodland with a good range of species, at a ratio to be agreed with the Local Planning Authority. This area shall subsequently be retained for the lifetime of the development. 5. Details of a replacement planting scheme at a ratio of 1:1 for all other trees/woodland. All planting, seeding or turfing comprised within the scheme shall be carried out in the first planting season following completion of the development and any trees or plants which within a period of 5 years from the completion of the development die, are removed or become seriously damaged or diseased shall be replaced in the next planting season with other similar size and species, unless otherwise agreed in writing by the Local Planning Authority. Reason: In order to enhance the appearance of the development, mitigate for removed trees/woodland and to minimise the impact of the development in the locality.
Highways
14. The use of the construction access off the A594, shall not commence until the improvements to the access shown on Drawing 080110/154 have been carried out to the satisfaction of the Local Planning Authority (in conjunction with the Highways Authority). Notwithstanding the provisions of the Town and Country Planning (General Permitted Development) Order 1995 (or any Order revoking and re-enacting that Order) relating to permitted development, no structure, or object of any kind shall be erected or placed and no trees, bushes or other plants which exceed 1m in height shall be planted or be permitted to grow within the visibility splay which would obstruct the visibility splays, during the period the access is in use. The access shall be closed off, when not required for construction traffic/operations. A sufficient amount of the construction access and turning/manoeuvring/parking space shall be developed so construction traffic enters and leaves the A594 in a forward direction of travel, within a single turning manoeuvre. Reason: In the interests of highway safety.
15. The use of the evaluation centre and testing facility shall not commence until the road access, parking and hardstanding areas have been constructed in accordance with the approved plans. All such provision shall be retained, capable of use for the lifetime of the development and shall not be removed or altered thereafter, without the prior consent of the Local Planning Authority. Reason: To ensure a minimum standard of access and parking when the development is brought into use.
16. Within the first year of the evaluation centre and testing facility use commencing, the refuge island/footways at the A594/C2038 junction, two 'request bus stops' to the north and south of the A594 carriageway, and the footway along the A594 west of Orchard House to Main St. junction, as shown on the approved plans, shall be constructed. Reason: In the interests of highway safety.
Drainage
17. No development shall take place until a surface water drainage scheme for the site, based on sustainable drainage principles and an assessment of the hydrological and hydro geological context of the development, has been submitted to and approved in writing by the local planning authority. The drainage strategy should demonstrate the surface water run-off generated up to and including the 1 in 100 year critical storm will not exceed the run-off from the undeveloped site following the corresponding rainfall event. The scheme shall subsequently be implemented in accordance with the approved details before the development is completed. The scheme shall also include: 1. Details of how the scheme shall be maintained and managed after completion. 2. Confirmation of maximum discharge rates and means of flow control from any outfall structures compliant with the design criteria of 5l/s/ per hectare. Reason: To prevent the increased risk of flooding, both on and off site.
Contaminated Land
18. No development shall commence until a scheme that includes the following components to deal with the risks associated with contamination of the site has been submitted to and approved, in writing, by the local planning authority: 2) A site investigation scheme, based on the findings of the submitted document 'M Sport Mixed Use Development at Dovenby - Phase 1' to provide information for a detailed assessment of the risk to all receptors that may be affected, including those off site. 3) The results of the site investigation and detailed risk assessment referred to in (2) and, based on these, an options appraisal and remediation strategy giving full details of the remediation measures required and how they are to be undertaken. 4) A verification plan providing details of the data that will be collected in order to demonstrate that the works set out in the remediation strategy in (3) are complete and identifying any requirements for longer-term monitoring of pollutant linkages, maintenance and arrangements for contingency action.Application of this condition shall not be general but shall be specific to areas where pollution by fuel tanks or other contaminative storage areas has been identified. The scheme shall be implemented as approved. Reason: To protect the water environment.
19. In the event that contamination is found at any time when carrying out the approved development that was not previously identified it must be reported immediately to the Local Planning Authority. Development on the part of the site affected must be halted and a risk assessment carried out and submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. Where unacceptable risks are found remediation and verification schemes shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. These shall be implemented prior to the development (or relevant phase of development) being brought into use. All works shall be undertaken in accordance with current UK guidance, particularly CLR11. Reason: To protect the water environment and human health.
Ecology
20. No development shall commence until a detailed method statement, which includes the timing of works, proposed mitigation measures (including details and location of replacement bat roosts or bat/bird boxes), and a monitoring strategy during and post construction, that comprehensively addr esses all habitat and species and which draws on and consolidates the mitigation measures and recommendations of the Environmental Statement Ecology Technical Appendix, the Environmental Statement Landscape and Visual Technical Appendix, the Woodland Management Plan, Arboricultural Report, Preliminary Tree Assessment for Bat Roost Potential and Botanical Assessment, has been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The development shall be undertaken only in accordance with the approved method statement. Reason: In order to secure appropriate mitigation and monitoring of ecology interests on and adjacent to the site, in accordance with policy S35 of the Allerdale Local Plan.
Outline permission - For future expansion space of 5000sqm (use class B1), Offices2450sqm (B1), 60 bed Hotel 6000sqm (C1) all to include associated parking and external works
General
21. Before any works commence details of the layout, scale and appearance, and landscaping, of the site (hereinafter called the 'reserved matters') shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The development shall be carried out as approved. Reason: To enable the Local Planning Authority to assess all the details of the development.
22. The submission of all reserved matters applications shall be made no later than the expiration of 5 years beginning with the date of this permission and the development shall begin no later than whichever is the later of the following dates: (a)The expiration of 5 years from the date of the grant of this permission, or (b) The expiration of 2 years from the final approval of the reserved matters or, in the case of approval on different dates, the final approval of the last such matter to be approved. Reason: In order to comply with Section 92 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990.
23. The details submitted under the reserved matters application shall include a programme showing the phasing of the development to be submitted to and approved by the Local Planning Authority and the development shall not proceed other than in accordance with the approved programme. Reason: To serve in the public and visual interests a satisfactory correlated order of development in accordance with the National Planning Policy Framework and Policies S5 and DM14 of the Allerdale Local Plan (Part 1), Adopted July 2014.
24. Unless otherwise specified by separation condition, the development hereby permitted shall be carried out solely in accordance with the following plans: 081010-004A Demolition Plan 081010-006A Outline Planning dwg 081010-007 Mitigation Plan amended 29th August 2014 081010 -100A Site Boundary Plan 081010 - 102E Masterplan 081010-151C Planting Plan 081010-154B Eastern Access 081010-500D Grounds Maintenance Shed & Fuel Store 48609-DR-S-S2-0010E Drainage strategy plan Reason: To ensure a satisfactory standard of development and for the avoidance of doubt.
25. No phase of the development hereby permitted shall commence past foundation level until full details of a lighting scheme (including details of all lamps plus levels and hours of illumination) for that phase has been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The details shall be accompanied by a lighting impact assessment by a suitably qualified engineer. Any lighting scheme shall be installed in accordance with the approved details and shall be fully operational before the use of that phase of development commences. The measures shall be retained as approved and maintained operational for the lifetime of the development. Reason: In the interests of preserving the amenity and protecting species/habitats, in compliance with the National Planning Policy Framework and Policies S32 and S35 of the Allerdale Local Plan (Part 1), Adopted July 2014.
26. No development of any phase shall take place until a Demolition and Construction Method Statement for that phase has been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The statement shall include the following: (a) Traffic Management Plan to include all traffic associated with the development, including site and staff traffic, off site parking, turning and compound areas; (b) Procedure to monitor and mitigate noise and vibration from the construction and demolition and to monitor any properties at risk of damage from vibration, as well as taking into account noise from vehicles, deliveries. All measurements should make reference to BS7445. (c) Mitigation measures to reduce adverse impacts on residential properties from construction compounds including visual impact, noise, and light pollution. (d) A written procedure for dealing with complaints regarding the construction or demolition; (e) Measures to control the emissions of dust and dirt during construction and demolition; (f) Programme of work for Demolition and Construction phase; (g) Hours of working and deliveries shall be limited to 8am until 6pm Monday to Friday; 8am until 1pm Saturday and no working on Sunday or Bank Holidays (h) Details of construction lighting on site (i) Environmental monitoring plan (j) Plant usage (k) Measures to prevent pollution to the water environment Reason: In the interests of the amenity of the occupiers of neighbouring properties, to prevent pollution of the environment and to protect important habitats/species in compliance with the National Planning Policy Framework and Policies S32 and S35 of the Allerdale Local Plan (Part 1), Adopted July 2014.
Hotel
27. Before the use commences, all details of odour abatement measures to be installed at the hotel shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority prior to development. The details shall be implemented as approved and retained for the lifetime of the use of the development and shall be operated and maintained in accordance with the manufacturer's instructions. Reason: In the interests of the amenity of the occupiers of neighbouring properties, in compliance with the National Planning Policy Framework and Policy S32 of the Allerdale Local Plan (Part 1), Adopted July 2014.
28. Before the use commences a scheme showing details of sound level data and noise control measures of all fixed plant and equipment to be installed on site shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the local planning authority. The approved scheme shall be implemented before the commencement of the permitted use and shall thereafter be operated and retained as approved. Reason: In the interests of the amenity of the occupiers of neighbouring properties, in compliance with the National Planning Policy Framework and Policy S32 of the Allerdale Local Plan (Part 1), Adopted July 2014.
Design
29. No part of the external finish of any building hereby permitted shall be constructed until details and representative samples of all external and roofing materials (including colour finish) for that particular building have been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. Only the materials so approved shall be used in the development as approved. Reason: To ensure a satisfactory standard of development which is compatible with the character of the surrounding area, in compliance with the National Planning Policy Framework and Policy DM14 of the Allerdale Local Plan (Part 1), Adopted July 2014.
30. The laying of surfaces for access roads, car parks and hard landscaping for any phase shall not commence until details of the treatment and finishes of all surfaces for that phase of development have been submitted to and approved by the Local Planning Authority. Only the treatment and finishes so approved shall be used in the development as approved. Reason: In order to ensure a satisfactory standard of development in relation to its surroundings, in compliance with the National Planning Policy Framework and Policy DM14 of the Allerdale Local Plan (Part 1), Adopted July 2014.
31. Details of the siting, height and type of any means of enclosure (screen walls/fences/other means of enclosure) for each phase of the development shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority prior to being erected. The means of enclosure shall be constructed only in accordance with the approved details before use of that phase commences. Reason: To ensure a satisfactory standard of development which is compatible with the character of the surrounding area.
Highways
32. Full engineering details showing the access, parking, turning and loading/unloading facilities for vehicles entering/exiting the site, including the provision of parking spaces in accordance with the Cumbria Parking Standards, shall be submitted with any Reserved Matters application. Where Reserved Matters are sought only in relation to part of the scheme, the level of detail required shall be commensurate with that part of the development. No development shall be brought into use until the facilities have been constructed and are available for use as approved. Such facilities shall be kept available for the approved purpose at all times thereafter. Reason: To ensure appropriate standards of construction.
Drainage/Flood Risk
33. No development shall take place until a surface water drainage scheme for the site, based on sustainable drainage principles and an assessment of the hydrological and hydro geological context of the development, has been submitted to and approved in writing by the local planning authority. The drainage strategy should demonstrate the surface water run-off generated up to and including the 1 in 100 year critical storm will not exceed the run-off from the undeveloped site following the corresponding rainfall event. The scheme shall subsequently be implemented in accordance with the approved details before the development is completed. The scheme shall also include: 1. Details of how the scheme shall be maintained and managed after completion. 2. Confirmation of maximum discharge rates and means of flow control from any outfall structures compliant with the design criteria of 5l/s/ per hectare . Reason: To prevent the increased risk of flooding, both on and off site.
34. The minimum finished floor level for the hotel hereby approved shall be set at least 300mm above the predicted 1 in 1000 year fluvial flood levels in the Dovenby Beck for the reach of the watercourse (i.e. between 64.32mAOD and 72.15mAOD). Reason: To ensure that the proposed development is resilient to fluvial flooding.
35. No development of any phase shall commence until a scheme that includes the following components to deal with the risks associated with contamination of that phase has been submitted to and approved, in writing, by the local planning authority: 2) A site investigation scheme, based on the findings of the submitted document 'M Sport Mixed Use Development at Dovenby - Phase 1' to provide information for a detailed assessment of the risk to all receptors that may be affected, including those off site. 3) The results of the site investigation and detailed risk assessment referred to in (2) and, based on these, an options appraisal and remediation strategy giving full details of the remediation measures required and how they are to be undertaken. 4) A verification plan providing details of the data that will be collected in order to demonstrate tha t the works set out in the remediation strategy in (3) are complete and identifying any requirements for longer-term monitoring of pollutant linkages, maintenance and arrangements for contingency action. Application of this condition shall not be general but shall be specific to areas where pollution by fuel tanks or other contaminative storage areas has been identified. The scheme shall be implemented as approved. Reason: To protect the water environment.
36. In the event that contamination is found at any time when carrying out the approved development that was not previously identified it must be reported immediately to the Local Planning Authority. Development on the part of the site affected must be halted and a risk assessment carried out and submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. Where unacceptable risks are found remediation and verification schemes shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. These shall be implemented prior to the development (or relevant phase of development) being brought into use. All works shall be undertaken in accordance with current UK guidance, particularly CLR11. Reason: To protect the water environment and human health.
Heritage
37. No development shall commence until protective fencing has been erected, in a manner to be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority, around the two earthwork sites and the well shown in drawing numbers MMD-299469-EVT-DR-XX-001 and MMD-299469-EVT-DR-XX-002 in appendix C of the Environmental Statement Historic Environment Technical Appendix Volume III, and the listed medieval cross base. Nothing shall be stored or placed in any area fenced in accordance with this condition and the ground levels within those areas shall not be altered, nor shall any excavation be made. The protective fencing shall be retained as approved throughout the construction period of the development. Reason: To protect the listed medieval cross and remains of archaeological interest in accordance with Policy S27 of the Allerdale Local Plan Part 1.
38. No development within the area of the hotel shall commence until detailed plans for permanent protective measures to the listed medieval cross base have been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The approved permanent protection measures shall be implemented following removal of the temporary protection measures required during the construction phase, and shall be completed before the hotel is brought into use. The approved permanent protection measures shall thereafter be retained for the lifetime of the development. Reason: To protect the listed medieval cross in accordance with Policy S27 of the Allerdale Local Plan Part 1.
39. No development within the area of the hotel or future expansion space shall commence until the applicant has secured the implementation of a programme of archaeological work in accordance with a written scheme of investigation which has been submitted by the applicant and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. This written scheme will include the following components: i) An archaeological evaluation; ii) An archaeological recording programme the scope of which will be dependant upon the results of the evaluation; iii) Where appropriate, a post-excavation assessment and analysis, preparation of a site archive ready for deposition at a store approved by the Local Planning Authority, completion of an archive report, and submission of the results for publication in a suitable journal. Reasons: To afford reasonable opportunity for an examination to be made to determine the existence of any remains of archaeological interest within the site and for the preservation, examination or recording of such remains)in accordance with Policy S27 of the Allerdale Local Plan Part 1.
Ecology
40. No phase of the development shall commence until a detailed method statement for that phase, which includes the timing of works, proposed mitigation measures (including details and location of replacement bat roosts or bat/bird boxes), and a monitoring strategy during and post construction, that comprehensively addresses all habitat and species (particularly bats) and which draws on and incorporates the mitigation measures and recommendations of the Environmental Statement Ecology Technical Appendix, the Environmental Statement Landscape and Visual Technical Appendix, the Woodland Management Plan, Arboricultural Report, and Botanical Assessment, has been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. That phase of development shall be undertaken only in accordance with the approved method statement. Reason: In order to secure appropriate mitigation and monitoring of ecology interests on and adjacent to the site, in accordance with policy S35 of the Allerdale Local Plan.
Landscaping/Trees/Woodland
41. Any reserved matters application seeking approval of the details of landscaping shall include: (1) details of any individual trees to be retained, together with measures for their protection during construction (2) measures for the protection of areas of woodland during construction (3) details of a replacement planting scheme at a ratio of 1:1 for all other trees/woodland All planting, seeding or turfing comprised within the landscaping details shall be carried out in the first planting season following completion of the development and any trees or plants which within a period of 5 years from the completion of the development die, are removed or become seriously damaged or diseased shall be replaced in the next planting season with other similar size and species, unless otherwise agreed in writing by the Local Planning Authority. Reason: In order to enhance the appearance of the development, mitigate for removed trees/woodland and to minimise the impact of the development in the locality.
Proactive Statement
Application Approved Following Revisions
The Local Planning Authority has acted positively and proactively in determining this application by identifying planning policies, constraints, stakeholder representations and matters of concern within the application (as originally submitted) and where appropriate negotiating, with the Applicant, acceptable amendments and solutions to the proposal to address those concerns. As a result, the Local Planning Authority has been able to grant planning permission for an acceptable proposal, in accordance with the presumption in favour of sustainable development, as set out within the National Planning Policy Framework.
Notes to For information Applicant: For storage of potentially polluting substances (including oil, diesel, fuel) we expect the operators to adopt appropriate engineering standards, meet the requirements of PPG 27 and have effective management system in place. More information regarding refuelling facilities and underground storage tanks (PPG 7 and PPG 27) can be found at www.gov.uk/oil storage or at www.gov.uk/oilstorage-regulations-and-safety
The applicant should also refer to pollution prevention guideline 3 (PPG3): Use and design of oil separators in surface water drainage systems, which is available to download from www.gov.uk/environment-agency
Annex 2 – Consultation Responses
Papcastle Parish Council – No objection as it will create a further 100 jobs and lead to the long term future of M Sport. Hotel will not be noticed from outside the estate. Decision on housing should be left to Bridekirk Parish council and Dovenby residents, although concerns expressed regarding the junction into Dovenby village.
Dearham Parish Council – No comments received.
Broughton Moor Parish Council – No objection
Broughton Parish Council - Broughton Parish Council resolved to support this application on the basis that it will provide additional employment within the local area. No additional comments relating to amendments.
Brigham Parish Council - No comments received.
Bridekirk Parish Council – 1st Response Recommends refusal on the basis that: Test Track • Noise, the Parish do not accept that this is an acceptable level of noise for a rural environment and further that the drawings submitted do not show a full picture, the diagram showing the red and white zones has been ‘cut off’ to not show the full area of impact for the white zone. • This is clearly about having activity days, not just for ‘secret testing’ of cars and this is not considered an appropriate area for this to be undertaken. • This they felt was further supported by the excessive number of car parking spaces given the amount of new build this would not be required with the lower number of days that might at first appear to be active when the document is first read. Housing • This is way over the numbers recommended in the Local Plan, it is excessive for the village. • The road is dangerous coming from Dovenby onto the main road, and this they felt is blatantly inaccurate when it is described as having good visibility and suitable. The number of accidents on the road would support this. • Already considerable flooding in the village and there are real concerns that further building will only make the problem worse. No concerns about other aspects of the proposal.
2nd Response • Welcome removal of housing • Concerns over loss of biodiversity, historic landscape and trees. Recognition of this by M Sport, should have guided them to a more appropriate area for development such as Lillyhall • The level of development proposed is not in keeping with the rural setting • Will not necessarily bring jobs for local people as they are likely to be highly specialist. Remaining local employment would be low skilled. Raise house prices except in Dovenby where people would be hard pushed to find a buyer due to noise and pollution. • Lillyhall, silloth Airfield or Kirkbride airfield would all be more appropriate for this industrial scale of development. Genral oversupply of employment land so no excuse to use a unique site for its local history. Site should be de-allocated for employment. • Development is out of keeping to the setting of Dovenby Hall. • Increased flood risk to Dovenby Beck • Road infrastructure is not suitable for increased level of traffic. • Incomprehensible that this development should be permitted on the noise implications alone. Over-relies on theoretical computer generated data. • Harm to school children expected to learn in such a noisy environment. • It is the plea of Bridekirk Parish Council that not only the application be refused, but that the site is re-allocated for open space, nature conservation and thus an important amenity for Dovenby, Tallentire, Bridekirk and Broughton.
Campaign to Protect Rural England (CPRE), Friends of the Lake District (FLD) – Object to this application on the basis of loss of tranquility in the landscape and loss of a large area of mature woodland, Ancient Semi Natural Woodland, historic parkland trees and part of a County Wildlife Site.
This application site lies within Landscape Character subtype 5a Ridge and Valley. The Cumbria Landscape Character Guidance and Toolkit (CLCGT) states that: ‘The peaceful pastoral atmosphere away from busier parts is sensitive to large scale development. Native broadleaved woodlands, shelterbelts and remnant parklands, species rich hedges and hedge banks, and the interest they provide to the farmed landscape, are sensitive to changes in land management’.
FLD does not consider that the development of a vehicle testing track at Dovenby Hall to be in keeping with the peaceful and tranquil nature of this area, particularly as it is proposed to be built within the historic parkland setting of the Dovenby Hall Estate. The LVIA provided with the application does not address loss of tranquility, but concentrates mainly on the visual impact of the development. This omission means that there has been no evaluation of the impact of noise from the vehicle testing track on the currently tranquil landscape setting of the proposed development. The loss of 17900sqm of mature woodland and 1200sqm of Ancient Woodland from the site along with 25 mature parkland trees will have a significant visual impact on the local area, particularly to the north of the site. This is of particular concern because of Dovenby Hall’s historic setting.
The response references specific objectives and policies of the Allerdale Local Plan and the NPPF and notes that the proposal conflicts with these.
The impact of the proposed development on protected species which use the woodlands, in particular bats has been recorded in the application as being “significant” which is of concern. The loss of woodland and parkland habitat coupled with disturbance, lighting and noise from the test track would have a damaging impact on the population of bats which currently use the area. If this is the case, it would appear that this application may not conform to Schedule 2 of the Habitats Regulations 2010 regarding European protected species.
In summary, FLD objects to this application on the basis of damage to a natural and historic landscape through woodland removal and loss of tranquility. We also object on the basis of loss of Ancient Semi-Natural Woodland (an irreplaceable resource) and loss of part of a County Wildlife Site, and possible harm to protected species.
Woodland Trust – Due to the direct loss to 0.2 hectares ancient woodland and an area of wood pasture and parkland the Woodland Trust objects to the proposals. The Trust is of the opinion that as ancient woodland is irreplaceable habitat that no works should take place in an area of PAWS or ASNW. Refer to additional DEFRA guidance and DEFRA’s policy position and state that the Trust considers that the loss of irreplaceable habitat, such as ancient woodland, should never be included within the scope of offsetting proposals. Although biodiversity offsetting is not an appropriate mechanism to apply to compensate for the loss of irreplaceable ancient woodland (as stated by Defra), in situations where ancient woodland loss is unavoidable then The Trust considers that any bespoke scheme of compensation should use, as a starting point, the maximum compensation ratio that can be calculated using the DEFRA offsetting metrics – effectively this would mean a compensatory planting ratio that exceeds 30:1. It is proposed that for the loss of ancient woodland within this proposal that there is a ratio of 1:1. Based on the draft DEFRA methodology we would expect to see at least 6ha of new woodland planting, located to deliver buffering and linking together other fragments of ancient woodland and other habitat in the local landscape.
The Environmental Statement (vol 3) Ecology- Rev A states on page 48 that: “A buffer of 15m from ancient woodland (as shown on Figure 8 in Volume IV of the ES) is standard practice by the Forestry Commission to ensure works do not affect the designation. An area of proposed sound attenuation bund encroaches on the ancient woodland buffer. 100m is adjacent to the PAWS and 31.5m is adjacent to the ASNW.” In relation to the proposed buffer for the ASNW, for buffers to be effective they need to be designed on a case by case basis. There is no one size fits all approach to buffer design and each buffer will be unique to its location and the functions it is to fulfil. If the Council are mindful of granting planning permission the Woodland Trust recommend that the current buffering proposed is not of a great enough extent to protect the remaining ancient woodland from adverse impacts.
Forestry Commission – 1st Response The proposals appear to involve the removal of Ancient Semi Natural Woodland (ASNW) and as such, the Forestry Commission would not support this application. Furthermore, the plan also shows development immediately adjacent to the area of ASNW. Any development adjacent to the ASNW would need to allow an adequate buffer, (following the usual formula for calculating Root Protection Areas) to ensure there is no damage to tree roots or ground vegetation from any development works.
2nd Response Although the area is designated as ASNW, it should actually be designated as a PAWS (Plantation on Ancient Woodland Site). This is referred to on pages 5 and 6 of the standing advice document I forwarded to you. As such, the area would normally be treated the same as if it was an ASNW wood in terms of our position when dealing with planning applications. However, having checked the historic maps, I can see the area that has been converted at some point and therefore has not been "continuously wooded". As such, I would have to concede that the previously cleared area would not be subject to the standing advice note I sent you, but it seems that the proposals do still remove a small adjacent area of ASNW. Therefore, I'm afraid my position would remain as an objection after consulting our standing advice.
Allerdale Housing Officer – Raise no comment subsequent to removal of housing development from the proposal.
Sport England – Objection to loss of sports provision – cricket pitch, with no alternative provision proposed. England Cricket Board confirms that, “The cricket pitch is currently unused as it is privately managed but has been identified in the Allerdale Playing Pitch Strategy (final draft as at August 2014). It is a synthetic pitch site. The Allerdale Playing Pitch Strategy has identified that there is currently no spare capacity in the Cockermouth area and that latent demand is expressed by Cockernouth Cricket Club. This site has been specifically identified as a potential solution to the expressed demand. Given the findings of the playing pitch strategy ECB would expect that any proposal should include reprovision of the cricket pitch though given the current provision, reprovision as a single synthetic pitch would be acceptable (this should be an ECB Approved Non-Turf Pitch System on a suitably sized outfield).” From the comments of the ECB there is demand for cricket in Allerdale and therefore the cricket pitch cannot be considered as surplus to requirements. In light of the above, Sport England objects to the proposal because is not considered to accord with any of the exceptions in Sport England’s playing fields policy.
Cumbria County Council – 1st Response Do not consider the proposal to be a Category 1 Application, and the County Council will not be responding to this application from a strategic planning perspective. However, comments are provided relating to the following:
Landscape The site lies within an area designated 5a ‘Ridge and Valley’ by the Cumbria Landscape Character Guidance and Toolkit (CLCGT). The CLCGT describes the characteristic woodland cover as follows: The patchwork field pattern is interspersed with both native broadleaved and planted coniferous woodlands features include dense high hedges, woodland, especially along narrow valleys, shelterbelts, remnant parkland and tree clumps. Some hedges are fragmented. Small areas of forestry plantation punctuate the landscape. The Dovenby Hall Estate is relatively self-contained within the wider landscape, due to relatively low lying topography, and extensive mature woodland which covers the majority of the perimeter of the site. The estate has a historic parkland character, although this has been eroded to some extent in the western part of the site by development. As noted by the applicant, the eastern part of the site retains a stronger parkland character, due largely to an avenue of trees which traverse this area.
The applicant states that the proposal in question would necessitate the removal of 25 of the aforementioned parkland trees, as well as a significant amount of mature woodland (17,900sqm in total), including 1,200sqm of designated ancient woodland. From a wider landscape and visual impact point of view, the self-containment of the site, would mitigate the effects of this proposal (albeit it is noted that the residents adjacent to the northern boundary would experience major visual effects). However, within the site itself, the development of a test area as proposed, and the removal of the amount of trees proposed, would result in a notably larger impact. The applicant regards the sensitivity of the ‘Dovenby Hall Estate LCA’ as low (L&V technical appendix, 4.20), and concludes that during operation this would result in a minor adverse effect. However, given the historic nature of the site, and the presence of ancient woodland, this assessment is questionable. Ancient woodland is a relatively scarce resource. The loss of ancient woodland on the scale proposed is likely to have significant adverse ecological as well as landscape impacts. Natural England’s most recent Standing Advice on Ancient Woodlands (April 2014) reiterates the longstanding planning principle of conserving such areas. We would refer you to this advice.
It is noted that the applicant intends to develop a woodland management plan for the site. However, in light of the concerns outlined above, it is suggested that a revised development proposal is considered necessary which would reduce the adverse impact upon the setting of the site.
Education No contribution requirement for education provision or school transport. To ensure the sustainability of this development there is a need for improvements to the walking route between the application site and Bridekirk Dovenby Primary School (in relation to housing proposal).
Drainage Most of the areas adjacent to watercourses running through site are in Flood Zone 3 and associated areas susceptible to surface water flooding. It is noted that development is proposed outside these areas, and a slight adjustment has been made to the indicative housing site layout.
Flooding of properties in Dovenby village is known but will not be affected by the development site as the proposed surface water outfall, for the hotel and housing sites would be south of the village housing. There is an over-reliance on traditional piped systems for the hotel and housing, where open watercourse/swales could be used with pervious paving discharging to filter drains before being transmitted to biodiversity attenuation ponds. This option would contribute to a better sustainable drainage design. As these relate to outline aspects of the application there is scope to change them with the reserved matters application and this has been covered within the suggested conditions. We would encourage early dialog with the LLFA to satisfactorily deal with these matters.
In respect of the MEC and test track, similar hard engineering systems are being proposed for the drainage systems in a site that could offer excellent opportunities for innovative approaches for utilising SuDS features such as SWALES along the test track verges (that will also lead to quicker run off the track), treatment within the vegetation. These more sustainable solutions would maximise water treatment to ensure water framework directive is not breached.
There is an area on Brides Beck shown shaded grey (opposite the MEC building) but the Legend does not indicate what this means. Any interference with the beck channel of additional features also need to be consented; we will be looking for these details and SuDS features to be submitted as part of the approval process.
Given the nature of the development within open parkland, with all its features, there is considerable opportunity for SuDS to follow topography, towards the two becks and mimic natural drainage patterns wherever possible. Swales, porous paving, filter strips and bio-retention ponds should be used to reduce rate of run-off and improve water quality of the watercourses downstream from the site.
The Drainage Strategy in Section 1.6 emphasises need for at least 2 stages of treatment to assist in removing pollutants from surface water by a variety of SuDS techniques (as suggested above). Yet the Drainage Strategy Drawing details traditional hard engineering features. Thus it is disappointing that SuDS objectives are not translated into the proposed drainage strategy plan (Appendix 1, Drainage Strategy). Although it is recognised the soils in the area are cohesive, these very rarely are such as to require a total abandonment of SuDS systems, particularly in a rural setting such as this. Further dialogue is needed prior to the submission of the discharge consent application.
Cumbria Highways Local bus services are noted and as a result the site is considered to be reasonably accessible.
Six elements of the scheme are considered as follows:
(i) Full Application for 9735 sq.m manufacturing building and 2.5km Test Track (referred to as MEC) These developments lie to the east of the existing main access road off the A594 - it is understood a total of 300 persons will be employed here. The Cumbria Parking Standards would require 195 spaces for B2 and 390 for B1 Use. The 3% disabled provision accords with the Standards and these bays are well related to the main entrance point, which includes a quasi Zebra crossing point. Sufficient hardstanding is provided for access and turning and the 'storm cell drainage' lies beneath the parking bays.
The existing access road off the A594 is well able to deal with this scale of development. However, the provision of a refuge island and footway at the Bridekirk road junction will be important, as this will allow the local bus services to pick up/set down nearer the entrance than the present stops in the village; the island also segregates the two right turn lanes and will constrain overtake manoeuvres. Together with these improvements, the development will be required to provide additional eastbound and westbound bus stops on the A594 near the Motorsport entrance. It is noted that it is proposed to open up the long disused eastern gate (near Brides Beck culvert for the construction of this element of the works. We have no objection to this in principle, as long as 2.4m x 160m @ 1.05m height visibility splays are maintained during the temporary use (the overgrown low branches of the trees/saplings on the culvert embankment will have to be cut back). Class 1 retro-reflective 'Site Access and Heavy Plant Turning' signs shall be erected at appropriate locations on the A594 west and east of the access, when it is being used (pole mounted if longer than 6 weeks duration).
(ii) Full Application for 780sq.m Agricultural Shed - Little highways/traffic implications as it is essentially for estate management equipment/stores purposes.
(iii) Outline for 28 bed hotel - The access road/parking manoeuvring space (subject to detailed dimensions according with Cumbria Standards) appears satisfactory. There appear to be 80 car spaces with 6 disabled and 4 mini-bus spaces which appears reasonable given that it is an outline application so there are no specific details of restaurants/bars/conference rooms/staffing etc. It is not considered there have been any significant traffic changes since 2002 that would change the Highways Authority response at that time.
(iv) Outline for 2450 sq. m office space - the D&A Statement advises that this application is for potential replacement of the former Asylum, 'Hodgson & Howard House' buildings that are to be demolished to create part (I) of this application if there is demand. On the assumption that future reserved matters application(s) will provide more details of access/servicing/parking space provision and the development(s) will be serviced by the existing main access off the A594, there are no particular issues to the principle of this element of the proposal. However the previous applications referred to are 02/2006/0324 (640 sq. m) & 02/2006/0381 (750sq. m) and the current application would result in major increase on existing usage. On the assumption that there is a Conditioned/Sec.106 Secured Travel Plan for the entire complex that is subject to ongoing annual review and any other businesses would be tied into the Travel Plan as part of their Tenancy Agreements, then this is considered to provide sufficient security.
(v) Outline 5000sq.m Future expansion - Essentially a building of half the size of the proposed MEC (part (I) of this application), would presumably need to be located to the south-western corner of the site. Applying the same assumptions/principles as for Part (iv) above we are raising no objection to this element on the basis the details will be dealt with when/if a reserved matters application(s) are submitted.
(vi) Outline 25 dwelling housing estate – These would be located off Dovenby Main Street. During pre-application dialogue we advised this is only acceptable if a footway is provided along the western side of Main St. from the northern Dovenby Beck Bridge to link with the existing provision at the Woodland Grange Development, but no such offer is made. Currently there are 9 properties served by Woodlands Grange, thence a further 18 down to the beck bridge/proposed access point and 16 south thereof. Thus the 25 additional units would mean there will be (16 + 25 + 18 =) 59 houses served by Main St south of the Woodlands Grange junction and 68 by the junction off the A594. For this to be acceptable a footway of not less than 1.2m width must be provided on the west side of Main St, north of the beck bridge with the carriageway generally being 5m, though it is accepted there will be a localised narrowing to 4m (over 20m past Reading Room Cottage). The footway proposed with the estate needs to be returned along the eastern side of Main St. to the eastern corner of the bridge to the A594 (which crosses the beck diagonally), so that pedestrians would cross at this point where there is good visibility.
Currently the streetlighting in Dovenby is District Council amenity lighting on electricity poles (such provision is being removed on a national rolling programme) and so it is likely there could be a need to contribute to replacement lighting.
As stated in the Transport Assessment, the nearest pair of bus stops/shelters are located on the A594 near The Ship Public House; and are within 500m of the proposed residential part of the development. The Maryport bound bus shelter is in need of roof repairs and this should be secured as part of the evolving Travel Plan.
The Travel Plan includes 2 WYG Group Drawings: A072284/C002 & /C003 which show a link footway along the A594 from the Main St junction to the present provision by the westbound bus shelter and works around the Bridekirk junction. These works and the aforesaid footway along Main St will need to be completed under Highways Act 1980 Sec.278 agreements with this Authority, and the estate road constructed under a Sec.38 Agreement, for this element of the development to be acceptable to this Authority.
If planning permission is granted, recommend a number of conditions and s106 legal agreement relating to Travel Plan.
2nd Response Landscape In the County Council’s original response, concerns were raised in regard to the impact upon the character of the site. The loss of an area of ancient woodland was also highlighted as a key issue. The content of the revised Woodland Management Plan, Arboricultural Report and Tree/Planting plan are noted. These clarify that a relatively small area of ancient woodland will be removed, and that it is questionable whether this area conforms to the criteria for ancient woodland classification, due to it not having been in continuous woodland use since at least 1600. The bulk of the ancient woodland will remain. The Woodland Management Plan confirms that this will be sympathetically managed, through the removal of non-native, and encouragement of native, trees. This can be regarded as a significant net benefit in offsetting the adverse impact arising from the loss of the area proposed.
The creation of the Evaluation Centre and track as proposed would result in the remnant parkland character of the site being lost, which remains a concern. However, the overall impact would be mitigated to an extent given the screening provided by the established woodland surrounding the site, and lack of public access to the site.
Flood Risk The amended drainage proposals for the test track which now consist of filter drains prior to discharge to attenuation ponds of surplus storm flows before Discharge to St.Brides' Beck are welcomed. However there remains the need for formal Discharge Consent and discharge Structure from the County Council’s Ordinary Watercourse Consenting Team. It is noted site investigations have shown the ground is clay with relatively high water table, which means that entire infiltration drainage is unlikely to be possible at this location.
The intention to allow ponding on the test track and in parking areas for rainfall events exceeding 1 in 30 years is noted, however no details are given as to:- • the depth of ponding required; • whether this is achievable without parked cars becoming inaccessible/damaged; and • whether there are exceedance flows to be dealt with.
However it is considered that the above issues may be dealt with at Discharge of Conditions/Reserved Matters stage. Highways and Transport Clarify that the Appendix A to the letter dated 16 June mistakenly referred to a 28 bed hotel. This should have read “60 bed hotel”. This was a typo and the assessment provided then was correctly based on the hotel containing 60 beds.
In summary:
• The financial contribution required is based on the average annual costs (currently £1,320 pa) to undertake the review of the Travel Plan, multiplied by the number of years of the travel plan. Given the 10 Year Masterplan period, in this instance the contribution sought is: Travel Plan Administration Fee Contribution = £1,320 (average annual costs) x 10yrs = £13,200.
• Recommended provision of ‘request bus stops’ located nearer to the site access (than the ones by The Ship Public House) have not been included. As the residential element of the development has been deleted from the proposal, if the bus stops aren't provided, there appears little purpose in providing these facilities. Whilst the drawing showing the proposed missing length of footway along the A594, between the bus stops and Main Street is in the Travel Plan, it is unclear from the information provided whether this is to be provided. The Highway Authority considers that given the additional vehicular traffic and the intensification of use of the facility over the 10 year Masterplan will create both these additional pedestrian facilities and additional 'request bus stops' near the site access must be provided.
• The Travel Plan as a whole (including the appointment of a Travel Plan Coordinator for the site) and the Travel Plan Administration Fee will therefore need to be secured via a Section 106 Agreement.
• Dovenby Parish Council have sought that the Developer pays for the re-roofing of the Maryport bound bus shelter roof, they believe this to be a County Council facility. However the shelter is formed in the boundary wall of the adjacent house, now in private ownership. Whilst it would be appropriate for the developer to enhance these facilities, it should be noted that the consent of a third party would be required.
• The revised information retains the proposal to utilise the disused eastern access for construction and is supported by Northern Developments Drawing 080110/154 which details the proposed improvements to this access. Whilst it is noted the visibility previously conditioned cannot be met to the nearside road edge in the Maryport direction at 1.05m height, it is available at 1.7m height which is visible from vans/lorries/plant etc. In addition 160m of visibility is available to the centre of the Cockermouth/eastbound lane and given there is a 'no - overtaking' roadmarking system in place, this is considered acceptable.
• With regards parking associated with the outline elements, we are advised that 2450 sq.m future office development will have 60 parking spaces; the 60 bed Hotel 92 spaces (plus an additional12 secure garage facilities); and the 5000sq.m 'building' 45 spaces, no specific layout is shown, but it can be reasonably anticipated a 60 bed hotel will see use by Coach Travel, thus we would expect some provision for such. However as Landscaping and Layout are Reserved Matters, the details of parking provision can be dealt with at that stage.
Subject to the above issues being addressed, no objection is raised by the Highway Authority subject to the securing of the Travel Plan and contribution via Section 106 Agreement and the inclusion of recommended conditions.
Allerdale Access Officer – On access issues to the buildings for disabled people no objections.
Allerdale Drainage Engineer – Principal concern is the flood risk to Dovenby village. As requested I have re-examined the flood risk assessment / drainage strategy. While I note some detail discrepancies in both the JBA report and the drainage strategy I note from the latter the intention to divide the development site into two separate surface water drainage compartments with declared discharge rates. As this is the important point at issue I will clarify the developer’s intentions as I understand them. It is noted that attention has been paid to my concerns made during the applicant’s initial enquiries and their intention is to limit discharge into Dovenby Beck to a better than equivalent green field runoff rate of 6l/s for the western compartment (hotel) and to route that discharge to Dovenby Beck at a point downstream of the settlement and clear of the length where past flooding problems have started. The second compartment serving the remaining proposed developments (test facility and track) is to discharge to Brides Beck to the east and well away from Dovenby village at a rate of 45l/s. It is technically feasible to achieve these runoff rates by suitably designed and constructed storage and attenuation structures. It is not my intention to validate any of the supporting calculations but I am happy to recommend acceptance of the principle and quantity of these two runoff rates. You may wish to impose a suitably worded planning condition that will stipulate these, together with the need to submit suitable detailed design information. I would suggest this latter point is needed for the applicant to prove that there is sufficient room on site for adequately sized attenuation ponds and enough fall for pipework and open channels.
Coal Authority – Standing Advice as an informative note to the applicant in the interests of public health and safety.
Cumbria Constabulary – No comments received.
Cumbria Wildlife Trust – Object to the proposal based on the loss of deciduous woodland BAP priority habitat and loss of County Wildlife Site. Proposal will result in 0.3ha of the CWS being lost, (4%). Mitigation on site is not possible and no off site mitigation is proposed. The submitted ES recognises that the ancient woodland cannot be replaced or mitigated for and also recognises that negative impacts are likely on the remaining designated ancient woodland. Effects are expected to be significantly adverse for years 1 and 15. CWS advise that it is clear that the proposal will result in the loss of important habitat that is impossible to mitigate for.
An objection is also raised to the loss of foraging habitat for bats. The development will have a significant negative impact on a European Protected Species through loss of foraging habitat and therefore Allerdale as the competent Authority under Regulation 9(3) of the Habitats Regulations should refuse planning permission until suitable mitigation is provided. The proposal is contrary to policy S35 of the Allerdale Local Plan and should be refused.
English Heritage – 1st Response Comments limited to archaeological remains associated with Hadrian’s Wall World Heritage Site. In this regard, the applicant has considered the potential for direct impacts on the possible Roman Road connecting forts at Maryport and Papcastle. The applicant has not considered the possible impact of the proposal on the appreciation and understanding of Roman military planning and land use. In addition to allowing movement between the forts, the road is likely to have been a visual corridor for communications. However, it is considered possible too come to an informed conclusion of the proposal without this information. Mature trees and local topography provide extensive screening of the site. This screening is such that it is unlikely that there will be views of the site from Maryport or Papcastle. Any visibility would be so slight as to be unlikely to harm the understanding of the Roman Road. Therefore, there is not considered to be any harm to the World Heritage site and no objection is raised to the proposal.
2nd Response No further comments to those previously provided.
Natural England – 1st Response European Site - No Objection. The application site is within or in close proximity to a European designated site (also commonly referred to as Natura 2000 sites), and therefore has the potential to affect its interest features. Will require Habitats Regulations Assessment by the Local authority.
SSSI No Objection This application is in close proximity to the River Derwent Site of Special Scientific Interest (SSSI). Natural England is satisfied that the proposed development being carried out in strict accordance with the details of the application, as submitted, will not damage or destroy the interest features for which the site has been notified. We therefore advise your authority that this SSSI does not represent a constraint in determining this application. We note that following appointment of a lead contractor and/or construction project manager, MSport will submit a more detailed construction method statement which will identify proposed construction activities, plant usage and environmental monitoring plan. The final CEMP should be in place prior to the commencement of works.
Refer to Standing Advice in relation to protected species.
2nd Response Refer to standing advice in relation to Ancient Woodland.
In relation to Bats, Natural England does not object to the proposed development. On the basis of the information available to us, our advice is that, the proposed development is likely to affect bats through disturbance of a European protected species and the damage or destruction of a breeding site or resting place. We are satisfied however that the proposed mitigation is broadly in accordance with the requirements of the Bat mitigation guidelines and should maintain the population identified in the survey report. A condition is recommended for a detailed method statement for works affecting bats.
Natural England note that as bats are a European Protected Species protected under the Conservation of Habitats and Species Regulations 2010 (as amended), a licence is required in order to carry out any works that involve certain activities such as disturbing or capturing the animals, or damaging or destroying their resting or breeding places.
Natural England’s advice on this planning application relates only to whether the proposed development (including any proposed mitigation measures) is likely to be detrimental to the maintenance of the species concerned at a favourable conservation status. It does not consider whether the proposal requires a licence, satisfies the three licensing tests or whether a licence is likely to be granted for this proposal. In particular, it should be noted that we are not in a position to advise whether there are alternative solutions that would deliver the stated need while having a lesser impact on the protected species.
Under regulation 9(3) of the Habitats Regulations, competent authorities (in this instance the local planning authority) must have regard to the requirements of the Habitats Directive when exercising any of their functions, including whether or not to grant planning permission. This includes having regard to whether the development proposal is likely to negatively affect any European Protected Species (EPS) and whether any necessary licence is likely to be granted by Natural England. This should be based on the advice we have provided in this response on likely impacts on favourable conservation status and our published guidance on the three licensing tests (i.e. no satisfactory alternative solutions, imperative reasons of overriding public interest and maintenance of favourable conservation status).
3rd Response No additional comments in response to further information provided.
4th Response Confirm agreement of no likely significant effects for HRA purposes.
County Archaeologist – 1st Response Dovenby Hall is listed grade II. It predominantly dates to the 17th and 19th centuries but it has a medieval core and sits in its own landscaped park, which has two further listed structures: a medieval cross base and a monument to Anne Frances Gunson. In 1930 Dovenby Hall changed from a private residence to a hospital which subsequently closed. Two sub-circular earthwork mounds of unknown origin and significance are located on the north-western boundary of the park and the course of a Roman road connecting the forts at Papcastle and Moresby lies on the southern boundary of the park.
The applicant has commissioned an extensive programme of archaeological work in order to determine the archaeological impact of the proposed development. There is however, an outstanding issue that needs to be resolved regarding the development impact on the two archaeological earthworks on the north-western boundary of the park. These earthworks are of unknown origin and significance and paragraphs 4.3 and 4.4 of the EIA are ambiguous as to whether the proposed development will affect these remains. I therefore advise that further information is supplied by the applicant on the development impact to the earthwork remains so that a suitable mitigation scheme can be formulated. Such a mitigation scheme may comprise fencing around the earthwork to protect them from the construction of the development, or archaeologically investigating and recording them, in the event they will be disturbed by the development.
The results of the archaeological work over the other areas of the proposed development site indicate that it is highly unlikely archaeological remains of the Roman road will be affected. The results also reveal that it is unlikely currently unknown buried remains will be disturbed across much of the site, but there is one area that has been unavailable for detailed archaeological investigation and this lies within the proposed residential development. This area has the potential for buried archaeological remains associated with the medieval village of Dovenby. It also contains one of the previously mentioned earthworks of unknown origin and significance. I therefore recommend that, in the event planning consent is granted, an archaeological evaluation and, where necessary, a scheme of archaeological recording within the area of the proposed housing development be undertaken in advance of development and advise that this work should be commissioned and undertaken at the expense of the developer. I consider that this programme of work can be secured through the inclusion of a condition in any planning consent.
2nd Response Confirmation received that the proposed development subject to the full application is unlikely to affect remains of the Roman road and also that it is unlikely that currently unknown buried remains will be disturbed within this area of the site. No additional archaeological work is considered necessary within this area of the application site.
In relation to the outline application for future expansion space and the hotel, confirmation received that the proposal will not affect the archaeological earthworks on the north-western boundary of the park or the medieval cross. On the basis of this information, recommends that the earthworks are protected during the course of the construction of the development by erecting fencing around them to ensure separation from the development works, secured by condition. Further condition sought for an archaeological evaluation and, where necessary, a scheme of archaeological recording within this area be undertaken in advance of development.
Environment Agency 1st Response Object to the use of a non-mains foul drainage system in a publicly sewered area. Inadequate justification has been provided for this method of foul sewage disposal. We recommend that the application should be refused on this basis. If the above objection can be satisfactorily overcome, then conditions are recommended for possible contamination and the disposal of surface water.
2nd Response Advise the proposals have no significant risk to river or wetland habitats.
3rd Response Foul drainage The drainage strategy advises that foul drainage will be conveyed to the mains sewerage system and therefore we wish to withdraw our objection to the development as outlined in our consultation response dated 12 June 2014.
Land affected by past contaminative uses We have reviewed the Contaminated Land Assessment document entitled 'M Sport Mixed Use Development at Dovenby - Phase 1' by Mott MacDonald, dated May 2014. We would agree with their conclusions and recommendations given in sections 7.1 and 7.2 of the report. The overall site is 45 Ha, and much of this has not been subject to contaminative uses or potential impacts. In this respect the following condition should be specific in its nature, and concentrate on areas where pollution by fuel tanks or other contaminative storage areas has been defined, especially if redevelopment is proposed.
Consider that planning permission could be granted to the proposed development planning condition for the investigation and remediation of contamination.
National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) paragraph 109 states that the planning system should contribute to and enhance the natural and local environment by preventing both new and existing development from contributing to or being put at unacceptable risk from, or being adversely affected by unacceptable levels of water pollution. Government policy also states that planning policies and decisions should also ensure that adequate site investigation information, prepared by a competent person, is presented (NPPF, paragraph 121).
The site is in the area underlain by Carboniferous Limestone Series designated as a Secondary A Aquifer. Most of the site is shown to be overlain by glacial till however alluvial sand and gravel deposit is present in vicinity of Brides Beck, in the south eastern part of the site. Alluvium is designated as a Secondary A Aquifer due to its permeable nature and may be in a hydraulic continuity with the river.
The submitted Drainage Strategy report, dated March 2014 indicates that infiltration would not be suitable in this location due to clay deposits and high levels of perched groundwater. According to this document drainage infrastructure will need to include attenuation features in order to limit discharge rates to the existing green field rates for the undeveloped sites. It has been acknowledged that two stages of treatment, including petrol interceptors where necessary, will be required prior to discharge to the attenuation features.
Flood risk and surface water management EA are satisfied that the FRA covers the main points in line with the current guidance.
We have no objections in principle to the proposed development providing the findings of the FRA dated May 2014, referenced Revision C Produced by Mott McDonald and the Drainage Strategy (Appendix F of the FRA) dated 31 March 2014, referenced 48609- M Sport, Dovenby Hall, Cockermouth produced by Curtins Ltd are taken forward into further detailed design. Therefore request condition for a surface water drainage scheme for the site, based on sustainable drainage principles and an assessment of the hydrological and hydro geological context of the development.
Fire Officer – No objection. Advise on the installation of sprinklers.
Allerdale Environmental Health – Having considered all the information submitted and subsequent discussions with the applicant , Environmental Health main objective was to consider the impact on surrounding amenity and where possible to minimise the impact of this development. There was due consideration given to the issues raised by objectors, we feel this has been reflected in our recommendations to restrict and control the proposed operations on site. This proposal is unique in some respects as we are not aware that such a testing facility exists within the UK, therefore we are not able to make a direct comparison to such similar operations. We took account of the most appropriate assessment criteria in accordance with current UK guidance . We recommended that the use of the test track will meet World Health Organisation (WHO) guideline values, with the exception of Category 1 days which we have now recommended is limited to 6 days per annum occurring at least every 2 months. It is the view of Environmental Health that the World Health Organisation Guidelines (WHO) and British Standard Code of Practice BS8233: 1999 are the correct guidance documents for the applicant to make reference to, which they have with their category 2, 3 and 4 days. There have been discussions regarding the use of BS4142, the standard is not intended to be applied to the rating and assessment of sound from all forms of motorsport or indeed the assessment of low frequency noise which is associated with vehicle emissions. As part of our assessment we considered the operational restrictions of motorsport venues within the UK, , however this information had to be treated with caution as this proposal is not a motorsport venue and only a test facility with restricted days and times of operation. The proposed development is a track for testing vehicles so it was considered not applicable for this type of development. Our recommended conditions allow an operational Noise Management Plan to be in place prior to first use. This document is a working document and can be updated at any time to this development is a track for testing vehicles so it is not applicable for this type of development. We have set out community levels which must be complied with as stated within the draft Noise Management Plan which we feel will provide a satisfactory standard of amenity.
Conditions recommended.
Health and Safety Executive - No comments received.
United Utilities – No objection.
Annex 3 – Representations
In response to the first round of consultation:
8 letters of Support were received and can be summarised as follows: • Support for more housing and employment opportunities within Dovenby, bringing jobs, investment and cutting edge design to the area. • Proposed improvements to A594 beneficial, but would further benefit from 40mph limit and street lighting. • Support for improved pedestrian facilities to Dovenby and Bridekirk School, pedesitrain facilities to facilitate crossing the road • M sport is a thriving world class business that already benefits the community and local businesses. Support for work that attracts luxury car manufacturers such as Bentley. • Excluding the ‘No limit days’ the proposal will not exceed everyday noise levels experienced in the village from farm machinery and cars etc. • On ‘No limit days’, the hours are capped to 3 hours. Cars will not run continuously. In essence there is potentially high noise levels for a maximum of a few hours a maximum of 12 times a year. • If M-Sport fail to manage the noise properly they will quickly exceeded the permitted noise allowance and therefore number of days, making what I am sure is a very sizeable investment redundant. It is not in their interest for this to happen. Therefore I believe self-policing, as long as it is fully transparent, is reasonable.
58 letters of objection were received and can be summarised as follows:
General:
• De-valuation of property values, a compensation mechanism should be put in place • Loss of peace and tranquillity • Why are there 252 parking spaces, is this to become a spectator sport? • Flooding from Dovenby beck within the village and on the A594, frequency of these flash floods would be likely to increase causing misery and difficulty in obtaining flood insurance for present residents who are at a lower altitude than those in the estate. • December 2013, witnessed excessive water run off around neighbouring property, mainly from Dovenby Hall Estate, following heavy rain. With an increase in impermeable surfaces and removal of vegetation as a result of the proposed buildings and car parks comes an inevitable increase in surface water run off and this would be of concern. • Expansion of workshop, offices and storage are separate from the track development. Off site test facilities have been used throughout M Sport's time at Dovenby Hall Estate and remain available. Why can testing not continue at Kirkbride? • Business development of M Sport should not be to the detriment of residents • The rest of the village does not have piped natural gas, any new houses that were built should only be built if they are zero emission and run purely on electricity and not oil, likewise any hotel facility. • This proposal will involve losing the cricket pitch in addition to the various footpaths that used to be used to get from Dovenby to Papcastle, without having to walk along the treacherous A594. Sport England should be asked to comment on the disappearance of the cricket pitch or the banning of people from using it. • Represents an expansion in the development of "gas guzzling" cars that do not make the countryside a better place for the majority of the population. • Dovenby Hall should not be turned into an industrial estate. • True use of the proposed test track has not been divulged. • Development of this scale would alter the character of the area beyond that identified for a small rural village. • There appear to be no reasons why many aspects of the proposed development could not take place in other areas, already designated for such development in the local plan, with much less environmental impact. • Alternative layouts proposed for all aspects of the scheme • Misrepresentation of community comments from the MSport open day • Support only given at the open day on the basis that proper consultation and reassurance on noise levels be provided, this has not been the case. • Few direct benefits for the village, compared to the disadvantages. Could provide community amenity space. • Have people in Tallentire, Broughton etc been consulted purposely to dilute the comments of people in Dovenby? • How many of the jobs created will be for west Cumbrian’s? And how many hours of work will this generate? • Why did M sport not develop the Broughton Moor dump for this facility? • The level of parking proposed suggests a race track and not a test track. • Proposal is contrary to policies of the Allerdale Local Plan, including S12, S14, S19, s17, S24, s25, S27, S30, S32 and S35, DM16, S31, S34 and in doing so would breach NPPF guidelines. Also contrary to the Vision and Strategic objectives of the Plan. • Object to the submission of a ‘portmanteau’ planning application where unrelated development has been submitted to confuse and divide objectors. • Do not consider that hotel and housing will ever be built, only included to inflate the number of jobs proposed. • Previous assurances given by M Sport regarding continued access to Dovenby Hall have not been kept, therefore little confidence that current assurances will be kept. • The owner of M-Sport has an estate at Brandlingill which is almost identical in size to that at Dovenby, it is noteworthy that only six dwellings are within 500m of the centre of Brandlingill whilst a further 6 are in the 500m to 1000m zone. This location might be more suitable for the track? • Lillyhall is a designated site for research and development in aerospace (HDA) and nuclear industries, further and higher education in technology and engineering, vehicle manufacturing (ex buses) and vehicle sales centres. It has an established workforce and regular bus service. • Dovenby Hall has a significant historic setting / landscape. The landscape would be scarred by so many new buildings and by the imposition of a totally inappropriate racing car track.
Housing: • Over development - Dovenby is a small residential village in a rural area. 25 residences would represent a massive increase to the existing housing numbers, an increase of 50%, contrary to Allerdale Local Plan • The development should be reduced to no more than 12 houses • Is a requirement for houses in a village that is marooned from any local services? • No amenities for residents of new houses, such as play area, shops. • Would these houses sell next to a test track? • Would the local school have capacity? • No objection to the number of houses only if there is an advantage to existing villagers and their new owners. The old hospital entrance and the old entrance to the woods opposite the reading rooms and the recessed entrance by the bus stop could have pedestrian access made with a connecting path. That would connect the village sections and provide safe route to the bus and the footpath on the main road. • Told that no housing would be built due to green belt. • Low demand for housing in Dovenby. • Housing positioned to require the maximum removal of trees.
Workshops • Object to size and scale and their impact on the local landscape.
Hotel: • Over commercialism - Do we really need a hotel in this rural part of Cumbria? Surely the existing nearby hotels in the towns of Cockermouth and Keswick with many others in West Cumbria can fulfil the requirement for guests of MSport? • Another hotel will take business away from established hotels and B&Bs in the local area. • Comings and goings at the hotel will disturb nearest residents, particularly stag and corporate parties that a test track would attract. • Principle of hotel supported if it is re-positioned to the location of the test track • No compelling evidence for a hotel at this location • 60 bed hotel inappropriate in this rural location • Proximity of hotel to back gardens, loss of red squirrel activity. • Having spoken to some local hoteliers occupancy rates are not favourable and wouldn't indicate any justification for more bed spaces in the area. • Our property was flooded out 2 years ago by top water from the site. The existing drainage is insufficient to take away the current top water, much less by adding a hotel to the equation. Video and photographic evidence of choked and blocked drainage and its aftermath. • The noise and nuisance from a hotel being both built and occupied would be intolerable given that we are going to be 100 feet from it. • Visually intrusive in the winter to nearby residents.
Noise and Pollution: • This quiet and tranquil area will be shattered by the noise levels from high performance cars driven at speed around a test track. Not only the residents of Dovenby but all passers by visitors, walkers, cyclists and ramblers alike. • Submitted information is confusing, not understandable to the average person, full of jargon. Confusing because of the different ways noise is recorded. • Noise data suggests levels at 80dB where ear defenders would be necessary. • References to background noise, that could be an easy get out clause therefore concerned about self policing which will not be transparent. • Not sufficient scientific data to demonstrate that noise will not be intrusive. Actual projected noise levels' and the regularity of any noise should be evidenced fully. Numerous concerns raised regarding data used, it’s reliability, procedures/methodologies followed or suggested for monitoring • Residents will be trapped, unable to sell their houses due to noise risks • No information regarding ‘No limit’ days • Noise would be generated on well over a third of the year • Noise data ignores the nearest dwellings • No reference is made to the peak noise levels quoted in 3.1 above. An LAeq(1hr) can be very misleading in terms of nuisance value as the "averaging" over one hour in the measurement will easily mask disturbingly loud events (e.g. short burst accelerations, Doppler effect, high pitch whining, tyre squeal). Doppler relates to the creation of pulsating sound waves from gearing and engine vibrations that sends pitch levels through the roof. Reports are silent on this matter. • The longer any down times, the greater the scope for high level noise generation in the remaining time. • There is no mention of an upper limit for peak noise which is the case for other tracks e.g. Donington Park, Goodwood. • A site visit during which noise generated on the track site is independently measured both at its point of generation and at nearby dwellings would inform the planning decision. This would inform committee members of the impact on residents far more effectively than sets of largely unintelligible figures. • It might be equally useful to visit the Kirkbride test track where moving vehicle noise can be measured. The views of Kirkbride residents might also be sought. • Insufficient plans/mitigation in place to prevent noise to residents • Noise levels for receivers is unacceptable, being notified in advance is totally unacceptable. • Sound implications should be assessed by an independent organisation • No information on noise ‘pitch’ • Monitoring should be independent, no penalty for exceeding set levels • Other testing facilities within the UK are located away from residential areas • Experience of vehicles being tested at Kirkbride was like a chain saw. When they accelerated fast the noise was like a saw bench cutting wood. When some cars decelerated there were loud bangs, crackles and pops, It was difficult to have a conversation inside the control tower office because sudden car backfire noise distracted and alarmed us. • Up to 7 hours a day over 132 days including Saturdays and some Sundays is totally unacceptable and the track should be refused planning permission • The government's Planning Policy Guidelines states a change of 10 dB(A) ‘corresponds roughly to halving or doubling the loudness of a sound’ . One set of data with noise contours seem to add 30db to our noise levels in Dovenby. However their noise receiver can vary by 7db so the noise may be even greater • Their noise contour map shows LAeq or 30dB for Dovenby yet their page 4 Source levels shows the background at Dovenby of 53dB. We only hear the birds and lambs. Do they mean their cars will sound quieter than nature? I think they mean an extra 30dB will come from them which puts the total noise level above the WHO guidance and pushes the noise level to PPG24 category D. PPG24 states category D should be grounds for refusal of planning permission for new dwellings. • The sudden sound of race cars performing high speed acceleration and the bangs and crackles of deceleration are typical of the noise that PPG24 states should be considered negative to an application. • The Road Vehicles (Construction and Use) Regulations 1986 (as amended) contain safety and environmental standards for the construction and use of all classes of vehicle. In terms of noise, the Regulations include drive-by noise limits and test procedures for new vehicles...The use of a vehicle so as to cause excessive noise which could be avoided is also prohibited and any exhaust system must be maintained and not modified to cause additional noise. Have planners and environmental health officers checked to see if road racing rally cars comply with this? • Increased noise could affect health, the proposed race car testing would be louder than road noise. If you allow this you may be responsible for making villagers ill. • All data must be continuously made available to Allerdale and must always be available to the public. • Part III of the Control of Pollution Act 1974 gives local authorities powers to control noise with Noise Abatement Zone (NAZ). I think that the noise data submitted should be used to create a Noise Abatement Zone around the quiet tranquil Dovenby village area. A noisy test track could not be built in our zone. • The application seems to ignore Noise at Work Regulations 1989 for workers. • Excludes Dovenby residents from examining the recorded noise levels. • Submitted info does not seem to use the Environment Agency's method for measuring noise and explaining technical terms. • Unclear use of British Standard 4142:1997 Method for rating industrial noise affecting mixed residential and industrial areas. • Allowing the track may contravene Article 8 of European Court of Human Rights Rules on Noise Pollution Case. • Competition cars at 10m is quoted at 95-100dB would be 1000 times louder than the value quoted for a road car at 66dB due to the logarithmic scale, each increase of 3dB is effectively twice as loud, hence an increase of 30dB is a thousand times louder. The ‘Draft Acoustic Strategy’ concludes that ‘The source levels are high enough to cause complaints from a wide area. The nearest properties in Dovenby and Station House could experience levels which may be regarded as unacceptable.’ • Seeking to operate for 132 days a year with trackside noise levels of greater than 80dB, a level which would generate a significant increase in noise within Dovenby village and the surrounding area. It is difficult to see why such a proposal for a new facility can be justified, when existing circuits are facing greater restrictions. E.g. the ‘Croft’ circuit, in North Yorkshire, which has been in operation for more than 50 years, is now (since 2009) restricted to only 40 days with trackside noise levels above 70dB (a noise level approximately ten times lower than 80dB), in order for it to remain open. • Alternative noise management procedures put forward, including shorter operating times, No more than two consecutive noise days, Much lower number of days over 43dB LAeq, Monitoring figures should be accessible to all in real- time via a website, Saturday events strictly limited to a couple of instances a year, A community noise liaison person be appointed so the community can have direct access to the M-Sport Track Controller, Mobile monitoring equipment provided, Regular community engagement, so that issues can be documented and addressed. • Supporting information states that WRC cars with the new silencer can operate at LAeq of 43dB. If this is the case, why are higher limits necessary? • Special events such as the Malcolm Wilson Rally should be limited to 3-4 per year. • Already experiencing some noise from the site • Noise generated will have an adverse impact on holiday lets within the village itself and others in the wider locality. • Noise generated at Kirkbride can be heard five miles away, so what will it be like at 350m? • As a family with young children having naps during the day and one of us working shifts and needing to sleep at different times of day, we would be concerned that the noise levels from the development, and the test track in particular, would have a negative impact on this. • Noise generation should be prohibited on Sundays and before a certain time in the mornings. • The community and Councillors are being lobbied into thinking that vehicles will be supersilenced and that noise in the community will be acceptable. However, ‘No limit days’, and higher limit days are proposed as well as use on Saturdays and Sundays for corporate events. • No consideration has been given to Little Broughton, only 1600m away. • Noise data is founded on theory and assumes only one vehicle using the track, contrast this with the extensive plans for vehicle parking and the opportunity to extend the facility in the future. • This is not white noise which the human brain can adjust to, it is the rapid rise and fall in frequency associated with stress, irritation and discomfort. No consideration given to this. • Disregard to elderly residents and younger people with mental and physically debilitating conditions. • Bunding for safety reasons where practical, not for noise mitigation • Profoundly affect the quality of life for many thousands of people, particularly in Dovenby, Tallentire, Bridekirk, Broughton Park, Little Broughton, Great Broughton, Papcastle. • Reference to statutory nuisance, Local Authorities have a duty to deal with this under the Environmental Protection Act. • Testing is currently undertaken at more remote locations and the test track should be built at one of these. • Many existing motor sport venues have management plans but still generate complaints and court action. • Unfair to expect residents to make judgements on technical and jargon filled documents. Relying on Allerdale Planning to critically look at all information and that this is not a fait accompli. • Noise will potentially upset livestock on nearby farms. • Track could potentially be used every single day, shows contempt by MSport for the lives of hundreds of people. • The setting of noise limits should reflect the rural tranquillity of this area. • No indication as to the mix of vehicles, different cars will output different frequencies of noise. • Real time monitoring should be utilised, accessible by Allerdale Borough Council and residents. It would allow demonstration of how many days at a particular noise level has been utilised. • Construction noise would also need to be appropriately managed. • Development should not go ahead until the noise has been demonstrated to be minor or negligible. Why has there been no actual demonstration of noise levels for all proposed track usage either by using actual vehicles or some sort of PA system. • Spacing to residents of 1km should be achieved, not 300m. • The test sites used have not been demonstrated to be the same as or equivalent to Dovenby. • The assessment appears to consider only a single vehicle. I can find no statement in the application to say that only a single vehicle will have its engine running at any time. I fail to understand how a noise level can be calculated if there is no limit on the number of vehicle engines running at any one • The assessment fails to distinguish clearly between received noise levels under differing test conditions (silenced/unsilenced, wind/no wind/ single/multiple vehicles) or the impact on individual residences. • As Allerdale council officers have been involved in the development of the noise control documents they have, I believe by definition disqualified themselves from offering guidance to the planning committee as independent reviewers and alternative independent assessors should be used to advise the planning committee. • Planning conditions should cover; No movement of WRC vehicles to the track under their own power, Only one vehicle in the track at a time (& no racing), No static testing/tuning of more than one vehicle in the “open” or whilst another vehicle is on the track, Vehicles waiting to use the track to have their engine off or are in an “acoustic shed” in the “slip/pit lane”, Include all significant, concurrent noise sources in the assessment and clearly state, in a table, all source term limits or assumptions (for translation into planning constraints), All silenced and unsilenced vehicles to be tested before and after each test session to ensure that they comply with the limits used in the noise calculations i.e. noise limits derived from the assumptions in the test, a number of meters at different location should be used preferably with a (relatively) low level sound generator at the other side of the track (with directional emitter) to provide a low level reference signal to ensure that there is no interference, When the track is built noise levels should be mapped to demonstrate that the noise contours used in test and assessments are realistic (equal or less than) and if not further use of the track prohibited until remedial action has been taken. These tests should be repeated at 1 year, 3 years and every 5years after that. • The existing noise condition relevant to Dovenby, limiting noise to 45dB should be maintained. • Noise data should be subject to independent peer review • The use of average noise levels (LA) must be justified by stating what makes up this average and this has not been clearly stated which makes it virtually impossible for anyone to check or challenge the calculations. A 1 hour average noise level could be made up of 5 minutes each hour of noise approaching the threshold of pain with the other 55 minutes made up of a rest period. • The test conditions appear to have been carried out in unpredictable conditions (wind conditions high and gusting). Wind conditions can contribute to noise levels so one would have expected the tests to be done in still conditions or wind direction stated as required by BS4142 • Measuring noise levels in only one location at trackside although very convenient for Msport can never account for changes in environmental conditions. • Section 3.11 in the noise management plan (29/4/14) states that all vehicles using the track should undergo a static noise test but there is no figures given for what is or isn’t acceptable. • Examples of other tracks are irrelevant as they do not offer the same conditions. • MSports appointed noise consultant is stated as having an interest in motor sport and has won awards for services to the industry. Does this constitute a conflict of interest? • We note that the ambient noise figures used in the calculations to justify the amount of track noise above ambient conditions are higher than this at between 50-62dB LAeq (1hr). This is a major anomaly. • peak noise levels of 74dBA at 1.2kM with a reduction of 9dB for ground absorption and a further 3 dB reduction for noise reducing bunds we can see that we will have peak levels of approximately 62dB at distances of approximately 1.2kM. Assuming many areas at this distance have similar ambient noise levels as stated for Dovenby (45dB LAeq 1hr) then we can see that we may have peak noise levels of 17dB above ambient. • Noise absorption by trees will be minimal • Allowance has also been made for other interruptions in the propagation path by higher ground, trees and buildings. The figures used in the calculations suggest that an allowance is being made for these non-scientific estimations which are not in the scope of BS4142 which once again raises the issue of peer review. • Comparables for noise: Threshold of discomfort 120dB Chainsaw, 1 m distance 110dB Disco, 1 m from speaker 100dB Passing HGV at, 7 m away 90dB Kerbside of busy road, 5 m 80dB Vacuum cleaner, distance 1 m 70dB Conversational speech, 1 m 60dB Average home 50dB Quiet library 40dB Quiet bedroom at night 30dB It can be seen from the above that residents over a large area could experience high noise levels. Speedway at Workington might be a useful comparison to make. • Likelihood that in the event that planning permission is granted, legal action would be taken either against M sport or the Council regarding noise nuisance. Reference made to other legal cases. • The cynical disregard of the applicant is shown in EIA vol II 3.3.6; the new noise regime would be too much for Kirkbride Airfield and Greystoke Forest that they own, but less impact on Dovenby - but Dovenby houses as nearer to the noise than any in Greystoke or Kirkbride. Dovenby residents are being treated as less worthy of care than Kirkbride or Greystoke! • M-Sport are seeking to avoid the time and noise restrictions applied by Allerdale BC and Eden DC respectively at Kirkbride and Greystoke. Both LA's limit the hours, cars, test runs per day, the number of consecutive days of testing and require "rest days" between test eriods. No weekend or Bank Holiday testing is allowed, all to preserve the "character of the local area and amenity of local residents." See ABC 2/2001/0230 and Eden DC 10/0666. • A larger number of residential properties would be affected at Dovenby than continued testing at either Kirkbride or Greystoke. • Experience living close to Brands Hatch, demonstrated that test days could be louder than race days. • Not convinced that monitoring would be enforceable • Concern over noise experienced by office workers on site and whether appropriate guidelines can be achieved in this respect. Have noise levels at offices been requested? Have workers been consulted? May be alarm amongst these organisations that their peaceful working environment will completely change. • Concerned in case a misleading demonstration of noise is arranged at Teeside for Councillors and that if they hear an unrepresentative low level of peak noise they may be misled to think there would be no problem with noise at a track at Dovenby.
Highways matters: • Traffic on A594 already too busy and dangerous, with numerous accidents. Further expansion of M sport should be blocked unless they contribute the full costs of traffic calming measures on the A594 including speed cameras. A reduction in speed limit or traffic calming measures to reduce the speed and frequency of dangerous overtaking manoeuvres on the A594 would be appropriate • Road through Dovenby village unsafe/unfit for further traffic and the exit onto the A594 is dangerous • The original planning permission for the M Sport development was conditional upon the closure of the former hospital entrance. To allow it to be opened would in effect encourage developers to seek to break previous planning decisions. • The access for the housing should be via the safe main entrance. It is clearly possible to route the access road on site to exit beyond the site security barrier and then to the A594. • A594 to Cockermouth is very hazardous for car users but particularly for cyclists. For pedestrians it is unusable and there has been a dwindling bus service. • Additional houses, facilities and a hotel would potentially add another 300 vehicles to the local roads. • Even if walls were lowered adjacent to the bridge in Dovenby village, visibility from the former hospital entrance would not be very good. • Small section of footpath from the hamlet to the bus stop – why is this the only provision. • Old bus shelter obstructs visibility at junction with A594. • The current village road has subsided badly by the post box and MSport employed a repair man who pointed out that there is no proper foundations of the village road and the retaining wall is bulging into the beck and the soil is being washed into the beck thus undermining the road. Thus extra construction and residential traffic would accelerate catastrophic damage of the road subsidence and likely blocking of the beck which could repeat the flooding we suffered in 2006. • Transport Assessment underestimates peak traffic flows from the proposed housing, more likely to be 19, not 11. • Review of traffic accidents over only three years is unreliable and perhaps there have been no accidents because people consider it an unsafe route. • Disappointing that a cycle link to Dovenby is not viable. • Who is going to pay for the highways improvements? • Recorded accidents do not account for the number of bumps and shunts that do not require Police involvement.
Ecology/Biodiversity • the woodland along the beck to the east of the site is classified as ancient and should be preserved • Adverse effect on wildlife, particularly red squirrels, Deer, Jays, Woodpeckers. • Loss of trees will reduce screening which have amenity value and protect from existing industrial noise. • This scheme would necessarily involve the removal of significant numbers of mature broadleaf trees and the consequent destruction and disruption of wildlife habitats. • Question thoroughness of EIA. For example, the assessment mentions sighting of only two red squirrels and that their habitat is on the north eastern edge of the estate, we have views of only part of the western edge of the estate and have observed many more red squirrels than this (up to six at one time). • Dovenby is a designated site for significant biodiversity, important as a wildlife habitat and wildlife corridor. MSport's business is growing too big to be sited in an important wildlife habitat. • Dovenby Hall Estate should be designated in Allerdale Sites Definition according to Allerdale's Green Infrastructure Survey 2011 page 48 as a site of significant biodiversity and also a significant protected habitat and also a wildlife crossroads corridor. • The proposal does not comply with The Noise Policy Statement for England DEFRA
Representations also include information on FIA/WRC guidelines relating to operational requirements, testing, banned testing and requesting clarification on these rules in relation to the proposal.
1st round of revised information (received August 2014) Following the re-advertisement, further representations have been received.
A petition with 25 signatures received requesting that Dovenby Hall be de-allocated for employment and protected for its heritage and ecology value.
30 letters of support were received. Where they raise additional comments to those noted above, they are summarised as follows: • Dovenby Hall is surrounded by trees, so noise is unlikely to spread. • MSA noise limits are very strict for any competition car likely to be tested and road cars are even quieter. • It is a fact of life that things change, rural areas are now experiencing noise from wind turbines, changes in farm practices. • As the only MSA qualified Clerk of the Course in Cumbria I have run and competed in events all over the UK and noise levels at race meetings have dropped steadily over the years.At circuits which have a lot of tree cover like Cadwell park and Oulton Park you can barely here 30 cars competing when you are 200 metres away. The MSport track will only see one car at a time running and the noise will be considerably less than a high powered motor bike on the main road. • Increasingly over the past 7 years, rally associated customers have come from Scotland, Wales, Ireland and England and as well as myself they visit and spend money locally. The continued development of the M Sport facility is an integral part of our local economy, as well as its ability to attract and retain a specialist and unique workforce for our area. • Allerdale Borough Council's Environmental Health officers will be able to impose noise limits and monitor noise levels created by the use of the site to reduce any impact on the local area. if the facility is to be used for any motor sporting activity then this will need to be licenced by the UK motor sports governing body known as the MSA and they will also impose limits and controls on the noise levels which will be allowed. • If more than a decade ago Malcolm Wilson hadn't taken the brave and risky decision to base the M-Sport operation in West Cumbria we wouldn't have all the hundreds of quality jobs that have been created, or the Cumbrian graduates and engineers who have learnt their trade at M-Sport and gone on to jobs with Formula One teams and other World Rally Teams etc throughout the world. • proposed test track to be of vital importance to the company,given the type of research and development that they are involved in. • Private interests should not be placed above economic benefits which business investment brings to our county • The nearest MSA licenced circuit is Croft, 80 miles away which has limited availability • No business can stand still and the expertise M ‐Sport has acquired in working with Ford Motor Company and more recently Bentley clearly demonstrates the value of this organisation to international motor manufacturers.
160 letters of objection were received. Where they raise additional comments to those noted above, they are summarised as follows:
General • Notes extensive areas where the proposal is considered to be contrary to the NPPF including conserving/enhancing natural and heritage environments, noise, health and tranquillity, not brownfield, high quality environment/amenity value, Dovenby Hall Estate is a significant wildlife corridor connecting other wooded areas. • Conflict with Policy REM 10, the landscape, open space, historical setting, woodland, wildlife corridors and character would not be preserved or enhanced by size or nature of the development. No overriding environmental benefit, buildings for demolition could be converted, aggregate amount of built form is excessive and contravenes REM 10. Conflict with policies S32 Amenity and S37 Landscape, S35 Biodiversity. • Conflict with Policy S12/S14/S3/S5, out of scale with this location. Already an excess of employment land within Allerdale. • Tallentire Cricket clubs home pitch is on the grounds at M Sport. Loss would be a great shame as Mr Wilson has been a supported for years. Some villagers have indicated a clause in the Deeds requiring the cricket pitch to be retained? • If assertions made by a developer as part of an application turn out to be wrong does the developer have any liability for those statements? In particular, no adverse socio economic effects. Believe house prices will fall dramatically and tourists will not visit holiday lets within the village. • Sequential test for the hotel does not show evidence of claims regarding deficiency in supply of quality accommodation. • The economic benefit seems mainly a benefit to the multi millionaire owners. Already a shortage of skilled workers within West Cumbria due to Sellafield and the nuclear new build will only exacerbate this. More information required on the 100 jobs to be created. No evidence provided that existing jobs would be lost, no evidence or clear explanation of why the status quo cannot remain • Submission contains threats that the business will re-locate. Allerdale should follow legal process and not be bullied by threats. • Allerdale DPD states that new offices should be in towns and industry and R&D in Lillyhall, not Dovenby. • Workers are unlikely to be local, no evidence that there is a highly skilled workforce unemployed and available for their factory. The application fails if it cannot provide economic benefit of employment and economic spin off in the local community. If there are not local workers with suitable skills to work in a high tech car factory then the local employment justification fails. Suspect that job number s and benefits to local economy are likely to be much lower. • Concerns over who will use the track in the future and how it will be used. • They want to overdevelop Dovenby to be a competitor to the national MIRA vehicle testing centre, this is not appropriate for this rural location . • This will be a production line car factory. • REM10 does not support all of the proposed uses or the scale of development, neither do the new plan policies. Nor as the site been allocated as a secondary employment site after Lillyhall, such statements are misleading. • Speculative development to meet an unproven need outside Allerdale. • Car parking provision is excessive for the no. of employees, more likely to serve spectators. • Why is such a large fuel store required? • Proposal will blight the surrounding area. • The view of Broughton Parish Council is not the view of all parishioners. • Existing buildings should be developed not demolished, Policy S31. • Inappropriate increase in air pollution. • Dovenby Hall Estate should be recognised as a significant site of biodiversity and open landscape with an important heritage setting with significant historical features. The perimeter trees and parkland and naturally seeded wild area with wildlife should be recognised in Allerdale's site allocations. Form an important part of a wider network. Recognised as a wildlife crossroads within the Green Infrastructure Survey 2011. • Light pollution will impact on moths, bats and other wildlife. • Where else in the country is there a rural village with a car factory at test track? This is an industrial development, not a rural development. • Use class is misrepresented, not B1 (Business), should be B2 (General Industrial). • This is the wrong direction for Dovenby Hall Estate, should be considering something similar to West Lakes. • Scale of development remains excessive even with removal of housing. • Submitted drawings do not show the full picture, with many houses missing. • Concerns for safety of spectators/drivers. • More of the Dovenby Estate should be classified as Ancient Woodland. The Woodland Trust state the Woodland which has had continuous cover for over 200 years could be a candidate for Ancient status. Studying historic map of Dovenby Estate is would certainly seem that sections of Woodland Compartments 1, 3,4,5,6,7 and 8 have been continually forested for at least 200 years. The Woodland Trust state that sites such as these should be surveyed as potential for being sites of Ancient Woodland. I would request that all compartments be independently assessed for indicators of Ancient woodland for potential designation as ASNW, before felling of these long established trees begins and this scarce environment being irreversibly destroyed. • Compartments 3, 4 and 9 are listed by DEFRA as UK BAP priority habitats which are identified as being the most threatened and requiring conservation action under the UK Biodiversity Action Plan (UK BAP), as specified under Section41 of Natural Environment and Rural Communities Act 2006. I highlight this as a Section of Compartment 3 which is BAP designated, is scheduled for clear felling under the proposed plan. I would further request that these trees are placed under a preservation order TPO, SAC, NNR or SSSI, in recognition of their importance, affording them the additional protection they obviously need. • The proposed development will see clear felling in sections of these compartments, which have only licensed for thinning or selective felling. I suspect the thinning and selective felling will be based on the whether a tree is in the development site and not whether the tree is a viable specimen. I suspect, this is not what the Forestry Commission Officer was licensing for in the context of good woodland management. • It would also seem that it is Standard Practice for Forestry Commission to consult with neighbouring properties when 'Clear Felling' is proposed. In the case of Compartment 10 (the Clear felling of Sitka Spruce) neighbouring properties were not consulted, this felling will have significant impact on the amenity of these properties as well as the deer which are found in this compartment. Consultation should have occurred for Compartment 3 also. • There is a Public Register to publicise licensing requests, but how do the public know where or when to look at this Register? • How will re-stocking conditions of the licence be met if the area is covered in tarmac? • question if the cost/expense to the many others in the calculation has been given any consideration i.e. the local residents. • detrimental to the tranquil local nature reserve (Soddy Gap a.k.a. Fox House South) • Information submitted in respect to tree assessment insufficient to meet Scoping Opinion requirements. • Concerns that insufficient assessment has been provided for several woodland areas where works require tree removal (Compartments 1, 6, 8 10, 11 and the area of the eastern access), and that insufficient detail has been provided on drainage works and required tree removal in certain areas and scope for replanting. Similar concerns raised in respect to the submitted Woodland Management Plan – lack of tree assessment, conflict with what has been applied for under a Felling Licence. • Concerns that insufficient assessment of trees has been provided in relation to their potential for bat habitat. • Lack of clarity as to the area of trees to be felled and the area of re-planting. • The large open ground is likely to be a feeding area and the mature trees in the surrounding woodland are likely to be hunting perches. Removal of both and the disturbance of race car testing noise and movement will likely scare owls, red squirrels and bats away from this well established foraging and resting area. • concerned about the policing of any conditions which may be imposed should the application be granted, who will provide constant policing • Dangerous eastern access that does not achieve appropriate sightlines. • Re-opening of the eastern access will disturb red squirrels. • Underground fuel storage as well as the tyre store and pollution caused by so many vehicles will cause a potential risk of contamination in the run off water. This water runs into important water courses which currently have good levels of salmon and other fish. • No details of waste storage. • Figures relating to parking provision contradictory. • What staff numbers are foul drainage calculations based on? • Concerns relating to safety of the proposed highways works. • Insufficient and contrary/misleading information provided in relation to flood risk and drainage proposals. • Challenges information provided in relation to protected species, questions mitigation proposed for bats. • More than twice the area of trees will be removed than is accounted for in all the proposal’s reports. All reports that consider trees must thus be resubmitted. That should include landscape, setting, environment, wildlife, drainage. • Requests resubmission of woodland management plan to include all activity licenced by the Forestry Commission; a schedule of when and where felling and thinning is to take place is required; a schedule of replanting and the period of time allowed for replanting to re-establish itself for wildlife and amenity needs to be clear and feasible; an assessment of compliance with planning conditions should be submitted to Allerdale Planning for each stage of development, should be publicly available. • Phased mitigation for wildlife habitat & feeding is required especially for bats whose roost boxes cannot be put on the MEC after their habitat is destroyed until the MEC is built, their estimate 18 months. • No details of trade effluent disposal or storage of hazardous substances. • No clear explanation of opening hours. • Missing information relating to floor area, does not allow assessment against REM 10.
Noise • The Testing track is clearly an industrial facility creating industrial noise. No planning precedent which allows industrial noise to be treated as “traffic”. Road noise from the highway is clearly a more even and constant noise than that which will come from a “test track” in particular the use of the CTRN does not include the 5dB “uplift” for: “tonal” (hiss, whine or hum) or “impulsive” (bangs, clatters, clicks or thumps) or if it is “irregular enough to attract attention”. The use of the CTRN, unless demonstrably more restrictive than BS:4142, is wrong in law and practice and that Allerdale Planning erred in law and practice in allowing/agreeing to its use for a non-highway scheme. • No noise source exists in Dovenby and therefore there should be no difficulty in applying BS4142. • Now referred to “outdoor leisure noise” to justify any LA max issues. This is not an application for a racing circuit or leisure facility it’s a “ testing and evaluation facility” i.e. an industrial facility and leisure use should not be permitted. • Applicants long-term aim is to develop this incrementally into a “racing venue” regardless of the effect on the locality. • Despite the claim to use CTRN p17 “Test Measurements” appears, somewhat opaquely, to say that both “ground absorption” & “barrier correction” have been applied “these factors have been taken into account ” this is thus in contravention of CTRN – the analysis is thus flawed and must be rejected. • Case law referred to is not relevant to this proposal, M Sport are attempting to establish that the character of the area has been changed already, but the appropriate background is in the absence of M Sport activities. • Calculations are an approximation only, the applicant should demonstrate that noise pollution will be negligible or minor or to provide any guarantee to abate the practice if it isn’t. • BMW has just opened a completely enclosed test facility. What is the cost/benefit analysis for deeming an appropriate ‘reasonable size of bund? • Justifying the more noisy days on the basis of a number of quiet days is not reasonable i.e. it’s all right to cause a nuisance on X days if you don’t on Y (it’s OK to commit a crime as long as it’s not too many crimes). • Is the assessment correct in asserting that the “Normal days” cause “negligible or minor” noise issue – don’t accept this is the case on the basis of the “evidence” presented, given that incorrect assessment applied. • Higher noise level days proposed without any actual justification. It is widely accepted that noise levels >10dB above background/ambient will result in noise nuisance complaints (and are a noise nuisance). ABC can expect a large number of (justifiable) complaints on every high noise day and, as established by previous cases, ”planning cannot authorise a nuisance”. • Bad practice or failure to comply with planning conditions (woodland management requirements in the original planning permission) cannot be rewarded by accepting it as part of the justification for allowing plans to go forward. • ABC & M-Sport cannot set a precedent that any particular noise level is “acceptable” • Suggest a combination of track-side and “far-field” e.g. in village (persons/equipment) monitoring to demonstrate that noise control aims are met as the issue is noise nuisance which can only be measured/assessed at the receiver not the source. • It may be annoying but not a nuisance to have a noisy vehicle go past once a day but continuously for hours is a noise nuisance. The same applies to any number of loud noises: closing or even slamming a car door is not a nuisance but repeatedly doing it for hours certainly is. • Would any of these individuals have this facility built within 300 m of their home? • Concerns that a demonstration of rally car noise at Teeside may be misleading for Councillors. • Councillors should be made aware of noise complaints from Greystoke, Kirkbride Aerodrome, and Rowrah. • Is it reasonable to inform Councillors of Supreme Court decisions further afield? • Lack of common standards for noise measurement makes this difficult for residents, particularly as DEFRA advocate LAeq and LA90 for background without stating which to use when. • Noise in my very quiet garden will equate to somewhere between somebody speaking (continuously) to me from a distance of 1 m and a “noisy office”. I don’t know anyone who has a garden subjectively that noisy even relatively close to much busier roads than the main road in Dovenby. • Findings of 53dB existing levels at nearby properties frankly unbelievable at 8 x louder than a tranquil rural area. Invite ABC Environmental Health to take their own measurements. Regret that local people were not involved in these recordings from the start. • Information requested on previous noise complaints and how these have been dealt with. • Small earth bunds are unlikely to achieve the required noise reduction to neighbours. • No justification for the noise limit to be raised over and above the 45dB allowed for the existing factory. This original limit was set for a reason. • Use should be for M Sport only and not for other manufacturers, spectators or for pleasure. • list provided of a number of Government publicatiosn on noise and noise control which the consultant appear not to have used or is unaware of. • It should also be borne in mind that most (all) planning applications & noise complaints about test track/ motor sport venues apply to long established venues where vehicle testing or another noise source has taken place for many years, this is not the case at Dovenby. • Monitoring locations and the data collected is selective and misleading. Should refer to the worst affected property. • When WRC cars have been driven in the grounds, they have been extremely loud and annoying. Unfortunately now realise that our collective forbearance and good neighbourliness in not complaining about these nuisance noises and Mr Wilson’s helicopter (about 90dB at take-off , FAA data) now rebounds upon us in the outrageous assertions of this table. • References an Appeal decision from Bruntingthorpe where WHO guidelines were not considered wholly applicable for a non-continuous noise with distinct pulses. No single criterion for determining acceptability or otherwise of noise levels. • Earth bunds need to be continuous to be effective. Plans provided that show that a number of residents in Dovenby will be affected by “pulses” of unmitigated sound every time a vehicle passes through the “gap” in the barrier. • Undertaking required from the developer that they will adhere to NPS that the ‘polluter pays’. • Inadequate NMP submitted, can only be a noise management plan if the source terms are quoted, monitored and enforced. • NMP Noise triangle cannot be used by the developer or ABC to assert that no noise nuisance is being caused or to refuse to investigate a noise complaints just because it fits this triangle. • Independent acoustic consultant required to explain impacts in layman’s terms. • Car noise can sometimes be heard at present in Bridekirk. If that noise became more regular, it would certainly become a nuisance in Bridekirk as well as Dovenby. • Had been interested in a property in Dovenby but now looking elsewhere. • This area should be preserved now and in the future for its tranquillity. • Previously lived 3.5km from Donnington. Even at this distance with an intervening hill, noise levels on practice and test days were unacceptable. Noise will be unacceptable in Bridekirk but intolerable in Dovenby. Another representation raises similar concerns after living near a track in North Kent. • Assessment does not consider more than one car on the track at a time. A single monitoring point will only record the car that passes not any combined sound. • No assessment of noise from additional cars, entering and exiting the site, or spectators. • Various assumptions on calculations and silencer means noise levels in the hamlet will not be known. • Details at other tracks are given – Anglesey, which is much further from the nearest village and has water to three sides. Results show high levels here up to 1.4km away. Three Sisters Circuit - sunken into to a former colliary spoil heap, flanked to the south by Industrial Estates, to the West by a busy commuter rail link, an aerodrome and the M6 motorway. Inthe case of both Anglsey and Three Sisters directly neighbouring residential properties (within 500meters) are minimal (Anglsey=~7, Three Sisters=~2 dwellings) in Dovenby there would be over 50 homes within a 500 Meter radius. • Approval will result in lengthy and costly litigation. • To make the track viable, it will have to be used all year round. • the assessment for noise is not reflective of the proposed use for the Race/Test Track (i.e. its is founded upon the use of one super silenced vehicle); • Use of LAeq 1 hour has been the subject of many legal disputes in the UK as mentioned above and referenced in the CNA that has seen the successful closure and restriction of motor sport venues by residents under tort for public nuisance (e.g. Croft Circuit in Doncaster). • Unacceptable that maximum noise levels for the community have not been given. • Existing noise levels taken adjacent to the road and farm entrance are misleading. Figures are being massaged and blended with theory in order to conclude they will be acceptable. • Self regulating approach has no recourse/penalty for infringements. • Lack of community monitoring will deny residents an accurate record of noise. • Will kill off the village as no parent would send their child to a school where such noise levels would be experienced. • Assessment does not consider motorcycle noise. • If primary purpose is road cars, particularly hybrid/electric, why is there a need to increase noise levels? • Can find no other examples of new facilities for competition cars, and existing sites are facing greater restrictions, e.g. the ‘Croft’ circuit, in North Yorkshire, which has been in operation for more than 50 years, is now (as a result of legal action) restricted to only 40 days with trackside noise levels above 70dB (this proposal would appear to permit a track at Dovenby to operate at a noise level more than 10 times higher than this for 132 days a year). • cannot see any evidence that M-Sport’s potential competitors are planning to develop new on-site testing facilities for their competition cars or other vehicles, which M-Sport claim is an essential part of their economic case • Goodwood produces daily noise bulletins and operates within a Noise Management Plan. • The local Council covering Mallory Park is considering taking legal action under the Control of Pollution Act. • Health risk of hearing damage to children. • Tallentire is an elevated village and therefore noise travels here from a distance, noise levels will be very detrimental to this local area. • Tranquility will be destroyed in Great Broughton, less than two miles away. • Cows are more sensitive to noise than humans and the proposal will impact on milk production. • ‘No limit days’ are dangerous. • Sleep disturbance for those residents on night shift work would be a problem. • According to Forestry.Gov.UK the diversity of the tree species and density of shrubs and foliage on M Sport perimeter is insufficient to reduce noisy significantly. • Contradictory information relating to use of Greystoke – submission states that this is for driver practice only, but the application to Eden Council stated that the use of the Forest for rally car testing be formalised via planning permission. The Decision Notice on M-Sport Application 10/0666 refers throughout to testing not to driver training . This use of Greystoke for training only is M-Sport's choice, they have permission to test and have said to Eden that they need the site for this purpose. • Eden DC's permission for M-Sport's use of their Greystoke track is for :- (i) only 47 days per yr. (ii) 15 days per calendar month excluding weekends and Bank Holidays. (iii) No more than 4 consecutive days testing is allowed with a 3 day rest period to follow testing. The reason given for this is " In order to limit the impact of the use on the character of the local area and the amenity of local residents." (Eden District Council app. no. 10/0666). The number of Greystoke residents affected is much smaller and most are further from the track than residents in Dovenby. Are not Allerdale residents equally deserving of the protection of their Local Authority? • If permission was to be granted we could see the development of testing 6 days per week from 8.00am to 8.00pm throughout the year as the current permission allows testing during the day if noise is below LAeq43dB • Remain concerned about the potential for spectator race days. • Earth barriers will not work in such a large arena. • The weather will play a part in noise distribution. • Disturbance for people working from home. • Noise will aggravate sufferers of Parkinson’s disease. • evidence that children educated near major airports (Schiphol, Munich and others) have suffered educational disadvantage, scoring lower in reading tests and having less concentration and persistence in problem solving. • Decibel scale is misleading • Once permission has been given for a development such as this one and a certain level of utilisation the developers and operators always return time and again to make changes in the conditions agreed • Proposed levels exceed WHO guidelines. • Noise can be heard 6 miles from Greystoke Forest, Greystoke Forest has a lot more trees than Dovenby Hall and does not have a village as close to the training area. • Detailed comparison of the proposal at M Sport to the Supreme Court decision for Croft Circuit. Identifies similarities in the case and states that this case has set a precedent, that M Sport cannot be allowed more than 40 days per year above 40dB. Noise limits requested by M Sport far exceed the limit set by the Supreme Court for Croft Circuit. • Job creation in no way offsets environmental impact of this scheme. • It is no more right to have modern forms of pollution on the door ‐steps of the Cumbrians' of the 21st century, than it was for the Cumbrians' of the 19th century to be overshadowed by slag heaps and coughing their lungs up from the smoke from iron ‐foundries and mill chimneys. There are appropriate locations for polluting industries of all types and appropriate technology to reduce, control and monitor such pollution to ensure populations are protected from it. Dovenby is not the place for a noisy motorsport circuit!
One letter has been received which is neither objecting or in support.
In addition to the above, two reports have been provided by Acoustic Consultancies on behalf of members of the public. The two reports are summarised as follows:
MAS Environmental: • Existing noise level for the site is restricted to 45dB LA eq 1 hour 3m from façade of any residential property. The provision of the limitation and the restricted days of activity effectively formulated what was recognised as the upper limit of acceptable impact upon the community at the time of the previous consent. Any increase in days or levels would, therefore, require exceptional reasons for any increase to be acceptable. • Noise in this case contains specific characteristics, WHO and British Standards Institute state that this noise is more intrusive than transport noise for example and thus warrants the application of decibel penalties or that the decibel level provides a poor method of controlling noise of this type, particularly when its character is incongruous with the soundscape within which it occurs. • It is reasonable to compare the vehicle testing noise with motor sport noise and controls applied to motorsport sites. • In the case of Coventry v Lawrence, where the advice of MAS was accepted by the court, and finally determined this year in the Supreme Court, motorsport noise was limited to 45dB LAeq(15 minutes) with just 12 weekends where it could increase to 55dB LAeq(15 minutes). These controls as set by the court are not dissimilar to those for many major race circuits and are lower than proposed in this case. • There is no meaningful discussion over how these noise categories and limits on the number of days have been derived. There is some logic in restricting the number of noisy days that impact upon amenity, but no justification why 12 days with un-restricted noise will be acceptable to the affected community. When compared to cases of recognised nuisance, such levels of activity were accepted as excessive. • Trackside noise monitoring is proposed on the presumption that there is a fixed relationship between trackside noise level and noise in the community. This raises serious concerns which simple analysis of guidance demonstrates. Variability in levels of the order of about 12dBA are recognised between upwind and downwind locations but factoring in other meteorological changes can lead to much greater fluctuations. It cannot provide a reliable measure of community impact. • Category 4 days do not equate to respite but a lower level of impact that still equates to significant intrusion. • Where the courts have set limits of 40-45dB LAeq to prevent nuisance, it indicates lower levels are needed to protect against harm to amenity. • Bruntingthorpe Proving Ground, a limit of 40dB LAeq(10 minutes) was applied to those motorsport activities that did not fall within permitted development rights. • Some supporting documentation states that the 45dB LAeq generated by vehicles using the silencer at noise sensitive premises will not exceed background noise levels. This assertion is incorrect as many dwellings have background noise levels lower than this and at times they can be expected to be significantly lower as is common in rural areas. • It is proposed to allow intrusion half of the weekend days. Guidance from the WHO recognised there is an expectation of greater freedom from noise at weekends and in the evenings. • The hourly averaging of noise ignores any consideration of the characteristics of the noise, the testing of vehicles on the test track may include rapid acceleration and deceleration, tyre squeal/skid and revving of engines with bursts of noise and possibly backfire. The testing over an hour period may only involve a number of minutes of high noise level interspersed with little or no activity for the majority of that hour period to ensure that the hourly LAeq average is reduced in order to comply with the trackside limits. The outcome of a long time period effectively hides the true impact of the short duration high level of noise. A shorter measurement time period would partially address this particular flaw in the approach and it has been common to apply 15 minute noise controls to motorsport noise. • BS4142 is often used as a comparator for commercial/industrial noise against the existing background noise levels. Whilst correctly identified as not a direct measure of acceptability of motor sport or testing noise, it does provide a useful mechanism where an equivalent level of industrial noise can be compared. The standard also enables an adjustment to the site levels to take into account the characteristics of the sound that make it more noticeable or intrusive. BS7445 also enables adjustments to be made to noise levels to give a rating level in order to consider human reaction to noise as part of an assessment. • No reason is given for omitting an assessment based on noise character which should be considered a serious omission. • Earth bunds are likely to increase low frequency components and thus may enhance the intrusive character of noise emissions. • The company desires a minimum of 10 events per year of two or three days to include driver experience on the track and it is intended that this area of the business is developed in the future to increase the number of events. To place this proposed increasing impact in perspective, in the Court of Appeal decision for Croft Circuits, a long established racetrack on a former airfield with planning permission for a large number of days use, the court restricted impact effectively to no more than 40 days where the decibel level over the worst hour could exceed 40dB LAeq. The basic level for the quietest days (Category 4) exceeds this in the proposal. • if such levels are permitted and utilised, community complaints can be expected and potentially the evidence would indicate it would be of nuisance proportions. • WHO guidelines suggest that to protect the majority of people from being moderately annoyed during the daytime the equivalent average sound energy (LAeq) from steady continuous noise should be below 50dB at or on balconies, terraces and outdoor living areas. To prevent serious annoyance from steady continuous noise a value of 55dB LAeq is applied as a guideline value. These values are for steady, continuous noise of an anonymous nature such as transportation noise sources, not the noise source under consideration in this case. • As the WHO values relate to general anonymous noise, it follows that noise exhibiting characteristics that attract attention disturb at lower levels. • Controls at other sites vary but for regular noise including at the frequency proposed, typical controls in the community are set at about 40-47dB LAeqT where “T” is typically between 10 minutes and 1 hour. In any case of regular impact it is expected that levels would not exceed these values. The highest value of 47dB LAeq relates to Rockingham Motorsport where only 1 day of uncontrolled / unsilenced noise is permitted. Most levels fall between 40-45dB LAeq where the time period is short, between 5-15 minutes. • BS:4142 should be used comparatively - a method of assessing a new noise source coming to an area by comparing the existing sound levels with the change in level due to the development (background sound level and source noise compared to give a likelihood of complaint). A 0-15dB correction is added to the source noise level where it includes characteristics that would increase the likelihood of complaints. • +10dB or more is likely to be an indication of a significant adverse impact, around +5dB is likely to be an indication of an adverse impact, depending on the context. • a robust assessment would compare the highest source level in any one hour on a typical day, under downwind conditions to the typical lowest measured background level. • To prevent demonstrable harm to amenity, the normal threshold applied is about 0-3dB as a compliant prediction level or unacceptable impact prediction method. • Using the BS4142 methodology shows that the category 4 vehicles proposed to run Monday to Saturday will exceed the level at which industrial noise would become unacceptable when applying a reasonably low character penalty of only 5dB in total. When comparing the increase in noise level during the 50dB and 60dB days, the margin between site noise and background noise level widens to a point that the unlimited category noise would be greatly in excess of the ranges of acceptability and the limits applied to other motorsports venues. • Complaints are likely as this location when site noise levels are at the limit for each category and in most cases at levels significantly below the upper limits proposed. • Noise levels from the higher noise categories further increase above this margin of acceptability and seriously risk substantial harm to amenity both in terms of the days affected and the levels of noise attained. • Comparison with controls applied at major racetracks elsewhere confirms noise proposed to be permitted in this case is grossly excessive in terms of the decibel levels and the frequency and duration over which the noise is permitted. Levels exceed controls applied to prevent nuisance at other sites. Nuisance applies a lower/more lenient criteria than necessary to protect amenity.
Clarke Saunders Acoustics: • The proposed circuit layout is typical of a test / experience track, with optional elements to provide for tight handling tests, or more open power circuits depending on the vehicle and activity type at any given time. It includes a ‘Low friction steady state cornering pad’ , which is to test vehicles when skidding and drifting – potentially noisy and intrusive beyond any engine noise impact. • The placement and likely effectiveness of the bunds are not justified and it is unlikely that they will provide significant noise reduction. • None of the circuit design or noise control documentation appears to contain any indication of the circulation direction (i.e. clockwise or anti-clockwise) which is vitally important in considering the highly directional noise output of performance vehicle exhausts. • Of the mitigation measures referred to in the planning application, only one could be relied upon to bring about a significant reduction in noise emissions – the use of specially designed exhaust silencers to dramatically reduce noise emissions from the vehicles under test. This would only be applicable, however, to the specific rally cars for which they were developed, when being evaluated for specific system performance rather than overall competitive performance. • It would be reasonable to expect that the higher noise levels which might be imposed on the community at this location would be lower, for example, than at established motor racing circuits which are already an established part of a community, forming part of the character of the area or ‘soundscape’. This does not appear to be the case, refer to the examples from other (already established) motor-racing circuits in appendix 3 of the proposed Noise Management Plan that the levels proposed in the pyramid represent a similar, and in some ways worse, level of community impact. A head to head comparison suggests that the proposed controls would lie between the two examples (Anglesey and Three Sisters) rather than providing for a considerably better level of community amenity than in the immediate vicinity of a long established racing circuit. • No selection logic or relative impact assessment appears to be presented for the thresholds of 50dB and 60dB for this application, in terms of the resultant level of community disturbance or annoyance. Values appear to have been selected purely on the basis of levels thought to be achievable by different vehicle types. • 43dB ( ‘chosen with reference to the existing background noise level’ ) was in fact the highest background reading taken in the vicinity, these measurements were made at locations 1 and 7, whereas the levels recorded at locations 2 and 3, uncontaminated by the sound of running water were both lower at 34dB LA90. • The suggestion that Free Days of up to 43dB LAeq(1 hour) ‘ should have no significant effect on the community’ is therefore highly misleading, based on the survey data presented within the same report. • The background measurements themselves appear to have been relatively short term ‘snapshots’ taken during the course of site visits and tests. No longer-term monitoring data is presented. • A nearby turbine application at Fleeter Wood (which monitored background levels at a nearby property a similar distance from the A594 over a longer period, showed background levels with a mean value of around 30dB LA90 as being generally typical. • Noise propagation calculations presented in the Assessment of Community Noise document are fundamentally flawed in a number of respects – 1. the calculations rely primarily on the methods set out in Calculation of Road Traffic Noise (CRTN), 1988, related solely to traffic streams on the public highway in overall (dB(A)) terms as cylindrically radiating line sources. The method accounts for the effects of percentage HGV, average traffic speed, road gradient and so on, the dominant noise source being tyre noise ‘whoosh’ on different types of road surface (pervious/impervious etc). Motorsport noise, however, is primarily dictated by engine noise from single point sources moving around a track, interrupted by occasional tyre squeals and backfires. Any propagation method used to assess such a source would need to account for the frequency content, directivity characteristics and number of cars using the track in any given scenario. ISO9613 Acoustics - Attenuation of sound during propagation outdoors , which provides the general method of calculation used throughout the industry to provide a technically rigorous basis to consider frequency dependent topographical and barrier effects, air absorption and directivity characteristics. This standard is not mentioned in the applicant’s submissions. Barrier loss estimates based on the CRTN method will overstate the performance achieved on a race track. 2. a misunderstanding, or perhaps misrepresentation, of the geometrical noise spreading (or dispersion) on which distance loss predictions are based; 3. a simplified calculation method which considers only three elements of the track rather than emissions from the entire area over which vehicles circulate and; 4. the importance of directivity and vehicle circulation direction mentioned above. 5. Meteorological factors are mentioned only in passing in the submissions, despite being the most important variable next to the sound power of the noise source. • As such, the noise impact assessment presented with the application and the proposed noise management plan cannot be relied upon to deliver any certainty of noise impact assessment or control. Approximate ranges of inaccuracy/uncertainty: 1. Uncertainty or ambiguity over appropriate background noise comparisons and inaccuracy of ‘snap shot’ background noise data: - 10dB to -20dB . (Negative value indicates an impact worse than stated in the assessment). 2. Inappropriate calculation methods with no directivity, or consideration of frequency content: -5dB to -10dB 3. Meteorological effects, as stated but not considered in assessment ±7dB. • In combination, therefore, it is perfectly conceivable that the assessment could understate the community impact of the proposed activity by over 30dB. • A significant loss of amenity will occur, and complaints are inevitable. • The suggested 43dB level at which activity might be allowed at any time would certainly give rise to an observable adverse effect, the significance of which has not been properly assessed or quantified. • The higher noise levels, at 50dB, 60dB and ‘unlimited’ have not been justified, derived or categorised in an appropriate framework and appear to reflect the wishes of the applicant rather than any planning balance or consideration of appropriate controls on community impact.
Two further letters have been received from Clarke Saunders Acoustics, the first highlights that a number of aspects of the Council’s Scoping Opinion have not been addressed and the second highlights that the re-submission does not address the Council’s requests: The points raised are summarised as follows: • Noise levels from all possible track activities have not been assessed. The only calculations shown in the assessment relate to the specially silenced rally vehicles which lie at the quietest end of the range of noise levels anticipated. Higher track noise levels are described in the proposed 'pyramid' system, but the influence of such noise levels is not predicted at receptor locations or the impact assessed in any way. • Although background noise levels have been measured as part of the assessment at the agreed locations, the extent to which these are fully representative is in question, and it appears that the most sensitive situations (i.e. lowest background noise levels) have not been considered. • The numbers of days and hours anticipated for each activity have not been analysed or considered in any detail • The topography of the ground form in the area is important when considering noise propagation, but in the ACS report is only considered in terms of three 'slices' or ground sections to three points on the track for each receiver. With modern computational techniques available this simplification was unnecessary, and likely to have an adverse effect on the precision of the calculated results. • Meteorological effects are one of the most significant factors in motorsport noise impact, but are mentioned only in passing in the ACS report. There is no reference to prevailing or typical conditions, or the conditions under which the worst case impact occurs (and the statistical rate of recurrence of those conditions). • No attempt has been made to predict the highest noise levels which would be generated by the unrestricted, potentially unsilenced vehicles which the assessment appears to suggest could run on the proposed track on up to 12 days per year. With an unrestricted range of motorsport activities possible within this category, including some of the noisiest historical race vehicles (much louder than current F1 cars) or even jet powered drag racers, the assessment has failed to deliver one of the most fundamental requirements – an indication of how noisy the activity is likely to be in the worst case. • Conclude that the requirements of the EIA Regulations have not been met.