Public Document Pack

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

You are requested to attend a meeting of the Planning Committee on Thursday, 29 November 2012, at 10.00 am in the District Council Chamber, South Lakeland House, Kendal

Committee Membership

Councillors

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

Tuesday, 20 November 2012

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

For all enquiries, please contact:- Committee Administrator: Janine Jenkinson Telephone: 01539 717493 e-mail: [email protected] AGENDA

Page Nos. PART I

1 APOLOGIES To receive apologies for absence, if any. 2 MINUTES 1 - 10 To authorise the Chairman to sign, as a correct record, the minutes of the meeting of the Committee held on 25 October 2012 (copy attached). 3 DECLARATIONS OF INTEREST To receive declarations by Members and/or co-optees of interests in respect of items on this Agenda.

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

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

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

(1) Planning Applications

Planning applications for which requests to speak have been made.

(2) Deputations and Petitions

Agenda items for which requests to speak have been made. 6 REPORT OF THE DIRECTOR PEOPLE AND PLACES 11 - 80 To determine planning applications received. 7 RECENT DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITIES AND LOCAL 81 - 150 GOVERNMENT CONSULTATION AFFECTING PLANNING To bring to Members’ attention to a consultation by, and proposed response to Department for Communities and Local Government - Technical Review of planning appeal procedures. 8 MONTHLY ENFORCEMENT ACTIVITY FOR SEPTEMBER 151 - 156 To inform Members about enforcement activity. 9 APPEALS UPDATE 157 - 166 To provide Members with information about the receipt and determination of planning appeals. PART II

Private Section (exempt reasons under Schedule 12A of the Local Government Act 1972, as amended by the Local Government (Access to Information) (Variation) Order 2006, specified by way of paragraph number) There are no items in this Part of the Agenda. This page is intentionally left blank Item No.2 49 25.10.2012 Planning Committee

PLANNING COMMITTEE

Minutes of the proceedings at a meeting of the Planning Committee held in the Assembly Room, Kendal Town Hall, on Thursday, 25 October 2012, at 10.00 am.

Present

Councillors

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

Brian Cooper David Fletcher Sonia Lawson Joss Curwen Brenda Gray Sue Sanderson Philip Dixon John Holmes David Williams Sylvia Emmott Janette Jenkinson

Apologies for absence were received from Councillors Clive Graham, Mary Orr, Bharath Rajan, David Ryder and Mary Wilson. Officers

Zaheer Bashir Solicitor Kate Bellwood Planning Officer (part) Barry Jackson Development Management Team Leader Janine Jenkinson Assistant Democratic Services Officer Kate Lawson Planning Officer Mark Shipman Development Management Group Manager Lilian Hopkins Planning Officer (part)

P/56 MINUTES

RESOLVED – That the Chairman be authorised to sign, as a correct record, the minutes of the meeting held on 26 September 2012.

P/57 DECLARATIONS OF INTEREST

RESOLVED – That it be noted that the following declarations of interest were made:-

(1) Councillor Janette Jenkinson – Minute P/61 (Planning Application No.SL/2012/0576) and (Planning Application No.SL/2012/0633); and

(2) Councillor Ian McPherson – Minute P/61 (Planning Application No.SL/2012/0594).

P/58 LOCAL GOVERNMENT ACT 1972 - EXCLUDED ITEMS

RESOLVED – That it be noted that there were no items in Part ll of the Agenda.

Page 1 50 25.10.2012 Planning Committee

P/59 PLANNING APPLICATIONS

The Development Management Group Manager submitted a Schedule of Planning Applications and his recommendations thereon.

RESOLVED – That

(1) the applications be determined as indicated below (the numbers denote the Schedule numbers of the application);

(2) except where stated below, the applications be subject to the relevant conditions and advice notes, as outlined in the Schedule; and

(3) except where stated below, the reasons for refusal be those as outlined in the Schedule.

P/60 PUBLIC PARTICIPATION

RESOLVED – That the following applications, for which representations have been received from members of the public, in accordance with Minute 1810 (1996/97), be determined in the following manner :-

2.SL/2011/0685 PENNINGTON: Standish Cote and Mean Moor, Marton and Harlock Hill. Five 99.5M High (2.3Mw) Wind Turbines, incorporating the removal of five existing turbines on Harlock Hill, formation of on-site access tracks, infrastructure and carriageway widening works. (Mr Matt Russell)

Members had received additional information from the applicant prior to the Committee meeting.

The application site straddled the administrative boundaries of Barrow Borough Council and South Lakeland District Council. Barrow Borough Council’s Planning Committee had not yet considered the application.

It was proposed that consideration be deferred to give the applicant an opportunity to submit further information so that the scheme could be determined by both authorities on the same information.

Members of the public registered to speak on the proposal elected to defer making their representations.

DEFER – to allow consideration of additional information.

Page 2 51 25.10.2012 Planning Committee

6.SL/2012/0505 ALDINGHAM: Land adjacent to Beech Mount, Goadsbarrow, Ulverston, LA12 0RE. Two dwellings. (Mrs Clare Worrall)

John Wilson spoke in objection to the application. He stated the size and bulk of both dwellings had now greatly increased and objected to the proposal on the grounds of overlooking and loss of privacy. A full copy of his speech has been placed on the Democratic Services file.

David Barrett the Architect responded to the points raised. He stated that the principle of residential development on this site had been established and the proposed design was in-line with regulations. He stated that the proposal would not exert an overbearing impact on the privacy and amenity of the adjacent residential property.

The Planning Officer reported that three additional letter of objection had been received from neighbouring residents. John Wilson had submitted a letter of objection. He had stated his concerns during the public participation item, therefore his points were not reiterated. The owner of Comfort Cottage had submitted comments in relation to the amended plans and had raised concern in relation to overlooking. Members were provided with a précis of a letter received from the owners of The Harbour. Concerns had been raised in relation to the speed limit of the road, car parking, excessive surface water run off, over shadowing, loss of privacy and the relocation of a bus stop.

A site visit was proposed. Members felt that it would be beneficial to undertake a site visit in order to view and assess the application in relation to the surrounding properties.

Defer – to allow a site visit.

P/61 REPORT OF THE DIRECTOR PEOPLE AND PLACES

3.SL/2012/0123 PRESTON PATRICK: Low Audlands, Gatebeck, Kendal, LA8 0UH. Erection of agricultural worker’s dwelling (outline). (Mr Gibson)

The Independent Consultant’s agricultural appraisal had provided sufficient justification for an additional dwelling to serve the farm business. In principle the proposal sited in this location was acceptable. It fulfilled the stringent criteria needed to justify a new dwelling in the countryside, and was close to the farm buildings within the holding.

The Council’s Environmental Protection Officer had advised that suitable conditions relating to foul drainage, water supply and surface water drainage should be attached to any permission granted.

Members deemed the application acceptable and were keen to support agricultural business in the area.

GRANT - subject to the conditions detailed in the Schedule.

Page 3 52 25.10.2012 Planning Committee

5.SL/2012/0395 LOWER HOLKER: Barns at Low Bank Side Farm, Cartmel, Grange over Sands, LA11 7NR. Change of use of redundant agricultural buildings to storage (Class B8) and light industrial (Class B1). (Holker Estates Co Ltd)

Members felt that it would be beneficial to undertake a site visit in order to view and access the buildings and site location.

DEFER – to allow a site visit.

8.SL/2012/0524 KIRKBY LONSDALE: Field to the east of Kirkby Lonsdale Business Park, adjoining the A65. General purpose agricultural building. (Mr Kevin Haworth)

Consideration of this application had been deferred at last month’s meeting due to concern over the materials of construction of the proposed building.

It was reported that the applicant had agreed to use cedar boarding as an external material, which was similar to that used on the nearby Kirkby Lonsdale Business Park.

A discussion took place. Some concern regarding road safety issues was raised.

Overall, Members considered the proposal acceptable and thanked the Development Management Team Leader for undertaking negotiations with the applicant.

GRANT

9.SL/2012/0529 NEW HUTTON: Birks Farm, New Hutton, Kendal LA8 0AZ. Conversion of domestic garage to create a dwelling. (Mr and Mrs Wightman)

The Council’s Environmental Protection Officer had confirmed that it would be possible to install a suitable water/drainage system.

Members were advised that the building was not a heritage asset and there was no site specific working need for a dwelling on site. The site was not a sustainable housing location and was therefore contrary to Policies CS1.2, CS6.4 and CS8.2 of the adopted South Lakeland Core Strategy and saved Policy H12 of the South Lakeland Local Plan. It would not be a form of sustainable housing development in accordance with the advice of the National Planning Policy Framework.

REFUSE

Page 4 53 25.10.2012 Planning Committee

1.SL/2010/0756 (FPA) and 0757 (CAC) KENDAL: Kendal Bowman, 155 Highgate, LA9 4EN. Partial demolition of public house with conversion of remainder to form two ground floor retail units and four apartments and erection of eight apartments to rear. (All Points North PLC)

In 2010 the Committee had agreed to granting permission subject to the signing of a Section 106 Agreement to achieve the affordable housing element. Whilst an Agreement had been negotiated repeated attempts to get it signed had failed and without the Agreement the proposal was contrary to policy.

REFUSE – Planning Permission for SL/2010/0756 REFUSE – Conservation Area Consent for SL/2010/0757

14.SL/2012/0802(FPA) and 0803 (CAC) KENDAL: Kendal Bowman, 155 Highgate LA9 4EN. Conversion and alterations of former public house to form seven self-contained flats and ground floor offices, demolition and partial re-building of single storey lean-to out building. (Mrs Alex Wolfenden, Fairoak Housing Association)

The Committee was updated on consultee responses received. Kendal Town Council had requested that the chimney be preserved. The Housing Strategy Officer had advised that the type of accommodation proposed would contribute to the local housing need. The Asset Manager had advised that an easement would be required to enable access to the private car parking. The Environmental Health Manager had recommended that appropriate conditions as detailed in the report be attached to the application.

It was reported that amended plans received had overcome concern in relation to detailed design matters.

Members welcomed the application and felt the proposal would enhance the Conservation Area.

The Director (People and Places) be authorised to GRANT Planning Permission – SL/2012/0802 - subject to the conditions detailed in the Schedule upon completion of the negotiations.

The Director (People and Places) be authorised to GRANT Conservation Area Consent – SL/2012/0803 - subject to the conditions detailed in the Schedule upon completion of the negotiations.

4.SL/2012/0240 and SL/2012/0248 LOWER ALLITHWAITE: Wells House Farm, Ford Road, Cartmel, Grange over Sands LA11 6PN. Variation of Conditions 1 (position of caravans) and 2 (seasonal occupancy) on Planning Permission 1/4/2705. (Mr Andrew Cretney)

The siting of the two additional caravans was deemed acceptable. Extending the season would not cause any harm visually, given the quality of the screening of the site.

Page 5 54 25.10.2012 Planning Committee

Appropriate controls could be placed on the caravans by way of the lease and conditions to prevent use as a sole or principal residence.

GRANT

7.SL/2012/0514 NEW HUTTON: Hill Top Lodges, Beehive Lane, New Hutton, LA8 0AE. Removal of planning Condition 3 attached to planning permission SL/2007/1091 to allow 12 month holiday season. (Hill Top Lodges Ltd)

Legal advice had confirmed that leasing on the site would enable enforcement of conditions to prohibit the use as a permanent or sole residence.

GRANT

Note – Although not a disclosable pecuniary or other registrable interest, Councillor Janette Jenkinson wished for it to be noted on record that she was an Ulverston Town Councillor and that she had no bias or predetermined view in relation to the following item.

10.SL/2012/0576 ULVERSTON: Marl International Ltd, Morecambe Road, Ulverston LA12 9BN. Three dwellings. (RAR Property Investments Ltd)

The main issues raised by the application related to flood risk and whether the development of the site was likely to affect the current or future parking requirements associated with the Business Park.

The Environment Agency had confirmed they had no objections to the proposal and had suggested that flood mitigation measures be attached to the scheme.

GRANT – subject to conditions as detailed in the Schedule.

Note – Although not a disclosable pecuniary or other registrable interest, Councillor Ian McPherson wished for it to be noted on record that he was a Member of the Yorkshire Dales National Park Authority.

11.SL/2012/0594 CASTERTON: Casterton Golf Course, Casterton LA6 2LA. Single storey practice range building with associated landscaping works. (Casterton Golf Course Ltd)

A Committee site visit had been undertaken and Members had now had the opportunity to view and assess the proposal in relation to the surrounding landscape.

A discussion took place. Some Members felt the proposal would have no visual impact on the locality. Some Members considered the proposal would be an isolated and prominent development that would exert a harmful impact on the character and appearance of the Lune Valley landscape.

REFUSE

Page 6 55 25.10.2012 Planning Committee

Note – Although not a disclosable pecuniary or other registrable interest, Councillor Janette Jenkinson wished for it to be noted on record that she was an Ulverston Town Councillor and that she had no bias or predetermined view in relation to the following item.

12.SL/2012/0633 ULVERSTON: 36-38 Market Street, Ulverston, LA12 7LS. Change of use of ground floor from Class A2 (financial and professional services) to mixed Classes A1 (retail) and A3 (coffee shop). (Purple World Limited)

The Planning Officer reported that one additional letter of support had been received.

Members considered the application acceptable and felt it would enable a currently prominent vacant unit to be occupied by a business with associated economic and employment benefits.

GRANT

13.SL/2012/0646 MANSERGH: Land at Gill Foot, Mansergh, LA6 2EU. Siting of caravan for use as agricultural worker’s dwelling. (Mr Gary Sunter)

The agricultural appraisal supported the temporary siting of a caravan to serve the farm business.

The caravan would not be prominent in the landscape and would not adversely affect the character and appearance of the rural locality.

GRANT - subject to conditions detailed in the Schedule.

P/62 CHANGE OF PROVISIONS OF SECTION 106 AGREEMENT FOR HOUSING DEVELOPMENT AT NORTH EAST SANDYLANDS, KENDAL

Consideration was given to the changing of the wording of the approved Section 106 Agreement for the housing development at North East Sandylands, which would allow an application for a variation of the surface water drainage arrangements previously approved by the Planning Committee to be issued.

In April 2012 a request had been to alter the wording to reflect the operational needs of the development.

The suggested wording was as follows:

Open Space and Play Space – Prior to the completion of sale of the 48 th dwelling, to pay to the Council the sum of eighteen thousand pounds (£18,000) such sum to be used by the Council in providing Open Space and Play Space on the Sandylands Estate in Kendal in accordance with the terms of this Part of the Second Schedule.

Page 7 56 25.10.2012 Planning Committee

Youth Facilities - Prior to the completion of sale of the 11 dwelling, to pay to the Council the sum of twenty five thousand pounds (£25,000) such sum to be used by the Council in providing youth facilities on the Sandylands Estate in Kendal in accordance with the terms of this Part of the Second Schedule.

RESOLVED – That the alteration to the provisions of the Section 106 Agreement as outlined above be approved.

P/63 REQUEST TO WITHDRAW EXEMPTION CERTIFICATES FOR CAMPING AND CARAVANNING EVENTS AT CARTMEL RACECOURSE

For land to be used as a caravan site it had to be licensed and planning permission was usually necessary. However the Caravan Sites and Control of Development Act 1960, Schedule 1, paragraph 12 enabled the Secretary of State to issue exemptions to organisations that met certain requirements.

These were known as ‘touring caravan exemptions certificates’ and organisations granted an exemption certificate did not need either a licence or planning permission.

Cartmel Racecourse had allowed exempted organisations to camp on the site for more than 10 years. In recent years the number of events, often accompanied by trade fairs, fun fairs and food and bar tents had increased in both number and scale. Local residents had raised objections to these events on the basis that the increased traffic, noise, activity and litter causing the village to become unbearable. Residents had requested that the Council withdraw the right of exempted organisations to use the site under Paragraph 13, First Schedule, Caravan Sites and Control of Development Act 1960.

The Committee gave full consideration to all the relevant matters. Given the ability to control the worst elements of the events through other legislation and organisations, and the financial risk to the Council and the local economic activity of the area, it was not considered that removing the rights of camping and caravanning groups to camp at Cartmel Racecousre was necessary or reasonable.

RESOLVED – That the removal of Exemption Certificates at Cartmel Racecourse shall not be pursued as such a step is not necessary on the basis that suitable controls can be exercised by other departments and organisations.

P/64 A REPORT ON THE SUBMISSION OF A LOCAL IMPACT REPORT TO THE NATIONAL INFRASTRUCTURE DIVISION REGARDING ROOSECOTE BIOMASS POWER STATION AT BARROW IN FURNESS

The application for a Consent Order had been withdrawn by the applicant prior to the Committee meeting. It was now not necessary to submit a report to the National Infrastructure Directorate.

Page 8 57 25.10.2012 Planning Committee

P/65 A REPORT ON ENFORCEMENT ACTIVITY FROM 1 - 31 AUGUST 2012

Members were presented with a report on enforcement activity between 1 and 31 August 2012. Seven outstanding cases from the caseload had been resolved. Fourteen new complaints had been recorded and were presently being investigated.

Skelsmergh – Holme House Farm

A court hearing had been held on 3 October 2012 regarding a breach of Enforcement Notice. An Injunction Order requiring compliance with the Enforcement Notice had been granted.

The Enforcement Team will continue to monitor the site and further steps will be taken if there was a failure to comply.

RESOLVED – That the report be noted.

P/66 QUARTERLY REPORT - RESIDENTIAL MONITORING FOR THE PERIOD 1 APRIL 2012 TO 31 MARCH 2013

Members were presented with a report on the present situation at 30 September 2012 with regards to residential permissions and completions within the monitoring period 1 April 2012 and 31 March 2013, in comparison with the adopted Core Strategy housing requirement.

The completion of 72 dwellings in South Lakeland (outside the National Parks) in the first two quarters 2012/13 was an increase on performance in 2011/12 but was below completion rates in 2010/11 and 2009/10. The low rate of housing completions reflected to a large extent the downturn in the economy and housing market.

RESOLVED – That the report be noted.

P/67 APPEALS UPDATE

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

RESOLVED – That the report be noted.

The meeting ended at 1.00 am

Page 9 This page is intentionally left blank

Page 10 Item No.6

SOUTH LAKELAND DISTRICT COUNCIL

From: Director (People and Places) To: Planning Committee – 29 November 2012

REPORT OF DIRECTOR (PEOPLE and PLACES)

PLANNING APPLICATIONS FOR DECISION Page No

Index

Schedule A - Complex planning applications 15 - 80

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

Schedule C - Applications relating to Listed Buildings None

Schedule D - Advertisements None

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

Schedule F - Straightforward planning applications None

Schedule G - All other submissions None

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

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

Page 11 This page is intentionally left blank

Page 12 SOUTH LAKELAND DISTRICT COUNCIL PLANNING COMMITTEE – 29 November 2012

SCHEDULE REFERENCE SECTION SITE ADDRESS NUMBER NUMBER

ALDINGHAM 2 SL/2012/0505 A (21-28) land adjacent to Beech Mount, Goadsbarrow

EGTON WITH NEWLAND, MANSRIGGS AND OSMOTHERLEY 7 SL/2012/0827 A (61-66) former Methodist Chapel, Silver Lane, Spark Bridge

KENDAL 6 SL/2012/0816 A (57-60) Field to rear of Hill Place, Oxenholme

KIRKBY IRELETH 8 SL/2012/0829 A (67-72) Land to north of Birks Knotts, Grizebeck

LOWER ALLITHWAITE 4 SL/2012/0766 A (43-48) Blenkett Wood Lodge Park, Jack Hill

LOWER HOLKER 1 SL/2012/0395 A (15-20) Barns at Low Bankside Farm, Cartmel

LUPTON 5 SL/2012/0776 A (49-56) Beckside Barn

MILNTHORPE 10 SL/2012/0882 A (77-80) Houghtons Parkhouse Coachwork, Grisleymire Lane

SKELSMERGH 9 SL/2012/0876 A (73-76) High Thorn Farm, Selside

URSWICK 3 SL/2012/0606 A (29-42) land adjacent to Colony Candles, Lindal Business Park, Lindal in Furness

1 Page 13 This page is intentionally left blank

Page 14 SCHEDULE A

Complex Planning Applications

SCHEDULE No: 1 SL/2012/0395

LOWER HOLKER: BARNS AT LOW BANK SIDE FARM , CARTMEL GRANGE over SANDS LA11 7NR

PROPOSAL: CHANGE OF USE OF REDUNDANT AGRICULTURAL BUILDINGS TO STORAGE (CLASS B8) AND LIGHT INDUSTRIAL (CLASS B1)

HOLKER ESTATES CO LTD

E336665.8 N477425.8 29/11/2012

SUMMARY: The diversification of an existing farm business, involving the change of use of redundant farm buildings to B8 and B1 Industrial uses. The principal issues are the loss of farm buildings, increased traffic and noise.

LOWER HOLKER PARISH COUNCIL: No comments received.

CUMBRIA HIGHWAYS: Require improved and increased visibility splays at the junction and further detailed plans.

SLDC ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION OFFICER: No objections, following the submission of additional details about hours of operation, noise and foul and surface drainage.

COUNTRYSIDE ACCESS OFFICER : Noted a discrepancy in the location of a footpath shown on the submitted maps, but which is outside the red line boundary.

RAMBLERS’ ASSOCIATION:

Page 15 Object because there must be a significant increase in vehicles on what is now a public footpath. The proposed changes to the footpath constitute a significant change in the nature of the Right of Way. OTHER: 6 letters of objection have been received. The principal concerns are: unsuitable development in a rural area; increased noise and traffic; impact on rights of way; increased danger to other road users; possible use of a further access via a poor road into Cark; the access is unsuitable; diversion of right of way onto a fenced path; creation of an industrial estate in the open countryside; loss of farm buildings and affect on farm business; impact on existing farm house; LDF has possible allocation at Cark; prominent location.

HISTORICAL CONTEXT: Consideration of this application was deferred at last month’s meeting in order that Members might visit Low Bankside Farm.

DESCRIPTION AND PROPOSAL: The farmsteading comprises a substantial range of buildings with a private access from the public road between Cark and Cartmel. The farm is owned by Holker Estates and tenanted on a long term tenancy. The site is elevated above the public road and is prominent in the landscape. There is woodland behind the site. The nearest residential properties are approx. 500m away. The farm buildings are not traditional stone buildings but are of a more modern appearance. They appear largely unused and some are in poor condition. The proposal is to diversify the existing farm business by letting the unused buildings out for industrial and business uses. The existing steel portal buildings would largely remain, and although the footprint would not increase, a building in the middle of the group is structurally unsafe and would be removed. The other buildings would be repaired using matching materials. The nature of these buildings means the layout is flexible, but the remaining buildings would divide to seven distinct units of different sizes, but could divide further to smaller units. There are large openings to each unit and parking would be provided in the yard areas around the buildings. 2 small buildings on the rear of the main group would be retained as ancillary buildings for the farm. The existing stone bridge at the junction with the public road would be strengthened to take vehicles up to 10T, and the road widened to achieve visibility and also allow two vehicles to pass. At present the access is also a public right of way. A new 1metre wide path would be created along the entire length of the access, with hardcore surface and stock proof fence between the field and path / road. The access is single track along its entire length. A new landscaped banking would be created to the east of the farm buildings.

Page 16 Surface water would drain to the existing system and no toilets or other facilities are proposed so there is no need to provide foul drainage. POLICY ISSUES: South Lakeland Core Strategy CS1.2 allows for development in the open countryside where it involves the appropriate change of use of an existing building. CS4 promotes Grange as the hub for economic growth and references the need to protect and enhance the local environment. CS7.4 sets out the policy in regard to the rural economy, including supporting diversification and indicating when employment development will be found acceptable. CS10.2 considers the transport impact of the development.

South Lakeland Local Plan Saved Policy E10 of the Local Plan supports proposals for farm diversification provided that certain defined criteria are met.

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

ASSESSMENT: This is an isolated farm unit within the open countryside. The farm is well established and it is indicated that the farm will continue to operate as a viable unit, with additional income from the industrial units creating a diversification project to improve overall viability. Two ancillary buildings are retained for farm use and the farmhouse will remain associated with the farm unit and with the industrial units as a result of current tenure. The applicant is in negotiations with Cumbria County Highways about the access, the starting point being that the scheme is acceptable subject to improved visibility splays. The road is rural and typically winding, but at the point of access there is relatively good visibility. At present agricultural and large delivery vehicles access the site and use the local roads. Whilst increased traffic is probable, the road is capable of accommodating the traffic generated by the proposed development. The improvements to the bridge and public right of way are acceptable. A barrier will be erected at the rear of the site to stop vehicles using the rear track into the centre of Cark. The existing buildings are typical in appearance of those found on both agricultural and commercial sites. Their visual impact in the countryside will not increase as a result of the change of use. Although they will be repaired and tidied up, the footprint

Page 17 and visual impact will not increase. Therefore it cannot be considered that the buildings themselves cause any harm to the character of the area. The main concern relates to potential noise and disturbance. As these are B1 and B8 units, there will not be any uses which are noisy or create fumes or odours. The application is for light industry and office uses and storage and distribution and noise will be associated with vehicle movements. The nearest residential properties are over 500m away and are unlikely to be affected to a material degree by vehicle noise, although it is accepted that they will hear some noise, especially reversing bleepers on wagons. Furthermore, the restrictions on the hours of operation will prevent noise at unsociable hours. Although this is a rural location, there is a relatively busy road connecting Cark and Cartmel used by a variety of traffic, including farm traffic. Farm activities can be noisy in themselves, and there is noise on event days from Cartmel Racecourse. The area is not an undisturbed one in terms of noise, and the noise associated with these uses is unlikely to raise levels to a degree that the amenity of the area is materially changed, especially as they will be limited to normal working hours. The policies in the Core Strategy promote redevelopment of existing buildings to employment and support diversification providing that the buildings are capable of conversion, the use would not detract from the character and amenity of the area; there is a satisfactory access and there are services on site. In the case of this development, the criteria are considered to be met and subject to appropriate conditions can be controlled to a level to ensure continued compliance with the aims of the policies.

RECOMMENDATION: At present no written response has been received from Cumbria County Council Highways about the resolution of the visibility splays. Subject to no adverse comment being received from them it is recommended that delegated authority be given to the Director (People and Places) to grant planning permission subject to the following conditions: Subject to a satisfactory conclusion to negotiations over the details, the application be GRANTED subject to conditions relating to the following:

(1) Standard time limit (2) Approved plans (3) Permitted use classes and restrictions on changes (4) Hours of operation (5) Submission of details for each unit as it is let indicating welfare facilities eg toilets and foul draina ge plans, allocated parking area, and extent of unit (6) No external lighting (7) Implementation of right of way prior to use commencing (8) No external lighting without prior approval (9) All works done in accordance with structural survey

Page 18 (10) Lands caping / planting scheme (11) Implementation of highways works prior to use commencing (12) Barrier at rear of site

REASON FOR GRANTING PLANNING PERMISSION: The proposed conversion of the units would allow for diversification of the farm enterprise and create employment in the local area. The proposals will utilise an existing access and the proposed uses are acceptable in terms of impact on the character and amenity of the area. Although there will be some increased traffic and noise associated with the proposal it is considered these fall within acceptable levels and will not cause a material risk to other road users, nor any material harm to the amenity of the local area or local residential properties. The proposal is compatible with the objectives of Policies CS1.2 and CS7.4 of the adopted South Lakeland Core Strategy and saved Policy E10 of the South Lakeland Local Plan.

Page 19 This page is intentionally left blank

Page 20 SCHEDULE A

Complex Planning Applications

SCHEDULE No: 2 SL/2012/0505

ALDINGHAM: LAND ADJACENT TO BEECH MOUNT GOADSBARROW ULVERSTON LA12 0RE

PROPOSAL: TWO DWELLINGS

MRS CLARE WORRALL

E326109 N468256 29/11/2012

SUMMARY: Reserved Matters application for two dwellings on the edge of a small coastal hamlet. Recent appeal decision concluded that the principle of residential development on this site would be acceptable and outline consent was granted for two dwellings in April this year. Deferred from the last Committee Meeting for a site visit.

ALDINGHAM PARISH COUNCIL: No objection. The council’s earlier concerns regarding the height of the properties and mitigation against flooding appear to have been met by these plans.

CUMBRIA HIGHWAYS: The applicant must provide a 1.8m wide footway linking into the existing footway, given that this fronts onto a fast stretch of main road subject to a 50mph speed limit. (Subsequent clarification with the highways officer acknowledges that this is a typing error and should be 60mph). The officer recommends a number of conditions regarding the provision of access, drainage, parking and turning facilities.

SLDC ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION OFFICER: I have taken a look at the site and now the amended location for the proposed package plant and have no concerns.

UNITED UTILITIES: No objections.

Page 21

NATURAL ENGLAND: The site lies within 50m of the Morecambe Bay Special Area of Conservation, Special Protection Area and Ramsar site. Natural England advises that the proposal if undertaken in strict accordance with the details submitted, is not likely to have a significant effect on the interest features for which Morecambe Bay has been classified. Natural England therefore advises that your authority is not required to undertake an Appropriate Assessment to asses the implications of this proposal and on the basis of the information submitted by the applicant we therefore withdraw our previous objection.

OTHER: Four letters of objection to the proposal has been received from neighbouring residents who raise the following concerns: The proposal will result in overshadowing and loss of privacy to the adjoining residential properties. The latest plans show 16 windows and two glass conservatories facing towards 5 windows on Beach Mount. When measured on the drawings at least 5 of these windows are less than 21m metres and one window to a habitable room is 18 metres. Beach Mount is built on higher ground and will overlook the garden areas of the development. The loss of privacy cannot be solved by the erection of fencing or planting because of the levels. In this instance the loss of privacy could be avoided by turning both dwellings so that the gable ends face towards Beach Mount. The amended conservatory position to plot one would cause loss of privacy to Comfort Cottage. The form of the development does not address the concerns raised by the planning inspector when the previous appeal was dismissed. The size and bulk of the dwellings has greatly increased which would have an adverse impact on Goadsbarrow. Although the height of the two dwellings has been reduced slightly, the actual ridge height will be approximately the same due to the site being raised to meet the requirement of the flood risk assessment. The width of the properties has also increased and they now have attached conservatories. There are two large trees in the front garden of Beach Mount which would be affected by the development. These have been incorrectly plotted on the submitted plans. None of the alterations that have been made address the concerns relating to overshadowing or loss of privacy. The proposal would set a precedent for further ribbon development in the area. The development would result in increased traffic on a busy road causing concerns about road user and pedestrian safety. The adequacy of the parking is questioned and could result in parking on the road. The highways officer refers to a restricted speed limit of 50 mph on this stretch of road, whereas it is unrestricted.

Page 22 There is concern about the future of the bus stop adjacent to the site. The development will sit at a higher level than the adjacent land and properties causing concerns about excess surface water run off and potential flooding problems.

HISTORICAL CONTEXT: Outline planning permission was refused in September last year for the construction of two dwellings on this site. The reasons for refusal were: 1. The proposed dwellings cannot be regarded as an appropriate form of rounding off as permitted by Policy CS1.2 of the adopted South Lakeland Core Strategy. The development would result in a significant extension of an existing ribbon of dwellings on the roadside between the site and Long Lane, which would seriously detract from the rural character of the hamlet and the appearance of the surrounding countryside. The acceptance of development on this site could lead to pressure for further development on adjacent sites to the detriment of the locality. 2. The proposed northernmost dwelling would exert an over-bearing and visually intrusive influence on the neighbouring property, Beech Mount by reason of its scale, bulk and position. As a consequence, the development would be detrimental to the living conditions currently enjoyed by the occupiers of the neighbouring house. 3. The proposed dwellings would appear as a prominent form of development which would dominate this part of Goadsbarrow. It would be inappropriate in its context and would have a significant adverse effect on the character and appearance of the locality. Consequently, the proposal is in conflict with the aims and objectives of Policy CS8.10 of the adopted South Lakeland Core Strategy, saved Policy S2 of the South Lakeland Local Plan and Planning Policy Statement 3 in respect of good design. The applicant subsequently appealed the decision which was dismissed in January this year. However, in dismissing the appeal, the Inspector concluded that whilst he agreed with the Local Planning Authority in respect of refusal reason number 3, relating to the harmful impact of the layout and scale of the proposal, he found in favour of the appellant in relation to the development strategy and impact on the neighbouring occupiers. He considered that the development of the appeal site would, in principle, reinforce the linear character and tradition of the settlement without breaking out into open countryside. He concluded that the proposal would accord with the development strategy established in the Core Strategy and in particular with the objectives for smaller villages and hamlets set out in Policy CS1.2, and considered that the principle of residential development on this site would be acceptable. Outline planning permission was subsequently granted in April this year for the construction of two dwellings on this site. The consent was conditional upon the finished height of the proposed dwellings being no higher than the adjacent property known as “Lynmaris” or 14 metres above Ordnance Datum, which ever is the lower height. All other matters relating to the development were reserved for subsequent approval.

Page 23

DESCRIPTION AND PROPOSAL: Goadsbarrow is a small hamlet which comprises a short row of five dwellings fronting onto the A5087, known locally as the Coast Road. A further group of dwellings are located inland along Long Lane to the north centred on a former farmstead. The site forms the larger part of a rectangular shaped field which fronts directly onto the Coast Road to the south of Beach Mount, the most southerly of the dwellings. Beach Mount is set back form the road frontage and is positioned close to the north western corner of the site, with an aspect over the site from three ground floor windows. A property known as Comfort Cottage is located some 35 metres to the south of the site and to the north beyond the front garden to Beach Mount is a single storey dwelling known as the Harbour, positioned some 20 metres from the side boundary of the site. This application for reserved matters approval relates to the construction of two detached dwellings. The proposed three bedroomed properties would be one and a half storeys high, with an attached garage to the northern side and an attached conservatory to the southern side. The dwellings are of a conventional modern design with rendered walls and pitched slated roofs. The eaves heights would be 3.3 metres and the ridge heights would be 6.3 metres above the finished floor level which would be set at 7.68 metres Above Ordnance Datum. This would result in a finished ridge height of 13.98 m AOD. The southernmost dwelling, plot 1, would be positioned roughly in the middle of the site, set back from the road frontage by 10 metres. Plot 2 would be stepped one metre forward. The first floor accommodation would be partly incorporated into the roofspace with dormer and gable features to the front elevations. Plot 1 would incorporate two dormer windows to the rear elevation and plot 2 would include three velux rooflights to serve the first floor accommodation. Each property would have an access and turning areas directly onto the Coast Road. The properties would be served by a new package treatment plant, to be located at the southern end of the site. Additional details of the foul drainage system and percolation tests have been submitted with the application as requested by Natural England. A flood risk assessment previously submitted with the outline application recommended, in line with the Environment A gency’s guidance that the finished flo or levels of the new dwellings should be set at 7.68m AOD. The existing ground levels of the site are approximately 7.2m and 7.5m. It is proposed that the small difference is made by some minor re-grading of the site and lifting the floor level.

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

South Lakeland Core Strategy The Development Strategy (Policy CS1.2) explains that development will be concentrated in Kendal and Ulverston, then in the Key Service Centres, followed by a number of designated Local Service Centres and, finally, the smaller villages,

Page 24 hamlets and the open countryside. The Strategy states that approximately 11% of new housing and employment development will be in the network of smaller villages and hamlets. Development boundaries are not identified for these settlements; instead, new small-scale development, in the form of infilling and rounding-off, will be permitted in order to satisfy local need in the smaller villages and hamlets scattered across the District. The ter ms “infilling” and “rounding -off” are defined in paragraph 2.25 of the Core Strategy. Infilling is defined as building taking place on a vacant plot in an otherwise built-up street frontage; rounding-off is defined as the completion of an incomplete group of buildings on land which is already partially developed, in such a way that will either complete the local road pattern or finally define and complete the boundaries of the group. Policy CS3 of the Core Strategy explains the spatial strategy for the west of the District and, in the context of this current application, makes provision for small-scale housing development in the Local Service Centres and, to a lesser extent, in the smaller rural settlements in order to ensure a readily available supply of affordable housing. Policy CS6.4 relates to the rural exceptions policy, whereby housing development proposals outside development boundaries and not constituting infilling and rounding off will only be considered where they provide 100% affordable housing. Policy CS8.2 states that proposals for development should be informed by, and be sympathetic to the distinctive landscape and settlement character. Policy CS8.10 requires the siting, design, scale and materials of all developments to be of a character which maintains or enhances the quality of the landscape or townscape and, where appropriate, should be in keeping with the local vernacular tradition. The policy concludes by stating that designs that support and enhance local distinctiveness will be encouraged.

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

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

ASSESSMENT:

Page 25 The principle of residential development in the form of two dwellings on this site has been established. The technical issues regarding the foul drainage system have been addressed and the highways aspects are considered to be acceptable. The main issues to be considered in this case relate to the impact of the development, in terms of scale, form and layout, upon the character and appearance of the local area and the impact on the privacy and amenity of the adjacent residential property. The proposed dwellings are of a similar scale in terms of footprint and height to adjacent properties aligning the Coast Road and therefore it could be regarded that the form of the development would be in keeping with the character of the existing settlement. The neighbouring property most affected by the proposed development is Beach Mount which is positioned alongside the north eastern corner of the site. This property has ground floor bedroom and dining / kitchen windows facing south east very close to and overlooking the side boundary of the application site. A hedge, within the ownership of Beach Mount marks the boundary between the two sites. The floor level of this property is approximately 2metres above the level of the proposed dwellings. The rear elevation of plot 2 would face toward Beach Mount, albeit at an angle, with the nearest windows at 19 metres separation. The applicants have amended the position and design of plot 2, closest to Beach Mount in an attempt to address the concerns that have been raised regarding loss of privacy and amenity. Two dormer windows have been removed and replaced by velux rooflights, a rear conservatory has been moved to the side elevation and the position of the dwelling has been moved further forward to increase separation between the two properties. The aspect from the south eastern elevation of this property would undoubtedly be affected by the proposed development, however the lower floor level, finished height and separation between the properties is such that it is considered the development as amended would not be unreasonably overbearing or result in a significant loss of privacy. Members will have had the opportunity to visit the site and view the context of the development in relation to the surrounding area.

RECOMMENDATION: Approve subject to: (1) Standard time limit (2) Amended plans (3) Levels (4) Boundary treatments and landscaping (5) Drainage (6) Access and parking (7) Removal of Permitted Development Rights

Page 26 REASON FOR APPROVAL OF RESERVED MATTERS: The proposed development would be compatible with the aims and objectives of the National Planning Policy Framework and Policies CS1.2, CS3.1, CS8.2 and CS8.10 of the adopted South Lakeland Core Strategy.

Page 27 This page is intentionally left blank

Page 28 SCHEDULE A

Complex Planning Applications

SCHEDULE No: 3 SL/2012/0606

URSWICK: LAND ADJACENT TO COLONY CANDLES FACTORY LINDAL BUSINESS PARK , LINDAL IN FURNESS , ULVERSTON LA12 0LD

PROPOSAL: SINGLE WIND TURBINE (61 METRES TO BLADE TIP), EXTERNAL TRANSFORMER KIOSK AND ASSOCIATED ACCESS TRACK E325686 N475331 29/11/2012

MR CHRIS RAWLINSON

SUMMARY: The proposal relates to the siting of a 61 metre high wind turbine on agricultural land to provide electricity to a candle manufacturing plant at Lindal-in-Furness. As a result of its size and siting it would have a detrimental impact on the surrounding landscape which outweighs any environmental, economic and energy benefits that the proposal would have.

URSWICK PARISH COUNCIL: Urswick Parish Council has considered this application carefully. While councillors understand the need to develop alternative energy sources, a number of objections have been raised. The visual impact of a large, isolated structure in a rural landscape, and proximity to a public footpath, would be detrimental. Furthermore, there is no decommissioning process in place for the proposed turbine. Councillors also expressed reservations about the cumulative effect of such turbines, should this application, as seems likely, be followed by a number of similar proposals. Urswick Parish Council wishes, therefore, to bring these matters to the attention of the Planning Committee, and requests that the application be refused.

PENNINGTON PARISH COUNCIL: Pennington Parish Council would like to object to the application. Whilst the reason for the turbine is commendable, this is a huge beast and will have a considerable impact on the locality. It is not suitable for a village and its community.

Page 29 LINDAL AND MARTON PARISH COUNCIL: During discussions involving the floor, references were made to concerns such as noise pollution and traffic movements during construction but the greatest emphasis was placed upon the visual impact which the turbine would have in this area of open countryside. However, it was also pointed out that wind turbines were being heavily promoted by the Government as one of the most practical ways of generating “clean” electricity, with the positive attributes outweighing the negative aspects. It was proposed and seconded that the Parish Council decline to support the application because it would be unacceptably obtrusive because of its size in this area of open countryside. There were three votes in favour with one against and the proposal was carried.

CUMBRIA HIGHWAYS: No comments received.

HIGHWAYS AGENCY: Following further information with regard to the swept path and turbine access movements, the Highways Agency is now content with the proposals being put forward within this application and therefore has no objection.

NETWORK RAIL: Once the applicant has a definite plan of what access route the turbines, blades and vehicles will be travelling along, the route must be submitted to the Network Rail Abnormal Loads team for review and approval. The applicant will be liable for all costs incurred by Network Rail in facilitating the turbine, blades and vehicles to site. This may include any asset protection supervision, any safety supervision or any works deemed necessary to protect Network Rail infrastructure. Network Rail reserves the right to refuse any access to its bridges should the access route to site impact upon N etwork Rail’s infrastructure. The route taken by the wind turbines etc may include Network Rail bridges which have a limited load capacity which may be exceeded by the turbine, blades and vehicles and this could result in damage to the railway infrastructure. Although the wind turbine is situated approximately 480m plus away from the operational railway boundary, Network Rail would ask if the potential for shadow flicker from the wind turbine affecting train drivers ability to view signals on the railway has been taken into consideration. Shadows lengthen throughout the day and the area where the shadows fall may include the operational railway. The applicant should therefore determine what the longest likely length of the shadows from the wind turbine blades over the course of a year is. This will show if the shadows fall across the railwa y and impact upon a train driver’s vision. Should shadow flicker be determined as a affecting the operational railway then the applicant is requested to contact the Network Rail Asset Protection Team to discuss shadow flicker mitigation measures.

COUNTRYSIDE ACCESS OFFICER:

Page 30 No objection to the proposed development so long as it would not affect the use and enjoyment of the closest public right of way, footpath No.580035. It has not been possible to determine the precise siting of the proposed turbine from the plans available but it does appear that the public footpath will be within the fall zone. A re- siting of the turbine would be desirable to eliminate the possibility of the turbine affecting the footpath in the event of it falling.

CUMBRIA COUNTY COUNCIL HISTORIC ENVIRONMENT OFFICER: No objections and do not wish to make any recommendations or comments.

ENGLISH HERITAGE Do not wish to offer any comments on this occasion. The application should be determined in accordance with national and local policy guidance, and on the basis of your specialist conservation advice.

SLDC ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION OFFICER: Recommends that conditions be added to any planning consent to ensure that noise emissions do not exceed 35dB(A) L35dB L A90 10 min at the nearest residential properties up to 10m/s at 10 m height and require the wind turbine operator to investigate any noise complaints.

NATURAL ENGLAND: From the information provided with this application, it does not appear to fall within the scope of the consultations that Natural England would routinely comment on. The lack of specific comment from Natural England should not be interpreted as a statement that there are no impacts on the natural environment, but only that the application is not likely to result in significant impacts on statutory designated sites, landscapes or species. It is for the local authority to determine whether or not this application is consistent with national or local policies on biodiversity and landscape and other bodies and individuals may be able to help the Local Planning Authority (LPA) to fully take account of the environmental value of this site in the decision making process, LPAs should seek the views of their own ecologists when determining the environmental impacts of this development. Expect the LPA to assess and consider the impacts on protected species, Local Wildlife sites, biodiversity enhancements and local landscape.

RSPB: The RSPB support a broad mix of renewable energy schemes, where developments will not significantly impact birds or the habitats on which they depend. The development site is located in close proximity to both the Morecambe Bay SPA and the Duddon Estuary SPA, and it is known that there is an interchange of bird between the two areas through Ulverston. Species such as curlew and oystercatcher use the intertidal area around Ulverston (e.g. Ulverston Sands and Rosebeck Sands) as roosting sites in very high numbers. Pink footed geese and whooper swans will

Page 31 also fly south along the coastline of Cumbria and Lancashire on their way to overwintering sites such as the Fylde coastline - records of occurrence have been recorded flying close to the development site. The RSPB are satisfied that the supplementary information provided is sufficient, to enable us to determine that the risk posed by the development to bird species sensitive to wind farm developments is likely to be low. Based on the evidence provided, analysis and conclusions drawn, it is not considered that site based vantage point surveys are required in this case.

FRIENDS OF THE LAKE DISTRICT (CPRE): No comments received.

NATIONAL TRUST: Do not fundamentally disagree with the information set out in the application documents regarding the impacts upon Dalton Castle and Sandscale Haws. Whilst it is anticipated that there will be some adverse visual impacts in terms of the views from Dalton Castle, and therefore upon its setting, having regard to the benefits of the renewable energy to be generated it is not considered that, on their own, these impacts are such that permission should be refused in this instance.

MINISTRY OF DEFENCE: No objection.

NATS: No objection.

CIVIL AVIATION AUTHORITY: There is currently a high demand for CAA comment on wind turbine applications which exceeds the capacity of the available resource to respond to requests within the timescales required by Local Planning Authorities. The CAA has no responsibilities for safeguarding sites other than its own property, and a consultation by a Council is taken as a request for clarification of procedural matters. Councils are reminded of their obligations to consult in accordance with ODPM/DfT Circular 1/2003 or Scottish Government Circular 2/2003, and in particular to consult with NATS and the Ministry of Defence as well as any aerodromes listed in Annex 3 of the above documents, taking note of appropriate guidance and policy documentation.

WALNEY AERODROME: No objection.

CABLE & WIRELESS No objection.

Page 32

JOINT RADIO COMPANY LTD (JRC): No comments received.

ARQIVA (TELEVISION TRANSMISSION): No objection.

MLL TELECOM: There are no existing links within a 2.5km radius of the proposed wind turbine, as such have no objection.

TELENT ON BEHALF OF VODAFONE: The nearest Vodafone link is approx 1.4km from the proposed turbine which does not pose a threat to the VF ATP microwave network. Vodafone specify a 100 m minimum separation from turbine to link.

OTHER: 16 letters of objection have been received which raise the following concerns: Visual impact - the turbine would completely dominate the beautiful surrounding countryside between Lindal and Urswick and result in intrusive industrialisation of the countryside. The valley between Birkrigg Common and the higher Furness hills has the appearance of a rural environment with a low population density and the development would be highly detrimental to this. The turbine would be visible from all directions having a negative effect on the appearance of the locality from many vantage points, towering high above the trees in the area, and dominating the sensitive landscape. Large scale wind energy in this area would degrade the rural character of the area as set out in the Cumbria Landscape Character Guidance and Toolkit. The adjacent land is low lying farmland which is unsuited to a large and high structure. The area is fortunate that there are no high structures in the landscape with a few pylons in the distance. The nearest wind turbine in operation (Lindal Cote Farm) is only 19.25 metres high and existing power lines are around 10 metres high. Removal of hedges will make more of the tower visible and may reveal the transformer kiosk at many viewpoints. Residential amenity - the turbine is far too close to residential properties. Will impact on views from nearby residential properties, some of which face towards the site. Shadow Flicker - impact on nearby residential properties as a result of a strobe light / flicker effect caused by the turning blades. Noise - the turbine is anticipated to cause a near constant noise of between 30-35 decibels at nearby residential properties. This will be significant in a rural location. It would spoil an otherwise quiet rural site. Concerns that the

Page 33 Council will not have the power to shut down the turbine if it exceeds the levels that the theoretical studies suggest. Impact on people who use the area for walking, cycling and horse riding on a daily basis. Public rights of way - concern over the impact that the turbine will have on the nearby footpath. Precedence - concern over the precedence that approval of the application could have in this location given the amount of infrastructure required for this proposal. Could act as a precedent for other local landowners. Ecology - the site is close to a local wetland which is used by an extensive population of wild fowl. Wild fowl moving between Morecambe Bay and the Duddon Estuary would be at risk. Highway safety - concern over the successful access to the site for the delivery of the turbine components, particularly from the A590 and over the railway bridge near the entrance to the site. Evidence of mineshafts in the area is acknowledged but concerned that one trial hole is sufficient to ensure safe foundations. The possible effect of the vibrations generated by the turbine appears to have been discounted. Choice of renewable energy - other methods of generating green energy would be viable for the business with much shorter return periods and a lower impact on the site. For example increasing the insulation of the buildings, reducing energy consumption of the businesses processes, installation of photovoltaic cells, or ground source heat pumps. Impact on property values. 1 letter of comment raised the following: The cable route from the turbine to the factory appears to twice cross the line of a public footpath. As this is a popular route, any consent should include a requirement that the right of way is maintained at all times. 12 letters of support have been received which raise the following points: The turbine is quiet and any noise will be difficult to pick out against the rustle of trees. The visual impact will be minimal. The proposal will help a local business secure a source of green energy for the future. It will help reduce costs, fix energy prices and secure jobs. It will help maintain a much visited tourist attraction. It will help the environment.

DESCRIPTION AND PROPOSAL: The site is within an agricultural field located approximately 350 metres to the south east of the candle manufacturing plant at Lindal-in-Furness, known locally as Colony candles with the trade name “Wax Lyrical”. The centre of the village of Lindal-in- Furness is located approx 775 metres to the north west and the village of Great Urswick is approx 1.2 kilometres to the south east. Morecambe Bay is approx. 4.4

Page 34 kilometres from the site and is designated as a Site of Special Scientific Interest (SSSI), Special Protection Area (SPA), Special Area of Conservation (SAC) and Ramsar site. The site is also approx 4.8 kilometres from the Dudden Estuary which is a SSSI, SPA and Ramsar site. The site is surrounded by fields which are bounded mainly by hedgerows and some trees. There is a public footpath which runs along one of the boundaries of an adjacent field to the west and across the field to the south. The land rises slightly to the east of the candle factory with the network of local narrow roads following the lower level of land. Planning permission is sought for the erection of a 500 kW turbine. It would be a three bladed structure with a maximum height of 35 metres to the hub and 61 metres to the tip of the blades and would be finished in an off-white / light grey colour with a matt / semi-matt finish. No final choice of turbine is specified at this stage. The turbine would be sited 380 metres to the south east of the factory with the nearest roads being London Road, 600 metres to the west, and Middle Barrow Lane, 470 metres to the south. It would be approx 51 metres from the nearest public footpath. The nearest residential properties are approx 550 metres to the south east and the north east. To the south east is an individual property, Dalegarth, 100 metres beyond which is a row of bungalows which face towards to the site. To the north east is a cluster of properties on Railways Terrace and East View. There is also a row of dwellings on London Road to the east, aprrox. 600 metres from the site and on Green Lane to the north east, the closest of which is 710 metres from the site. The site access would be via the current entrance associated with the candle factory. A track would be constructed from the edge of the car park to the turbine location to provide access for construction. The track would be approximately 530 metres long and have a surface width of 5 metres. A geotextile membrane would be laid with a surface of crushed stone. The track would cut through some existing woodland and some hedgerow removal is also required. To mitigate for this loss, new woodland and hedgerows are proposed. The turbine would be operational for 25 years and it is envisaged that it would be decommissioned at the end of this period unless operation beyond this date was economic. Decommissioning would involve the complete removal of the turbine and associated equipment, the removal of the concrete foundation to a depth of one metre below ground level and the restoration of the land to a useable state for agriculture. The proposal has been driven by the high energy demand of the candle manufacturing plant for which the turbine would supply electrical power. It would provide power directly to the factory with a grid connection for occasions when the output exceeds the demand for electricity, such as times between larger orders when production may be down. The anticipated annual output of a turbine of this size and wind resource is a very close match to the annual average electricity power use of the factory. The business would benefit from an immediate reduction in its energy costs and the turbine would provide relief from future increases in energy prices enabling the factory to remain competitive. It will also allow the business to market its products as being produced in a sustainable manner. The submission states that, as the company is a major local employer, it is vital to the local economy that it remains viable.

Page 35 The proposed turbine and some of the access route is within South Lakeland District however part of the access is within Barrow Borough. As such, applications have been submitted to both Authorities.

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

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

Structure Plan Policy Saved Structure Plan Policy R44 states that outside the Lake District National Park and the AONB proposals for renewable energy will be favourably considered if: (1) there is no significant adverse effect on the landscape character, biodiversity and the natural and built heritage of the area either individually or cumulatively through their relationship with other utility infrastructure; (2) there is no significant adverse effect on local amenity, the local economy, highways or telecommunications; and (3) the proposal takes all practicable measures to reduce any adverse impact on the landscape, environment, nature conservation, historical and local community interests.

Page 36 In considering applications for planning permission in relation to the above criteria, and other policies in the Structure Plan, the environmental, economic and energy benefits of renewable energy proposals should be given significant weight. Saved Structure Plan Policy E37 requires development to be compatible with the distinctive characteristics and feat ures of Cumbria’s landscape types Policy E37 requires proposals to be assessed in relation to: (1) locally distinctive natural or built features; (2) visual intrusion or impact; (3) scale in relation to the landscape features; (4) the character of the built environment; (5) public access and community value of the landscape; (6) historic patterns and attributes; (7) biodiversity features, ecological networks and semi-natural habitats; and (8) openness, remoteness and tranquillity.

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

Local Plan Policy Saved Policy C26 of the Local Plan covers wind energy proposals and states that their acceptability will be judged according to whether a number of defined criteria can be satisfied. One of the criteria is tha t the proposal’s energy contribution and other benefits outweigh any significant adverse impact on the character and appearance of the landscape, the amenity of residential properties, nature conservation, archaeological or geographical interests. Saved Policy L10 states that existing rights of way will be maintained and protected from any development that would adversely affect their character. Development

Page 37 which results in the loss of or disruption to existing rights of way will only be permitted where a satisfactory diversion can be provided.

OTHER POLICY CONSIDERATIONS: The Cumbria Wind Energy Supplementary Planning Document This was adopted in 2007 and provides guidance for the consideration of wind energy developments. Part 2 of the guidelines provides specific guidance on landscape and visual issues and identifies the potential capacity of various landscape types throughout the county to accommodate different scales of wind farms. The areas designated as drumlins are considered to have low / moderate capacity to accommodate single turbines or small cluster sized developments. This reflects a moderate / high sensitivity overall, rarity and moderately strong historical and geomorphological interests and cultural associations. It states that turbine development is likely to intimidate the small scale nature of the component hills and ridges and that the restricted views created by this relief are vulnerable to visual dominance, an issue likely to be of heightened significance in South Lakeland which has a heavy pattern of small dispersed settlements.

Cumbria Landscape Character Guidance and Toolkit This document was prepared by Cumbria County Council in conjunction with the district authorities in March 2011. The site is in an area identified as drumlin field. The key characteristics of this landscape are tracts of high drumlins; rounded tops with steep sides; distinct landform grain; hedges and stone walls from strong boundaries; streams and wet hollows are found in the valleys and dips between the drumlins; farms and development often nestle in intersecting valleys; narrow lanes with tall hedges and steep banks criss-cross through the drumlins. With regards to development, the guidance states that infrastructure developments such as large scale wind energy and pylons could cut across the grain of the landscape and introduce structures that dominate the drumlin characteristics. It advises that the siting of large scale wind energy should be avoided in open and prominent areas where they could degrade the rural character of the area. Companion Guide to PPS22: Planning for Renewable Energy The NPPF replaced all the previous PPG and PPS documents. However, the Companion Guide to PPS22: Planning for Renewable Energy is not contained within the list of replaced documents and therefore still a material planning consideration. It states that there is no statutory separation between a wind turbine and a public right of way, however fall over distance is often considered an acceptable separation, and the minimum distance is often taken to be that the turbine blades should not be permitted to oversail a public right of way. Fall over distance is the height of the turbine to the blade tip and 10% is often added to this as a safe separation distance from occupied buildings. In relation to shadow flicker, the guide makes the following statements: shadow flicker only occurs inside buildings where the flicker appears through a narrow window opening;

Page 38 only properties within 130 degrees either side of north of the turbines can be affected at UK latitudes; shadow flicker has been proven to occur only within ten rotor diameters of a turbine position; less than 5% of photo-sensitive epileptics are sensitive to the lowest frequencies of 2.5-3 Hz; the remainder being sensitive to higher frequencies; and a fast-moving three-bladed wind turbine will give rise to the highest levels of flicker frequency of well below 2 Hz. The new generation of wind turbines is known to operate at levels below 1 Hz.

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

ASSESSMENT: There have been no concerns raised from the various consultees in relation to aviation or telecommunications, therefore the main issues in this case are considered to be: the visual impact of the proposed turbine on the character and appearance of the surrounding rural landscape; the impact on the amenity of the nearest residential properties; the potential impact of the structure on protected species of bats and birds; highway impact; impact on public footpaths; the impact on heritage assets; the economic benefits of the scheme.

Visual Impact The landscape in this area is characterised by gently rolling hills, open fields generally separated by hedgerows and individual or small groups of trees. There are some small scale pylons, approx 10 metres in height which cross an adjacent field. The guidance contained within the Cumbria Landscape Character Guidance states that large scale wind energy developments could cut across the grain of the landscape and introduce structures that dominate the drumlin characteristics. It advises that this development should be avoided in open and prominent areas where they could degrade the rural character of the area. Although this is not a large scale project, the turbine would have an overall height of 61 metres which will be significant in the context of the surrounding landscape and nearby development.

Page 39 The only vertical structures close to the site are local electricity pylons and are approx 10 metres high. There are some larger pylons to the north west but these are not in the immediate vicinity. The turbine will be particularly prominent from a group of houses approx 540 metres to the south which face in the direction of the site. It is likely that the mast will be highly visible from elevated viewpoints and will appear as an alien structure in a mostly unspoilt landscape. A landscape and visual assessment of the turbine has been submitted with the application. It concludes that the turbine would become a determining feature in the character of the site and the immediate surroundings and result in a significant change in the character of the landscape in the immediate vicinity of the site. To a distance of 2 kilometres the turbine would have significant effects on localised areas. However it states that this would not lead to any significant effects on any landscape types or areas as a whole. The visual impact assessment concludes that significant effects are assessed as being localised as a result of the turbines modest size. The report argues that significant effects are substantially reversible as the operational life of the turbine is 25 years after which the turbine would be removed from the site. As there are very few other vertical structures close to the site, and given the relatively low lying and gently undulating nature of the landscape, a turbine of this scale would appear overly prominent and would therefore have a detrimental impact on the character and appearance of the landscape.

Residential Impact The nearest residential property, outside the ownership of the applicant, is approx 550 metres from the site. From the additional information that has been submitted, environmental health are satisfied that there will not be a detrimental impact on residential properties as a result of noise produced by the turbine provided that appropriate conditions are attached to any consent. Shadow flicker has been proven to occur only within ten rotor diameters of a turbine position. The turbine would have a maximum rotor diameter of 52 metres and as the nearest properties are approximately 550 metres from the turbine there should not be an adverse impact as a result of flicker. As it is quite close, this could be monitored by way of a condition. In the conclusion of the Landscape and Visual Impact Assessment submitted, it states that significant visual effects are predicted in respect of the visual amenity experienced by the closest dwellings within a 1km radius. However, given the distance from the turbine it is unlikely that it will overly dominate these properties to the extent that living conditions are significantly adversely affected.

Ecological Impact The site is approx 4.4 kilometres from Morecambe Bay which is designated as a Site of Special Scientific Interest (SSSI), Special Protection Area (SPA), Special Area of Conservation (SAC) and Ramsar site. It is approx 4.8 kilometres from the Duddon Estuary which is a SSSI, SPA and Ramsar site. The interchange of birds between the two SPAs is known to occur. As such, the impact on birds via disturbance, displacement and collision needs to be thoroughly considered. The RSPB is satisfied that the risk posed by the development to bird species sensitive to wind farm developments is likely to be low.

Page 40 An extended phase 1 Habitat Survey has been submitted with the application. Over 250 metres to the north of the site is an area of mature mixed broadleaved woodland bordering a railway line. To the west are two areas of plantation woodland and to the east is a small area of hawthorn dominated woodland located on a former spoil heap from past mining operations. The area surrounding the site comprises mainly improved grassland where grazing has taken place over a number of years, they are species poor and considered to be of limited ecological significance. The survey states that the field boundaries within the site, which consist primarily of semi-mature to mature hedgerows, have the potential to provide flight lines for foraging bat species which may be utilising the area around the site. There is limited roosting potential close to the site, however the mature woodland bordering the railway line may provide more suitable roosting opportunities. Bat activity surveys were carried out on the site and they found that the site and immediate surroundings are utilised by a small number of Pipistrelle bats during the evening and morning. As the hawthorns adjacent to the site of the turbine provide limited roosting opportunities for bats, it is suggested that they are removed to help reduce the risk of collision. However this should take place only at certain times of the year to avoid disturbing nesting birds. It is intended that new hedgerows are planted to continue connectivity between all important parts of the site in terms of bat foraging and flight lines. The survey recommends that if work does not commence within 12 months of the date of the survey, an additional survey is carried out to ensure that there are no significant changes to local bat populations.

Highway impacts A report relating to the access route for the turbine component has been submitted with the application. Although no response has been received from Cumbria Highways, the existing access from the highway is approx 310 metres south of the A590 Trunk Road. The Highways Agency has no objection to the application.

Public rights of way There is a public footpath located approx 51 metres from the site of the turbine and as such is within the fall over distance.

Heritage Assets Neither the County Council’s Historic Environment Officer or English Heritage have objected to the proposal. The National Trust considers that there will be some adverse visual impacts in terms of the views from Dalton Castle, and therefore upon its setting, but that these impacts on their own are not sufficient to outweigh the benefits of the renewable energy.

Economic Benefits The proposal has been driven by the high energy demand of the candle manufacturing plant, one of the reasons being that the wax has to be kept warm to be poured. The anticipated annual output of a turbine of this size and wind resource is a very close match to the annual average electricity power use of the factory. The option of providing the same power generation using a greater number of turbines was dismissed by the applicant because of the greater landscape impact that would result.

Page 41 The business would benefit from an immediate reduction in its energy costs and the turbine would provide relief from future increases in energy prices enabling the factory to remain competitive. A letter from the Managing Director states that the turbine would provide savings of around 25-30% per annum. It will also allow the business to market its products as being produced in a sustainable manner. The submission states that as the company is a major local employer, it is vital to the local economy that it remains viable.

Conclusion Although it is recognised that the wind turbine will have wider environmental, economic and energy benefits, it is considered that in this case the harmful visual impact of the proposed turbine outweighs the potential benefits and the application is recommended for refusal.

RECOMMENDATION: REFUSE for the reason below: - The proposed turbine would appear as an isolated and prominent vertical structure which would appear incongruous in its surroundings. As a consequence, the turbine will have a harmful effect on the character and appearance of the landscape and would therefore be in conflict w ith the aims and objectives of P olicy CS8.2 of the adopted So uth Lakeland Core Strategy and s aved Policies R44 and E37 of the Cumbria and Lake District Joint Structure Plan and s aved Policy C26 of the South Lakeland Local Plan.

Page 42 SCHEDULE A

Complex Planning Applications

SCHEDULE No: 4 SL/2012/0766

LOWER ALLITHWAITE: BLENKET WOOD LODGE PARK, JACK HILL , ALLITHWAITE , GRANGE over SANDS LA11 7RL

PROPOSAL: STATIONING OF SIX HOLIDAY LODGES ON HARDSTANDING WITH ACCESS DRIVE AND CAR PARKING

DAVID and HELEN KHAN

E339000 N475850 29/11/2012

SUMMARY: The extension to the caravan site will be located in an appropriate location and subject to the completion of the additional planting and ecology measures proposed, will not affect the visual character of the landscape and will enhance ecology in the immediate vicinity.

LOWER ALLITHWAITE PARISH COUNCIL: Lighting on the site should be restricted or shrouded.

CUMBRIA HIGHWAYS: To be reported.

SLDC ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION OFFICER: No observations to make regarding the proposal.

NATURAL ENGLAND: The nearby SSSI’s do not present a constraint in determining the application. The site coincides with an area of Biodiversity Action Plan Priority Habitat where biodiversity should be conserved or enhanced. Unless significant harm resulting from development can be avoided, mitigated or as a last resort compensated for the

Page 43 application should be refused. If the Local Planning Authority is aware of protected species, a survey should be required and the impacts assessed.

UNITED UTILITIES: No objection provided the public sewer is not built over and a 7 metre access strip is provided and surface water is not discharged to the mains sewer but disposed of within the site on a separate system.

HISTORICAL CONTEXT: Planning permission was granted in 2006 for a caravan park consisting of 13 caravans. The proposal provided a small caravan park within a naturally screened bowl in the landform with an additional wide and densely planted landscaping area along the northern boundary. The access to the site was via a farm track which ran between fields on the lower land and served the agricultural buildings to the south. The caravans were not sited in the correct positions, buildings were erected on two of the plots and the landscaping was not implemented in accordance with those plans. These matters have now been regularised however, the alternative landscaping scheme is not as dense or as wide as original approved. An unauthorised caravan was previously located on a site to the west of the approved caravan site for the occupation of an employee. The caravan was removed following the refusal of planning permission for its retention in October 2010. An application was then submitted for a holiday caravan on the site. This application was refused and dismissed at appeal due to the adverse impact on the landscape and flood risk. An unauthorized new road has been constructed along the eastern boundary of Blenket Farm, Allithwaite. The work involved the removal of ground cover vegetation, trees and cutting of tree roots, the removal of top soil, re-grading of land and the laying of materials to create a level hard surfaced track. The track provides access between Jack Hill and the Blenket Wood Caravan Park to the south. An Enforcement Notice requiring the removal of the road has been served. The applicant and the owner of the land to the north have appealed against the Notice and this is now under consideration by the Planning Inspectorate.

DESCRIPTION AND PROPOSAL: The site is located at the southern end of Allithwaite. Blenket Wood Caravan / Lodge Park is located approximately 500 metres to the south of Jack Hill. The approved access is via a steep road off Jack Hill which passes through the fields and past the group of agricultural buildings. The caravan park is located within what was a field between Blenket Wood / Kirkhead Wood, a priority habitat of ancient and semi- natural woodland to the east and Castle Haw, a rocky outcrop of woodland copse to the west. The land rises steeply to the east and north of the site.

Page 44 The application site is located to the north of the original application site on rising land. The caravans would be located within a slight dip between Blenket Wood to the east and rising land to the west. It is proposed to install six additional caravans on the site. The scheme will involve a degree of cutting into the hillside to accommodate the caravans and reduce the land level to minimize the visual impact. Hedging would be planted along the western boundary and trees at the top end of the slope adjacent to the woodland.

POLICY ISSUES: National Planning Policy Framework Section 3 of the NPPF supports sustainable tourism including the expansion of facilities in appropriate locations. The North West Regional Spatial Strategy Within rural areas, Policy RDF2 seeks to focus development upon Key Service Centres. In the remoter rural areas, flexible solutions should be used to meet particular development needs to achieve a more diverse economic base. The accompanying text states that proposals which seek to diversify and expand rural business in areas that are lagging economically should be regarded positively as long as they demonstrate the potential to help build sustainable communities and are sensitive to the local environment. Policy W6 states that plans, strategies, proposals and schemes should seek to deliver improved economic growth and quality of life through sustainable tourism activity. Policy W7 states that plans and strategies should ensure high quality, environmentally sensitive attractions which improve the tourism offer. The Cumbria and Lake District Joint Structure Plan Policy E37 seeks to ensure that development is appropriate to the distinctive landscape. South Lakeland Core Strategy Policy CS1.1 sets out a range of sustainable development principles. It states that most new development should be directed to service centres. It notes that the economy needs to grow in a sustainable way and states that support for tourism, needs to be balanced with protecting and enhancing the attractiveness of the area. Policy CS4 refers specifically to the Cartmel Peninsula. The policy states that the Council will aim to maintain and enhance the strength of tourism across the area. The policy together with Policy CS8.2 also seeks to protect and enhance the diverse character and natural environment. Policy CS7.6 supports the enhancement and expansion of tourist attractions and tourism infrastructure. Development that improves high value-added tourism, such as high quality development in sport and recreation, will be particularly encouraged. Particular emphasis is placed on improving the quality of existing visitor accommodation and in particular the need to broaden the range of accommodation provided. Policy CS8.4 requires that development proposals should protect, enhance and restore the biodiversity and geological value of land and buildings.

Page 45 Local Plan Policy Saved Policy T7 relates to the extension of caravan opening seasons. It states that extension will be allowed subject to the following: the site is closed for a minimum period of six weeks over the winter period; there will be no detrimental impact to landscape or nature conservation interest; there will be no adverse impact on Sites of Special Scientific Interest, National Nature Reserves or the Arnside / Silverdale Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty. Policy S3 seeks high quality landscaping.

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

ASSESSMENT: The proposal will increase the number of caravans at the site but the overall scale will still be relatively small. The site of the proposed caravans rises northward but lies within a dip in the land with the field to the west rising away from the site then falling toward the access road and agricultural buildings. The proposal will involve cutting into the hillside to create level areas for the caravans to stand upon and to minimise the visual impact. The proposed levels, together with the undulating landscape and the additional hedge and tree planting will screen the majority of the caravans with the roofs being visible from higher land at a distance. Once established the planting proposed will enhance the character and appearance of the site and improve the integration of the existing site and new caravans into the woodland setting. The site is adjacent to Kirkhead Wood, an ancient and semi-natural woodland which is a priority habitat. The woodland provides habitat for protected species and an Ecological Report has been submitted with the application. The development would be located on pastures, outside the woodland and the development can be carried out without harm to the woodland or the habitat. The report includes measures to improve biodiversity within the site and ensure that there is no adverse impact. A condition should be attached to the planning permission to ensure that the improvement measures are carried out. The comments from the Highway Authority are still awaited and will be reported at the Committee. However, during pre-application discussions the Highway Authority did not raise any concerns with regard to the scheme and none are anticipated. The application seeks use as holiday accommodation all year round, contrary to Saved Policy T7 of the South Lakeland Local Plan. However, it has been acknowledged that the operation of holiday caravan parks all year round benefits the local economy and it has been agreed to allow all year round occupancy on other

Page 46 parks in the area. There is adequate justification for a decision contrary to the requirements of saved Policy T7 of the South Lakeland Local Plan. The Planning Committee have previously resolved that planning permission may be granted for all year round use subject to a condition requiring a register of main home addresses to be kept and evidence of this address in the form of Council Tax documents to be provided. The applicant has recently been involved with an appeal against the inclusion of the requirement for Council Tax documents. The Inspector determined that the provision of Council Tax documents was unnecessary to ensure that caravans were used as holiday homes and that the remainder of the condition was adequate for this purpose. It is therefore recommended that this section of the previously agreed condition is no longer included.

RECOMMENDATION: That delegated authority be issued to GRANT planning permission subject to no adverse comment being received from the Highways Authority and subject to appropriate conditions.

(1) Standard time limit (2) Development in accordance with the approved plans (3) Submission, approval and implementation of a biodiversity mitigation scheme in accordance with the recommendations within the Ecological Report by Lloydbore (4) Restriction of use of site for six static caravans (5) Compliance with the positions, maximum ground level and ridge heights shown on the approved plans (6) Implementation of the proposed improvements to the access from Jack Hill (7) Tree / ecology protection during construction (8) Implementation of proposed soft landscaping (9) Use of dark paint / stain on the caravans (10) Submission, approval and implementation of lighting scheme (11) Submission, approval and implementation of a foul and surface water drainage scheme (12) Restriction of occupation to holiday accommodation (13) Restriction on the provision of other structures and overhead lines

Page 47 This page is intentionally left blank

Page 48 SCHEDULE A

Complex Planning Applications

SCHEDULE No: 5 SL/2012/0776

LUPTON: BECKSIDE BARN LUPTON KIRKBY LONSDALE LA6 2QA

PROPOSAL: ALTERATIONS AND CONVERSION FROM WORKSHOP TO LIVE / WORK UNIT

MR ANDREW KAY

E361700 N488015 29/11/2012

SUMMARY: The conversion of an industrial workshop into a live / work unit must be carefully considered against planning policies designed to resist the creation of isolated new dwellings in the countryside unless special circumstances justify otherwise. Although there are benefits accruing from the proposals which are supported by the Parish Council, the scheme is not entirely consistent with Policy CS7.4 of the South Lakeland Core Strategy.

LUPTON PARISH COUNCIL: Unanimous agreement to approve the application, which the Parish Council states will bring employment, allow a rural business to grow and provide a tourist attraction to the Parish. Feel that the description of the building as an isolated field barn is inaccurate; there is a farmshop / tearoom, wood yard, equestrian centre, holiday complex, fishing reservoirs and three working farms within half a mile of the workshop. The workshop is in a hollow and borders a lane; it cannot be seen from any other road and only for 200 metres on the lane. Councillors are aware of the problems of theft and vandalism at the building which contains valuable machinery and equipment. Considers that the proposal would enhance the buildings, allow a rural business to grow, provide an area to display work, and make the premises more secure.

OTHER: 18 letters of support have been received, including one from the District / County Councillor for the area, making the following comments: In more remote rural areas it is extremely useful to have someone living near the workshop where valuable equipment is stored and is at risk of theft.

Page 49 The applicant is an internationally respected metal sculptor and craftsman. The community and the region would benefit from allowing this modest secluded non-intrusive development which would allow a maker with traditional skills to live and work in his community. The applicant has developed from a craftsman into a creative artist selling internationally. He needs to be with his work to develop his ideas so that he can continue to further this inventive and commercially viable work. It would be a tragic loss if this respected craftsperson would be forced to consider relocating from the region due to inability to provide sustainable home / workshop. Policies should support local crafts persons. For 20 years Mr Kay has been part of the local rural economy, developing his enterprise into a well-managed, highly regarded and award winning business. He is a local man and lived in the area for many years. The barn is no longer suitable for agriculture, and is ideal for conversion to a workshop / dwelling. The plan is sympathetic to the building; adding living accommodation would consolidate the business. The proposals would give security and guarantee the preservation of this noteworthy building and enrich the viability of the locality. As a highly regarded member of the community, it is sensible for the applicant to live on site. His development of a disused barn is a good example of a sustainable approach to rural business. He is an admired local employer. Living on site will mean that he reduces his carbon footprint. To integrate a sympathetic accommodation scheme within the existing historical building would enhance and preserve a unique enterprise within the locality. An ideal project that could possibly generate local employment and promote a sustainable rural business for years to come. Directly and indirectly his business brings much needed income into the locality, through his company his is a local employer and supports training in metalwork by taking apprentices. By his involvement in public facing activities he brings visitors and tourists to the Lune Valley. His business and workshop represents a model of a good sustainable and low impact business. It will secure a historic building that may otherwise fall into disuse and disrepair. The proposals comply with all relevant criteria outlined in Policy CS7.4 of the South Lakeland Core Strategy, which supports and encourages this type of rural enterprise. The barn is not particularly isolated; there are many businesses and dwellings around even on the same lane. It seems that previous reasons to refuse permission for conversion of the barn into a live / work unit hinge on the interpretation of what is an “isolated barn” and what is a “very isolated barn”. It is unfair that if there is a dwelling with outbuildings, planning permission for change of use is more easily granted than for one which is being worked in. The applicant contributes in many ways to the rural local community. The proposals would not change the “look” of the countryside, the barn would look hardly any different and the countryside around unaltered.

Page 50 This is a manufacturing based business which brings a welcome diversity of activity and employment that strengthens the local community beyond the more common “knowledge -based”, businesses. The promotion of rural enterprise is to be encouraged as it is a major source of income in rural areas Living on site the owner will contribute socially to the community. The building will be better cared for, and allowing the owner to live on site will “free up” his own dwelling. There will be no significant increase in travel. Practical requirements for the barn include the need for office space to meet clients and develop new designs and ideas, and the need to improve facilities. Refusal would be inconsistent with the stated objectives of the Economic development team which promotes enterprise and employment / training opportunities to help create a vibrant economy in South Lakeland. What better way to utilise an otherwise redundant barn with local accommodation for a local employer running a local business. Beckside Barn is hidden from view, and any alterations would not harm the landscape. As the work involves noisy equipment, the barn is more suitable for his work than if it was closer to a village, as no one would be disturbed. Three of the letters are from residents in Lupton Parish.

CCC HIGHWAYS: To be reported (no objections to previous scheme).

HISTORICAL CONTEXT: An application to convert the building into a dwelling and associated B1 use (business and light industrial) was dismissed on appeal in 1999, the scheme being contrary to policies designed to protect the character and appearance of the landscape. A key factor was the isolated position of the building in a landscape devoid of other built development. In 2004, planning permission was granted for the use of the building as a workshop by the current applicant. Conditions were attached to the permission to restrict permitted changes of use to classes B1 or B8 without the consent of the Local Planning Authority, and in order to control external alterations to the building and hardstandings within the curtilage. Although the building has been used since then, it remains largely unaltered, and the foul drainage system approved has not been installed. A separate garage building granted planning permission in 2006 has not been constructed. A further application submitted in 2008 to change the building into a live / work unit was refused for the following reasons: The building is isolated in the open countryside and is not part of a group containing a dwellinghouse. As a consequence, the proposed conversion is

Page 51 not compatible with the aims and objectives of Policy H12 of the South Lakeland Local Plan. The residential conversion of this building would be harmful to the character and appearance of the surrounding countryside.

DESCRIPTION AND PROPOSAL: The application relates to a former field barn now used as a workshop located at the northwestern end of Beck Lane, a minor lane running southwest from the B6254 north of Kirkby Lonsdale. The site consists of a traditional stone-built barn with a mainly slated roof and includes a small parcel of land surrounding the building enclosed by a stone wall and intermittent hedging. Barkin Beck runs along the western boundary of the site. The site occupies a position isolated from other buildings in a wholly rural locality. It is surrounded by an extensive area of open hilly grazing land containing only a scattering of trees; there are no other buildings in the vicinity. The applicant specialises in contemporary abstract and figurative sculpture, and the workshop has an industrial use. The foul drainage system approved as part of the conversion into a workshop has not been installed, and there are some elements of re-building work to be undertaken as outlined in the structural survey submitted with that application. The proposed development will comprise a workshop and office together with a three bedroomed dwelling. Physical alterations to the building include the alteration of existing external openings to accommodate timber window frames and doors, and an external stone staircase to access the first floor studio / office mezzanine created in the main barn. The applicant’s agent suggests that the workshop and associated office could revert to B1 use only should the applicant vacate either the residential accommodation or the workshop. Given the nature of the works necessary to bring the building up to a habitable standard, a bat survey has been undertaken.

POLICY ISSUES:

National Planning Policy Framework Part 3 Supporting a prosperous rural economy supports the sustainable growth and expansion of all types of business and enterprise in rural areas, both through the conversion of existing buildings and well designed new buildings. Part 6 Delivering a wide choice of high quality homes states that local planning authorities should avoid new isolated homes in the countryside unless there are special circumstances such as: the essential need for a rural worker to live permanently at or near their place of work in the countryside; or where such development would represent the optimal viable use of a heritage asset or would be appropriate enabling development to secure the future of heritage assets; or

Page 52 where the development would re-use redundant or disused buildings and lead to an enhancement to the immediate setting; or the exceptional quality or innovative nature of the design of the dwelling. South Lakeland Core Strategy Policy CS1.2 The Development Strategy for the District outside the National Parks states that new residential development will only be permitted in the open countryside where it has an essential requirement for a rural location, is needed to sustain existing businesses or provides for exceptional needs for affordable housing. Policy CS6.4 Rural Exception Policy states that proposals for housing development which are located outside the settlement boundaries in the Service Centres, or where they do not constitute infilling or rounding off in the smaller villages and hamlets, will only be considered where they provide 100% affordable housing. Policy CS7.4 Rural Economy encourages the diversification of the rural economy. Planning permission for the conversion of rural buildings to employment generating uses with ancillary living accommodation will be granted provided the proposal accords with the following criteria: is well related to the existing road network with direct access off a public road, and the proposals will not create conditions prejudicial to highway safety; not be situated in very isolated positions, relative to local services such as shops, schools etc; ideally be situated close to public transport routes; is of a scale and type appropriate to the locality and would not adversely alter the appearance or character of the surrounding area; is of a good standard of design and satisfactorily blends into the locality in terms of design, landscaping and materials; concerns a building which is of some architectural merit in its own right, is important to the character of the locality, and is structurally sound and capable of the proposed re-use without major re-building; shows a domestic curtilage which is minimal, unobtrusive and capable of being screened; relates to an employment use which is designed so that it can be used independently of the dwelling space (so that employment potential is not restricted only to occupants of the dwelling space); and demonstrates that the building is of sufficient size to accommodate a genuine business use and that any residential accommodation will be ancillary to that use. Proposals for substantial residential accommodation with a token area given over to business use will be considered to be residential development and will therefore fall outside the scope of this policy. Policy CS8.2 Protection and enhancement of landscape and settlement character seeks to pro tect, conserve and enhance South Lakeland’s highly valued landscape character. Policy CS8.10 Design requires that the siting, design, scale and materials of all development proposals should be of a character which maintains or enhances the quality of the landscape or townscape.

Page 53 Policy CS10.2 Traffic Impact of new development outlines the criteria against which development proposals will be assessed in terms of highway safety, the need to travel and to maximise the use of sustainable forms of transport appropriate to its particular location.

South Lakeland Local Plan Saved Policy H12 Conversion of buildings outside development boundaries permits the conversion of buildings to residential use subject to a number of criteria including design, services, being part of a building group, the building is not in demand for rural employment, and the building not being isolated.

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

ASSESSMENT: The main issue to consider is whether the proposals are compatible with Policy CS7.4 of the adopted South Lakeland Core Strategy, Rural Economy , and the criteria which relate to the isolated nature of the building, and the ancillary nature of the accommodation. If the scheme fails to accord with this policy, then the proposals would need to be considered against other policies concerning residential development in the open countryside. Such policies seek to focus rural housing development in villages and hamlets rather than isolated locations in the open countryside. The proposals are not however for dwelling as such, but to convert the existing workshop building into a work unit with residential accommodation. There are benefits to the scheme. The proposals would enable the applicant to utilise the site to better effect, with the enhanced security that the residential accommodation would offer, enabling sculptures and equipment to be stored outside at times. This arrangement would also be more convenient for the applicant, reducing the number of vehicle movements to the site; the applicant currently moves between the site and his home near Kirkby Lonsdale where he undertakes design work. It is argued by supporters of the scheme and the Parish Council that approval of the proposals would enable the business to expand, and represents a model of sustainable rural development. The scheme would also secure the long term future of this attractive rural building. The contribution that the applicant makes to the local community is outlined in the letters of support, and the Parish Council also states that it does not consider the building to be “isolated” as such, listing a number of businesses nearby. Concerns have also been raised that a failure to approve the application may result in the use of the building being abandoned. Nevertheless, as the Parish Council acknowledges and as several commentators have pointed out, the barn “ cannot be seen from any other road and only for 200 metres on the lane ”. There are no other buildings in the locality, and it is one of the

Page 54 few places in this part of the district where you can see no other buildings from the site. It is in this regard that the scheme fails to accord with Policy CS7.4 of the adopted South Lakeland Core Strategy. Beckside Barn stands alone in a location remote from any other built development. The policy also makes reference to the closeness of local services such as schools and shops, but as the applicant’s agent points out, K itridding Farm shop is within walking distance of the site. Furthermore, the applicant’s agent queries why, if the site is so isolated, was it considered suitable for use as a workshop. The noisy nature of the work undertaken at the premises has meant that the business is more well-suited to this isolated position, although this has also made it vulnerable to burglary, an issue common to many rural businesses. Justification on security grounds alone would be insufficient reason to grant planning permission for residential accommodation which does not accord with the adopted policy. The scheme also conflicts with Policy CS7.4 in terms of the extent of the residential accommodation proposed. The policy states that any residential accommodation will be ancillary to the business use, yet the proposals indicate that the residential / business split is more equally divided. Although the floorspace for business use is not a token area, the three bedroomed accommodation proposed is significant. Furthermore the creation of the office mezzanine in the main barn area reduces the full height barn area available for the workshop use. The current B2 use would naturally preclude the occupation of the residential accommodation by anyone other than the applicant, although the policy suggests that the employment use should be designed so that the dwelling space / business space could be used independently. Nevertheless, this scheme relates to an existing B2 use within the building, and it is considered that this is not a barrier to redevelopment of the site subject to appropriate conditions. Although the proposed works have been designed to keep external changes to the building to a minimum, when considered in combination with the paraphernalia associated with full time residential occupancy, the visual appearance of the site would become very much more domestic, to the detriment of the character of this rural area and the high quality landscape. There are some arguments in favour of the proposal, they do not outweigh policy considerations to justify granting planning permission in this instance.

RECOMMENDATION: REFUSE for the following reasons: (1) The building occupies an isolated position in the open countryside. The conversion of a significant element of the buildin g into residential accommodation in this remote locality is not compatible with the aims and objectives of Policy CS7.4 of the adopted South Lakeland Core Strategy and saved Policy H12 of the South Lakeland Local Plan.

(2) The conversion and residential occupation of the building would alter the character of the site, to the detriment of the visual appearance of this high quality rural landscape.

Page 55

Page 56 SCHEDULE A

Complex Planning Applications

SCHEDULE No: 6 SL/2012/0816

KENDAL: FIELD TO REAR OF HILL PLACE , OXENHOLME KENDAL LA9 7HB

PROPOSAL: RETENTION OF EXISTING TRACK AND ERECTION OF BUILDING FOR STORAGE OF FODDER / MACHINERY AND STABLING OF HORSES

MRS J BAGGULEY E353300 N489800 29/11/2012

SUMMARY: The retention of the track is acceptable subject to the provision of a land drainage scheme. The building is however of an excessive size for this sensitive location at The Helm.

KENDAL TOWN COUNCIL: Comments to be received by 7 November 2012.

SLDC ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION OFFICER: No consent shall be given until a scheme for the provision of surface water drainage works has been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The drainage works shall be completed in accordance with the approved scheme. The scheme should include provision for drainage of the access track to prevent surface water run-off.

FRIENDS OF THE LAKE DISTRICT: Use of the adjacent buildings for the purpose would be preferable. Failing that the size of the building should be a minimum necessary relative to the need from the land in order to minimise local impacts. The roof should be dark coloured to reduce its impact when viewed from The Helm.

OTHER: Objections have been received from four residents of Hill Place. The objections relate to the impact the track has had upon ground water at the rear of Hill Place. Since the construction of the track flood water levels into Hill Place have been severe. It acts as a channel for rainwater run-off which then flows through the field at

Page 57 the rear of Hill Place and on through the gardens and houses. This never happened prior to the construction of the track. Letters of support have been received from three residents from further afield. One email questions whether water runs through Hill Place, another suggests installation of drainage. All three support the stable building. Another email has been received suggesting that the track may provide direct access from Oxenholme to the Helm.

DESCRIPTION AND PROPOSAL: A track has been installed from the top of the field at the rear of Hill Place through the field to the east ending close to the road which runs along the bottom of The Helm. The track has been constructed without planning permission and has involved removal of hedging and excavation works. The application seeks retention of the track and planning permission to erect a large stable and machinery store adjacent to the buildings adjacent to the road across the bottom of the Helm.

POLICY ISSUES: South Lakeland Core Strategy Policy CS8.2 of the Core Strategy relates to the protection and enhancement of landscape character. The policy states that development proposals should demonstrate that their location, scale, design and materials will protect, conserve and where possible enhance the special qualities and local distinctiveness of the area. Policy CS8.8 requires that all new development demonstrates that measures required to manage any flood risk can be implemented and surface water is managed in a sustainable way. Policy CS8.10 seeks to ensure that the siting, design, scale and materials of all development is of a character which maintains or enhances the quality of the landscape.

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

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

Page 58 of discrimination) and Article 1 of Protocol 1 (Right to peaceful enjoyment of possessions and protection of property).

ASSESSMENT: The track has created a scar across the fields below the Helm. The appearance of the track can however be improved with grass seed which will soften and obscure the gravel in time. The construction of the track has however resulted in a change in the flow of water through the field at the rear of Hill Place. This change in flow has had an adverse impact upon properties below with water flowing through the properties and out into the street below. The installation of a drainage system would however improve the flow of water. Advice has been given to the applicant by the Environmental Protection Officer with regard to an appropriate drainage scheme. The scheme should include channels across the hill to direct water into soakaways which will slow water down and give it time to drain away naturally. The applicant has agreed to implement drainage work and the submission of a scheme is awaited. The proposed stables and machinery shed would measure 19.6 metres long, 7.8 metres deep and have a ridge height of 6.4 metres. It is proposed to erect the building adjacent to the existing complex of buildings on The Helm. As the field rises toward the Helm the building would be set below the level of the road. There is an opportunity for tree planting along the rear. The proposed building is of a considerable size and would significantly increase the scale of buildings at the bottom of the Helm. A building of this scale would create an unduly dominant feature in the landscape, particularly the large expanse of roof when viewed form the Helm contrary to the aims of Policies CS8.2 and CS8.10 of the Core Strategy. A building of a smaller footprint and height may however be acceptable. Such a building could be accommodated within the corner of the field and would be fully screened from the road to the rear by the increase in land level and the boundary wall. The applicant has stated that the height and width of the proposed building is necessary to accommodate a trailer and other machinery for taking grass and hay from the land. It is also necessary for the health and wellbeing of the horses. Without the building the equipment would be stored outside creating an unsightly appearance. These reasons are not however considered sufficient justification for a building of the scale proposed within this sensitive location on The Helm.

RECOMMENDATION: At the time of writing the report, insufficient information is available with regard to the proposed drainage scheme to assess the improvements or to adequately condition the implementation of the scheme. The plan showing the location of the track is also inaccurate. Subject to the receipt of accurate plans and an appropriate drainage scheme, the retention of the track would be acceptable. Without these details, the application will be recommended for refusal and a separate report is included with regard to enforcement action. The proposed building is of an excessive scale and would adversely affect the visual character of the landscape. The applicant has been requested to withdraw the building from the scheme. The outcome of these negotiations will be reported at the Planning Committee.

Page 59 This page is intentionally left blank

Page 60 SCHEDULE A

Complex Planning Applications

SCHEDULE No: 7 SL/2012/0827

EGTON WITH NEWLAND: FORMER METHODIST CHAPEL, SILVER LANE SPARK BRIDGE LA12 7SY

PROPOSAL: REMOVAL OF CONDITIONS 7, 8 and 9 (REF: HOLIDAY LETTING) ATTACHED TO PLANNING PERMISSION SL/2009/0870

LYMINSTER CONSTRUCTION LTD

E330177 N484771 29/11/2012

SUMMARY: Removal of condition on an extant permission restricting the use of a former chapel to a holiday let, to enable permanent residential occupation.

EGTON with NEWLAND PARISH COUNCIL: No comments received.

HISTORICAL CONTEXT: Permission was granted in 2004 for the conversion of the former chapel into a holiday letting unit subject to a number of conditions restricting the use to holiday letting accommodation only. The consent was renewed in 2010 and remains extant.

DESCRIPTION AND PROPOSAL: The former Methodist chapel is located in a relatively isolated position on a minor access road known as Silver Lane to the west of the A5092. The nearest residential properties are located some 200m to the north of the site at Spark Bridge. The building ceased being a place of worship in 1999 and has been vacant since that time. The current consent for the conversion of the building to form a single holiday letting unit involves the creation of three-bed accommodation within the shell of the building with only minor external changes. Off road parking and a new drainage system were included as part of the scheme. Three conditions restricting the use of the building were attached to the consent as follows:

Page 61 Condition (7) The accommodation hereby approved shall only be used as holiday accommodation, and shall not at any time be used as sole and principal residences by any occupants. The use of the term holiday accommodation in this context shall not include use as a second home by any person. Furthermore the units shall not be let to any person or connected group of persons for a period exceeding eight weeks in any one calendar year. Condition (8) This permission only authorises the use of the premises as holiday accommodation. Condition (9) A bound register of all occupants of the accommodation hereby approved shall be maintained at all times and shall be made available for inspection by the Local Planning Authority on request. The register shall comprise consecutively numbered pages, which shall be kept in order, and each entry shall contain the name and address of the principal occupier together with the dates of occupation. The applicant wishes to implement the consent without complying with these conditions, in other words to create an unrestricted residential dwelling. The supporting documents state that the conversion of the building to a holiday let is not economically viable, because of the high costs involved with the conversion work. The estimated cost of the conversion would be approximately £312,000 which exceeds the end value of the property as a holiday let and is the reason why the consent which has been in place since 2004 has not been implemented. The agent states that whilst the property is not listed or located within a conservation area, it’s age and character, landmark status within the landscape, and historical and social associations with the local community, all contribute to the importance of the chapel which should be preserved.

POLICY ISSUES: National Planning Policy Framework The National Planning Policy Framework has a presumption in favour of sustainable development. The Framework gives specific advice that Local Planning Authorities should avoid new isolated homes in the countryside unless there are special circumstances such as: the essential need for a rural worker to live at or near a place of work; is the optimal viable use to secure the future of a heritage asset; where the development would re-use redundant or disused buildings and lead to an enhancement to the immediate setting; or is of outstanding or innovative design, significantly enhancing the setting and sensitive to local characteristics.

South Lakeland Core Strategy Policy CS1.2 of the adopted South Lakeland Core Strategy, “The Development Strategy”, concentrates development in the main settlements but apportions some development elsewhere including 11% to smaller villages and hamlets and the open countryside. While priority is given to the re-use of existing buildings and previously

Page 62 developed land the Development Strategy limits development in the smaller villages and hamlets to infilling and rounding-off and states: “Ex ceptionally, new development will be permitted in the open countryside where it has as essential need for a rural location, is needed to sustain existing businesses, provides for exceptional needs for affordable housing, is an appropriate extension of an e xisting building or involves the appropriate change of use of an existing building.” Policies CS6.1 - CS6.6 of the Core Strategy provide specific housing policies for use in association with Policy CS1.2. Policy CS6.4 clearly states that outside settlements housing development will only be allowed where it provides 100% affordable units demonstrably meeting local housing need. Policy CS8.2 of the Core Strategy seeks to protect and enhance the distinctive landscape character.

Local Plan Policy Saved Policy H12 of the South Lakeland Local Plan gives detailed criteria in relation to the conversion of buildings outside settlements to residential use. Part (e) states that the building should be part of a group containing an existing dwelling.

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

ASSESSMENT: The main issue in this case is whether, given the isolated position of the site, there is sufficient justification to exceptionally allow the creation of an unrestricted dwelling in this location. The former chapel which dates from the mid 19th century is a distinctive and attractive building which, although not listed, is of some historical and architectural importance and forms part of the social history of the local community. It is in a deteriorating condition which detracts from the area and its sensitive restoration and re-use is to be welcomed. The technical details relating to the conversion work are not affected by this application. It is recognised that because of the nature of the building, the cost of the conversion works are likely to be high and therefore the creation of an affordable dwelling would be unviable. The National Planning Policy Framework does acknowledge that there are special circumstances which should be taken into account when considering proposals of this nature, including where the development would re-use redundant or disused buildings and lead to an enhancement to the immediate setting. In this particular case it is considered that the repair and re-use of this attractive building as an unrestricted dwelling would constitute a special circumstance for which consent could be granted exceptionally.

Page 63 RECOMMENDATION: GRANT subject to: Condition (1) The development hereby permitted shall be commenced before the expiration of THREE YEARS from the date hereof. Reason To comply with the requirements of Section 91 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 as amended by Section 51 of the Plann ing and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004.

Condition (2) Prior to the commencement of any development on the site, a scheme which describes how the proposed demolition and rebuilding of the area of wall as identified in the structural report prepared by R G P arkins & Partners Ltd dated 26 March 2004 (reference K20713/RGP/KT) will be implemented, shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. Reason To ensure that the proposed demolition and rebuilding works do not adversely af fect the character and appearance of this building in accordanc e with s aved Policy S2 of the South Lakeland Local Plan.

Condition (3) This permission authorises no greater extent of reconstruction than that described in the submitted structural report prepared by R G Parkins & Partners Ltd dated 26 March 2004 reference (K20713/RGP/KT). Reason To ensure that the proposal does not involve excessive demolition and rebuilding and specifically relates to a conversion of the existing building in accordance wi th s aved Policy T4 of the South Lakeland Local Plan.

Condition (4) The proposed new windows and doors shall be of a timber construction and shall be set back in a reveal from the face of the building a minimum depth of 100mm. Reason To ensure that the character of the area is not adversely affected by reason of the appearance of the type and colour of the materials to be used in the proposed development in accordance with saved Policy S2 of the South Lakeland Local Plan.

Condition (5) No development shall be carried out on the site which is the subject of this permission until details of the design of the proposed rooflights have been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority, and the development shall not be carried out othe rwise than in full accordance with such approved details. Reason To ensure that the character of the area is not adversely affected by reason of the appearance of the type and colour of the materials to be used in the proposed development in accordance with saved Policy S2 of the South Lakeland Local Plan.

Condition (6) Prior to the first occupation of the building hereby approved the car parking area shall be surfaced with a bound material in accordance

Page 64 with a scheme which has been submitted to and app roved in writing with the Local Planning Authority. Reason For the avoidance of doubt and to ensure that the car parking area is surfaced with an appropriate material in the interests of highway safety.

Condition (7) Prior to the commencement of the development hereby permitted, full details of the proposed package treatment plant to be installed shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The approved details shall be fully implemented and maintained thereafter. Reason To ensure that the site is adequately drained.

Condition (8) The recommendations set out in the submitted Bat Survey prepared by BL Ecol ogy and dated 8 June 2010 shall be fully implemented. The further surveys and information required shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. Reason To ensure that the development does not have an adverse impact on any bats which are protected by law under the provisions of the Wildlife and Countryside Act 198 1.

REASON FOR GRANTING PLANNING PERMISSION : The development is in accordance with material considerations set out in the planning system and is in line with the aims and objectives of the National Planning Policy Framework and with Policies CS1.2 and CS8.2 of the South Lakeland Core Strategy and saved Policy T4 of the South Lakeland Local Plan. The proposal will ensure the enhancement of an important redundant building and not result in any significant adverse impacts upon the amenity of the area or residential properties within the locality.

Page 65 This page is intentionally left blank

Page 66 SCHEDULE A

Complex Planning Applications

SCHEDULE No: 8 SL/2012/0829

KIRKBY IRELETH: LAND TO NORTH OF BIRK KNOTTS GRIZEBECK , KIRKBY in FURNESS LA17 7XN

PROPOSAL: TEMPORARY SITING OF A 50 METRE HIGH METEOROLOGICAL MAST

EMPIRICA INVESTMENTS LIMITED E325541 N484869 29/11/2012

SUMMARY: Proposed installation of a temporary 50m anemometer mast on land north of Birk Knotts, Grizebeck.

KIRKBY IRELETH PARISH COUNCIL: No comments received. The consultation period for comments expired on 2 November.

LAKE DISTRICT NATIONAL PARK AUTHORITY: To be reported.

NATS: No safeguarding objections.

TELECOMMUNICATION AND BROADCASTING: Spectrum Licencing. No Links identified.

RSPB: No objection, but would ask that the developer invests in markers to be placed on the guy wires to make the steel wires visible to bird species.

Page 67 NATURAL ENGLAND: This application is in close proximity to the Kirkby Moor and the Subberthwaite, Blawith and Torver Low Commons Site of Special Scientific Interest (SSSI). However, given the nature and scale of this proposal, Natural England is satisfied that there is not likely to be any adverse effect on these sites as a result of the proposal being carried out in strict accordance with the submitted details. The application is in close proximity to the Lake District National Park however we do not believe that this development is likely to have significant impact on the purposes or designation of the National Park.

OTHER: One letter of objection has been received from a local resident concerned about the impact of the development from the road which could distract motorists, and the scale and visual impact of the mast from their property and the National Park. The area is already swamped with turbine developments and any further turbines should be strongly opposed.

DESCRIPTION AND PROPOSAL: The proposal is for the erection of a temporary 50 metre high, guyed wind monitoring mast on elevated agricultural land between Kirkby Moor and the A5092. The site is located to the north of the access road to the Burlington Slate quarry. Members will recall recently granting consent for the erection of two 80 metre high masts to the south of this location on Kirkby Moor and Gunson heights. The position of these masts are approximately 1.2 km and 2.4 km to the south of the application site and on higher land. The proposed mast will enable detailed data about the local wind regime to be collected and inform the feasibility of a wind turbine at the site. The applicants indicate that they are seeking a temporary permission for the mast of up to 12 months. The mast would be sited at the southern corner of an agricultural field, which borders onto the access lane to the slate quarry at an elevation of approximately 185 metres above sea level. The nearest major road to the site is the A5902 some 200 metres to the north which also delineates the boundary of the Lake District National Park. The nearest residential properties to the site are at Beck Stones Farm and Moor House approximately 400 metres to the north. The small hamlet of Beanthwaite is located some 650 metres to the west of the site. The proposed mast would be 165 mm in diameter, and would be supported by six guy wires connected to ground anchors. The mast itself does not require any foundations and would sit on a base plate. The site is located outside the Kirkby Moor SSSI and members will note that no objections have been received from Natural England or the RSPB in respect of the proposal subject to a condition to include bird deflectors on the guy wires. No new access tracks are proposed as part of the development and once erected the information obtained from the masts would be gathered remotely.

Page 68 POLICY ISSUES: National Planning Policy Framework Section 10 Meeting the Challenge of Climate change, Flooding and Coastal Change is relevant to this application: “To help increase the use and supply of renewable and low carbon energy, local planning authorities should recognise the responsibility on all communities to contribute to energy generation from renewable or low carbon sources. They should: have a positive strategy to promote energy from renewable and low carbon sources; design their policies to maximise renewable and low carbon energy development while ensuring that adverse impacts are addressed satisfactorily, including cumulative landscape and visual impacts; consider identifying suitable areas for renewable and low carbon energy sources, and supporting infrastructure, where this would help secure the development of such sources; support community-led initiatives for renewable and low carbon energy, including developments outside such areas being taken forward through neighbourhood planning; and identify opportunities where development can draw its energy supply from decentralised, renewable or low carbon energy supply systems and for co- locating potential heat customers and suppliers.

When determining planning applications, local planning authorities should: not require applicants for energy development to demonstrate the overall need for renewable or low carbon energy and also recognise that even small- scale projects provide a valuable contribution to cutting greenhouse gas emissions; and

approve the application (unless material considerations indicate otherwise ) if its impacts are (or can be made) acceptable. Once suitable areas for renewable and low carbon energy have been identified in plans, local planning authorities should also expect subsequent applications for commercial scale projects outside these areas to demonstrate that the proposed location meets the criteria used in identifying suitable areas.” Section 11 Conserving and enhancing the natural environment – states that the planning system should seek to protect and enhance valued landscapes and to minimise impacts upon biodiversity.

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

Page 69 (2) there is no significant adverse effect on local amenity, the local economy, highways or telecommunications; (3) the proposal takes all practicable measures to reduce any adverse impact the on landscape, environment, nature conservation, historical and local community interests. In considering applications for planning permission in relation to the above criteria, and other policies in the Structure Plan, the environmental, economic and energy benefits of renewable energy proposals should be given significant weight. Saved Structure Plan Policy E37 requires development to be compatible with the distinctive characteristics and features of Cumbria’s landscape types Policy E37 requires proposals to be assessed in relation to: (1) locally distinctive natural or built features; (2) visual intrusion or impact; (3) scale in relation to the landscape features; (4) the character of the built environment; (5) public access and community value of the landscape; (6) historic patterns and attributes; (7) biodiversity features, ecological networks and semi-natural habitats; and (8) openness, remoteness and tranquillity.

South Lakeland Core Strategy Policy CS 7.7 supports in principle appropriately located renewable energy schemes. It is acknowledged that there are some energy sources which need to be remote from residential areas and other sensitive land uses, and projects should avoid any harmful impact upon the historic environment. Policy CS 8.2 states that development proposals should be informed by and be sympathetic to the distinctive character landscapes identified in the Cumbria Landscape Character Guidance and Toolkit. Proposals should demonstrate that their location, scale, design and materials will protect and conserve the special qualities and local distinctiveness of the area. Policy CS8.4 relates to biodiversity and geodiversity and states that all development proposals should protect, enhance and restore the biodiversity and geodiversity value of land and buildings. It also states that development proposals that would have a direct or indirect adverse effect on nationally, sub-regional, regional and local designated sites will not be permitted unless they cannot be located on alternative sites that would cause less or no harm; the benefits of the development clearly outweigh the impacts on the features of the site and the wider network of rural habitats; and prevention, mitigation and compensation measures are provided.

OTHER MATERIAL CONSIDERATIONS: The Cumbria Landscape Character Guidance and Toolkit document was prepared by Cumbria County Council in conjunction with the district authorities in March 2011. The application site lies within the landscape character type of “Ridges” which

Page 70 comprises of distinctive ridges, extensive areas of true heathland moorland, improved pasture with distinctive stone walls and small belts of trees. The guidance recommends that development in these areas should be carefully controlled to ensure ridges aren’t cluttered or dominated by new development, and that large vertical structures such as masts and turbines are not sited in open and prominent areas. The Cumbria Wind Energy Supplementary Planning Guidance which was adopted in 2007 provides guidance for the consideration of wind energy developments. Part 2 of the guidelines provides specific guidance on landscape and visual issues and identifies the potential capacity of various landscape types throughout the county to accommodate different scales of wind farms. The landscape type for this location the “Furness Ridges” has modera te / high capacity to accommodate wind turbines, because of its sensitive nature. The cumulative impact of separate turbine developments within a locality is also a material planning consideration.

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

ASSESSMENT: The main issue raised by this application is whether the temporary anemometer mast would result in unacceptable harm to the local landscape, having regard to the objectives of both national and local planning policies. The proposed 50 metre high anemometer mast would be installed in an exposed and elevated area of farmland, at the foot of the moorland landscape of Kirkby Moor and, as a consequence, it will be visible from the surrounding area, particularly from the main A5092 which passes close to the site, and from within the National Park. The proposed mast is, however, a slender structure, required for a temporary period and the visual harm caused by the masts is reversible. It will also be viewed in the context of rising land to the south and east and the adjacent wind turbines on Kirkby Moor and the slate quarry workings. It is considered that the mast will not cause sufficient visual harm, even when considering the cumulative visual impact, to justify the refusal of planning permission. The relatively remote location of the site does not raise any issues in terms of impact on residential amenity. Should Members accept this recommendation they will not be expressing any view as to the suitability or otherwise of this locality to accommodate any wind turbines in the future. The proposal is recommended for approval for a temporary period of 12 months, subject to a condition requiring the inclusion of bird deflectors to be attached to the guy wires.

Page 71 RECOMMENDATION: GRANT subject to: Condition (1) The development hereby permitted shall begin not later than three years from the date of this decision. Reason To comply with the requirements of Section 91 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 as amended by Section 51 of the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004.

Condition (2) The developer shall notify the Local Planning Authority in writing when the development commences. Reason For the avoidance of doubt.

Condition (3) The masts shall be removed and the land restored to its former condition on or before the expiration of a period 1 2 months from the date of commencement. Reason To ensure that the wind monitoring masts are a temporary feature in the landscape. Condition (4) The guy wires attached to the masts shall be fitted with bird deflectors, details of which shall be first submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. Reason To prevent harm to bird species in the locality.

REASON FOR GRANTING PLANNING PERMISSION The installation of the anenometer masts for a 12 month period will not adversely affect Kirkby Moor SSSI or cause undue harm to the surrounding landscape, in accordance with Policies CS8.2 and CS8.4 of the South Lakeland Core Strategy.

Page 72 SCHEDULE A

Complex Planning Applications

SCHEDULE No: 9 SL/2012/0876

SKELSMERGH: HIGH THORN FARM SELSIDE , KENDAL LA8 9JX

PROPOSAL: CONVERSION OF RED UNDANT AGRICULTURAL STORE TO TWO FISHING LODGES

MS K LOHR -CRAWFORD

E352835.5 N498715.2 29/11/2012

SUMMARY: The conversion of this building to Holiday accommodation in the countryside is considered contrary to policy because the building is a modern one rather than a traditional stone built one.

SKELSMERGH PARISH COUNCIL: Permission should not be granted: conversion of this building to a dwelling was refused in 2010; contrary to saved Policy H12 as it is a modern building not of traditional construction; no evidence of consideration of re-use for agriculture or employment; and, there could be conflict between the amenity for occupants and the adjoining farmyard uses. Contrary to Policies CS1.2 and 6.4 of the South Lakeland Core Strategy being outside a village or hamlet and not for affordable occupation. Concerned that it would set a precedent for the conversion of modern buildings to dwellings.

CUMBRIA HIGHWAYS: Comments due by 2 November 2012.

SLDC ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION MANAGER: Comments due by 2 November.

UNITED UTILITIES: No objection.

OTHER:

Page 73 None received.

HISTORICAL CONTEXT: In 2001 no objection was made to a Notice of Intention for the erection of an agricultural building to serve as an implement shed and feed store at this farmstead. However when work commenced it became apparent that the building was larger, being 3.1metres higher with provision being made for a first floor and window and door openings which did not appear designed for agriculture. Retrospective planning permission was refused for the building and an Enforcement Notice served. An appeal against the Enforcement Notice was dismissed. Following that dismissal, planning permission was granted for a reduced size of building. In 2010 planning permission was refused for the conversion of the modified building to a dwelling. That same building is now the subject of this application. Planning permission has twice been refused for the erection of holiday lodges around a sizeable pond in a hollow to the east of the farmstead. No objection was made to a Notice of Intention for the erection of duck-rearing sheds around this pond served by an access track. Work commenced on the access track but the duck-sheds have not been erected.

DESCRIPTION AND PROPOSAL: High Thorn Farmstead lies in the hills to the north of Kendal on the eastern side of the minor road which runs north from the A6 to the Watchgate Water Treatment Works and then back to the A6 at the hamlet of Watchgate. The farm group consists of the farmhouse range, now divided into two, a barn converted to two dwellings with an attached addition built as a farm office and store but for which a Certificate of Lawful Development was granted for use as a dwelling. To the south of this group of buildings is a large modern farm building with a cattle lean-to and some smaller calving boxes / store buildings and a poly tunnel of poor appearance. Between this group of farm buildings and the dwellings is the building which is the subject of this application and the history of which is described in the preceding section. Although of blockwork construction the building is stone-faced with a slate roof. The farm enterprise formerly had a sizeable cattle herd but lung problems prevented the applicant’s father from continuing to mill grain for cattle feed and thi s use of the grain store is said to have ceased three and a half years ago. The cattle herd has been reduced from 80, in itself a reduction from the maximum which necessitated the erection of the lean-to cattle shed, to 12 with a compensatory increase in the sheep flock. The applicant is taking on more farming responsibility from her parents and had previously considered a diversification into commercial duck-rearing. However, having assessed the costs of that development and the vulnerability of the enterprise to price fluctuations and disease and the potential degrading of the environmental quality of the pond and its environs, this proposal is being advanced as an alternative diversification. The building would be converted to two x two-bedroomed units for letting to holiday makers with a special emphasis on fishing holidays using the stocked pond. The conversion would take place within the shell of the existing building but with the addition of a rear balcony and external stair and some enlargement of window openings. A Structural Survey and Bat Survey have been submitted. The area between the proposed lodges and the portal building to the

Page 74 south would be upgraded by the removal of the calving boxes / store, the lean-to and re-siting the poly tunnel.

POLICY ISSUES: Policy CS1.2 of the adopted South Lakeland Core Strategy gives priority to the re- use of existing buildings and previously developed land and concentrates development in the main settlements but apportions some development elsewhere including 11% to smaller villages, hamlets and the open countryside. It states that, exceptionally, new development will be permitted in the open countryside where it has an essential requirement for a rural location, is needed to sustain existing businesses or involves the appropriate change of use of an existing building. Policy CS7.6 of the adopted South Lakeland Core Strategy supports the enhancement and expansion of tourist infrastructure with a particular emphasis on improving the quality of visitor accommodation and broadening the range of accommodation provided. Policy CS7.4 “Rural Economy” encourages the diversification of the agricultural economy. Saved Policy E10 of the South Lakeland Local Plan permits farm diversification provided the proposal would complement and support the farm operation, the use, scale and design are appropriate, access is satisfactory and there would not be a need to erect detrimental new buildings. Saved Policy T4 of the South Lakeland Local Plan states that outside development boundaries the conversion of traditional buildings and barns to self-catering accommodation will be permitted subject to satisfactory design and access and no need to erect new or replacement buildings. Conversion schemes would be expected to meet the standards and design criteria of the Conversion Policy, saved Policy H12, of the South Lakeland Local Plan which refers to buildings of traditional stone construction and of traditional design. Policy CS8.2 of the adopted South Lakeland Core Strategy seeks to protect and enhance the distinctive landscape character. The National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) as part of its support for a prosperous rural economy supports sustainable rural tourism that benefits businesses in rural areas and should include supporting the provision and expansion of tourist and visitor facilities in appropriate locations.

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

Page 75 ASSESSMENT: The architectural detailing, structural condition, bat survey and access are all uncontentious. The acceptability or otherwise of the proposal is dependant therefore on the fundamental policy issues. While conversion to unrestricted housing remains contrary to policy it is important to recognize that the proposal for holiday letting accommodation represents an economic use and a form of farm diversification. The conversion of a traditional building, constructed of stone and in a farmyard group such as this, to holiday letting would be acceptable in terms of principle. However, while the building is of traditional style with a slate roof and with some stone-facing to its blockwork walls, it is not actually a traditional building itself being of modern construction and only approximately 10 years old. Its conversion would thus not be in accordance with the detailed requirements and criteria of saved Policies T4 and H12 of the South Lakeland Local Plan. If permission was to be granted for the conversion of this modern building in the countryside it would make it more difficult for the Council to resist the conversion of other modern rural buildings to holiday accommodation. It will be recalled that in June 2011 the Planning Committee refused permission to convert to a holiday cottage a workshop / garage granted permission in 1999 at Kearstwick Hill, Kirkby Lonsdale. Permission ought also to be refused in this case unless there were considered to be other, outweighing material planning considerations such as the desirability of farm diversification or the opportunity to improve the character of the site by removing other obsolete farm buildings and not erecting the duck sheds. It is not considered that there is such a justification.

RECOMMENDATION: REFUSE for the reason below:- The conversion of this recent building to holiday accommodation would not be compatible with the aims and objectives of saved Policy T4 and the associated saved Policy H12 both of the South Lakeland Local Plan because those linked policies relate to the conversion of older, traditional buildings of stone construction. If permitted, it would make it more difficult for the Council to resist similar applications for the conversion of rural buildings of modern construction with a consequent increase in sporadic development in the open countryside that would be detrimental to the distinctive and attractive character of the landscape which Policy CS8.2 and the National Planning Policy Framework seek to protect.

Page 76 SCHEDULE A

Complex Planning Applications

SCHEDULE No: 10 SL/2012/0882

MILNTHORPE: HOUGHTONS PARKHOUSE COACHWORKS GRISLEYMIRES LANE MILNTHORPE LA7 7RF

PROPOSAL: DISCHARGE OF CONDITION NO 12 (CAR PARKING MANAGEMENT SCHEME) ATTACHED TO PLANNING PERMISSION SL/2011/0180 E349611 N481688 29/11/2012 MR M HOUGHTON

SUMMARY: A car parking management scheme was approved by the Planning Committee on 30 August 2012. This application seeks to remove the reference to reimbursement from that approval. The scheme still provides an opportunity for shoppers to park at the site and use both the supermarket and facilities within the village centre.

MILNTHORPE PARISH COUNCIL: Milnthorpe Parish Council objected to the original scheme. The Parish Council was of the opinion that a period of two hours free parking should be provided (in line with the current time limit for parking on Milnthorpe Square) to allow members of the public time to shop at Booths and / or walk to the square to use village shops. The comments in relation to this application will be reported at the Planning Committee.

HISTORICAL CONTEXT: Planning permission was granted for the erection of a supermarket on the site in August 2011. The scheme includes car parking and a pedestrian link via the rear of Church Street to the cross roads in the centre of Milnthorpe. There were a number of conditions attached to the planning permission to enable shoppers to access the village centre and carry out linked trips. These conditions required the provision and retention of the footpath link, signage between the site to the village centre and a car parking management scheme. A car parking management scheme was approved by the Planning Committee on 30 August 2012. The recommendation within the report and the Committee resolution was as follows: Approval of the car parking management scheme as submitted to the Local Planning Authority on 28 June 2012 and supplemented by the email

Page 77 from the agent dated 6 August 2012. For the avoidance of doubt the approved car parking management scheme includes: the car park will be available for the general public; the car park will be operated on a short stay pay and display system; the charging structure and maximum stay period will be consistent with short stay car parks operated by SLDC in Milnthorpe; fees will apply to all users of the car park; the scheme does not include reimbursement or free parking for users of the supermarket or any other premises.

DESCRIPTION AND PROPOSAL: This application seeks approval of the car park management scheme as required by condition 12 of the planning permission. The condition and reason are as follows: Condition 12 Prior to the supermarket opening, a scheme for the management of the car parking within the site shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The parking area shall be managed in accordance with the approved scheme at all times thereafter. Reason To ensure that a system of parking is available within the site to enable linked trips and use of the facilities within the village centre in accordance with saved Policy R6 of the South Lakeland Local Plan.

The proposed scheme states: The scheme will commence operating once the supermarket is open for trading. The car park will be available for use by the general public. The scheme will include a short-stay pay and display system. The charging structure and maximum stay period will be consistent with other short-stay car parks operated by South Lakeland District Council in Milnthorpe. Enforcement will be carried out against any vehicle parked not displaying a valid ticket. The scheme shall be continually managed and equipment maintained in good working order permanently unless as otherwise agreed by the Local Planning Authority or successor body.

POLICY ISSUES: National Planning Policy Framework The NPPF requires that Local Authorities recognise town centres as the heart of the community and pursue policies to support viability and vitality; promote competitive town centres and provide customer choice and diverse retail offer and allocate sites

Page 78 for retail development to meet identified needs in locations well connected to town centres.

South Lakeland Core Strategy Policy CS7.5 highlights elements of the town centre and retail strategy. The strategy aims to support vitality and viability and designation and management of car parking.

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

ASSESSMENT: The recommendation within the previous report and Committee resolution was based on information submitted by the applicant which included the following statement: “the scheme does not include reimbursement or free parking for users of the supermarket or any other premises. ” Following the decision being issued, the applicant has advised that the above statement was not intended to form part of the parking management scheme, but was simply a statement that the car parking management scheme does not deal with the issue of reimbursement. The condition was attached to the permission to ensure that the car park would enable linked trips to be made. In particular it was attached to ensure that use of the car park was not limited to customers of the supermarket only and customers were able to use the supermarket and other facilities within the village centre in a single trip. Regardless of whether re-imbursement is proposed, the parking management scheme will allow the car park to be used by all members of the public. The parking would be managed on a pay and display basis and allow users to shop in the supermarket and use the facilities within the village centre. The dictionary definition of enable is to provide with the means or opportunity, to make possible. The provision of a car park open to all, whether free or pay and display on a short term period will “enable” linked trips. Members of the public will be able to use the store and visit the village centre, whether they need to pay does not affect the opportunity or possibility of them making that trip. As such, a scheme that simply ensures any member of the public, regardless of whether or not they use the store, is able to use the car park, meets the requirement of the condition. It is therefore recommended that the proposed car parking scheme is approved.

RECOMMENDATION: Approval of the car parking management scheme as submitted to the Local Planning Authority on 12 October 2012.

Page 79 This page is intentionally left blank

Page 80 Item No.7

PART I

South Lakeland District Council PLANNING COMMITTEE Meeting Date: 29 November 2012 Report Author: Mark Shipman, Development Management Group Manager Portfolio: Not Applicable Report from: David Sykes (Director People and Places) Wards aff ected: All Key Decision: Not applicable

RECENT DEPARTMENT of COMMUNITIES and LOCAL GOVERNMENT CONSULTATION AFFECTING PLANNING 1.0 PURPOSE OF REPORT 1.1 This report is presented to bring to Members’ attention to a consultation by, and proposed response to DCLG - Technical Review of planning appeal procedures (closing 13 December 2012).

2.0 RECOMMENDATIONS It is recommended that Members:- 1) Provide comments at the meeting to be added to / modify the proposed response for the consultation.

3.0 BACKGROUND 3.1 The Government is committed to promoting growth and employment in support of broader economic recovery and is continuing its programme of reform to improve the planning system. On the 6 September 2012 the Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government announced a series of measures around planning decisions and appeals, and major infrastructure. (Consultation responses were reported in August). The Growth and Infrastructure Bill will take

1 Page 81 forward measures to speed up the planning process for large scale and business developments, and ensure that the information requirements of local planning authorities are proportionate. The Bill builds on earlier Government reforms such as the Localism Act 2011, the National Planning Policy Framework, and the introduction of Planning Guarantee which speeds up decision taking by local planning authorities and the Planning Inspectorate.

3.2 Consultation on technical review of planning appeal procedures 3.2.1 The Government announced a review of planning appeal procedures in the Autumn Statement of November 2011. The objective of this Review is to make the appeals process faster and more transparent, improve consistency and increase certainty of decision timescales, reducing wasted time and expense for all parties, and lead to quicker development where the appeal is upheld. 3.2.2 The Government is proposing action in five areas:

• there must be reasonable time and opportunity for all parties to participate so that the appeal process remains fair to all; • streamline the existing procedural rules and guidance around appeals, to speed up the sharing of documents and cases between parties, and to encourage earlier engagement between parties so appeals are run as efficiently as possible, and areas of dispute are narrowed. The Government’s overall objective is to reduce the time taken to determine an appeal and make the appeals process more efficient, saving the appeal parties from wasted time and expense; • behaviour change by all parties to the appeal is central to the effective implementation of the proposals which signal a move away from the current adversarial approach. In future both appellants and local planning authorities will be required to be more collaborative, for example on the open early sharing of evidence and agreement of the Statement of Common Ground; • the award of costs regime is to be strengthened to act as a further incentive to timely and positive decision taking. The Government intends to bring forward a package of primary and secondary legislative measures to extend the powers of Planning Inspectors to: i. to initiate an award of costs, in full or in part, for all procedures, where there is evidence of unreasonable behaviour, including exceedingly slow decision taking, rather than simply reacting to a request to adjudicate on an application for an award of costs made by one of the parties to an appeal; and ii. recover the Secretary of State’s costs in full or in part for all types of appeal procedures a party has been wholly unreasonable, as a further incentive to good behaviour throughout the planning process. This could include

2 Page 82 appeals where no new evidence has been provided and the party was clearly unreasonable in bringing the appeal, or where a party has been actively delaying the appeals process. • Establish a Commercial Appeals Service. 3.2.3 Applicants have a right to appeal against refusal of planning permission, or non-determination after a set period, by local planning authorities. There are no plans to alter the existing time period in which to appeal.

3.2.4 Appeals are determined by different procedures depending on the complexity of planning matters: Written Representations – where evidence is provided through correspondence only. Hearing – where it is necessary to ask questions. Inquiry – where the issues are complex and it is necessary to test evidence under cross-examination. Although an appellant may select which procedure they consider to be the most appropriate, in the majority of cases the Planning Inspectorate has the power to determine which procedure the appeal will follow. 3.2.5 There are also a series of other appeals closely related to planning appeals which are dealt with by the Planning Inspectorate. These types of appeal run along similar procedures but under different parts of planning law. The consultation paper refers to: Enforcement appeal proceedings: Advertisement consent appeals Listed Building consents, and Lawful Development Certificate appeals.

3.2.6 The Government propose to amend the rules and regulations to:

o require the appellant to submit their full appeal statement as part of their grounds of appeal on submission of the appeal, and o to ensure local planning authorities notify interested parties within one week rather than the current timetable of 2 weeks after they have received notice of a valid appeal. This would happen at the time the authority submits its questionnaire form to the Planning Inspectorate, a week earlier than is currently the case; o bring discussion on common ground issues to the forefront of the appeal process. To achieve this the Government will amend the Development Management Procedure Order and the Inquiry Rules to require the appellant to table a first draft of a document containing the factual background to the case at the time they make the appeal. The local planning authority would then have

3 Page 83 until week 5 to negotiate with the appellant a final version of the agreed matters which should then require no or little consideration at the event. If the local planning authority does not signal to the appellant that they disagree with the appellant’s facts then they will be considered to be uncontested by the local planning authority; o shorten the time between the start of the appeal and the appeal event. To do this the relevant secondary legislation will be amended to set the expectation that an inquiry determined by an inspector should be held not later than 16 weeks (and for hearings not? later than 10 weeks) after the starting date unless such a date is considered impracticable – such as late submission of representations, or other action by the parties, or because a longer timeframe is agreed between the parties; o establish a Commercial Appeals Service (CAS); an expedited form of the written representations procedure. This would offer a faster commercial planning appeal procedure for less complex appeals, enabling the Inspectorate to make a decision in 8 weeks. It is proposed that there would be only 12 weeks in which to appeal, rather than the usual 6 months. Therefore it would be essential to easily identify which appeals could proceed under the simplified appeal procedure at the planning application stage. This would also enable the local planning authority to notify interested parties at the application stage that there would not be a further opportunity to make comment should the application go via the expedited appeal route. The Planning Inspectorate would retain the power to determine the appropriate appeal procedure where an individual case was not appropriate for an expedited process. There would be an element of choice for qualifying commercial appeals such that an appellant would specifically opt to the fast track appeal or if an appeal was submitted after 12 weeks (and within the 6 months it would follow the standard written representations procedure. An initial range of appeals that we believe would benefit from this approach include: o Advertisement consent appeals. o Appeals on changes to shop fronts, o Change of use and other minor development that relates to straight forward proposals of under 1000m2. We estimate that using this broad definition, approximately 1,600 planning appeals (11%) will be in scope per annum, plus circa 550 – 600 advertisement consent appeals. Views are invited on whether any other types of appeals could additionally be brought into scope; o that the Planning Inspectorate is allowed to determine the procedure (in consultation with appellants and local planning authorities) for other types of appeals, such as Advertisement

4 Page 84 consent, Listed Building and Lawful Development Certificate appeals. They can already do this for Section 78 and Enforcement appeal proceedings. The change will, for example, enable the Planning Inspectorate to choose the most appropriate procedure where a Listed Building appeal is linked to a planning appeal. o to issue a single, streamlined, clear procedural note on appeals. Where it is necessary to do so over and above that set out in the legislation, the document will outline legal procedures in relation to general planning as well as the planning-related procedures for Enforcement, Advertisement and Listed Building consent appeals. The document would set out national criteria and guidance on appeals and set expectations for appeal party documentation and evidence. It would also offer clarity on any grounds for a submission for an award of costs. o change the Planning Inspectorate case management system to allow for full electronic communications; o Revise the determination criteria; and o Agree bespoke timetables for complex cases that will require an Inquiry to sit for more than 3 days. 3.2.7 The consultation paper is included in Appendix 1 and the draft response is included in Appendix 2.

4.0 RESEARCH AND CONSULTATION 4.1 Not applicable 5.0 PROPOSAL 5.1 That Members consider the draft response to the Consultation Paper as set out in Appendix 2 and any additions or modifications they may wish to make to the same. 6.0 ALTERNATIVE OPTIONS 6.1 Not to agree the proposed course of action. 7.0 NEXT STEPS 7.1 Once agreed, the response to the consultation will be submitted to the Department of Communities and Local Government. 8.0 IMPLICATIONS 8.1 Financial and Resources 8.1.1 There are no financial or resource implications 8.2 Human Resources 8.2.1 The recommendations in this report do not have any staffing implications 8.3 Legal 8.3.1 There are no legal implications from this proposal.

5 Page 85 8.4 Social, Economic and Environmental Impact 8.4.1 The report does not any registered significant effects. 9.0 RISK ASSESSMENT Risk Consequence Controls requ ired Responses not SLDC views not taken Ensure response is submitted. into account. sent in time. 10.0 EQUALITY AND DIVERSITY 10.1 Not applicable to this proposal. 11.0 LINKS TO THE CORPORATE PLAN AND PERFORMANCE INDICATORS 11.1 Not applicable to this proposal 12.0 CONCLUSION AND EXPECTED OUTCOMES 12.1 That Members note the Consultation Paper on the Technical Review to the planning appeals procedure and agree the response to be made.

APPENDIX ATTACHED TO THIS REPORT 1 Consultation paper 2 Draft response

CONTACT OFFICERS Mark Shipman, Development Management Group Manager, Tel: 01539 797564 email: [email protected]

BACKGROUND DOCUMENTS AVAILABLE Contained in Appendices.

TRACKING Assistant Portfolio Solicitor to the CMT Scrutiny Director Holder Council Committee 8 Nov 2012 N/A 8 Nov 2012 N/A N/A Executive Committee Council Section 151 Monitoring (Cabinet) Officer Officer N/A 29 Nov 2012 N/A N/A 8 Nov 2012 Hu man Resource Services Manager N/A

6 Page 86 RECENT DEPARTMENT of COMMUNITIES and LOCAL GOVERNMENT CONSULTATIONS AFFECTING PLANNING – APPENDIX 1

PURPOSE OF APPENDIX 1 To include the full consultation document for members information.

7 Page 87 RECENT DEPARTMENT of COMMUNITIES and LOCAL GOVERNMENT CONSULTATIONS AFFECTING PLANNING – APPENDIX 2

PURPOSE OF APPENDIX 1 To include the draft response. Questions

Please refer to the relevant parts of the consultation document for narrative relating to each question.

Q1: Do you agree with the proposed changes to the appeal procedure? Yes √ No

Comments

This proposal to require the applicant’s to publish their case up front is welcomed because it will remove the need for Rule 6 statements and the consequent “Real Work” being done after exchange of statements. This will also allow third parties to make focused comments and will provide Inspectors with useful local information.

Q2: Do you agree with the proposed approach to agreeing a Statement of Common Ground up front, and that a Statement should be required for hearings? Yes √ No

Comments

In theory this appears to focus the Inquiry / hearing on the crucial issues. The only caveat is that with the loss of National Policy Documents and supplementary advice that there will be more arguments about material considerations and local interpretations and thus the Statement will become quite short. That said it will still mean that some matters do not need to be explored. South Lakeland District Council prefer to draft the Statement of Common Ground for the appellant to consider and thus we would wish the process to be reversed and that if the appellant does not comment, then it is taken as being uncontested. We have adopted a collaborative approach for the last major appeal Public Inquiry.

Q3: Do you agree with the proposed approach to shortening the time before the appeal event? Yes √ No

8 Page 88 Comments

In theory yes because as stated at question 1, most of the work is done after exchange of statements. In practice Inquiries need to be programmed when advocates and witnesses diaries and suitable room availability all coincide. Hearings are easier to arrange. Some flexibility needs to be retained so that no party is prejudiced.

Q4: Do you agree with proposals for the development of a Commercial Appeals Service? Yes √ No

Comments

The ability to send an electronic copy of the file containing the officer report using the document management system will reduce the work load at South Lakeland District Council and increase the speed of appeal decision making. This will require the Planning Inspectorate (PINs) to update their systems.

Q5: What type of less complex non-householder written representations appeals would benefit from inclusion in a commercial appeals service? √ Advertisement consent √ Change of shop front

√ Change of use √ Minor development less than 1000m2

√ Other (please note below)

Comments

Work to Trees, Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas

Q6: Do you agree with the proposed approach to align other appeal processes? Yes √ No

Comments

9 Page 89 The same process and timetables common to all appeals will reduce confusion, though the current order of appearance with the LPA appearing last in enforcement appeals should be retained.

Q7: Do you have a view on whether proposals A-C should be applied more broadly to other types of appeals, in particular enforcement, and whether the further comments stage at week 9 should be removed from Enforcement hearings and inquiries? Yes √ No

Comments

Yes the process should be aligned for enforcement appeal, though the order of appearance is reversed from ordinary appeal and this order should be maintained.

Q8: Do you agree with the proposed approach to reviewing and simplifying guidance? Yes √ No

Comments

Combining all the notes into one document and written in “Plain English” will be a good step forward so that there is only one reference. Retention of the detail is also important.

Q9: Do you agree with the proposed revisions to the determination criteria? Yes √ No

Comments

Again the use of “Plain English” in short sentences without caveats in the active sense will assist in making determination criteria clearer.

Q10: Do you agree with the proposal to extend the offer of a bespoke procedure to inquiries lasting 3 or more days?

10 Page 90 Yes √ No

Comments

South Lakeland District Council had to organize a 4 day Inquiry at the beginning of the year. It was known to all parties, including PINs, that the dates imposed by PINs could not be adhered to because of a clash of diaries and this resulted in an adjournment to a date that was acceptable to all. This was the date proposed by the parties in the first place. A flexible bespoke timetable to suit all those involved will ensure that Inquiries are cohesive.

Q11: Do you have any other proposals to further improve the appeals system? Yes No √

Comments

None

11 Page 91 This page is intentionally left blank

Page 92 Technical review of planning appeal procedures

Consultation

November, 2012 Department for Communities and Local Government Page 93 © Crown copyright, 2012

Copyright in the typographical arrangement rests with the Crown.

You may re-use this information (not including logos) free of charge in any format or medium, under the terms of the Open Government Licence. To view this licence, visit http://www.nationalarchives.gov.uk/doc/open-government-licence/ or write to the Information Policy Team, The National Archives, Kew, London TW9 4DU, or e-mail: [email protected] .

This document/publication is also available on our website at www.communities.gov.uk

Any enquiries regarding this document/publication should be sent to us at:

Department for Communities and Local Government Eland House Bressenden Place London SW1E 5DU Telephone: 030 3444 0000

November, 2012

ISBN: 978-1-4098- 3670-4

Page 94 Contents

Part One - Introduction

Summary of the consultation 2

Policy background 4

Part Two – Consultation Proposals

Proposals for making the appeals process faster and more transparent 9

 Ensuring earlier submission and notification of  appeal statements  Agreeing ‘Common Ground’ upfront  Starting hearings and inquiries sooner  Introducing an expedited ‘Commercial Appeals Service’

Proposals for improving certainty and consistency of the process 16

 Aligning other planning-related appeal processes  Issuing one guide to planning appeal procedures  Non-regulatory actions

Part Three – Consultation

Consultation questions – response form 21

About this consultation 29

Annex A: Appeals procedures timeline 30

Annex B: Background information on appeal procedures 32

Annex C: Impact Assessment 34

1 Page 95 Summary of consultation

Topic of this Investigating continual improvement of the planning appeal consultation: process for the benefit of appellants, interested parties and local authorities. The focus is to a) Make the process faster and more transparent, and b) Improve consistency and increase certainty of decision timescales.

Scope of this In summary, we are considering changes to secondary consultation: legislation and guidance to bring into effect: o Earlier submission and notification of appeal statements – so interested parties see information earlier and can comment; o Agreeing ‘Common Ground’ upfront – so councils and appellants narrow the issues of dispute more openly and clearly; o Starting hearings and inquiries sooner – leading to quicker decisions, within agreed boundaries set for the Planning Inspectorate; o Introducing an expedited ‘Commercial Appeals Service’ – so some appeals on minor commercial developments follow a shorter process with a minimum of documentation. o Exploring opportunities for aligning other planning- related appeal processes – so that the number of Statutory Instruments (the legal rules and regulations) is reduced. o Issuing one guide to planning appeal procedures – as part of the drive to reduce planning guidance to a minimum.

The Planning Inspectorate is also taking steps to improve its online appeal process to speed up access to information, and may consider reviewing the appeal procedure determination criteria and its bespoke timetable service.

Geographical These proposals relate to England only. scope: Impact A consultation stage impact assessment is attached to this Assessment: consultation document.

2 Page 96 Basic Information

To: This is a public consultation and it is open to anyone with an interest in the planning appeals process to respond.

Body/bodies Department for Communities and Local Government and responsible for the Planning Inspectorate the consultation: Duration: The consultation is published on 1 November 2012 and ends on 13 December 2012. This is a 6 week period.

Enquiries: Maria Darby Tel. 0303 44 41463 E-mail: [email protected]

How to respond: By e-mail to [email protected]

A downloadable questionnaire form, which can be emailed to us, will be available on our website at www.communities.gov.uk/consultations .

Alternatively, paper communications should be sent to: Maria Darby Appeals Review Planning Development Management Division Department for Communities and Local Government 1/J3, Eland House Bressenden Place London SW1E 5DU

Additional ways This is a written exercise. to become involved: After the A summary of responses will be published. consultation:

Getting to this A review of the appeals process was announced in the stage: Autumn Statement in November 2011. The Autumn Statement stated ‘The Government will review planning appeals procedures , seeking to make the process faster and more transparent, improve consistency and increase certainty of decision timescales.

Previous Various consultations on changes to the planning appeal engagement: process were undertaken in 2007 and 2009 resulting in changes to legislation, including primary powers set out in the Planning Act 2008, as well as revisions to guidance including the Award of Costs Circular 2009.

3 Page 97 Policy background

1. The Government is committed to promoting growth and employment in support of broader economic recovery. In support of this the Government is continuing its programme of reform to improve the planning system. On the 6 September 2012 the Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government announced a series of measures to speed up planning decisions and appeals, and major infrastructure. The Growth and Infrastructure Bill will take forward measures to speed up the planning process for large scale and business developments, and ensure that the information requirements of local planning authorities are proportionate. The Bill builds on earlier Government reforms such as the Localism Act 2012, the National Planning Policy Framework, and the introduction of Planning Guarantee which speeds up decision taking by local planning authorities and the Planning Inspectorate.

2. To further support the delivery of a reformed planning system, the Government announced a review of planning appeal procedures in the Autumn Statement of November 2011. The objective of this Review is to make the appeals process faster and more transparent, improve consistency and increase certainty of decision timescales, reducing wasted time and expense for all parties, and lead to quicker development where the appeal is upheld. Soundings were taken from users of the planning system to help frame the set of proposals within this consultation. [ 1].

3. In framing the proposals, we recognise that there must be reasonable time and opportunity for all parties to participate so that the appeal process remains fair to all [ 2]. However, there is scope to change some of the timescales both for the Planning Inspectorate and for the parties to the appeal.

4. In its consideration of appeal procedures, the Government has focused on the time between the start of an appeal to the issuing of the decision. It has considered whether there is opportunity to streamline the existing procedural rules and guidance around appeals, to speed up the sharing of documents and cases between parties, and to encourage earlier engagement between parties so appeals are run as efficiently as possible, and areas of dispute are narrowed.

5. Applicants generally have up to 6 months to decide to appeal, if their application is refused, and therefore have plenty of time to bring their case together. Experience shows evidence submitted late on in the process can create unhelpful delays, add unnecessary administrative burdens and can be confusing for interested parties.

1 As set out in the Autumn Statement 2011: http://www.hm-treasury.gov.uk/as2011_documents.htm 2 As set out in the National Infrastructure Plan 2011: http://cdn.hm-treasury.gov.uk/national_infrastructure_plan291111.pdf

4 Page 98 6. As the majority of appeals that relate to the larger and more complex development proposals important for economic growth are determined at hearings or inquiries, the review has included a focus on these procedures. However there are some changes that we have considered which are relevant to all appeals procedures and which should help improve the wider service.

7. The Government’s overall objective is to reduce the time taken to determine an appeal and make the appeals process more efficient, saving the appeal parties from wasted time and expense. These changes will result in a significant reduction in the time taken to determine a planning appeal, as outlined in Annex A.

8. While a key driver is to improve the timeliness of decision making by the Planning Inspectorate, all parties to the appeal need to play their part. Behaviour change by all parties to the appeal is central to the effective implementation of the proposals which signal a move away from the current adversarial approach. In future both appellants and local planning authorities will be required to be more collaborative, for example on the open early sharing of evidence and agreement of the Statement of Common Ground.

9. The benefits of the proposed changes to the appeals procedures will only be realised if all parties change their behaviour and adhere to the revised timetable. If any party to a planning appeal acts unreasonably, creating unnecessary or wasted expense for another party, then a claim for an award of costs can be submitted to recover some or all of that expense.[ 3]The award of costs regime is to be strengthened to act as a further incentive to timely and positive decision taking. The Government intends to bring forward a package of primary and secondary legislative measures to extend the powers of Planning Inspectors to:  to initiate an award of costs, in full or in part, for all procedures, where there is evidence of unreasonable behaviour, including exceedingly slow decision taking, rather than simply reacting to a request to adjudicate on an application for an award of costs made by one of the parties to an appeal; and  recover the Secretary of State’s costs in full or in part for all types of appeal procedures a party has been wholly unreasonable, as a further incentive to good behaviour throughout the planning process. This could include appeals where no new evidence has been provided and the party was clearly unreasonable in bringing the appeal, or where a party has been actively delaying the appeals process. These changes will be reflected in an updated Costs Awards Circular. In addition, the definition of unreasonable behaviour in the Costs Circular will be expanded to cover cases where planning authorities

3 http://communities.gov.uk/documents/planningandbuilding/pdf/circularcostsawards.pdf

5 Page 99 have taken more than half a year to determine an application, reflecting the Planning Guarantee.

10. There are a large number of statutory instruments (legal rules and regulations) governing all these appeal types. The documents are listed in Annex B. Some of these rules are nearly 40 years old and there is an opportunity to ensure procedures are up-to-date, and to rationalise.

Summary of proposals

To make the process faster and more transparent ;

o Ensuring earlier submission and notification of appeal statements of case o Agreeing ‘Common Ground’ upfront o Starting hearings and inquiries sooner o Introducing an expedited ‘Commercial Appeals Service’

To improve consistency and increase certainty of decision timescales;

o Aligning other planning-related appeal processes o Issuing one guide to planning appeal procedures o Non-regulatory actions namely: Moving to a more transparent online appeal model Revising the determination criteria Agreeing bespoke timetables for more inquiries

Previous changes

11. In May 2007 the Government consulted on proposals to make the appeals system more proportionate, customer focussed and efficient. The changes that followed shortened some of the steps in the process, and gave the Planning Inspectorate powers to determine the appeal procedure for certain appeal types. A new appeal procedure for householder applications was introduced which cut the standard time for determining these appeals from 26 to 8 weeks in most cases. In 2011-12 some 5,392 appeals, equating to 34% of the total number of appeals followed this route. [ 4]

12. Subsequent changes introduced in 2009 encouraged negotiation and resubmission of application proposals, with the appeal as the final resort. However there remains scope to improve the overall process. It is still the case that appellants are not always fully prepared and often submit late additional evidence which contributes to 30% of inquiries being adjourned thus adding unnecessary expense and delay to the

4 http://www.planningportal.gov.uk/uploads/pins/statistics_eng/stats_report_final_2011_2012.xls

6 Page 100 other parties and the Inspectorate. Likewise, local planning authorities need to be ready to defend their decisions in a timely manner.

13. In its response to the consultation at the time, the Government stated that where reforms proved successful it would consider extending some of them to other appeal types [ 5].

14. The Government is now reforming the planning system so that it is less complex and confrontational, with local plans in place to form the starting point for decisions. This should result in more decisions being made at a local level with less challenge of decisions by appeal. Current position

15. Applicants have a right to appeal against refusal of planning permission, or non-determination after a set period, by local planning authorities. There are no plans to alter the existing time period in which to appeal.

16. The planning appeals service is provided by the Planning Inspectorate on behalf of the Secretary of State. The Planning Inspectorate decided over 15,000 planning appeals in 2011-12. These are known in law as ‘Section 78’ appeals [ 6]. However for the purpose of this consultation paper they are referred to more simply as ‘planning appeals’.

17. Appeals are determined by different procedures depending on the complexity of planning matters;  Written Representations – Where evidence is provided through correspondence only.  Hearing – Where it is necessary to ask questions.  Inquiry – Where the issues are complex and it is necessary to test evidence under cross-examination. Although an appellant may select which procedure they consider to be the most appropriate, in the majority of cases the Planning Inspectorate has the power to determine which procedure the appeal will progress by.

18. In general, the timely submission of information, exchange of comments, events and assessment of the case means most decisions can be issued in 26 weeks or earlier. However some appeals take longer to decide, either because of the late submission of evidence, or other missed deadlines by the parties to the appeal, or because of operational delays by the Planning Inspectorate such as Inspector availability. (See Table 1.)[ 7].

5 http://www.communities.gov.uk/publications/planningandbuilding/improvingappealresponse 6 Section 78 planning appeals are those made under Section 78 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990. Appeals can be made against the decision, non-determination, or the planning conditions imposed by the local planning authority. 7 In 2011-12 552 out of 14,000 appeal decisions took longer than 26 weeks to determine.

7 Page 101 19. There are also a series of other appeals closely related to planning appeals which are dealt with by the Planning Inspectorate. These types of appeal run along similar procedures but under different parts of planning law. The consultation paper refers to:  Enforcement appeal proceedings:  Advertisement consent appeals  Listed Building consents, and  Lawful Development Certificate appeals.

Table 1: Volume and timeliness of appeal determination 2011-12[ 8]

Number of Average length of appeals decided time – weeks Section planning appeal 78 (excluding change of use) Householder appeals 4,990 7 Written Representations 8,191 18 Hearing 1,054 20 Inquiry 281 32 Change Of Use Written Representations 1248 17 Hearing 158 21 Inquiry 24 30 Advertisement consent Written Representations 575 17 Hearing 74 22 Enforcement Written Representations 1,645 20 Hearing 385 25 Inquiry 584 33 Planning Listed Building / Conservation Area Consent Written Representations 594 19 Hearing 103 20 Inquiry 26 27 Lawful Development Certificate Written Representations 185 20 Hearing 21 24 Inquiry 81 33 20,219

8 PINS statistical return http://www.planningportal.gov.uk/uploads/pins/statistics_eng/stats_report_final_2011_2012.xls

8 Page 102 Proposals for making the appeal process faster and more transparent

20. We have developed a series of proposals which build on recent changes. We are aiming to create the conditions in which the time taken to determine an appeal is reduced. The process should be more efficient, saving the appeal parties from wasted time and expense. This set of proposals applies predominately to Section 78 planning appeals. Annex A provides a timeline of the current procedures and an indicative timeline demonstrating the potential impact of the proposed reforms to make the process faster. Proposal A: Ensuring earlier submission and notification of appeal statements

21. We want to promote early and full disclosure of issues and evidence. An appeal should start in earnest more quickly so that all parties can comment on the full facts of the appeal[ 9].

BACKGROUND TO THE ISSUE :

22. Statutory procedures include the submission of additional comments or statements at appeal. This is through ‘further representations’ for Written Representations, a ‘hearing statement’ for Hearings and a ‘statement of case’ for Inquiries. These are currently submitted 6 weeks from the starting date for each procedure.

23. While much has been done since 2009 to speed up the sharing of documents and discussion of issues, this does not happen in all cases. It seems a fair challenge that since most appellants have had 6 months in which to appeal they should be fully ready for appeal; there should be little that is ‘not known’ when they appeal. Therefore there is no reason why the full case of the appellant should not be made available to local planning authorities and interested parties at the start of the appeal.

THE PROPOSAL:

24. We propose to amend the rules and regulations [ 10 ] to: o require the appellant to submit their full appeal statement as part of their grounds of appeal on submission of the appeal, and

9 For the expedited Householder Appeal Service third parties do not comment on the appeal, but all comments made at the application stage are considered by the inspector 10 for example Article 33 of the Development Management Procedure Order 2010, and the Hearings and inquiries Rules 2000

9 Page 103 o to ensure local planning authorities notify interested parties within one week rather than the current timetable of 2 weeks after they have received notice of a valid appeal. This would happen at the time the authority submits its questionnaire form to the Planning Inspectorate, a week earlier than is currently the case.

25. We believe requiring the appellant to set out the details of their full case at the submission stage is more transparent, and will mean that interested parties can see the key issues at the time that they have the opportunity to comment. This will encourage earlier engagement on the key issues. The proposals will speed up the appeals process by removing the opportunity for parties to introduce evidence at the statement stage that should have been submitted at the start of the appeal, and which can lead to an adjournment or delay in the proceedings to provide sufficient time for other parties to consider it. This change will ensure that in most cases all the evidence will be available at an early stage in the process. Only in respect of inquiries will the submission of more detail, in the form of proofs of evidence, be acceptable.

Q1: Do you agree with the proposed changes to the appeal procedure?

Proposal B: Agreeing ‘Common Ground’ upfront

26. We intend to speed up the sharing of documents, narrow the areas of dispute, and focus parties’ effort on the main issues. This will ensure parties engage effectively pre appeal and with full knowledge at the early stage of an appeal.

BACKGROUND TO THE ISSUE :

27. Currently where an appeal is determined at inquiry, the appellant is required to submit a ‘Statement of Common Ground’ agreed with the local planning authority – to identify agreed matters which do not need to be considered at the event – 6 weeks after the start of the appeal.

28. Agreeing common ground is useful for appeal parties and inspectors to help narrow the areas of dispute. However the process can be time consuming for the parties involved and if not engaged with in good faith or if begun late in the process, it gives parties little time to respond to the others’ points.

THE PROPOSAL:

29. We propose to bring discussion on common ground issues to the forefront of the appeal process. To achieve this we will amend the Development Management Procedure Order and the Inquiry Rules to

10 Page 104 require the appellant to table a first draft of a document containing the factual background to the case at the time they make the appeal.

30. The local planning authority would then have until week 5 to negotiate with the appellant a final version of the agreed matters which should then require no or little consideration at the event. If the local planning authority does not signal to the appellant that they disagree with the appellant’s facts then they will be considered to be uncontested by the local planning authority.

31. Agreeing the Statement of Common Ground earlier will lead to more focussed evidence being presented to the inquiry and avoid time being taken on matters that are not material. There may also be merit in asking for a Statement of Common Ground for other appeal routes, such as hearings.

Q2: Do you agree with the proposed approach to agreeing a Statement of Common Ground up front, and that a Statement should be required for hearings? Proposal C: Starting hearings and inquiries sooner

32. We want parties to be prepared to present their case earlier, and set tighter guidelines for Planning Inspectorate timetabling.

BACKGROUND TO THE ISSUE :

33. Secondary legislation sets out the expected length of time by which an appeal should be held in public. Longer is allowed where these targets are considered impracticable by the Secretary of State (or Planning Inspectorate) . The current rules state that the appeal event should be held within 12 weeks for a hearing [ 11 ], and 20 weeks for inquiries [12 ].

34. We are proposing changes to better deliver this target as at present only around 20% of hearings are held by week 12 (with 80% held by week 16) and 60% of inquiries by week 20. In practice, these delays are sometimes because representations have not been submitted in time, or because a party has requested a delay, as well as Inspector availability. In addition inquiries and hearings can overrun because not enough time is allo cated for them based on the information submitted by appeal parties.

THE PROPOSAL :

35. We propose to shorten the time between the start of the appeal and the appeal event. To do this we will amend the relevant secondary

11 Town and Country Planning (Hearings Procedure) (England) Rules 2000 12 Town and Country Planning Appeals (Determination by Inspectors) (Inquiries Procedure) (England) Rules 2000

11 Page 105 legislation to set the expectation that an inquiry determined by an inspector should be held not later than 16 weeks (and for hearing not later than 10 weeks) after the starting date unless such a date is considered impracticable – such as late submission of representations, or other action by the parties, or because a longer timeframe is agreed between the parties.

36. This will generally improve the timeliness of decision making, bringin g the opportunity for hearings and inquiries forward by 2 and 4 weeks respectively, while retaining sufficient flexibility for appeal parties i n organising their time and for the Planning Inspectorate to deliver decisions earlier. In practice, based on current performance the time saving will be significantly greater than this, for example in the order o f 6 weeks for hearings. This time saving is in part possible because all the material required for the appeal will be provided earlier in the process. Improvements to the Inspectorates administrative process es and the planning and timetabling of their Insp ectors will enable the Inspectorate to hold appeal events earlier.

37. In conjunction with the other proposals in this consultation, succe ss will be dependent on appeal parties fully engaging with the process, keeping to the timetable and submitting information in a timely mann er. The revised target deadlines will apply where deadlines for all other stages in the appeal have been met. The Planning Inspectorate can only act effectively if they recei ve accurate and open details of the case and the number of witnesses.

38. Having given earlier thought to the grounds of appeal, parties should be better placed to identify the number of witnesses they will need to call and the length of time needed to give evidence and, if necessary, cross-examine. Therefore in amending the rules on submitting appeal statements (Proposal A) we also propose to make it a requiremen t that parties provide information on the appeal forms of the number of witnesses and the length of time they need to give their evidence. This will enable more precise assessment of expected duration at the outs et and enable inspectors to prepare reliable timetables and run events more strictly according to those timetables. Model appeal forms and questionnaires will be revised accordingly. Inspectors would be enabled to hold parties to their forecast time estimates unless the party can demonstrate that there has been a clear change in circums tances which warra nts them being granted more time to present their evidence.

39. If a party extends their evidence beyond their submitted estimate without adequate reasons then the Inspector could challenge them o n their timetable and whether anything new is going to be said. If the party continued beyond the timetable following such challenge other parties could apply for costs if the extended period did not result in evidence being presented that was not previously covered in the

12 Page 106 written or oral evidence to that point. New separate legislation will enable Inspectors to initiate costs in future.

40. The earlier provision of information, a clearer view on the key planning issues and common ground, together with administrative changes t o the way the Planning Inspectorate deliver, will also lead to time savings after the event meaning that decision letters can be issued earlier. Thus in the case of hearings, there could be an overall time saving of 7 weeks, as the average event takes place 6 weeks earlier, and the decision letter issued a further week earlier than currently. If a ll parties adhere to the revised timetables decision letters in regard to inquiries would on average be issued 9 weeks earlier than currently.

Q3: Do you agree with the proposed approach to shortening the time before the appeal event?

Proposal D: Introd ucing an expedited ‘Commercial Appeals Service’

41. The Government has recently announced that planning appeals related to major commercial and residential developments, equating to som e 38% of the total number of appeals, will be given priority and a decisi on made in the shortest possible time. Separate discussions are also underway regarding the Section 106 appeal process and timescale. We want to create more opportunities for smaller scale, less complex, commercial developments to follow a quicker appeal route in order to promote growth.

BACKGROUND TO THE ISSUE :

42. The introduction of a Householder Appeals Service[ 13 ] in 2009 h as been successful in reducing the time taken to determine less complex small scale cases to, in most cases, 8 weeks. This provides an expedited written representations procedure for some 35 % of plannin g appeals, and has proved popular with appellants and local plannin g authorities alike. The scope of the appeals which are suitable for this route is clearly defined, based on the householder application for planning permission, enabling appellants to know whether their appeal is suitable and therefore whether they have a shortened time i n which to appeal. Appellants have 12 weeks in which to appeal. A key feat ure of the expedited process is the reliance on the local planning authority’s application case documentation. Therefore, there is no further opportunity for interested third parties to provide additional comment as the third party comments made at the application stage form part of the documentation. The service is well used and deliver s

13 The Householder appeals service now accounts for 34% of the total Section 78 caseload, with 91% of such appeals determined within 8 weeks, compared with the average for other written representations of 17 weeks. It offers a faster service by reducing the opportunity to provide further evidence at additional points in the process.

13 Page 107 substantial resource savings for the appeal parties. However it is not suitable for all appeals, particularly complex cases where evidence needs to be tested. In such cases the Planning Inspectorate will determine that the appeal should follow an alternative procedure and the Planning Inspectorate retains the power to change the procedure should an appeal cease to be appropriate for the expedited process.

43. We believe that there is scope to introduce an expedited procedure fo r appeals on some minor commercial planning applications. How it would work will depend on the degree to which similar principles can apply i.e. where the planning issues raised are straight forward, the appeal can be dealt with without the need for further representations, and there is not a significant level of broader community interest.

44. In addition, we believe there is merit in applying this more transparent legislative process to Advertisement Consent appeals to allow for mor e consistent administration of the process by the Planning Inspectorate . Currently the Advertisement Consent appeal procedures are only set out in guidelines. While the exis ting timetable set out in guidance is quite short, it allows scope for the appellant to delay putting forward a full case earl y in the process.

THE PROPOSAL :

45. We propose to establish a Commercial Appeals Service (CAS); an expedited form of the written representations procedure. This would offer a faster commercial planning appeal procedure for less complex appeals, enabling the Inspectorate to make a decision in 8 weeks. We propose that there would be only 12 weeks in which to appeal, rat her than the usual 6 months. Therefore it would be essential to easily identify which appeals could proceed under the simplified appeal procedure at the planning application stage. This would also enable th e local planning authority to notify interested parties at the application stage that there would not be a further opportunity to make comme nt should the application go via the expedited appeal route. The Planning Inspectorate would retain the power to determine the appropriate appeal procedure where an individual case was not appropriate for an expedited process. There would be an element of choice for qualifying commercial appeals such that an appellant would specifi cally opt in to the fast track appeal or if an a ppeal was submitted after 12 weeks (and within the 6 months) it would follow the standard written representations procedure.

46. Appeals determined by the Commercial Appeals Service would be based on the appellant’s brief appeal statement plus the original planning application documentation and any comments made at the application stage (including those of interested parties). Recognis ing that these should be for less complex cases, we propose that a total word limit is applied to the appellant’s statement. The volume of material submitted with appeals can add to the time taken to deter mine

14 Page 108 them yet it is often not essential to the appeal. Creating a word limit would impose a discipline on appellants to focus evidence on the reasons for refusal/main issues. There would be no need for exch ange of evidence or further comments. This could save time and mone y for all parties involved. At the same time, we additionally propose to extend and this word limit to future Householder Appeal Service appeals for the same reasons.

47. An initial range of appeals that we believe wo uld benefit from this approach include: o Advertisement consent appeals [ 14 ]. o Appeals on changes to shop fronts, o Change of use and other minor development that relates to straight forward proposals of under 1000m2. We estimate that using this broad definition, approximately 1,600 planning appeals (11%) will be in scope per annum, plus circa 550 -600 advertisement consent appeals. Views are invited on whether any other types of appeals could additionally be brought into scop e.

Q4: Do you agree with the proposals for the development of a Commercial Appeals Service?

Q5: What type of less complex non-householder written representations appeals would benefit from inclusion in a Commercial Appeals Service?

14 575 received in 2011/12.

15 Page 109 Proposals for improving the certainty and consistency of the process

48. It is important for appellants and local planning authorities to be able to manage their time and resources effectively through an appeal process that has certainty on the key milestones. This gives interested parties better opportunity to engage with the appeal process, which can at times feel remote.

49. To support the continuous improvement of the Planning Inspectorate service to its customers, proposals have been developed which together should bring better practice to the appeals service. This set of proposals applies to a broader range of appeals, including enforcement, and Listed Building consents etc.

Proposal E: Aligning other planning-related appeal processes

50. We want to align as many of the different appeal procedures as possible to make the process clearer for their customers.

BACKGROUND TO THE ISSUE :

51. The procedures for planning appeals – written representations, hearings and inquiries - have been amended over a period of time and are now set out in a number of statutory instruments (the legal rules and regulations).

52. There are other planning-related appeals which are outlined on page 8 of the consultation paper. There may be opportunity to consider applying some of the streamlining of processes undertaken in 2009 to these appeal procedures - for example Enforcement, Listed Building consents and Lawful Development Certificate appeals - so that, wherever possible, they are the same. Annex B sets out the range of Statutory Instruments.

THE PROPOSAL:

53. We propose that:

o The existing rules and regulations will be amended so that the Planning Inspectorate is allowed to determine the procedure (in consultation with appellants and local planning authorities) for other types of appeals, such as Advertisement consent, Listed Building and Lawful

16 Page 110 Development Certificate appeals. They can already do this for Section 78 and Enforcement appeal proceedings. The change will, for example, enable the Planning Inspectorate to choose the most appropriate procedure where a Listed Building appeal is linked to a planning appeal.

o The rules governing Enforcement appeals could be amended to bring Enforcement hearings and inquiries into line with the procedural changes made in 2009 to planning appeals. At that time the stage at which parties could make additional comments (known as the Week 9 stage) was removed from planning appeal hearings and inquiries as it was proven that there was sufficient time to state the case elsewhere in the process.

o Additionally, there is opportunity to consider whether any of the changes we propose to planning appeals in proposals A to C of this consultation should be applied more widely to other appeal proceedings, in particular enforcement appeals. By their nature, appellants in these cases do not have up to six months to prepare their case, and therefore a different consideration needs to be given to whether shortening the appeal procedure timescales would give appellants a fair opportunity to gather and present all their evidence.

o Finally, the rules and regulations that set out the appeals procedures will be brought together into a form that would be most helpful to the user. This would make it clearer to understand what is the most up-to- date and correct process to follow. The intention is to simplify and merge the statutory instruments where this would be helpful to users, leading to clearer processes and a reduction in the number of documents that need to be cross referenced by users.

Q6: Do you agree with the proposed approach to align other appeal processes?

Q7: Do you have a view on whether proposals A-C should be applied more broadly to other types of appeals, in particular enforcement, and whether the further comments stage at week 9 should be removed from Enforcement hearings and inquiries?

Proposal F: Issuing one guide to planning appeal procedures

54. We want to reinforce key aspects of Government guidance to drive behaviour change to make the appeal process more effective

BACKGROUND TO THE ISSUE :

17 Page 111 55. The National Planning Policy Framework has reduced more than 1000 pages of policy down into one document of around 50 pages.

56. Appellants and local planning authorities currently draw on a suite of other guidance documents for information about the appeal process, amounting to around 300 pages. This includes the existing ‘Planning Circulars’ and other formal Procedural Guidance, as well as 17 good practice advice notes issued by the Planning Inspectorate.

THE PROPOSAL :

57. We propose to issue a single, streamlined, clear procedural note on appeals. Where it is necessary to do so over and above that set out in the legislation, the document will outline legal procedures in relation to general planning as well as the planning-related procedures for Enforcement, Advertisement and Listed Building consent appeals. The document would set out national criteria and guidance on appeals and set expectations for appeal party documentation and evidence. It would also offer clarity on any grounds for a submission for an award of costs.

58. More broadly, the Government has announced a review of planning practice guidance, led by Lord Taylor. 15 The review will streamline planning guidance to make the planning system swifter and more accessible. The work to review the planning appeals guidance will be aligned with this broader review in order to support effective planning.

Q8: Do you agree with the proposed approach to reviewing and simplifying guidance?

NON-REGULATORY ACTIONS:

59. We are also proposing other actions which do not rely on changes to regulations. These are under consideration as part of our ongoing dialogue on the continuous improvement of the appeals service for customers.

MOVING TO A MORE TRANSPARENT ONLINE APPEALS MODEL

60. The current appeal procedure rules were developed based on paper communication and they follow the pace at which hard copy documents can be exchanged by post. Currently, the majority of appeals are initially submitted electronically to the Planning Inspectorate via the Planning Portal though many parties then complete the process using hard copy. The Planning Inspectorate does not handle all of its appeals

15 http://www.communities.gov.uk/newsstories/newsroom/2236539

18 Page 112 electronically due for example to limitations of its casework management system.

61. Increased e-handling in line with the Governments broader Digital by Default agenda would assist the Planning Inspectorate to streamline some of its business processes. Appellants will be further encouraged to submit appeals on-line. The future development of systems by the Planning Inspectorate has the potential to deliver efficiencies and enable transparent tracking of appeals by interested parties and appellants.

REVISING THE DETERMINATION CRITERIA

62. The current criteria that the Planning Inspectorate use to determine the correct procedure for planning appeals and Enforcement appeals were drawn up in 2009 and are set out in the Planning Inspectorates Procedural Guidance 16 . After three years of operation, we now propose to review the criteria to clarify: o the text so that it is clearly understood what kind of reasons indicate that any particular appeal procedure be followed, thereby reducing the likelihood of challenge and subsequent delay.

o the existing guidance on contentious proposals that have generated significant local interest, to make it clear that a hearing or inquiry will be arranged where the local planning authority is aware that there is significant local interest and that: (i) it demonstrably requires that an Inspector hears evidence and / or asks questions of appeal parties, and (ii) where the local authority considers that (and can explain why) there is good reason to expect that it is necessary for the significant public representation to give evidence at an oral event.

Q9: Do you agree with the proposed revisions to the determination criteria?

AGREEING BESPOKE TIMETABLES FOR MORE INQUIRIES

63. Around 10% of inquiries (those sitting for 6 or more days) currently benefit from a bespoke procedure which offers a flexible process for the most complex cases which meets the needs of the appeal parties - but sometimes result in longer appeals than 26 weeks. This is valued by and popular with parties as the appeal runs to a timetable agreed amongst the parties. Extending this to more inquiries could bring a

16 Procedural Guidance: Planning appeals and called-in planning applications (PINS 01/2009), and Procedural Guidance: Enforcement appeals and determination of appeal procedure (PINS 02/2009.)

19 Page 113 significant number of inquiries in scope, for example 70% of all inquiries sat for 3 or more days in 2011/12.

64. Certainty over the timetable and date of the event enables parties to plan submissions and attendance most effectively. Any reduction in adjournments avoids wasted time and effort. It gives the parties flexibility to agree shorter or longer timescales to meet their needs in regard to an individual appeal. We therefore propose to offer a bespoke timetable to inquiries forecast to last 3 days or more.

Q10: Do you agree with the proposal to extend the offer of a bespoke procedure to inquiries lasting 3 or more days?

Q11: Do you have any other proposals to further improve the appeals system?

20 Page 114 Consultation questions - response form

The Government welcomes your views on all aspects of the proposals set out in this consultation.

How to respond:

The closing date for responses is 13 December 2012.

This response form is saved separately on the DCLG website.

Responses should be sent preferably by email:

Email responses to: [email protected]

Written responses to:

Maria Darby Review of planning appeal procedures - Consultation Planning - Development Management Division Department for Communities & Local Government Zone 1/J3, Eland House Bressenden Place London SW1E 5DU

21 Page 115 About you i) Your details:

Name:

Position:

Name of organisation (if applicable):

Address:

Email:

Telephone number:

ii) Are the views expressed on this consultation an official response from the organisation you represent or your own personal views? Organisational response Personal views

iii) Please tick the box which best describes you or your organisation: District Council Metropolitan district council London borough council Unitary authority/county council/county borough council Parish council Community council Non-Departmental Public Body (NDPB) Planner Professional trade association

22 Page 116 Land owner Private developer/house builder Developer association Residents association Voluntary sector/charity Other

(please comment):

iv) What is your main area of expertise or interest in this work (please tick one box)? Chief Executive Planner Developer Surveyor Member of professional or trade association Councillor Planning policy/implementation Environmental protection Other

(please comment):

Would you be happy for us to contact you again in relation to this ques tio nnair e?

Yes ! ! ! No !

23 Page 117 Questions

Please refer to the relevant parts of the consultation document for narrative relating to each question.

Q1: Do you agree with the proposed changes to the appeal procedure? Yes ! ! ! No !

Comments

Q2: Do you agree with the proposed approach to agreeing a Statement of Common Ground up front, and that a Statement should be required for hea ingrs? Yes ! ! ! No !

Comments

Q3: Do you agree with the proposed approach to shortening the time before the appeal event? Yes ! ! ! No !

Comments

24 Page 118 Q4: Do you agree with proposals for the development of a Commercial Appeals Service? Yes ! ! ! No !

Comments

Q5: What type of less complex non-householder written representations appeals would benefit from inclusion in a commercial appeals service? ! Advertisement c onsen t !! ! Change of shop front ! ! !

! Change of use !!! ! Minor development less than 1000m2 !! !

Other (please note below)

Comments

Q6: Do you agree with the proposed approach to align other appeal processes? Yes ! ! ! No !

Comments

Q7: Do you have a view on whether proposals A-C should be applied more broadly to other types of appeals, in particular enforcement, and whether the further comments stage at week 9 should be removed from Enforcement hearings and inquiries? Yes ! ! ! No !

25 Page 119 Comments

Q8: Do you agree with the proposed approach to reviewing and simplifying guid ncae? Yes ! ! ! No !

Comments

Q9: Do you agree with the proposed revisions to the determination criteria? Yes ! ! ! No !

Comments

Q10: Do you agree with the proposal to extend the offer of a bespoke procedure to inquiries lasting 3 or more days? Yes ! ! ! No !

Comments

26 Page 120 Q11: Do you have any other proposals to further improve the appeals syst me? Yes ! ! ! No !

Comments

27 Page 121 Impact Assessment

The consultation includes a draft impact assessment of the proposals. Do you have any comments or additional evidence on the costs and benefits of the proposals?

A: Securing earlier submission and notification of appeal statements

B: Agreeing ‘Common Ground’ upfront

C: Starting hearings and inquiries sooner

D: Introducing an expedited ‘Commercial Appeals Service’

Full package of proposals A-D for making the appeal process faster and more transparent

E: Aligning other planning-related appeal processes

F: Issuing one guide to planning appeal procedures

Full package of proposals E-F for improving the certainty and consistency of the process

Combined approach – total package of proposals A-F

Yes ! ! ! No !

Comments

Thank you for your comments.

28 Page 122 About this consultation

Representative groups are asked to give a summary of the people and organisations they represent, and where relevant who else they have consulted in reaching their conclusions when they respond.

Information provided in response to this consultation, including personal information, may be published or disclosed in accordance with the access to information regimes (these are primarily the Freedom of Information Act 2000 (FOIA). the Data Protection Act 1998 (DPA) and the Environmental Information Regulations 2004). If you want the information that you provide to be treated as confidential, please be aware that, under the FOIA, there is a statutory Code of Practice with which public authorities must comply and which deals, amongst other things, with obligations of confidence. In view of this it would be helpful if you could explain to us why you regard the information you have provided as confidential. If we receive a request for disclosure of the information we will take full account of your explanation, but we cannot give an assurance that confidentiality can be maintained in all circumstances. An automatic confidentiality disclaimer generated by your IT system will not, of itself, be regarded as binding on the department.

The Department, Communities and Local Government, will process your personal data in accordance with DPA and in the majority of circumstances this will mean that your personal data will not be disclosed to interested parties. Individual responses will not be acknowledged unless specifically requested.

Your opinions are valuable to us. Thank you for taking the time to read this document and respond.

If you have any queries regarding this consultation process, please contact: DCLG Consultation Co-ordinator. Zone 4/H3 Eland House London SW1E 5 DU E-mail address: [email protected]

29 Page 123 Annex A Comparison of key stages in current and proposed revised planning appeal process and timeline for Section 78 Planning Appeals

Current timeline for 2011-12 based on existing rules and regulations PINS receive Start date Start Date (SD) Week 2 Week 5 Week 6 Week 7 Week 8 Week 9 After week By week 12 By week 14 By week 16 By week By week By week 21 By week 22 Week 24 Week 26 Week 28 By week appeal confirmed + Week 1 10 18 20 31 within 7 working days

Planning All procedures - All procedures - PINS HOLD TARGET Average date TARGET Average Average Inspectorate PINS validate PINS 'cross- SITE VISIT DATE FOR for PINS to DATE FOR time by time by (PINS) appeal and copy' LPA, PINS TO hold hearing. PINS TO which PINS which PINS determine appellant and HOLD HOLD issue issue procedure. Start third party HEARING INQUIRY decision decision date confirmed. representations letter letter following following hearing. inquiry. Average Appellant All procedures - All procedures- Written Reps Inquiry only. 4 Appeal Where the Only - LPA and weeks prior to submitted. appellant think it Appellant may inquiry - date Grounds of necessary, comment on for submission appeal and submit further each others of Proofs of essential comments. representations Evidence documents Inquiries only - and respond to

Page 124 provided to Appellant and any interested PINS. LPA submit an (third) party agreed representations Statement of received by Common Ground PINS at 6 weeks.

Local Planning All procedures - All procedures - Written Reps Inquiry only. 4 Authority LPA submit Where LPA think Only - LPA and Weeks prior appeals necessary, Appellant may to inquiry - Questionnaire. submit further comment on date for May elect to comments. each others submission of treat Inquiries only - representations Proofs of questionnaire as Appellant and and respond to Evidence full LPA submit an any interested representations. agreed (third) party Statement of representations Common Ground received by PINS at 6 weeks.

Interested All procedures - All procedures - Inquiry only - parties LPA notify Interested (third) 4 weeks prior interested party comments to inquiry - parties of appeal due. date for and give submission of deadline for Proofs of comment Evidence by Rule 6 parties. Indicativ e future timeline based on implementing options A-C PINS receive Start date Start Date (SD)Week 2 Week 5 Week 6 Week 7 After weekWeek 9 By week 10 By week 12 By week 14 By week 16 eek By wBy week By week 21 By week 22 Week 24 By week 26 Week 28 By week appeal confirmed + Week 1 8 18 20 31 Planning within 7 PINS issue PINS issue TARGET Guarantee PINS HOLD TARGET DATE FOR decision Planning All procedureski d - decision performance SITE VISIT DATE FOR letter PINS validate PINS TO measure Inspectorate PINS TO letter following appeal and HOLD (PINS) HOLD following inquiry. determine INQUIRY HEARING hearing. procedure. Start date confirmed.

All procedures Appellant Inquiry only. - Inquiries only - Written Reps 4 weeks prior Only - Appellant to Appellant and to inquiry - Appellant to submit full LPA to 'finalise' date for respond to statement of Statement of submission LPA week 5 case and Common of Proofs of submissions essential docs Ground. Evidence and/or third to PINs, party including draft representation Statement of s Common Local Plan Ground for Authority All ning All procedures procedures- Inquiries Inquiry only. - LPA submit Where LPA Written Reps 4 weeks prior appeals think Only LPA Questionnaire. to inquiry - necessary, may respond May elect to date for Page 125 submit further to week 5 treat submission representations submissions questionnaire as of Proofs of (Statement). from third full Evidence Inquiries only parties representations

- Appellant and LPA to 'finalise' Statement of Common Ground.

Interested All Inquiry only All procedures- parties procedures - LPA notify Interested - interested (third) party 4 weeks parties of appeal comments due prior to and give inquiry - deadline for date for comment submission of Proofs of Evidence by Rule 6 parties.

31 Annex B

Background information on appeal procedures

The relevant references to the Planning Acts, statutory instruments and guidance are noted below:

Planning Acts  Planning (Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas) Act 1990  Town and Country Planning Act 1990  Planning (Hazardous Substances) Act 1990

Statutory Instruments  Town and Country Planning (Inquiries Procedure) Rules 1974, SI 1974/419  The Planning (Hazardous Substances) Regulations 1992 - SI 1992 No. 656  Town and Country Planning (Hearings Procedure) (England) Rules 2000, SI 2000/1626  Town and Country Planning (Inquiries Procedure) (England) Rules 2000/1624  Town and Country Planning Appeals (Determination by Inspectors) (Inquiries Procedure) (England) Rules 2000, SI 2000/1625  Town and Country Planning (Enforcement) (Enforcement Notices and Appeals) (England) Regulations 2002, SI 2002/2682  Town and Country Planning (Enforcement) (Written Representations Procedure) (England) Regulations 2002, SI 2002/2683  Town and Country Planning (Enforcement) (Determination by Inspectors) (Inquiries Procedure) (England) Rules 2002, SI 2002/2685  Town and Country Planning (Enforcement) (Hearings Procedure) (England) Rules 2002, SI 2002/2684  Town and Country Planning (Enforcement) (Inquiries Procedure) (England) Rules 2002, SI 2002/2686  Town and Country Planning (Control of Advertisements)(England) Regulations 2007, SI 2007/783  Town and Country Planning (Appeals) (Written Representations Procedure) (England) Regulations 2009, SI 2009/452  Town and Country Planning (Determination of Appeal Procedure) (Prescribed Period) (England) Regulations 2009, SI 2009/454  Town and Country Planning (Hearings and Inquiries Procedures) (England) (Amendment) Rules 2009, SI 2009/455  Planning (Hazardous Substances) (Amendment) (England) Regulations 2009 - SI 2009 No. 1901  Town and Country Planning (Development Management Procedure) (England) Order 2010, SI 2010/2184  Town and Country Planning (Tree Preservation)(England) Regulations 2012, SI 2012/605

Page 126 Planning Inspectorate (PINS) guidance  Procedural Guidance: Planning appeals and called-in planning applications (PINS 01/2009)  Procedural Guidance: Enforcement appeals and determination of appeal procedure (PINS 02/2009.)  PINS/GPA Note 01: Further advice on applying the criteria  PINS/GPA Note 02: Householder Appeals Service  PINS/GPA Note 03: Called-in planning applications  PINS/GPA Note 04: Secretary of State recovered appeals  PINS/GPA Note 05: Bespoke Casework Service  PINS/GPA Note 06: Communicating electronically with the Inspectorate  PINS/GPA Note 07: Nature and content of appeal documents  PINS/GPA Note 08: Guidance on statements of common ground  PINS/GPA Note 09: Amendments to schemes (Wheatcroft)  PINS/GPA Note 10: Introducing new material at appeal  PINS/GPA Note 11: Meeting the timetables  PINS/GPA Note 12: Fixing dates  PINS/GPA Note 13: Appeal procedures - Events  PINS/GPA Note 14: Correction of Errors  PINS/GPA Note 15: Challenges and complaints  PINS/GPA Note 16: Submitting planning obligations  PINS/GPA Note 17: Advertisement appeals and related issues - England

33 Page 127 Title: Consultation on the review of planning appeal procedures. Impact Assessment (IA) IA No: Lead department or agency: Date:16/07/2012 Department for Communities and Local Government Stage: Consultation Other departments or agencies: Source of intervention: Domestic Planning Inspectorate Type of measure: Secondary Legislation Contact for enquiries : Maria Darby

Summary: Intervention and Options RPC Opinion: AMBER

Cost of Preferred (or more likely) Option Total Net Present Business Net Net cost to business per In scope of One-In, Measure qualifies as Value Present Value year (EANCB on 2009 prices) One-Out?

£46.1m £25.8m – £2.77m Yes OUT

What is the problem under consideration? Why is government intervention necessary? Currently, where planning applications go to appeal it can take up to a year for a decision to be made. Appeals determined via hearings or inquiries – which often relate to larger scale developments - are particularly likely to take longer than the performance measure of 26 weeks. This delays the delivery of appropriate sustainable development necessary for economic growth, and imposes costs on parties to the appeal. The Government has introduced a planning guarantee to ensure that no planning application takes longer than a year for a decision, including any time spent at appeal. It is now reviewing appeals procedures, as announced in the 2011 Autumn Statement, to make the process faster and more transparent, improve consistenc y and increase the certaint y of decision timescales for a pp ellants. What are the policy objectives and the intended effects? The objectives of the review are to reduce the time taken to determine a planning appeal, thus contributing to cutting the costs to local planning authorities and appellants of participating in the process (including costs arising from delays to the start of work on appropriate developments), and at the same time make the process more transparent and collaborative. Appellants and local planning authorities will save wasted expense on expert and legal representation by focussing proceedings on key issues and reducing adjournments.

What policy options have been considered, including any alternatives to regulation? Please justify preferred option (further details in Evidence Base) Four options have been considered: 1. Do nothing 2. Measures to make the process faster and more transparent 3. Reforms to improve consistency and increase certainty of decision timescales 4. Combined approach (options 2 and 3) The preferred option (4) encompasses a package of technical amendments to the framework and guidance governing the appeals procedure that will bring about cumulative improvement in the planning appeal process both in regard to the certainty of the timeline of the process and the timeliness of decision making. The proposals will meet the overall objectives of the review, and bring benefits through faster decision making and a reduction in unnecessary work.

Will the policy be reviewed? It will be reviewed. If applicable, set review date: 06/2015 Does implementation go beyond minimum EU requirements? N/A Are any of these organisations in scope? If Micros not Micro < 20 Small Medium Large exempted set out reason in Evidence Base. Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes

What is the CO 2 equivalent change in greenhouse gas emissions? Traded: Non-traded: (Million tonnes CO 2 equivalent) I have read the Impact Assessment and I am satisfied that, given the available evidence, it represents a reasonable view of the likely costs, benefits and impact of the leading options.

Signed by the responsible Minister: Date:

Page 34128 Summary: Analysis & Evidence Policy Option 2 Description: Measures to make the process faster and more transparent FULL ECONOMIC ASSESSMENT Price PV Base Time Net Benefit (Present Value (PV)) (£m) Base Year Period Low: High: Best Estimate: £46.1m Year 2012 Years 10 201 2 COSTS (£m) Total Transition Average Annual Total Cost (Constant Price) Years (excl. Transition) (Constant Price) (Present Value) Low High 1 Best Estimate £280,000 £280,000 Description and scale of key monetised costs by ‘main affected groups’ Starting hearings and inquiries sooner, is estimated to result in transitional costs to the Planning Inspectorate of up to £200,000. This arises from the need to re-engineer the scheduling process and make the move from the existing timeframe to the proposed arrangements. This will enable implementation of the revised timetable by employing additional staff and other resources. There may be further up-front administrative costs to the Planning Inspectorate of £30,000 to update procedural guidance and £50,000 from familiarisation (staff trainin g) if a commercial appeals service is introduced. Other key non-monetised costs by ‘main affected groups’

BENEFITS (£m) Total Transition Average Annual Total Benefit (Constant Price) Years (excl. Transition) (Constant Price) (Present Value) Low High 0 Best Estimate £0 £5.4m £46.4m Description and scale of key monetised benefits by ‘main affected groups’ Appellants could benefit in the order of £39.2m from being able to commence (or exit from) proposed development more quickly as a result of more timely decision-making, and reduced expenses incurred in relation to nugatory work, arising from earlier agreement of the issues to be considered and shortening the time at event. In the case of local planning authorities, benefits are estimated at £6.8m. Ongoing, shorter event times are likely to lead to reduced staffing and administrative costs totalling £360,000 at the Planning Inspectorate.

Other key non-monetised benefits by ‘main affected groups’ Opportunity for some appeals determined through the written representations procedure could be shortened by 2 weeks. Opportunity for the time to some hearings and inquiries to be shortened by an additional 2 and 4 weeks respectively while protecting the time allowed to interested parties including local residents and the wider community to provide statements. Interested parties will benefit by being able to see the appellants Statement of Case at the time that they provide their comment, potentially improving the quality of their engagement with the appeals process. Key assumptions/sensitivities/risks Discount rate (%) 3.5% The IA does not model the impact of wider planning reforms, such as the introduction of the National Planning Policy Framework and neighbourhood planning. The assessment assumes that neither local planning authorities nor appellants will incur additional costs as a result of bringing forward the activities they undertake to earlier stages of proceedings.

BUSINESS ASSESSMENT (Option 2) Direct impact on business (Equivalent Annual) £m: In scope of OIOO? Measure qualifies as Costs: £0 Benefits: £2.77m Net: –£2.77m Yes Out

Page35 129 Summary: Analysis & Evidence Policy Option 3 Description: Reforms to improve consistency and increase certainty of decision timescales FULL ECONOMIC ASSESSMENT Price PV Base Time Net Benefit (Present Value (PV)) (£m) Base Year Period Low: High: Best Estimate Year 2012 Years 10 2012 -£30,000 COSTS (£m) Total Transition Average Annual Total Cost (Constant Price) Years (excl. Transition) (Constant Price) (Present Value) Low High 1 Best Estimate £30,000 £30,000 Description and scale of key monetised costs by ‘main affected groups’ There may be a small transitional cost to PINS/DCLG of around £30,000 in drafting the revised guidance and taking forward the necessary secondary legislation.

Other key non-monetised costs by ‘main affected groups’

BENEFITS (£m) Total Transition Average Annual Total Benefit (Constant Price) Years (excl. Transition) (Constant Price) (Present Value) Low High Best Estimate Description and scale of key monetised benefits by ‘main affected groups’ A consolidated and simplified set of guidance should reduce the amount of time spent by parties to the appeal on understanding what is required of them during the process. Improvements to guidance that bring greater clarity to the process and promote constructive behaviours should also reduce staff costs and time at the appeal event, resulting in further unquantified savings to appellants and local authorities.

Other key non-monetised benefits by ‘main affected groups’ The suite of proposals are focused on making the process better; improving the consistency of the process and the certainty of decision timescales, they should ensure a more transparent process, and behaviour change by all parties. An important focus of the review is on narrowing the issues on appeal that can help to reduce paperwork and the time at event Key assumptions/sensitivities/risks Discount rate (%) 3.5% The IA does not model the impact of wider planning reforms, such as the introduction of the National Planning Policy Framework and neighbourhood planning. The assessment assumes that neither local planning authorities nor appellants will incur additional costs as a result of bringing forward the activities they undertake to earlier stages of proceedings.

BUSINESS ASSESSMENT (Option 3) Direct impact on business (Equivalent Annual) £m: In scope of OIOO? Measure qualifies as Costs: Benefits: Net: - Yes n/a

Page 36130 Summary: Analysis & Evidence Policy Option 4 Description: Combined approach FULL ECONOMIC ASSESSMENT Price PV Base Time Net Benefit (Present Value (PV)) (£m) Base Year Period Low: High: Best Estimate: £46.1m Year 2012 Years 10 2012 COSTS (£m) Total Transition Average Annual Total Cost (Constant Price) Years (excl. Transition) (Constant Price) (Present Value) Low High 1 Best Estimate £310,000 £310,000 Description and scale of key monetised costs by ‘main affected groups’ Starting hearings and inquiries sooner, could result in transitional costs to the Planning Inspectorate of up to £200,000, to enable the re-engineering of the scheduling process and the implementation of the revised timetable by employing additional staff and other resources. There may be further up-front administrative costs to the Planning Inspectorate of £60,000 to update procedural guidance and take forward the necessary secondary legislation and £50,000 from familiarisation (staff training) if a commercial appeals service is introduced.

Other key non-monetised costs by ‘main affected groups’

BENEFITS (£m) Total Transition Average Annual Total Benefit (Constant Price) Years (excl. Transition) (Constant Price) (Present Value) Low High Best Estimate £5.4m £46.4m Description and scale of key monetised benefits by ‘main affected groups’ Appellants could benefit in the order of £39.2m from being able to commence (or exit) development more quickly as a result of more timely decision-making, and reduced expenses incurred in relation to nugatory work, arising from earlier agreement of the issues to be considered and shortening the time at event. In the case of local planning authorities, benefits are estimated at £6.8m. Ongoing, shorter event times are likely to lead to reduced staffing and administrative costs totalling £360,000 at the Planning Inspectorate.

Other key non-monetised benefits by ‘main affected groups’ Opportunity for appeals determined through the written representations procedure could be shortened by 2 weeks. The timing of hearings and inquiries may be shortened by an additional 2 and 4 weeks respectively. Behaviour change by the key parties should lead to a more collaborative and transparent process, whereby areas of common agreement are identified early-on, enabling a speedier focus on the key issues and reducing appeal documentation, while preserving the opportunity for effective engagement of neighbours and the wider local community. This saves wasted time and effort by all parties. Key assumptions/sensitivities/risks Discount rate (%) 3.5% The IA does not model the impact of wider planning reforms, such as the introduction of the National Planning Policy Framework and neighbourhood planning. The assessment assumes that neither local planning authorities nor appellants will incur additional costs as a result of bringing forward the activities they undertake to earlier stages of proceedings.

BUSINESS ASSESSMENT (Option 4) Direct impact on business (Equivalent Annual) £m: In scope of OIOO? Measure qualifies as Costs: 0 Benefits: £2.77m Net: –£2.77m Yes Out

Page37 131 Review of planning appeal procedures – evidence base

As made clear in the National Planning Policy Framework 2012, the Government is committed to ensuring that the planning system does everything it can to support sustainable economic growth. The Government is implementing legislative change through the Localism Act, including the introduction of a system of Neighbourhood Planning and the removal of top down targets, to improve and provide more certainty to the planning system at the local level. The Government has also set a guarantee that, from submission to decision, no planning application should take more than one year, including any time spent at appeal.

Background on the current appeals process

Applicants have a right to appeal to the Secretary of State against the refusal of planning permission or non-determination by local planning authorities. The vast majority of appeals, which are dealt with by an impartial body known as the Planning Inspectorate (PINS), are Section 78 planning appeals 1. Other appeals cover for example, enforcement (under Section 174 of the Act)2 and advertisement consent. 3

Appeals are determined by different procedures depending on the complexity of planning matters;

 Written Representations – Where any further evidence is provided through correspondence only. (The Householder Appeal Service is an expedited process for appeals concerning the development of an existing dwellinghouse or development within the curtilage of a dwellinghouse.)  Hearing – Where it is necessary to ask questions.  Inquiry – Where it is necessary to test evidence under cross-examination.

There are considerably fewer Section 174 enforcement appeals than section 78 appeals, but they are frequently more contentious. Advertisement consent appeals are also smaller in number, although they are often less complex so are predominately determined via written representations, with the rest as hearings.

1 Section 78 planning appeals are those made under Section 78 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990. Appeals can be made against the decision, non-determination, or the planning conditions imposed by the local planning authority. 2 Enforcement appeals are those made under Section 174 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 against an enforcement notice issued by the Local Planning Authority. Grounds for appeal include that the development does not breach planning control, or that planning permission should be granted. http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1990/8/section/174 3 Advertisement consent appeals are those made under The Town and Country Planning (Control of Advertisements) (England) Regulations regarding the placement of advertisements in respect of public amenity and health and safety. 2007 http://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/2007/783/contents/made

38 Page 132 Problem under consideration

Of the 440,000 planning applications decided by local planning authorities in 2010- 11, 14% (62,000) were refused permission for development 4. In the same year around 16,500 section 78 appeals were made to the Planning inspectorate – equivalent to 4% of all decisions or 27% of the applications refused 5. One third of these appeals, or just over 1% of all planning applications, were allowed at appeal.

In 2011-12 the Planning Inspectorate exceeded their agreed performance measure of determining 80% of appeals within 26 weeks for section 78 appeals, but some took considerably longer, particularly in the case of inquiries. Enforcement appeals have different performance measures reflecting the complexities of these types of appeals, and which are often linked with another planning appeal.

The table below shows that the average length of time taken to determine appeals varies by procedure type (increasing with complexity of planning matters).

Table 1: Timeliness of appeal determination 2011-126

Number of Average length appeals decided of time – weeks Section 78 Householder appeals 4,990 7 Written Representations 8,191 17 Hearing 1,054 21 Inquiry 281 31 Advertisement consent Written Representations 575 17 Hearing 74 22 Enforcement Written Representations 1,645 20 Hearing 385 25 Inquiry 584 33

More detailed analysis of section 78 hearings and inquiries shows that although the vast majority of non-householder appeals are decided within 26 weeks of their start date, many appeals take noticeably longer, usually because they are adjourned. This is particularly the case in respect of hearings and inquiries, which often broadly relate to larger scale development. The ‘long tail’ of section 78 hearings and inquiries taking more than 26 weeks to determine is depicted below.

4 Department for Communities and Local Government, Live Table P120 , http://www.communities.gov.uk/documents/statistics/xls/2081096.xls . Figures exclude applications that cannot be either granted or refused. 5 Planning Inspectorate, Statistical Report: England 2010-11 , http://www.planningportal.gov.uk/uploads/pins/statistics_eng/10_11/stats_report_final_2010_2011.pdf 6 Planning Inspectorate, Statistical Report: England 2011-12 , http://www.planningportal.gov.uk/uploads/pins/statistics_eng/stats_report_final_2011_2012.xls

39 Page 133 Charts 1 and 2: time to decide section 78 Hearings and Inquiries, 2011-12

125 Time to decide Hearings Time to decide Inquiries

30 100

75 20 Decisions

50 Decisions

10 25

0 01 06 11 16 21 26 31 36 41 46 51 0 Elapsed Weeks 01 06 11 16 21 26 31 36 41 46 51 Elapsed Weeks

While some appeal cases are large and complex, we want to ensure that they are decided as promptly as possible. There are costs to an appellant in bringing an appeal, for example from time spent assembling relevant documentation or from providing legal representation. These costs vary by procedure and are usually greater for inquiries where, for example, legal advocates are often used and expert witnesses may be called. There are likewise costs for a local planning authority in defending an appeal, through planning officer and legal costs. Appellants also incur substantial costs from keeping development activities on hold whilst awaiting the outcome of planning appeals.

Extended appeals processes and added delays through adjournment, wastes time and adds to the costs of all parties. Delaying decisions imposes unnecessary costs on appellants and local planning authorities who expend considerable resources on the process itself and often have large amounts tied up in developments standing idle.

As it stands, the appeals system can be seen to add uncertainty to the development process for appellants and local planning authorities and local communities. The Government wants to ensure that agreed sustainable development can be taken forward as quickly as possible and is therefore seeking to improve the rules and procedures governing non-householder appeals 7.

Rationale for intervention

The Government is responsible for determining the legislative framework within which the planning appeals system operates. The appeals process and the required timelines are set out in regulation, and explained in detail in PINS procedural guidance 8. This provides detailed guidance to appellants and the local planning authority on the three procedures, including the key deadlines for the submission of evidence. It therefore falls to Government to take the lead in considering reforms that could potentially improve the efficiency of appeals processes. The distribution of

7 Appeals concerning householder developments are already dealt with efficiently following the introduction of the Householder Appeals Service Since in 2009,. 8 The Planning Inspectorate Procedural guidance: Planning appeals and called-in planning applications 01/2009 http://www.planningportal.gov.uk/uploads/pins/procedural_guidance_planning_appeals.pdf

40 Page 134 time to appeal determinations suggests there is indeed scope to learn from those cases that are determined faster, to identify good practice that can benefit others.

Policy objective

The Autumn Statement of November 2011 9 announced the Government would review planning appeal procedures, with a view to making the process faster and more transparent, improve consistency and increase certainty of decision timescales. As the majority of the larger and more complex development proposals which are important for economic growth, are determined by hearings or inquiries, the review focused on these procedures at first. Specific policy objectives are to:

 reduce the time taken to determine an appeal, thus cutting costs for PINS, local planning authorities, and developers, and enabling development to proceed (where the appeal is upheld);  make the appeals process more efficient and collaborative, with clear early agreement on the grounds for appeal, thus saving local planning authorities and developers from wasted time and expense.

Behaviour change by all the parties to the appeal is key to the effective implementation of the proposals.

Overview of options under consideration .

A series of potential reforms to the appeals system have been identified, taking account of key messages received from representative bodies whose members frequently use the service. For ease of exposition these measures are grouped together according to whether their focus is on either:  Making the appeals process faster and more transparent, or  Improving the consistency and certainty of decisions.

5 Key messages Z General consensus that appeals should be the tool of last resort. Z There was general satisfaction with appeals dealt with by written representations. Z There was agreement on the need to reduce unnecessary documentation in the process. Z There was support to look at the Statement of Common Ground (SoCG), and Statement of Case, and how they could be best used.

Options:

1. Do Nothing ; Process for each appeal procedure remains as is. Timeliness of decision making does not change significantly from current levels (for simplicity we do not consider potential short term impacts of the introduction of the National Planning Policy Framework, integration of the Infrastructure Planning Commission or changes resulting from realisation of resource savings).

9 HM Treasury, Autumn Statement 2011 http://cdn.hm-treasury.gov.uk/autumn_statement.pdf

41 Page 135 2. Measures to make the process faster and more transparent ; 2A: Securing earlier submission and notification of appeal statements 2B: Agreeing ‘Common Ground’ upfront 2C: Starting hearings and inquiries sooner 2D: Introducing an expedited ‘Commercial Appeals Service’

3. Reforms to improve consistency and increase certainty of decision timescales; 3E: Aligning other planning-related appeal processes 3F: Issuing one guide to planning appeal procedures

4. Combined approach to make the process faster, more transparent and consistent The two sets of measures could be implemented independently, although at this stage we consider the greatest value lies in implementing both in their entirety.

The proposals refer to Section 78 appeals considered by written representations, hearings or inquiries, unless otherwise stated. The detail of each option is laid out below along with the costs and benefits.

Costs and benefits of each option

We make a number of modelling assumptions in order to estimate impacts over a 10 year appraisal period to a level of detail proportionate to the impacts:  The proportion of planning applications going to appeal stays constant at 4% (based on 2010-11).  The baseline route by which appeals are determined (written representation, hearing or inquiry) remains unchanged from 2011-12.  The total number of planning applications decided rises over the appraisal period – from 447,000 in 2012 to 549,000 in 2021 – in line with the Office for Budget Responsibility forecast of economic growth 10 .  The cost to different parties of participating in appeals is as shown by the table below. These estimates relate to administrative and legal expenses incurred during the appeals process 11 . Wages are assumed to remain constant.

Table 2 Costs to parties of participating in an appeal Cost per case Written Hearing Inquiries representation Planning Inspectorate £1,000 £3,500 £11,500 Local planning authority £800 £1,000 £3,200 Appellant £2,000 £4,000 £10,500

10 HM Treasury, Budget 2012, http://cdn.hm-treasury.gov.uk/budget2012_annexd.pdf 11 Impact assessment for the introduction of the NPPF http://www.communities.gov.uk/documents/planningandbuilding/pdf/1951736.pdf

42 Page 136  The average wage rate for staff employed by the Planning Inspectorate is £21.44 per hour (up-rated from a basic wage of £16.50) 12 . Wages are assumed to remain constant.

 Based on estimates provided by the Planning Inspectorate, 63% of appeals in respect of non-householder developments are assumed to be made by businesses or third sector organisations (although in practice some may be promoted by individuals).

 Applicants face financing and opportunity costs in holding onto land and other assets whilst appeals are being determined. On average, across all appeal types and development sizes, these are estimated in the order of £500 per week. This follows a methodology proposed by Professor Ball, University of Reading, for calculating the cost of purchasing the amount of land typically required for building residential or industrial premises – and financing this acquisition 13 .

Option 1 - Do nothing

There is no change to the existing process; therefore there are no additional costs or benefits.

Option 2 – Measures to make the appeals process faster and more transparent

Sub Option 2A: Securing earlier submission and notification of appeal statements

In submitting an appeal, each appellant is asked to provide information about the site, the proposed development, and the grounds for the appeal. Under the current system, appellants have up to a further six weeks after the appeal is submitted to provide additional representations (and evidence) to support the grounds on which they are basing their appeal. This is after they have had up to 6 months to prepare their case.

It is now proposed that all written statements regarding the grounds of appeal/statement of case for written representations, hearings and inquiries would in future be required to be submitted with the appeal. The outcome of this early disclosure would be that an appeal starts in earnest more quickly than it does now, as local planning authorities would have the benefit of the earlier sight of the appellant’s statement before they respond. It also introduces an opportunity for

12 Department for Communities and Local Government, Planning Inspectorate Staff Data , http://www.communities.gov.uk/documents/corporate/xls/1751794.csv . Excludes senior staff salaries. In line with HM Treasury Green Book guidance, Appraisal and Evaluation in Central Government , the marginal costs of employing staff are estimated by up-rating hourly wage rates to account for non-wage labour costs (e.g. National Insurance & pensions contributions). 13 National Housing and Planning Advisory Unit (2010), Housing Supply and Planning Controls: the impact of planning control processing times on housing supply in England, http://www.communities.gov.uk/documents/507390/pdf/1436960.pdf. Figures have been updated using latest available residential / industrial land price data from the Valuation Office Agency (July 2010) and reflect the current mix of appeal types and development sizes (Planning Inspectorate Statistical Report 2011-12 and latest DCLG Planning Statistics http://www.communities.gov.uk/planningandbuilding/planningbuilding/planningstatistics/livetables/).

43 Page 137 interested parties to see the appellant’s full case and provide comment on the points raised, rather than submitting comment as now at the same time.

Alongside this, local planning authorities will notify interested parties of the appeal, the timing for comments and the documentation that has been made available one week earlier than currently. They will also provide the completed questionnaire to PINS one week earlier than currently.

For hearings and inquiries, once comments have been gathered the appeal proceeds to an oral event. For written representation appeals, the process includes a further stage of written comments from appellants and the local planning authority. The time for appellants and local planning authorities to respond to any interested party comments submitted as part of this process would be shortened by one week.

Therefore overall this option could generate up to a 2 week time saving for written representation cases, and one week for hearings and inquiries. In addition it should reduce the average time taken to determine hearings and inquiries, by enabling an earlier focus on the key issues of the appeal, thus reducing nugatory work and submission of additional evidence later on, and quicker progress towards the event. Importantly it signals an important shift the in behaviour change required of all parties, by legislating for a move to a more transparent and collaborative approach and reducing evidence submitted later in the process.

Impact on Appellants. The proposal is neutral in cost, as it does not add to the workload of the appellant. They need to provide the same information, but do it at an earlier stage of the appeal process as a single submission. Appellants continue to have up to six months from the refusal of an application for planning permission to consider and prepare their case before lodging an appeal. Appellants may benefit personally or financially if a shorter appeals process allows them to commence (or exit) developments sooner.

Impact on Local Planning Authorities. The proposal should reduce the general workload, as earlier sight of the appellants full case will enable the authority to focus on the key issues sooner saving staff time and reducing nugatory work later in the process.

Impact on Planning Inspectorate There may be administrative costs to PINS/DCLG in updating the procedural rules. This task is expected to take several members of staff at grades HEO-Grade 6 level up to six weeks (full time equivalent) to complete, at a cost of up to £30,000. The earlier provision of more detailed information will help PINS to more accurately determine the procedure route. Once the revised procedures are in place, there is potential for a reduction in administrative costs as hearings and inquiries would receive a single submission from appellant when making their appeal.

Impact on Interested Parties/Communities Unlike now, when all parties submit comment at the same time, interested parties and the wider local community will have the opportunity to see the full detail of the appellants case before they have to provide comment. This will enable them to strengthen their statement by being able to respond more fully to the points made and reduce the risk of them not being able to comment on evidence that might otherwise have been provided late in the process.

44 Page 138 Sub option 2B: Agreeing ‘Common Ground’ upfront

Although inquiries formed only 3% of the total number of appeals in 2011-12, they usually involve significant and complex proposals and considerable time on the part of the inspector and the appeal parties. On average it currently takes 20 weeks from the receipt of an appeal to the start of an inquiry (2011-12). In terms of wider economic development, they are often for large scale developments.

Where an appeal is held via an inquiry, the appellant is required to submit a Statement of Common Ground – to identify matters agreed with the local planning authority which do not need to be considered at the event – 6 weeks after the start of the appeal.

Agreeing common ground can be time consuming for the parties involved and if begun late in the process, gives parties little time to respond to the others’ points, which can result in a document of little use to the inquiry. Delays in providing evidence can lead to adjournments which add to the costs of all parties as well as causing delays. Currently 30% of inquiries are adjourned. Parties may seek an adjournment in order to obtain more evidence or to ensure experts are available. PINS plan Inspector resource some months in advance, and any adjournments can sometimes take a significant time to reconvene adding to costs and delays to development.

It is now proposed that the appellant be required to table a first draft of a document containing the factual background to the case at the time they make the appeal. The local planning authority would then have time to negotiate with the appellant a final version of the agreed matters which do not need to be considered at the event. The outcome of this would be to encourage local planning authorities to engage properly at an early stage of the process. If the local planning authority does not signal in their questionnaire (currently submitted in week 2 of the appeal) that they wish to respond then the appellant’s facts would be taken as the ‘unchallenged facts of the case’.

The outcome will be that the appeal can focus more quickly on the key areas of dispute, saving time and inspector resource. It may enable some reasons for refusal that can be dealt with by condition to be agreed. It is anticipated that this will lead to a reduction in event time, including sitting time for the Inspector and time other parties spend at inquiries. Altering the process and bringing forward the timing of the statement will add transparency to the process and the focus on common ground will signal a required behaviour shift away from the current adversarial approach.

Impact on Appellants Moving the preparation of the Statement of Common Ground forward in the process should reduce costs overall, as securing earlier agreement will save time and reduce effort wasted in covering planning issues that are not key issues. It will help in making the process transparent and in reducing time at the event, including the cost of any advocates.

Impact on Local Planning Authorities Planning authorities will be required to engage more effectively in the process, but overall the proposal should reduce costs through reducing nugatory work, and shorter time away from the office attending the event.

Planning Inspectorate

45 Page 139 Reduces costs at the event by focusing in on the key grounds for appeal to be considered, saving the Planning Inspectorate Inspector time and reduced administrative and travel and subsistence costs where the number of days at the event is shortened. Reduced documentation would lead to a reduction in preparation and event time, releasing Inspector resource to undertake other casework. The revised agreement process should encourage behaviour change by the parties leading to a less adversarial approach to the event, as well as it being shorter and more focussed. Administrative costs to the Planning Inspectorate or DCLG from implementing this change are included in the potential costs for option 2A.

Interested parties / communities Interested parties are able to request a copy of the Statement of Common Ground as now. Earlier sight of this may enable them to raise points when given an opportunity to make representations at the event .

Sub option 2C: Starting hearings and inquiries sooner

Secondary legislation sets out the length of time by which an appeal event can take place, although longer is allowed depending on the issues of the case and to ensure flexibility in Inspector resource allocation. The current rules suggest that event take place no later than 12 weeks from when an appeal is submitted for a hearing 14 , and 20 weeks for inquiries 15 . In practice because of the scheduling of Inspectors in the most effective way in 2011-12 only around 19% of hearings were held by week 12, although 80% of hearings were held by week 16 and 60% of inquiries by week 20.

We propose to reduce the expected time set out in the Procedural Rules to 10 and 16 weeks respectively and in doing so would signal to parties that they should prepare their case more quickly. This creates an opportunity to improve the timeliness of decision making, generally bringing it forward by 2 and 4 weeks respectively.

The rules would also be changed to emphasise the importance of accurately forecasting the number of witnesses and length of time needed to give evidence and to cross-examine, in order to better plan event timetabling and reduce the risk of adjournments.

Impact on Appellants The proposal does not introduce any additional work, but rather that it requires it to be done earlier. The assumption is that it is cost neutral as appellants have a long period in which to decide to (and prepare for) appeal, and this will be verified at consultation. Earlier events will lead to earlier decision making meaning that appellants can benefit personally and financially from the development sooner if the appeal is upheld . This will require appellants to have their witnesses ready to appear earlier.

Impact on Local Planning Authorities The proposal does not introduce any additional work, but rather that it requires it to be done earlier. We therefore expect it will be cost neutral and will seek to verify this at consultation.

14 Town and Country Planning (Hearings Procedure) (England) Rules 2000 15 Town and Country Planning Appeals (Determination by Inspectors) (Inquiries Procedure) (England) Rules 2000

46 Page 140 Impact on Planning Inspectorate The earlier timetabling of events will place some additional pressure on PINS Inspector resource, at least during the transitional phase as timetables are adjusted. PINS estimate these transitional costs at up to £200,000. There may be some impact on operational flexibility in the deployment of Inspectors in order to meet the shorter deadlines which could add to travel and subsistence. However the proposal supports the principle that the parties should be ready to proceed with the appeal and to work to ensure it is progressed efficiently.

Impact on Interested parties / communities Although there will be shorter timescales to prepare evidence for an event, parties will see the whole case and there is no change in the ability to present evidence, and therefore we do not consider there will be a cost to interested parties.

Sub Option 2D: Introducing an expedited ‘Commercial Appeals Service’

The introduction of a Householder Appeals Service in 2009 has been successful in reducing the time taken in determining less complex householder appeals. This expedited process accounted for 34% of the total Section 78 caseload in 2011-12, with 91% of such appeals determined within 8 weeks, compared with the average for other written representations of 17 weeks. It offers a faster service by relying heavily on evidence submitted at the application stage, thus reducing the opportunity to provide further evidence at additional points in the appeal process. PINS retain the power to determine that individual appeals are best dealt with via other procedures.

There is scope to explore the formation of a Commercial Appeals Service to mirror the arrangements for householder appeals and offer a similar streamlined process for some straight forward, smaller scale commercial applications. For example applying an expedited procedure to all advertisement consent written representations cases could lead to a significant reduction in the amount of time taken to determine the appeal. In 2011-12 the 575 advertisement consent appeals determined via written representations took between 7 and 43 weeks, with an average time of 18 weeks. If decisions in the simplest 50% of advertising consent appeals – those decided quickest at present – were brought forward to 8 weeks then the average time saving per advertising appeal would be more than 4 weeks. This is equivalent to a 37% reduction in time taken to determine this half of advertising appeals. The scope of appeals to be determined through any future expedited appeal route would need to be clearly defined and readily identifiable to the appellant.

Impact on Appellants The appellant would need to ensure that they submitted their full grounds for appeal and rely on the information provided in support of the application for planning permission at the appeal. Assuming that costs of undertaking one-half of advertising appeals will fall proportionately in line with timescales, as a result of retaining staff for less time and eliminating the need to provide further evidence at later stage in the process, then appellants could save £2m over the appraisal period (average of £730 per appeal). Earlier decision making means that appellants can benefit from the advertisement sooner financially if the appeal is upheld (27% of cases in 2011-12), potentially enabling them to realise an additional £860,000 in advertising revenue by

47 Page 141 bringing sites to market earlier 16 . Total benefits are therefore estimated at £2.9m. Benefits are expected to accrue to businesses in their entirety.

Impact on Local Planning Authority The LPA will be required to provide copies of all the material contained in the case file during the consideration of the application, along with any questionnaire where required, within the specified time. Assuming that costs will be reduced in line with the decrease in appeal duration, for example because of requiring less planning officer time to provide information at other stages in the process, local planning authorities could realise savings of £800,000 over the appraisal period in respect of advertising consent appeals (average £290 per case).

Impact on Planning Inspectorate Depending on the type of appeal in scope, PINS costs may be less as a result of the reduced number of stages of the process, thereby shortening the Inspector time devoted to determining advertising written representations. We estimate these potential savings at £360,000 (£130 per case), assuming costs fall in proportion to appeal times. However, this source of benefit is likely to be partially offset by costs to the Planning Inspectorate from instituting a Commercial Appeals system and ensuring staff are familiar with the new arrangements. These one-off transitional costs are estimated in the order of £50,000 (assuming 700 staff across the organisation receives half a day training). Net benefits to the Planning Inspectorate could therefore amount to £310,000.

Impact on interested parties/communities Under the current expedited householder appeal process, further comment is not invited from interested parties. This is made clear at the time of the application for planning permission. Consideration would be given to the role of interested parties in any appeals that fall within scope of a new commercial appeals service.

Summary of costs and benefits for Option 2 . The respective proposals should have a significant impact on the timeliness of section 78 appeals determined via written representations, hearings, and inquiries. The outcome would be the opportunity, in general, for some decisions to be issued between 1 and 4 weeks earlier than at present which would in turn, where the appeal is upheld, lead to sustainable economic development to meet the development needs of the local area.

At this stage it has not been possible to separately estimate the impact that measures A-C will have on timeliness of the appeals process. Modelling undertaken by the Planning Inspectorate indicates that the combined effect of these options is for decision times across all section 78 appeals to be brought forward by 5 days on average (equivalent to a 5% reduction). The benefit would be much greater for those appeals that currently take longest – particularly for Inquiries, which would see times reduced by over 30 days (24%) on average – see charts 3 and 4.

16 The price of outdoor advertising is highly dependent on the number of ‘contacts’ that can be generated and on other factors relating to impact, ranging from around £100 per week for simple posters to several thousands of pounds for the best sites . We conservatively assume advertising appeals relate to proposals that could generate revenues of £250 per week. Price is particularly affected by location, media format, e.g. billboard or street furniture, pitch size and other physical factors (e.g. lighting, movement).

48 Page 142 Chart 3: Time elapsed from appeal submission to inquiry, 2011-12 70%

60%

50%

40%

30%

20%

% events in period 10%

0% 0 - 4 4 - 8 8- 12 12- 16 16 - 20 20 - 24 24 - 28 28 - 32 32 - 36 36 - 40 40 - 44 44 - 48 48 - 52 Weeks from start date

Chart 4: Revised profile to deliver 100% of inquiries within 26 weeks. 70%

60%

50%

40%

30%

20%

% % events in period 10%

0% 0 - 4 4 - 8 8- 12 12- 16 16 - 20 20 - 24 24 - 28 28 - 32 32 - 36 36 - 40 40 - 44 44 - 48 48 - 52 Weeks from start date

Improving the timeliness of decisions would benefit appellants. Cutting the amount of resources required to undertake planning appeals proportionately with the time taken to determine appeals could save appellants £16.3m. On top of this, enabling developers whose appeals are upheld 17 to commence work sooner could bring benefits of £20m over the appraisal period.

Having familiarised themselves with the changes, the benefits to local planning authorities from avoiding nugatory work and reducing the amount of time spent on appeals by planning officers could amount to £6m over the appraisal period, assuming expenditure declines in line with time to decision.

The Planning Inspectorate may incur transitional costs of up to £200,000 as they move to tighter deadlines for events. There may be some impact on operational flexibility in the deployment of Inspectors, but the Inspectorate should benefit overall from lower costs through needing less Inspector time at the hearing or inquiry. The proposed simplified process for some commercial appeals also presents opportunities for further savings.

The total quantified benefits of option 2 are therefore:

Party Present value of benefits Appellants £39.2m Local planning authorities £6.8m Planning Inspectorate £360,000

Taken together, the package of proposals will bring added benefits beyond those of the individual measures. Through tightening timescales at key points in the process,

17 32% of written representations, 43% of hearings and 55% of inquiries in 2011-12.

49 Page 143 the changes signal a wider message about behaviour change and the need for a speedier and collaborative process.

The impact on interested parties is assumed to be cost neutral, as no additional work is involved. They do however, gain from being able to see the appellants Statement of Case when presenting their representations at week 6 under option 2A.

50 Page 144 Option 3 – Reforms to improve the consistency and increase certainty of decision timescales

As important for developers and local planning authorities to have a faster and more transparent process, is the ability to manage their time and resources effectively through a process that has certainty on the key milestones. To aid this objective and to support PINS process of continuous improvement, a number of proposals have been developed.

Sub option 3E: Aligning other planning-related appeal processes

The procedures for Section 78 planning appeals – written representations, hearings and inquiries - have been variously amended over a period of time. Subject to consultation, the rules for s78 planning appeals procedures will be updated to reflect the agreed proposals and the opportunity taken to consolidate the varying sets of rules. A consolidated set of section 78 procedures should generate some time savings as rather than cross referencing 2 or 3 process documents as at present, per case, only one would be needed in the future.

Alongside this, there is opportunity to consider extending the streamlining of S78 processes undertaken in 2009 to other appeal procedures for enforcement, adverts and listed building consents. These changes would simplify the process and generate savings for appellants and local planning authorities. Two particular changes are proposed for consideration:

o Removal of the existing 9 week comments stage for enforcement hearings and inquiries to align these procedures with Section 78 appeals. There were 385 such appeals decided via hearings and 584 decided by inquiries in 2011- 12,. Therefore the change could bring significant time savings and reduced costs from not having to produce further information. o Fully commence the determination powers for advertisement consent and listed building appeals, allowing the Planning Inspectorate to establish the most appropriate procedure by which to determine these appeals. This should have the effect of ensuring that the most time and cost effective procedure is followed while the fair right to appeal is maintained. The change would also enable PINS to choose the most appropriate procedure where a listed building appeal is linked with a Section 78 planning appeal.

Impact on Appellants. A consolidated set of section 78 procedures should generate some time savings, as they will need to reference only one document, rather than cross referencing 2 or 3 process documents per case as at present. Increasing the similarities in procedure between other appeal types (enforcement, advertisement consent) should also save familiarisation time. The removal of the 9 week stage will shorten the process and save time and therefore costs, without the loss of opportunity to make their case. PINS having the power to determine the appeal process could result in savings with case following a less complex and more appropriate procedure.

Impact on Local Planning Authority A consolidated set of section 78 procedures should generate some time savings, as local planning authorities will need to reference and familiarise themselves with only one document, rather than cross referencing 2 or 3 process documents per case as at present. Increasing the similarities in procedure between other appeal types (enforcement, advertisement consent) should also save familiarisation time. The

51 Page 145 removal of the 9 week stage will shorten the process and save time and therefore costs, without the loss opportunity to present their evidence. PINS having the power to determine the appeal process could result in savings through following a less complex procedure.

Impact on Planning Inspectorate There is likely to be a small cost to PINS and DCLG to take forward the analysis, revision and introduction of the necessary secondary legislation. However once in place, the simplified set of procedures will make the process clearer, thus reducing the opportunity for error and resulting costs . Providing PINS with the power to determine the appeal process should lead to a reduction in the number of cases held via hearings and inquiries, and bring savings from a reduction in Inspector resource.

Impact on Interested parties / communities The consolidated set of guidance should make the process clearer to interested parties who may not be familiar with the planning system, enabling them to engage more fully with the process. The criteria by which PINS determine the appeal procedure will continue to include consideration of the wider public interest.

Sub option 3F: Issuing one guide to planning appeal procedures

Appellants and local planning authorities currently draw on a significant suite of documents for information about the appeal process, amounting to around 300 pages. This includes the existing PINS Procedural Guidance, as well as 17 Good Practice Advice notes. Parties to the appeal at present would draw on 3 or more separate documents. For first time appellants the existing guidance can be complex as well as long, and therefore time consuming.

It is proposed that a single streamlined, clear procedural note be produced, totalling some 30-40 pages. This would be a one stop shop for planning, enforcement and advertisement consent appeals, setting out Government procedural guidance on appeals and setting expectations for appeal party documentation and evidence, and grounds for an award of costs. The guidance would make explicit the expectations that all parties should operate in an open and transparent manner, and adhere to the timetables. It will also spell out the scope to seek an award of costs where a party has failed to behave reasonably.

Impact on Appellants. Consolidating information on the appeals process in one place and reducing the volume of guidance should be of considerable benefit to appellants. Being able to consult one short document for information about appeals procedures, rather than locate and read several longer publications, is likely to save time in the case of most, if not all, appeals. It has not been possible to quantify or monetise this benefit as there is insufficient evidence available on how appellants currently interact with guidance materials (e.g. the length of time spent searching for and digesting information).

Making guidance clearer and more accessible could also benefit appellants by reducing the need for them to employ professional planning consultants and legal advisors to assist in understanding what they need to do, how and when. For this reason the policy could bring direct financial benefits. These are not quantified as a there is little evidence on the scale of appellants’ expenditure on external advisors. More broadly the behaviour change explicit in the guidance should bring benefits through reduced time at event and more equitable appeal outcomes.

52 Page 146 Impact on Local Planning Authority It is also likely that there would be a time saving for local planning authorities from having one single source of streamlined information, rather than having to read and cross reference several documents, and a reduction in the amount of legal expertise required on particular appeals. More broadly the behaviour change explicit in the guidance, should bring benefits through reduced time at event.

Impact on Planning Inspectorate There may be a specific cost to PINS /DCLG in undertaking a major review of guidance, and producing a single, clear document. This will build on the earlier work in support of option 2, and add further staff costs for HEO to Grade 6 of circa £30,000 to complete the draft. However there will be less documentation to maintain in the future.

Interested parties / communities There should be time savings from having to access only one single source of streamlined information, and further benefit from that document itself being clearer and more easily understood by those not familiar with the planning system, enabling them to engage more fully in the appeal.

Summary of costs and benefits for Option 3

Although the suite of proposals are focused on making the process better; improving the consistency of the process and the certainty of decision timescales, the proposals should also bring about a more transparent process, and behaviour change by all parties.

Local planning authorities will need to familiarise themselves with the changes, but the proposals are expected to bring financial benefits by reducing costs to all parties by having a single clear document, and time at the event by having followed the guidance about providing evidence by the deadline. This assumption will be tested during the consultation.

53 Page 147 Option 4 – combined approach

Although individual proposals could be taken forward independently, we consider that taking forward both options together should generate the greatest financial and other benefits in terms of time saved, and therefore best meet the policy objective. The decision could be brought forward by more than 2 weeks for appeals determined by written representations, and by at least an additional 2 and 4 weeks for hearings and inquiries respectively. Aligning and simplifying the procedural guidance at the same time as legislative changes in options 2 and 3 would bring cumulative benefits to parties in terms of clarity and transparency .

More broadly, implementing both options would reinforce the essential behavioural change that would underpin the more collaborative and transparent appeals process in the future. The impact assessment has not sought to quantify any direct costs and benefits over those identified separately for options 2 and 3, but we consider that there is scope for cumulative benefits to accrue over and above this. The responses to the consultation should help in this modelling.

Summary of costs and benefits

Appellant The package of proposals should not lead to additional work but some documentation may be produced earlier in the process. Cumulatively, overall the proposals should generate savings from reducing work, and a reduction in the likelihood of adjournments. The developer, usually businesses in the case of hearings and inquiries, should gain personally and/or financially from the development sooner, if the appeal is upheld, or from earlier exit from ongoing costs if the appeal is dismissed. All appellants would benefit from having shorter timescales for decision making. Developers should be able to re-invest profit from completed development, or more quickly release funding tied up. There should be further un- quantified savings from the general shift in behaviour change and reduced set of rules. We estimate savings in total of £39.2m.

Local planning authorities The proposals should not lead to any additional work. Cumulatively, there should be some savings from eliminating nugatory work, and the forecast reduction in adjournments. Furthermore, there should be some additional un-quantified savings from the change in behaviour of all parties during the process and from having a reduced set of rules. Savings to local planning authorities of £6.8m are forecast.

Planning Inspectorate There would be some development and implementation costs, for example to undertake the review and re-drafting of single procedure guidance. There would be further administrative costs to PINS and DCLG to take forward the secondary legislation changes needed to amend advertisement consent/enforcement appeals, and to consolidate S78 appeals.

Some of the proposals may have an impact on Inspector resource, both in terms of how work is planned and in time spent in the determination of an appeal. This could result in short term transitional costs of around £280,000.

Offsetting this impact in the longer term should be savings accrued from the reduction in unnecessary work, sitting time, and adjournments both in administrative and Inspector resource. Once in place, the simplified single set of procedures would make the process clearer and faster, thus reducing costs . Shorter event times could

54 Page 148 lead to reduced staffing and administrative costs to the Planning Inspectorate . Overall savings of £330,000 are forecast, giving a net benefit to the planning inspectorate of £70,000. Further work would be done to model the detailed impact on funding following the consultation.

Interested parties/communities The package of proposals should lead to reduced costs for interested parties through providing more certainty on event dates, reduction in adjournments and full appeal statements upon which to comment.

Risks and assumptions The key risk is that the package of proposals do not bring about the required behavioural change, with new evidence still raised later in the process or at the event meaning that the process is not shortened.

The wider reforms to the planning system may impact on the broader work of local planning authorities and the Planning Inspectorate, and therefore on the assessments within this IA.

Direct costs/benefits to business

One in One Out It is expected that the proposals would result in some changes to existing regulation, thereby reducing regulatory burdens on business overall. The monetary value of these benefits to business is estimated at £25.8m (NPV), giving an equivalent annual net cost to business of £-2.77m (EANCB, 2009 prices). Further details underpinning this figure are provided in the text above. It should be noted that not all sources of benefit to appellants have been monetised at this stage, for example from aligning other planning-related appeals processes. The package of proposals therefore constitutes an ‘out’.

Moratorium on regulation on micro-business The preferred package of deregulatory proposals will fall in scope of the moratorium on regulation on micro-business. Details of whether appellants are private or third sector organisations (and the number of staff they employ) are not recorded as part of the appeal process. For example, appeals can be submitted by an agent acting on behalf of a larger national company. It is therefore difficult to estimate the likely impact on micro-businesses precisely. The Planning Inspectorate estimate that 63% of appeals are business led, of which 25% of businesses may qualify as ‘micro’- businesses based on BIS national estimates. Based on PINS volume figures for 2011-12 this would suggest in the region of 2,300 appeals could be submitted by micro-businesses p.a. On this basis we cautiously estimate that benefits to micro- businesses could amount to £6.4m.

The proposals will change and consolidate existing regulation, but overall will reduce it. Implementation of the proposals should bring financial and other benefits to all appellants, including micro-businesses. Furthermore, the proposals should lead to the possibility of speedier development in support of wider economic growth. An exemption will therefore be sought from the RRC and Economic Affairs Committee for the implementation of a final set of proposals.

55 Page 149 Wider Impacts

Equalities - The proposals will predominately impact on hearings and inquiries, which usually involve more significant development proposals from business. It is not anticipated that the changes will impact disproportionately on any of the protected groups. An initial Equalities screening has not indicated that a full assessment will be required.

Environmental - No impacts identified. These proposals make no change to the policy expectations or legal duties of local planning authorities or appellants in safeguarding or improving environmental assets as required.

Justice Impact Test - An initial assessment of the proposals indicates that there will be no impact on the courts and tribunals service. The completed JIT is being shared with the Ministry of Justice.

Question: Do you have any comments or additional evidence on the costs and benefits of the proposals?

Summary and preferred option

The policy objective as outlined in the Autumn Statement 2011 is to make the appeals process faster, more transparent and consistent, and consistently applied. The preferred option (4) to introduce the combined package of proposals best meets these objectives, and in turn would lead to speedier development in support of wider economic growth.

The changes should bring benefits to both appellants and local planning authorities by shortening the time taken to determine the appeal, thus saving staff costs and enabling appellants to release funding tied up in developments. Additional financial savings should accrue from eliminating wasted effort, from the early sharing of information and reduction of documentation, and agreement on and narrowing of the issues for consideration at appeal. Savings to appellants are forecast as £39.2m, and for local planning authorities of £6.8m. The proposals will be cost neutral to interested parties, but they do gain the benefit of being able to see the appellant’s full case before providing their statement.

There should similarly be financial savings and operational efficiencies arising for the Planning Inspectorate. There could be some transitional costs for the Planning Inspectorate in the short term in adjusting to the new quicker performance timescales. Extending the power to determine appeal procedure to more types of appeal, the introduction of a simplified Commercial Appeals Service, and a clearer and simplified set of guidance should all serve to reduce costs overall. An initial estimate indicates net savings of £70,000 but further detailed work would follow the consultation.

Subject to consultation and securing all the necessary Government agreements, the changes would be implemented from April 2013. Once implemented, PINS statistical returns will be monitored to review the impact on the average time taken to determine appeals and customer feedback surveys used to provide soft intelligence on the views of local planning authorities and appellants.

56 Page 150 Item No.8

PART I

South Lakeland District Council PLANNING COMMITTEE MONTHLY ENFORCEMENT ACTIVITY FOR SEPTEMBER 1.0 PURPOSE OF REPORT 1.1 This report is presented to inform Members about the enforcement activity between the 1 and 31 September 2012 relating to all cases. This report aims to provide a brief informative insight into current enforcement cases, action taken and ongoing investigations. Appendix 1 is an updated monthly report on cases for which Committee have authorised formal enforcement action.

2.0 RECOMMENDATIONS It is recommended that Members of the Planning Committee note the report.

3.0 BACKGROUND: Enforcement Activity September 2012 3.1 Cases on hand at 1 September 2012 391 New cases received 18 Cases closed 9 Cases on hand at 30 September 2012 400

3.2 Enforcement cases for which Committee consideration is sought. 3.2.1 12.207 Land rear of 19 Hill Place, Oxenholme 3.2.2 Introduction The owner of the land to the rear of Hill Place constructed a track to create access to the lower field to facilitate the keeping horses for recreational purpose. Officers received a complaint on the 29 June 2012 concerning recent development on the land. A site visit was carried out on the 6 August 2012, and has confirmed that turf and topsoil has been removed and materials laid, creating a track which is 150m in length and 3m wide. A letter was sent to the occupier of 19 Hill Place, Oxenholme on the 10 August 2012 briefly explaining that the development carried out requires planning permission. The owner

Page 151 states that she keeps the horses for her personal use and has created the track to provide access for the vet. Enquiries with neighbours say that since the laying of the track there have been flooding issues in the vicinity. The owner has submitted a part retrospective planning application for the retention of the track and erection of stable block (SL/2012/0816). The application is included in this agenda. 3.2.3 Breach The keeping of recreational horses on agricultural land is defined as development of a material change of use under section 55 of the town and Country Planning Act 1990. This form of development does not benefit from Permitted Development Rights and is therefore unauthorised development. The excavation and removal of turf and top soil, combined with laying materials is defined as “engineering” and therefore - operational development. It is clear it is not for the purpose of agriculture and therefore cannot benefit from Permitted Development Rights. 3.2.4 Policy Policy CS8.1 - Green infrastructure. Policy CS8.2 - Protection and enhancement of landscape and settlement character. Policy CS8.10- Siting, design and materials used in all development should be of a character which maintains and enhances the quality of the landscape. 3.2.5 Harm The track has a detrimental effect on the distinctive natural landscape of this part of the open countryside used by local people. It has an adverse visual intrusion into the setting of The Helm. The development is not sympathetic to the distinctive character of this popular public view point. The colour and construction of materials used are not in keeping with the surrounding countryside and setting. The light colour of the materials does not blend into the surrounding scenery. Advice from the Council’s Environmental Protection Team suggests that because of the land sloping steeply down to the rear of Hill Place the removal of the topsoil has created a channel directing floodwater towards the properties. This has increased the potential to flood the residential properties at Hill Place, Oxenholme. 3.2.6 Remedy Suggested In view of the visual harm and increased risk to flooding, Members are requested to authorise taking all necessary enforcement action to remove the materials and restore the land to grassland. 3.3 An update on those cases involving formal action is attached at appendix one for Members’ information.

Page 152 4.0 RESEARCH AND CONSULTATION 4.1 Not applicable

5.0 PROPOSAL 5.1 Not applicable

6.0 ALTERNATIVE OPTIONS 6.1 Not applicable

7.0 NEXT STEPS 7.1 Continue dealing with priority cases reported in September 2012 and those listed in Appendix 1. Receive and prioritise all new cases, taking any appropriate action necessary, in accordance with the relevant Acts, regulations and guidance.

8.0 IMPLICATIONS 8.1 Financial and Resources 8.1.1 Cost implications only arise if the matter ultimately requires court or direct action in default. 8.2 Human Resources 8.2.1 The recommendations in this report do not have any staffing implications. 8.3 Legal 8.3.1 Cases involving formal action and ultimately court proceeding have the need for Legal Services. 8.4 Social, Economic and Environmental Impact 8.4.1 Has a sustainability impact assessment been carried out? No this report does not have any registered significant environmental effects.

9.0 RISK ASSESSMENT Risk Consequence Contro ls required The failure of a statutory Ombudsman To maintain sufficient requirement to maladministration resources in planning investigate breaches of investigation. Result in enforcement and planning law with an inappropriate forms of prioritise and co-ordinate effective investigative development, which the investigation of compliance and would have an adverse breaches of planning enforcement system. impact on the character, control. and appearance of the District’s rural landscape.

Page 153 10.0 EQUALITY AND DIVERSITY 10.1 The Statement of Community Involvement takes account of the equalities issues in seeking to define South Lakeland’s community and interests relevant to the Local Development Framework, which will influence the determination of individual planning applications and formal enforcement cases. 11.0 LINKS TO THE CORPORATE PLAN AND PERFORMANCE INDICATORS 11.1 This report links to the aim of enhancing the environment in which we live and supports national performance indicators.

11.2 Having an effective robust planning enforcement regime involving people will help make South Lakeland the best place to live, work and visit. Dealing with unauthorised development in an efficient, firm and fair manner, fosters strong links with the community, increased public confidence in the Council and value for ,money.

12.0 CONCLUSION AND EXPECTED OUTCOMES 12.1 See relevant reports in parts 3 and appendices.

APPENDICES ATTACHED TO THIS REPORT Appendix No. 1 A report on enforcement cases where authorisation to take enforcement action has been sought . CONTACT OFFICERS Mark Balderson, Planning Enforcement Officer, Tel 01539 797566 Email: [email protected] BACKGROUND DOCUMENTS AVAILABLE Relevant planning files. TRACKING Assistant Portfolio Solicitor to the SMT Scrutiny Director Holder Council Committee N/A N/A 13 Nov 2012 N/A N/A Executive Committee Council Section 151 Monitoring (Cabinet) Officer Officer N/A 29 Nov 2012 N/A N/A N/A Human Development Resource Management Services Group Manager Manager N/A 12 Nov 2012

Page 154 COMMITTEE AUTHORISED CASES – APPENDIX 1 THE PURPOSE OF THIS APPENDIX IS TO PROVIDE A BRIEF PROGRESS SUMMARY OF AUTHORISED ENFORCEMENT CASES REF No. PARISH SITE ADDRESS BREACH / PROGRESS / NEX T STEP CONTRAVENTION 06/068 ALDINGHAM Low Sunbrick Farm Installation of uPVC windows Enforcement action authorised in Listed Building. with a 10 year compliance period. Officers have drafted enforcement instruction to require replacing windows. Further consultation with the conservation officer to establish the type and design of window frames. Page 155 07/025 LOWER Priory Close Internal alteration to listed Officers are making inquiries to ALLITHWAITE Cartmel building. commence legal action. Enforcement officer consulting with legal services. 08/345 SKELSMERGH Holme House Farm Unauthorised development The courts granted an injunction Garth Row Lane involving the construction of order require removal of the caravan / chalet structures unoccupied caravans, storage and business uses. sheds, waste, salvage and other domestic paraphernalia. 10/208 LOWER Blenkett wood caravan park Laying new 300m access An appeal has been made to the ALLITHWAITE track. Planning Inspectorate against the Enforcement Notice. 10/209 KENDAL Boundary Bank Unauthorised use of site for Part of site has been cleared, the storage of machinery and further monitoring necessary. hardcore. Officers to carry out site visit to confirm compliance. REF No. PARISH SITE ADDRESS BREACH / PROGRESS / NEXT STEP CONTRAVENTION 10/289 BEETHAM Fern Bank, Hale Unauthorised siting and Caravan has been removed. The residential use of caravan. site is now being used for the storage of a motor home and the parking of vehicles. Officers to consider any further action. 10/311 CASTERTON Chapel House Farm Unauthorised removal of Hedge Replacement Notice hedge. served 12 July 2011. Appeal dismissed, replanting required by 31 January 2013.

Page 156 11/256 SKELSMERGH Holme House Farm Material Change of Use of Matter has been dealt with by the agricultural barn to a structure terms of the injunction order used as a dwellinghouse. referred to above.

11/257 KENDAL 55 Helmside Road Untidy land to front of dwelling. Section 215 notice compliance period has now lapsed. The owner has not carried out the works. Taking direct action. Work starts week commencing 3 December 2012. 11/078 SKELSMERGH Holme House Farm Engineering operation. Large Drafting instructions for legal scale excavation to public services for formal service of footpath. Enforcement Notice in light of the ongoing injunction case. 12/134 EGTON with Field adjacent Alpine Road Removal of 85m of field Hedge Replacement Notice NEWLAND hedge. served. No appeal received. Monitoring compliance.

Item No.9

PART I

South Lakeland District Council PLANNING COMMITTEE

Meeting Date: 29 November 2012 Report Author: Mark Shipman (Development Management Group Manager) Portfolio: Jonathon Brook (Housing and Development Portfolio Holder) Report from: David Sykes (Director People and Places) Wards affected: All Key Decision: Not applicable

APPEALS UPDATE

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

3.0 BACKGROUND 3.1 Appeals as set out in Appendix 1.

3.2 This national indicator has been deleted. It is considered to be a valuable local indicator because it shows the efficacy of policy. 4.0 RESEARCH AND CONSULTATION 4.1 Not applicable

5.0 PROPOSAL 5.1 Not applicable

6.0 ALTERNATIVE OPTIONS 6.1 Not applicable

7.0 NEXT STEPS 7.1 Not applicable

8.0 IMPLICATIONS

Page 157 8.1 Financial and Resources 8.1.1 The recommendations in this report do not have any cost implications. 8.2 Human Resources 8.2.1 The recommendations in this report do not have any staffing implications. 8.3 Legal 8.3.1 Not applicable 8.4 Social, Economic and Environmental Impact 8.4.1 This report does not have any registered significant environmental effects.

9.0 RISK ASSESSMENT 9.1 Not applicable

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

11.2 Indicator BVPI 204 sets a target of a maximum number of appeals allowed as 33%. All enforcement appeals are discounted from the indicator because it shows the efficiency of planning policy. The current performance, calculated from those decisions received since 1 April 2012, is 18.75% (ie 81.25% success to date in defending appeals against refusal). 12.0 CONCLUSION AND EXPECTED OUTCOMES 12.1 It is anticipated that targets and objectives will continue to be achieved at the year end.

APPENDIX ATTACHED TO THIS REPORT Appendix 1 Appeals table (commencing 1 April 2012), updated to include new appeals and appeal decisions received between 11 October and 14 November 2012.

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

BACKGROUND DOCUMENTS AVAILABLE Various planning files.

TRACKING

Page 158 Assistant Portfolio Solicitor to the CMT Scrutiny Director Holder Council Committee N/A N/A 14 Nov 2012 N/A N/A Executive Committee Council Section 15 1 Monitoring (Cabinet) Officer Officer N/A 29 Nov 2012 N/A N/A N/A Human Development Resource Management Services Group Manager Manager N/A 13 Nov 2012

Page 159 APPENDIX 1

Site Description SLDC Decision Planning Inspectorate Ref Planning and start date Inspectorate Appellant South Lakeland Planning Ref Decision

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

Page 160 KENDAL: Redevelopment of site to form retail Refused 25/11/11 APP/M0933/A/11/2166628 DISMISSED Kendal Rugby Union development with associated car (Committee) 22/12/11 21 June 2012 Football Club parking and servicing facilities PO Recommend: SL/2010/0180 Shap Road Grant

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

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

Site Description SLDC Decision Planning Inspectorate Ref Planning and start date Inspectorate Appellant South Lakeland Planning Ref Decision

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

EGTON with Change of Use of Public House to Refused 25/8/11 APP/M0933/A/11/2169517 DISMISSED NEWLAND: dwelling (Committee) 15/2/12 - Hearing 19 June 2012 Britannia Inn PO Recommend: SL/2011/0233 Penny Bridge Refuse Page 161 KENDAL: First floor extension Refused 6/2/12 APP/M0933/ C/12/2171660 DISMISSED 46 Sandylands Road 5/3/12 (Householder) 2 May 2012 SL/2011/1020 PRESTON RICHARD: Erection of 15m high (to tip of blade) Refused 28/2/12 APP/M0933/ A/12/2173166 ALLOWED Carter House wind turbine 29/3/12 27 September Crooklands SL/2011/0991 2012 ULVERSTON: Erection of four dwellings Refused 6/3/12 APP/M0933/ A/12/2173314 DISMISSED Land at Old Hall Road 2/4/12 30 August 2012 SL/2011/0974 GREAT URSWICK: Dwelling, detached garage and Refused 24/11/11 APP/M0933/ A/12/2176000 DISMISSED Land adjacent to Daisy access (Committee) 14/6/12 20 September Hill Cottage PO Recommend: SL/2011/0741 2012 Refuse Site Description SLDC Decision Planning Inspectorate Ref Planning and start date Inspectorate Appellant South Lakeland Planning Ref Decision

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

Page 162 Patton 2012 and associated landscaping SL/2011/0808 LUPTON: Change of Use of partially completed Refused 26/1/12 APP/M0933/ A/12/2177360 DISMISSED Thompson Fold holiday accommodation units to four 22/6/12 2 October 2012 permanent dwellings SL/2011/0950 KIRKBY LONSDALE: Completion of the partially developed Refused 26/4/12 APP/M0933/ A/12/2177363 Awaited Biggins Hall Barn site, Biggins Hall Barn site to provide (Committee) 3/7/12 seven dwellings (two of which are to High Biggins PO Recommend: SL/2012/0103 be affordable) Refuse KENDAL: Erection of 25 dwellings Refused 14/3/12 APP/M0933/ A/12/2176802 DISMISSED Gallowbarrow Mill, 6/7/12 10 October 2012 Natland SL/2011/1069 HOLME: Alterations to provide first floor Refused 17/4/12 APP/M0933/ D/12/2177787 ALLOWED Green Acre, accommodation and replacement 10/7/12 (Householder) 5 September 2012 single storey extension Milnthorpe Road SL/2012/0124

Site Description SLDC Decision Planning Inspectorate Ref Planning and start date Inspectorate Appellant South Lakeland Planning Ref Decision

HELSINGTON: Conversion and alterations to Refused 23/3/12 APP/M0933/ D/12/2178010 DISMISSED Hill House, Brigsteer attached outbuilding to form 16/7/12 (Householder) 4 September 2012 additional domestic accommodation SL/2012/0084 LUPTON: Dwelling with new vehicular access Refused 31/5/12 APP/M0933/ A/12/2178225 Awaited Tavern House, Nook, drive 20/7/12 Cow Brow SL/2012/0295 KIRKBY LONSDALE: Discharge of Condition 5 (roofing Refused 13/4/12 APP/M0933/ A/12/2179979 Awaited slates) on PP SL/2009/0838 (housing Page 163 Land off Biggins Road 26/7/12 development) SL/2012/0147 PRESTON PATRICK: Residential development Not Determined APP/M0933/ A/12/2178909 Awaited Former School playing 27/7/12 field, A65, Crooklands SL/2012/0372 LOWER Appeal against the issuing of an Enforcement APP/M0933/ C/12/2181345 Awaited ALLITHWAITE: Enforcement Notice APP/M0933/ C/12/2181343 Blenket Farm, Jack Hill APP/M0933/ C/12/2181344 20/8/12 SL/2012/0730 URSWICK: Wind turbine (34.2 m to blade tip) Refused 28/6/12 APP/M0933/ A/12/2180859 Awaited Bolton Manor Farm 20/8/12 SL/2012/0241 Site Description SLDC Decision Planning Inspectorate Ref Planning and start date Inspectorate Appellant South Lakeland Planning Ref Decision

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

Page 164 LOWER HOLKER: Proposed building for storage of Refused 28/6/12 APP/M0933/ A/12/2182072 Awaited Land to the east of agricultural contractor’s machinery 4/9/12 Trino, Willow Lane, SL/2012/0265 Flookburgh MILNTHORPE: Detached dwelling Refused 22/3/12 APP/M0933/ A/12/2182378 Awaited Crosby House, 7/9/12 Ackenthwaite SL/2011/0867 GRANGE over Cert of Lawful Dvpt for storage of Refused 25/7/12 APP/M0933/ X/12/2184048 Awaited SANDS: vintage cars (non-domestic garaging) 24/9/12 Former Wilson SL/2012/0313 Robinson workshop, Hampsfell Road

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

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

PO Recommend: SL/2011/0647 Refuse

Page 165 This page is intentionally left blank

Page 166