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, 24 November 2011, at 10.00 a.m. in the District Council Chamber, South Lakeland House, Kendal
Committee Membership Councillors Alan Baverstock Brian Cooper Joss Curwen Colin Davies Philip Dixon Sheila Eccles (Vice-Chairman) Sylvia Emmott Clive Graham Brenda Gray Tom Harvey John Holmes Janette Jenkinson Kevin Lancaster Sonia Lawson Ian McPherson (Chairman) Mary Orr David Williams Mary Wilson
16 November 2011 Debbie Storr, Corporate Director (Monitoring Officer)
For all enquiries, please contact:- Committee Administrator: Janine Jenkinson Telephone: 01539 733333 Ext.7493 e-mail: [email protected]
1 2 AGENDA Page Nos. PART I 1. APOLOGIES To receive apologies for absence, if any. 2. MINUTES 5 - 10 To authorise the Chairman to sign, as a correct record, the minutes of the meeting of the Committee held on 27 October 2011 (copy attached). 3. DECLARATIONS OF INTEREST To receive declarations by Members of personal and prejudicial interests in respect of items on this Agenda. 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 in writing by noon on the day before 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 Services Manager on 01539 717440. (1) Planning Applications Planning applications for which requests to speak have been made. (2) Agenda Items Agenda items for which requests to speak have been made. 6. REPORT OF THE INTERIM CORPORATE DIRECTOR (COMMUNITIES) 11 - 161 To determine planning applications received. 7. APPEALS UPDATE AT 11 NOVEMBER 2011 163 - 171 To provide Members with information about the receipt and determination of planning appeals from the start of the financial year in April. 8. A REPORT ON ENFORCEMENT ACTIVITY FROM 5 SEPTEMBER TO 173 - 179 7 OCTOBER 2011 To inform Members about enforcement activity between 5 September and 7 October 2011. PART II Private Section (exempt reasons under Schedule 12A of the Local Government Act 1972, as amended by the Local Government Act (Access to Information) (Variation) Order 2006, specified by way of paragraph number) There are no items in this part of the Agenda.
3 4 Item No.2 37 27.10.2011 Planning
PLANNING COMMITTEE
Minutes of the proceedings at a meeting of the Committee held in the District Council Chamber at South Lakeland House, Kendal, on Thursday, 27 October 2011 at 10.00 a.m.
Present
Councillors
Ian McPherson (Chairman) Sheila Eccles (Vice-Chairman)
Alan Baverstock Brian Cooper Joss Curwen Colin Davies Sylvia Emmott Brenda Gray Tom Harvey John Holmes Janette Jenkinson Kevin Lancaster Sonia Lawson Mary Orr David Williams Mary Wilson
Apologies for absence were received from Councillors Philip Dixon and Clive Graham. Officers
Mark Balderson Planning Enforcement Officer (part) Zaheer Bashir Solicitor Helen Coffey Communications Officer Lilian Hopkins Planning Officer (part) Janine Jenkinson Assistant Democratic Services Officer Barry Jackson Planning Officer Mark Shipman Development Management Group Manager (part)
David Sykes Interim Corporate Director (Communities) (part)
P/048 MINUTES
RESOLVED – That the Chairman be authorised to sign, as a correct record, the minutes of the meeting of the Committee held on 29 September 2011.
P/049 DECLARATIONS OF INTEREST
RESOLVED – That it be noted that the following declarations of interest were made:-
(1) Councillor Kevin Lancaster - Minute P/052 (Planning Application No.SL/2011/0682);
(2) Councillor Ian McPherson - Minute P/055 Case Ref 11.212 The Bothy, Rigmaden, Mansergh; and
(3) Councillor Mary Wilson - Minute P/052 (Planning Application No.SL/2011/0730).
5 38 27.10.2011 Planning
P/050 LOCAL GOVERNMENT ACT 1972 – EXCLUDED ITEMS
RESOLVED – That the items in Part II of the Agenda be dealt with following the exclusion of the press and public.
P/051 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/052 COMPLEX PLANNING APPLICATIONS
RESOLVED – That the following applications be determined in the manner set out:-
1.SL/2011/0583 KILLINGTON: Land adjacent to Crooks Plantation, Killington, LA6 2HB. Siting of single wind turbine and associated control box. (Mr John Braithwaite)
Members were informed that the application had been withdrawn by the applicant.
WITHDRAWN.
Note – Councillor Kevin Lancaster declared a personal interest in the following item of business, by virtue of knowing the applicant.
3.SL/2011/0682 MIDDLETON: Land adjacent to Jordon Lane to the south of Holme Farm, Middleton, LA6 2NF. Agricultural livestock building. (Mr and Mrs K Booth)
A site visit had been undertaken and Members had had the opportunity to view and assess the site location in relation to the surrounding landscape.
The Committee was advised that the main issue for consideration was whether the operational need for the building outweighed the intrusive impact this form of development would impose within an area of considerable natural beauty.
Members were provided with a précis of the salient facts relating to the application.
A report from the Council’s Agricultural Consultant had concluded that during winter hours it was necessary for livestock to be sheltered and that the application was a suitable proposal.
6 39 27.10.2011 Planning
It had also been highlighted that due to the unsecure tenancy arrangement there was a potential risk that the landlord could cease the farming operation.
Full consideration was given to the matters raised. A discussion took place during which Members noted that the farming need was essential to serve the functioning and viability of the farming enterprise and on balance wished to support the application to ensure the continuation of this operation.
GRANT – subject to suitable conditions.
Note – Councillor Mary Wilson declared a personal interest in the following item of business, by virtue of knowing the applicant.
5.SL/2011/0730 LOWER ALLITHWAITE: Blenkett Wood Lodge Park, Jack Hill, Allithwaite, Grange over Sands, LA11 7RL. Use of Land for siting one static holiday caravan. (Mr David Khan)
The Planning Officer reported that a letter received from the applicant’s planning agent requesting that a site visit be undertaken had been circulated to the Committee.
Lower Allithwaite Parish Council had recommended the application be refused due to the caravan being located outside the natural confines of the landscape and exerting a detrimental impact on the landscape.
A discussion took place during which some Members queried the flood risk in this area and the assessment that had been carried out. Overall it was felt that there was no justification for a caravan to be sited within this location.
REFUSE
2.SL/2011/0598 WHITWELL AND SELSIDE: Longwell, Selside, Kendal, LA8 9LD. Conversion of barn to dwelling and sub-division of existing farmhouse into two holiday letting units. (Mr and Mrs Gibson)
The principle and detail of the proposed two holiday letting units was acceptable and the relocation of the farmhouse in the attached barn was not considered contentious in planning terms.
GRANT – subject to the Conditions detailed in the Schedule and an amendment to Condition 6 to read ‘Whilst the building owned by the applicant to the west and north of the application site is in use as a working Poultry Unit the dwelling hereby permitted to be formed by the conversion of the barn of the site shall only be occupied by someone engaged in the operation of that unit and any resident family or surviving civil partner or widow or widower of such a person’.
7 40 27.10.2011 Planning
4.SL/2011/0699 ALDINGHAM: Garden of Flosh Fields, Scales, Ulverston, LA12 0PF. Erection of new dwelling and detached garage. (Mr & Mrs T and L Douglas)
The main planning issues relating to the application were whether the scheme constituted infilling or rounding off of Scales; the relationship to neighbouring properties and the impact on the mature trees and shrubs on the northern part of the site.
Members felt that it would be beneficial to undertake a site visit in order to view and assess the location of the proposed development and fully appreciate the matters raised by the application.
DEFER – to allow a site visit.
P/053 LISTED BUILDING APPLICATIONS
RESOLVED – That the following application be determined in the manner set out:-
6.SL/2011/0384 KENDAL: Former Insurance Hall, Sand Aire House, and 0400 Stramongate, Kendal, LA9 4UA. Extension of time condition on SL/2007/0948 (change of use to family entertainment centre incorporating bowling, pool and food/drinks bar) (Mrs C Bolger)
The Committee was advised that the main issues presented by the application related to car parking provision and a legal query that had been raised.
The Planning Officer advised that car parking provision was available within the area. Sand Aire House was located close to other town centre parking including the multi-storey car parks at New Bank Yard and Blackhall Road.
It was reported that the Solicitor to the Council had considered the legal query raised as to whether the grant of Planning Permission and Listed Building Consent under references SL/2007/0948 and 0957 were invalidated or void due to all the leaseholders in the building complex not receiving notification from the applicant. It had now been confirmed that the original Planning Permission and Listed Building Consent were still valid and the time limit could legally be extended.
Members approved the application and felt the facility would be a welcome addition in the area.
The Interim Corporate Director (Communities) be authorised to GRANT the extension on the time conditions on the Planning Permission as sought by SL/2011/0384 and Listed Building Consent as sought by SL/2011/0400 subject to the retention of all other of the originally imposed Conditions.
8 41 27.10.2011 Planning
P/054 APPEALS
RESOLVED – That the report be noted.
Note – Councillor Ian McPherson declared a personal interest in Case Ref 11.212 The Bothy, Rigmaden, Mansergh, by virtue of being the local Ward Member.
P/055 ENFORCEMENT ACTIVITY FROM 1 AUGUST TO 2 SEPTEMBER 2011
Members were presented with a report on enforcement activity between 1 August and 2 September 2011. Ten outstanding cases from the caseload had been resolved. Thirty-two new complaints had been recorded and were presently being investigated, of which four had been resolved.
The Bothy, Rigmaden, Mansergh 11.212
It had been brought the Council’s attention that the owner of the above property which was a listed building had affixed a stone ball finial to the gable end ridge of The Bothy.
The Conservation Officer had advised that the added feature was a modest addition to the building that had a relatively neutral impact on its significance. The feature was very small and not totally out of keeping with the traditional verge detailing that was used on the building. This being the case the Committee considered that the feature was not unduly harmful to the building’s architectural or historical interest and broadly compliant with policy HE9.4 of PPS 5. Therefore, there were no grounds to commence proceedings to prosecute. The Committee agreed with the recommendation that it would not be expedient to take enforcement action.
Holme House Farm, Skelmergh, Kendal 11.078
The above site was subject of a major enforcement case involving the siting of 15 unauthorised residential caravans and a number of commercial units which were the subject matter of a Public Inquiry in 2010 and an Inspector’s decision letter of 29 September 2010.
An engineering operation, namely the movement of large quantities of earth to form earth mounds within a flood zone and alteration to the flood plain and river bank and excavation of public footpath / track to the eastern boundary of the site and this unauthorised development breached policy.
The tenant of the site had carried out extensive engineering operations to the river bank and adjacent land. Because of the harm caused it was not regarded as expedient to enforce against the works adjacent to the river to be reversed. However, it was regarded expedient to enforce against the excavation to the track at the eastern boundary.
Natural England had advised that the work along the River Sprint at Holme House Farm had damaged the river bank and riparian zone vegetation. Without remedial action to restore the damage, the river would return to unfavourable condition.
Advice from both the Environment Agency and Natural England was that the carrying out of further work to undo the unauthorised earthworks was not recommended as it would cause further damage to the river.
9 42 27.10.2011 Planning
It was further considered that the excavation of the track to the eastern boundary presents a risk of land slip and potential hazard to the public using the footpath.
RESOLVED – That
(1) the report be noted;
(2) in respect of Case Ref 11.212 The Bothy, Rigmaden, Mansergh, it be noted that it was not deemed expedient to take enforcement action and that the owner should be invited to submit a retrospective application; and
(3) in respect of Case Ref 11.078, Holme House Farm, Skelmergh, Kendal; the Corporate Director (Monitoring Officer) be authorised to use all necessary enforcement powers to secure the replacement of the earth removed from the footpath/track and enable the works recommended by Natural England to be carry out.
P/056 PRESS AND PUBLIC
RESOLVED – That, under Section 100(A)(4) of the Local Government Act 1972, the press and public be excluded from the meeting for the following item of business on the grounds that it involved the likely disclosure of exempt information as defined in Part 1 of Schedule 12 A of the Act as amended by the Local Government (Access to Information) (Variation) Order 2006 by virtue of the Paragraphs indicated. P/057 ENFORCEMENT REPORT – APPENDIX 2
- Information in respect of which a claim to legal professional privilege could be maintained in legal proceedings (Paragraph 5). - Information relating to any action taken or to be taken in connection with the prevention, investigation or prosecution of crime (Paragraph 7)
Consideration was given to a report that set out possible criminal proceedings in relation to Case Ref. 08.345 Holme House Farm, Skelmergh, Kendal.
RESOLVED – That
(1) the report be noted; and
(2) in respect of Case Ref 08.345, Holme House Farm, Skelmergh, Kendal; the Corporate Director (Monitoring Officer) be authorised to commence legal proceedings against the appropriate persons for the breach of the Enforcement Notice, served on 29 May 2009.
The meeting ended at 11.47 a.m.
10 AGENDA ITEM NO …………6………
SOUTH LAKELAND DISTRICT COUNCIL
From: Interim Corporate Director (Communities) To: Planning Committee – 24 November 2011
REPORT OF INTERIM CORPORATE DIRECTOR (COMMUNITIES)
PLANNING APPLICATIONS FOR DECISION Page No
Index
Schedule A - Complex planning applications
Schedule B - Planning applications where the Interim Corporate None Director (Communities) 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 Interim Corporate Director (Communities), Lowther Street, Kendal, Cumbria
11 12 SOUTH LAKELAND DISTRICT COUNCIL PLANNING COMMITTEE – 24 November 2011
SCHEDULE REFERENCE SECTION SITE ADDRESS NUMBER NUMBER AND PAGE
ALDINGHAM 7 SL/2011/0699 A 99 - 102 Garden of Flosh Fields, Scales 11 SL/2011/0774 A 117 - 121 Tarn Foot House, Leece
DUDDON (BROUGHTON WEST) 8 SL/2011/0719 A 103 - 106 Moss House Farm, Kirkby in Furness
KENDAL 1 SL/2010/0180 A 15 - 54 Kendal Rugby Union Football Club, Shap Road 10 SL/2011/0756 A 113 - 116 Unit 8, Dockray Hall Industrial Estate, Dockray Hall Road
LEVENS 5 SL/2011/0647 A 73 - 94 land at High Sampool
LOWER HOLKER 4 SL/2011/0442 A 68 - 72 Willow Tree Caravan Park, Moor Lane, Flookburgh 13 SL/2011/0824 A 155 - 161 Sandgate Farm, Flookburgh
LUPTON 6 SL/2011/0695 A 95 - 98 Old water pumping station
PENNINGTON 3 SL/2011/0373 A 63 - 67 Ewedale Farm
PRESTON PATRICK 2 SL/2011/0315 A 55 - 62 Millness Lane, Millness, Crooklands 12 SL/2011/0794 A 122 - 154 Land to southeast of A6070, and south of A65
URSWICK 9 SL/2011/0741 A 107 - 112 land adjacent to Daisy Hill Cottage
1 13 14 SCHEDULE A
Complex Planning Applications
SCHEDULE No: 1 SL/2010/0180
KENDAL: KENDAL RUGBY UNION FOOTBALL CLUB, SHAP ROAD KENDAL LA9 6DL
PROPOSAL: REDEVELOPMENT OF SITE TO FORM RETAIL DEVELOPMENT WITH ASSOCIATED CAR PARKING AND SERVICING FACILITIES
24/11/2011 E352029.6 N494061.7
SUMMARY: This is an outline planning application for a retail development incorporating a 5,110 sq m supermarket, and up to 5,573 sq m of non food retail floor space, with associated car park and servicing area on Kendal Rugby Club. Grant.
KENDAL TOWN COUNCIL: REFUSE – The Town Council’s comments on the original application are re-iterated, i.e. that this site should be earmarked for housing, recreation and light industry – not retail use (to the detriment of the continued viability of the town centre). Development should be considered in the context of the Local Development Framework, in relation to the potential of all available spaces in Kendal and the assessment of housing, industrial, recreational and other development needs of the town. The proposal is also contrary to the Climate Change Strategy contained in the Local Authority Agreement, i.e. that development should seek to reduce the carbon footprint of the area. We are also not convinced that, with the potential for much increased vehicle activity, the proposed access / egress measures would make any difference to the traffic problems and congestion on Shap Road.
CUMBRIA COUNTY COUNCIL – SPATIAL PLANNING UNIT You will recall that the County Council had raised an objection to the previous application on the grounds that insufficient information was submitted to demonstrate that the proposal satisfied JSP policies T30 and T31, and LTP Policies LD4, LD5,
15 LD7 and LD8. Notwithstanding the above, we advised that the Planning Authority needed to:- 1. ensure that if planning permission is granted for the re-development of the application site for any alternative use, an equivalent, enhanced sports recreation provision for the Kendal Rugby Union Football Club must be made available elsewhere, which must satisfy the requirements of PPS17, and must be secured by condition and through a Section 106 Agreement as part of this planning application (5/08/1219); 2. ensure that an independent retail assessment is carried out to verify that the assumptions in the submission are correct, and that it satisfies itself that the proposed development would be acceptable in terms of the tests set out in PPS6; 3. attach a negative condition in any planning consent requiring an archaeological evaluation, and, where necessary, a scheme of archaeological recording of the site in advance of development; and 4. ensure that the potential issues of flood risk are satisfactorily addressed by this application, having taken advice from the Environment Agency. In light of the recent Planning Inspectorate Decision regarding the appeal into application SL/2008/1219, the matter raised by us under item 2 above has been considered and addressed. However we would request that the matters raised under items 1, 3 and 4 above still be considered accordingly under SL/2010/0180. This leaves the substantive part of our previous objection above relating to highways and transport arrangements, which will be dealt with as a separate response by our Highways and Transport colleagues.
CUMBRIA COUNTY COUNCIL - HIGHWAYS AND TRANSPORTATION: We have assessed the developer's current proposals in terms of traffic impact. Given the age of the application and the policy context within which it has been submitted and considered, we have not considered the cumulative traffic impact of the development in combination with likely future site allocations for housing and employment land likely to emerge through the Local Development Framework process. Whether this is the best site for a further supermarket in Kendal is not something we could comment upon without comparing the range of alternative sites on a comparable basis. Setting aside the issue of cumulative traffic impact referred to above, it is considered that the direct traffic impact of the development could be significantly mitigated by the following highway infrastructure improvements, generally in accordance with indicative plans previously agreed with the applicant. • Station Road / Longpool – keep existing mini-roundabout but realign Longpool to run into left lane of Wildman Street with Ann Street a give-way. Staggered pedestrian crossing provided (agreed 2nd Sept), appropriate traffic regulation orders as required; • site access, investigated a more compact all-round pedestrian layout but agreed to go with the proposed fully signalised site access layout as it was the most onerous in terms of land take and could be simplified to an alternative
16 layout at detailed design stage if this was deemed preferable in the balance between reducing vehicle delay vs. simplified pedestrian provision. Cycle facilities as required to link to proposed off-site infrastructure; • New Road / Blackhall Road – layout modified to extend the two ahead lanes from New Road to Stramongate; • implementation of SCOOT traffic control on Windermere / Burneside Road; • implementation of SCOOT traffic control on Highgate / Allhallows Lane. The above improvement schemes would need to be completed before any development was brought into use, pursuant to an agreement between the developer and the highway authority under s278 of the Highways Act 1980. At this outline stage, although the improvement concepts have been agreed in principle, final detailed designs would need to be submitted at reserved matters stage, accompanied by Stage 1 / 2 Road Safety Audits.
CUMBRIA COUNTY COUNCIL – ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT The Regional Growth Fund (RGF) awarded supports one of Cumbria’s key employers and provides a significant boost to the deliverability of the Canal Head development, however the RGF can only be secured if the Canal Head scheme proceeds. It is reasonable to assume that the grant funding through RGF, will contractually require Gilkes to invest in the refurbishment and new build at their existing premises as well as enable the wider regeneration as set out in their RGF application. I attended the RGF workshop where it was made explicit that the funding agreement would contractually commit the applicant to deliver the outputs as set out in their application. Failure to deliver the forecast outputs could result in claw- back of the funding. The wider Canal Head regeneration scheme includes substantial up-front infrastructure costs, which together with the funding needed by Gilkes, place a financial burden on the proposed development. An appropriate scale of food retail is therefore required to generate sufficient value to unlock the development opportunity. The development economics are such that without retail, there would be no scheme at Canal Head within the next five years. If Gilkes fails to realise its match funding to invest in their premises through unlocking the development proposals, they will lose the RGF grant. The award of RGF to Gilkes helps build the momentum and case for a deliverable scheme at Canal Head within 5 years by injecting additional funds into the development. It is important that this gap funding still needs to be supported by food retail to unlock sufficient development value. However it would be reasonable to assume that a smaller retail store could be viable alongside a scheme supported by RGF investment. If planning consent is granted for food retail on an alternative site, Gilkes would not be able to proceed on the basis set out in their RGF application. The consequence would be a missed opportunity to support an important private sector business and lost investment to support the Cumbrian economy.
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION OFFICER (SLDC): Details of dust control measures, on site drainage, noise, lighting and detailed Air Quality should be submitted with the detailed application. Additionally a restriction on
17 working hours should be attached to any permission. In response to the latest Air Quality Assessment, October 2011: Whilst the information shows a reduction in traffic levels in some areas (such as Lowther Street), I still have concerns that there are road sections within the Air Quality Management Area which have an increase in traffic predicted (such as Longpool, Wildman Street and Sandes Avenue). Various road schemes are proposed to mitigate these increases and it is to be hoped that these will lead to the reductions in pollution which are predicted through anecdotal evidence. However, at present this is only assumption and no modelling has been undertaken. As this is an outline application and given the level of uncertainty concerning the detail of the development at this time, I would agree to a condition being attached to any outline planning permission granted requiring a full air quality assessment. This should use a model to be agreed with the Environmental Protection Group and be provided and agreed in writing with the Local Planning Authority at the reserved matters stage when more detail is available.
ENVIRONMENT AGENCY: No objections subject to imposition of condition requiring full details of a surface water drainage scheme to be based on sustainable drainage principles. General conservation advice also provided.
CUMBRIA COUNTY COUNCIL HISTORIC ENVIRONMENT OFFICER: The site is located within an area of some archaeological potential. The Kent valley was a focus of prehistoric activity and a Bronze Age axe has been found nearby. Furthermore, an archaeological investigation at Sparrowmire Farm to the west of the site uncovered a Bronze Age burnt mound. It is therefore considered likely that archaeological remains survive on the site and that they would be damaged or destroyed by the proposed development. Consequently, I recommend that an archaeological evaluation, and, where necessary, a scheme of archaeological recording of the site be undertaken in advance of the development. …this programme of work can be secured through the inclusion of a negative condition.
CIVIC SOCIETY: Whilst we are sympathetic to Kendal Rugby Club’s wish to relocate to a new site, and we understand their need for the finance to make this possible, we just feel that this is not the place for another large retail development. The original application was refused, as you know, on several grounds: it is unacceptable by virtue of their being no demonstrable need, it is inappropriate in scale; it would have a wholly negative effect on the town centre; and access by motor car, which would be essential, would exacerbate the existing traffic problems and add to the already serious air pollution. Our members agree that these objections were more than sufficient to justify the refusal of planning permission, and we would support SLDC in its decision. We would urge that the revised proposal, as it stands, should be refused also.
18 OTHER: 11 letters of objection have been received. The concerns raised are summarised as follows: • There are other more sequentially preferable sites, such as Canal Head. • Little effort has been made to address the traffic concerns raised by the Inspector. • Increased traffic in the north of Kendal, making existing problems worse. • No need for more retail / supermarkets. There are existing units standing empty. • Will result in increased empty shops in the town. • Loss of playing fields and alternative fields are too far out of town centre. • Site floods and so do surrounding homes and businesses. This could be exacerbated by the development. Where will water from a full attenuation tank go in times of flooding? • Visual impact of proposal. • Noise nuisance as result of the development. • Development of an open space, which will be harmful to the character of the area. • The original concerns have not been addressed or overcome. • The location of the recycling centre will cause noise and little nuisance to nearby residents on Mintbridge Road. • Light pollution to nearby houses. • Kids from the local school will try and cross the busy road which will be dangerous. 11 individual letters of objection and a petition containing 76 signatures was received to the 2008 application objecting to the development for the following reasons: (1) impact upon the town centre; (2) traffic; (3) safety issues from increased traffic and proximity of school; and (4) flooding. Kendal Futures have also objected to the scheme. They consider that a retail development of the size proposed at the Rugby Club will be detrimental to the vitality and health of the town centre, but that on a sequential basis this development would be more acceptable closer to the town centre. Tim Farron MP has also been made aware of this application and the potential other available sites by a member of the public who is involved in the Canal Head development. Although he expressed no opinion on the matter, he did ask that a copy of the letter he received be considered as part of the application process. This is summarised below. Individual objections have been received from the developers of the Cricket Club (Median / Sainsbury’s) and Canal Head (Genr8 / Signet Planning). Both object to the Rugby Club on sequential grounds. Canal Head developers state that their site is sequentially preferable and therefore we cannot grant permission for the Rugby Club. Median / Sainsbury’s advised that the availability of the Cricket Club is yet to be
19 determined and as such may be sequentially preferable. The document produced by the Canal Head proponents is extensive and covers both the unacceptability of the Rugby Club site and the suitability of their own. A synopsis of this document follows: It is argued that the development of the Rugby Club, an out of centre development, should not be granted permission as there is a sequentially preferable site in Canal Head, and therefore it would be contrary to PPS4. Additionally the development at Canal Head would be in accordance with the recent “Planning for Growth” statement, and would also be in accordance with the development plan by facilitating the regeneration of Canal Head, which is a stated objective of the Core Strategy, Policy CS2. By approving the Rugby Club, the regeneration of Canal Head would not be possible. In terms of the sequential preference of the Canal Head site, the proponents argue that there is an agreement between all the landowners of the site to look at a redevelopment. A developer, GENR8, has also been recruited to progress the regeneration development. These two factors have helped to move the situation with the site forward and although changing market factors have changed the originally proposed development to increase the retail floor area to over 9000 sq m, and the retention and refurbishment of Gilkes factory and offices on their existing site, the progress on the site has been significant and shows a willingness to move forward in an appropriate and realistic manner. The importance of Gilkes, both in terms of the development site and within Kendal itself is highlighted. The wider regeneration would not only allow them new office and refurbished manufacturing facilities, but would also secure their continued presence in Kendal, securing the employment of 180 people and approx. £6m into the local economy each year. It is indicated that without this development, Gilkes would have to leave the town, and that the economic loss should be carefully considered. It is estimated that the whole redevelopment of Canal Head could create up to 1000 jobs. The development of Canal Head, along with the 500 car parking spaces would support and promote linkages with the town centre and encourage walking between the two. The additional floor area for convenience goods would mainly affect the existing supermarkets and it is unlikely to have a significant effect on the town centre. Similarly the additional 1000 sq m of comparison goods would have less effect on the town centre than the Rugby Club. In essence, the additional impact of the increased area would not be significant. In terms of the sequential test, it is considered that Canal Head meets all three tests with confidence. It is a suitable site for the development, as suggested by the Core Strategy including an appropriate level of retail development. Approaches have been made to Cumbria Highways about the highways implications of the development. Since the original inquiry, the landowners have signed documents allowing them to promote the site as a whole, and the District Council, who own land required, have acknowledged Canal Head as a regeneration priority. Finally in terms of viability, they contend it is not appropriate to submit a detailed viability assessment, but have provided a summary indicating that it is financially viable, with the 9290 sq m store resulting in a profit margin of 13%; that the increase in scale is appropriate; and it can be delivered within 5 years. During the public Inquiry, the Inspector raised two fundamental concerns about the Canal Head site which resulted in it failing to be considered as sequentially
20 preferable: conflict with current policy and multiplicity of landowners unlikely to be resolved within a reasonable timeframe. The developers now consider that they have addressed these concerns and consequently Canal Head is sequentially preferable and the Rugby Club application must be refused. In addition, a further letter was received from the Canal Head developers on 2 November, explaining that Gilkes have been awarded £2.75m from the Regional Growth Fund to facilitate the regeneration of the site. The money assists towards the capital costs of the necessary works in rebuilding and improving Gilkes which would then lead to the wider regeneration. This is therefore an endorsement by the Government of the importance of Gilkes. The cash injection means that the overall return would rise from 13% to between 15% and 20%. However even with this, the retail element remains critical to the viability of the development. A planning application is to be submitted if the Rugby Club is refused, and there is an indication from the interested national retailers that the size of the supermarket could reduce, although it is still considered that a store of the larger size would not harm the town centre.
HISTORICAL CONTEXT: A Planning Application was submitted in December 2008 for a retail development with parking and servicing facilities (SL/2008/1219) on Kendal Rugby Union Football Club (KRUFC) grounds. The 2008 application was also an outline application and indicated units of the same overall size and breakdown as the current application, but the access was directly off Mintbridge Road. At the same time an application was submitted for the relocation of the KRUFC to a site off Oxenholme Road (SL/2008/1220). Both applications were considered by the Planning Committee on 26 March 2009. The application for the relocation of the club was granted subject to conditions. The application for the retail development was refused and in April 2009 an appeal was lodged with the Planning Inspectorate. The appeal was heard at a Public Inquiry in September 2009, hearing evidence from not only the appellant and the Council, but also from other developers about potential sequentially preferable sites. On 3 March 2010, the appeal was dismissed. The conclusions of the Inspector were as follows: I conclude that the proposed development would not have an unacceptable impact on the vitality and viability of the town centre and existing and proposed commitments. There are no available, suitable and viable sequentially preferable sites that could accommodate the whole or substantial proportion of the proposed development. There is one sequentially preferable site that could accommodate a very small part, some 8.5%, of the non-food retailing element, However, the fact that a very small part of the development could potentially be located elsewhere is not, on its own, a sound reason to dismiss the whole development. I recognise that the existing Rugby Club facilities are dated and substantial investment, which is currently beyond the ability of the Club to provide, is needed to bring the existing facilities up to a level that would match the Club’s aspirations. I agree that the improvement of these facilities would provide significant benefits for the Rugby Club and the community. These are all positives that weight in favour of the proposed
21 development. To be balanced against these factors, Kendal has an acknowledged and serious problem with congestion. In particular, the Station Road, Longpool roundabout junction, which is one of the key junctions in the town centre highway network, operates at or above capacity. The proposed development whilst it would result in reductions on traffic flows elsewhere in the town centre, would result in a material increase in the amount of traffic using this junction, this would unacceptably exacerbate the problem of congestion adversely affecting the free flow of traffic in this area. In the absence of workable junction improvements, I conclude that the adverse effect on free flow of traffic is not outweighed by the positive elements of the development identified above. In these circumstances, and having taken all other matters into consideration, I conclude that the proposed appeal would conflict with the objectives of national planning policy as contained in PPS4 and the development plan. Accordingly, I conclude that this appeal should be dismissed. The current application was submitted five days later on 8 March 2010, with additional details to overcome the highway concerns.
DESCRIPTION AND PROPOSAL: The site is located north of Kendal Town centre, and is bounded by a car showroom located to the east on Shap Road, industrial units and dwellings located to the north on Mint Bridge Road, and housing located to the south on Finlay Close. On the east side of Shap Road is an existing out-of-centre retail development, which includes the Morrison’s Food store, and other non-food retail uses and car showrooms. Queen Katherine School is situated nearby on Queen Katherine Avenue. Playing fields and sports grounds lie to the west of the application site. The application proposes a total of 10,682 sq m of new retail floor space on the KRUFC site. Of this floorspace, it is proposed to construct a food store of 5,109 sq m (55,000 sq ft) gross and up to 5,573 sq m (60,000 sq ft) gross non-food retail floorspace. The non-food retail floorspace is shown on the illustrative plan as two 1,161 sq m (2 x 12,500 sq ft) gross units, a DIY unit of 2,322 sq m (25,000 sq ft) gross, plus a 929 sq m (10,000 sq ft) garden centre. The applicant states that the food store would be occupied by one large national food store operator currently seeking representation in Kendal. The final unit sizes and configuration of the non-food element of the scheme would be subject to retailer requirements and such details will be considered at the Reserved Matters stage. An indicative plan indicates 420 car parking spaces would be provided, with the main vehicular access located off Shap Road. A service yard would be provided to the rear, with access also from Mint Bridge Road. This would be sited well away from the rear of the residential properties in Finley Close, although it would pass by the residential properties on Mint Bridge Road. Cycle spaces would be provided, plus recycling facilities. All the existing structures on site would be demolished to make way for the new retail units. The illustrative plan shows an L-shaped layout of retail units, all linked by a paved pedestrian route to their frontages. A wide area of landscaping would be provided to
22 the southern boundary of the site, to provide screening of the development from residential properties on Finley Close, as well as further landscaping on all boundaries. The application indicates that the scheme would create 150 full-time and 150 part- time jobs. The proposed highway works are all outside of the red line application boundary, and as such need specific highways consent by way of a Section 278 Agreement. The exact detail of the highway alterations would be agreed through this process, but the general concepts of the highway alterations are as follows: • Ann Street would have a “Give Way” junction onto Wildman Street. • Cars approaching Longpool from Shap Road would have a direct route straight onto Wildman Street, not having to pause for the roundabout or to allow cars from Ann Street to filter in. • The existing mini roundabout would be retained to control other traffic movements at Longpool. • A new pedestrian crossing would be installed to take pedestrians from the Station side to the shop side of Longpool. • The lower half of Blackhall Road, outside the Indian Restaurant, would be marked to have three lanes: one taking traffic right, the other two moving traffic straight on up past the multi-storey car park, resulting in two continuous lanes from New Road to Stramongate. • SCOOT traffic systems would be installed on the Windermere / Burneside Road and Highgate / Allhallows Lane junctions, connecting into the recently installed SCOOT controls on other junctions. • Improved cycle links to the site along Shap Road.
POLICY ISSUES: National Planning Policy Framework (Draft) Although only a draft, the overarching aims of this document are considered to be a material planning consideration. One of the defined aims of the document, aimed at delivering sustainable development, is planning for prosperity, using the planning system to build a strong, responsive and competitive economy. The document states that the Government is committed to ensuring that the planning system does everything it can to support sustainable economic growth. However the individual elements of social and environmental factors are also important as they are part of what creates sustainable development. Development should be of good design and appropriately located. The principles of viability and deliverability remain.
Planning For Growth The Government’s top priority in reforming the planning system is to promote
23 sustainable economic growth and jobs. Government’s clear expectation is that the answer to development and growth should wherever possible be “yes”, except where this would compromise the key sustainable development principles set out in national planning policy. There is a presumption in favour of sustainable development.
PPS4 – Planning for Sustainable Economic Growth PPS4 sets out planning policies for economic development to be taken into account when preparing local development documents and are a material consideration in development management decisions. The PPS4 development management polices can be applied directly by the decision maker when determining planning applications. PPS4 indentifies that in achieving a prosperous economy, the Government’s overarching objective is sustainable economic growth. To achieve this, key objectives include, amongst other things, improving the economic performance of towns, delivering more sustainable patterns of development, and promoting the vitality and viability of towns and other centres. This latter objective is to be achieved through focussing economic development and growth in existing town centres and competition between retailers through the provision of efficient shopping services in town centres. In terms of this proposal, it is an out-of-centre convenience and comparison goods retail development which PPS4 defines as main town centre uses. Policy EC17 indicates that such development on a site outside of the main town centre, and not in accordance with an up-to-date development plan should be refused where it does not comply with the requirements of the sequential approach to site selection (Policy EC15) or where the proposal would have a significant adverse impact in terms of any one of the impacts set out in Policies EC10.2 and EC16.1. The policies set out in PPS4 are supplemented by Practice Guidance which, although not policy or prescriptive, may also be a material consideration in individual planning applications.
Planning Policy Guidance (PPG17): Planning for Open Space, Sport and Recreation Emphasises the need to protect existing formal recreation facilities from development but does recognise that opportunities may arise to relocate existing facilities provided the new facilities are as accessible and at least equivalent in terms of size, usefulness, attractiveness and quality.
South Lakeland Local Plan (Saved Policies) Policy R2 states that further retail development outside Kendal Town Centre will not be allowed, unless evidence is provided to demonstrate that the development would not have an adverse impact upon the vitality and viability of the town centre, and subject also to numerous criteria. The Local Authority has adopted guidelines for the design of all new development. Policy S2 of the South Lakeland Local Plan sets out the South Lakeland Design Code and requires development to take proper account of its principles. Local Plan Policy S10 states that off-street parking will be required based on
24 Cumbria County Council’s guidelines, but will be applied flexibly. Policy S3 requires a high standard of landscaping.
Adopted South Lakeland Core Strategy Policy CS1.2 is the Development Strategy. Kendal is a Principal Service Centre and as such the highest proportion of development should be in Kendal. The exact scale and level of development depends on local character, environmental capacity and infrastructure provision. Policy CS2 is the Kendal Strategy and advocates the promotion of Kendal Town Centre as the principal town centre for shopping, continued support for sustainable transport methods, ensuring all developers undertake a Travel Plan and minimise air pollution through implantation of Air Quality Management Plans. Policy CS7.5 is the Town Centre and Retail Strategy. The vitality and viability of Kendal must be maintained. It does indicate that the development of additional retail floorspace outside the town centre will normally be strongly resisted, particularly where vacancy rates in the centre are high. Policy CS8.3a and 8.3b relate to the provision of open and recreation space and sets the standards to be required for all new development. Policy CS8.7 sets out a policy framework for renewable energy. Policy CS8.10 is the design policy and ensures that design and materials maintain or enhance the character of the locality. Policy CS9.2 relates to Developer Contributions, and allows the Council to request payments from developers to secure improvements which are necessary to make the development acceptable by planning condition or obligation. Policy CS10.2 relates to the transport Impact of New Development, indicating that developments will need to be designed to reduce the need to travel and maximise the use of sustainable forms of transport appropriate to its location.
Other Policy Documents The South Lakeland Retail Study 2007 – 2015 was produced in October 2007. This document assessed capacity for additional retail and leisure development within the sub-region and is intended to inform the emerging Local Development Framework. South Lakeland District Council Corporate Plan 2011-2015. This sets out the Council’s four key priorities for the next five years as Housing; Economic Development; Environment including Climate Change; and Culture. With regard to Economic Development, which is arguably the most relevant to this proposal; the two objectives are to develop the workforce of the district, enabling economic growth and increase in average earnings; and enable investment and growth in the Key Service Centres. South Lakeland Sustainable Community Strategy 2008 – 2028 is a document aimed at involving local people and communities in the decision making process, with a commitment to, inter alia, job skills and regeneration; health and wellbeing; and quality environment. In relation to the Job Skills and Regeneration, the principal issue is the “…need to grow the local economy in a sustainable way to create prosperity by supporting local business, providing more sites for new development to
25 encourage the growth of indigenous businesses and attract inward investment to directly improve the number of better paid jobs with an aim of reducing the growing gap between earnings and house prices.” The regeneration of the Canal is specifically listed in this policy, and the AAP listed as a measure of progress towards the objectives. Canal Head Area Action Plan. The AAP will provide a planning framework for the regeneration of an area of Kendal between Canal Head and Change Bridge off Parkside Road, including the potential restoration of a section of the former Lancaster Canal. Preferred Options were consulted on in 2008. Following representations made at the consultation stage, (in particular the doubts of viability of the predominantly residential led scheme), the appeal decision in respect of the previous Rugby Club decision, the South Lakeland Core Strategy, examination in public and the publication of Planning Policy Statement 4, the Cabinet formally agreed to cease publication of the AAP on the basis of the existing Preferred Options and agreed in principle to the undertaking of a further round of consultation based upon an appraisal of the proposals presented by Gilkes. In October 2010, Cabinet approved a revised Preferred Options as a basis for consultation. The revised Preferred Options allows for retail development within the AAP area which will support the viability and vitality of Kendal Town Centre comprising convenience retail opportunities and specialist comparison retailing. This is in conformity with the justification text in the adopted South Lakeland Core Strategy, Policy CS2. Public consultation has not progressed as yet due to the placing of resources on the preparation of the Allocations of Land DPD. Work will recommence following independent examination of the Allocations of Land DPD.
HUMAN RIGHTS ACT: This application has been determined to accord with the rights and limitations of the Act in relation to Article 6 (Right to a fair and public hearing), Article 8 (Right to respect for private and family life, home and correspondence), Article 14 (Prohibition of discrimination) and Article 1 of Protocol 1 (Right to peaceful enjoyment of possessions and protection of property).
ASSESSMENT: The key issues of this application are: • Precedent of Planning Inspector’s decision. • Highways. • Sequential Test. • Impact Test. • Air Quality. • Compliance with Current Development Plan, National Guidance and other material considerations. For clarity, each individual issue will be addressed below.
26 For reference and assistance, Morrisons has a floor area of 3,103 sq m (net) / 7824 sq m (gross) and ASDA is 3,597 sq m (net) / 6,919 sq m (gross). The proposed supermarket at KRUFC has a floor area of 3,066 sq m (net) / 5,573 (gross).
Inspector’s Report A previous decision is capable of constituting a material consideration. The rationale for that is given by Mann LJ in North Wiltshire District Council v Secretary of State for the Environment [1992]. This case is authority that previous appeal decisions are capable of being material considerations because it is desirable that like cases should be considered in a like manner in order to achieve consistency in the appellate process. Although an inspector (and by necessary analogy a Planning Committee) should always exercise their judgment it is important for them to consider a previous decision and give reasons if they choose to depart from it. The principle is that subsequent decisions should follow the precedent of the earlier decision unless there are sound reasons for departing from the decision as a result for example of new policies, material considerations and circumstances. Having fully considered all the facts about the development, other possible sites, traffic and highways issues, and the principle of development, the Inspector considered that at that time there were no other sequentially preferable sites and that there was a proven need for a new supermarket, based on the overtrading of the ASDA and Morrisons supermarkets. As a consequence, the Inspector determined that the erection of a supermarket, and additional retail units was acceptable in retail terms. However the traffic resulting from the development would exacerbate existing traffic problems in northern Kendal, specifically mentioning the Longpool roundabout, to the detriment of the free flow of traffic. This was such a concern so as to render the scheme unacceptable. This previous decision, in summary, did not raise objections to the development of the site as a matter of principle, nor the provision of a further supermarket, but only to the increased traffic which had not been adequately addressed. Consequently, In the context of the previous Inspector’s decision the matters which have to be resolved in order to gain approval are the impact of increased traffic generation, alternative modes of transport to the site (this has become an important material consideration because of air quality), air quality and a renewed review of sequentially preferable sites because of changed circumstances. All other matters considered by the Inspector were found acceptable and have not been subject to material change since the Inspector’s Decision. Since the Inspector’s decisions, the Core Strategy has been adopted and the AAP Preferred Options have been significantly revised, though not yet subject to public consultation. In terms of development in the district, works have commenced on the former Stokers Garage site in Kirkland which was previously considered in sequential terms. The planning permissions for Woolpack Yard, Marks & Spencer, and Grange Booths are still extant but un-commenced, and permission has been granted and works commenced for both an enlarged and relocated convenience store and a new Booths in Milnthorpe. In terms of Canal Head, the site has progressed and has received a Government backed grant. However, even with these progressions, the Inspector’s report is still a significant material consideration and changes to policy or physical changes are discussed in detail with each assessment covering the
27 submission, previous assessment and Inspectors report, indicating its materiality at each stage, and current assessment.
Highways As stated above, the previous Inspector was significantly concerned about the impact of traffic generated by the scheme on the local highway network. He considered that it was clear from “the evidence presented at the Inquiry and my observations that there are potential improvements that could be made to the various junctions. In these circumstances, I consider that the additional traffic through to the Station Road, Longpool roundabout junction would materially add to the existing levels of congestion and unacceptably affect the free flow of traffic. The adverse impact would not, in my view, be outweighed by potential reductions elsewhere in the town centre traffic system.” The applicant has spent considerable time negotiating with County Highways to resolve the concerns about increased traffic and bring forward a scheme which would mitigate against the increase congestion caused by road junctions operating at capacity. Although the traffic congestion experienced in northern Kendal would not be removed by the alterations, the intention is that the flow of traffic should be improved and congestion at pinch points reduced. The biggest change would be the creation of a Give Way arrangement on Ann Street. There is a possibility that this will result in more queuing on Ann Street at peak times, however a large volume of the traffic could use other routes, specifically Sandylands, given the improvements to the Sandylands / Appleby Road junction proposed as part of the Auction Mart development. The displacement of traffic has been considered carefully. Computer modelling using the SATURN model has been carried out showing these alterations and detailed negotiations with Cumbria Highways have led to this suggested suite of alterations. The access to the site would be directly off Shap Road, from the approximate location of the current layby. Again, the access is outside of the red line and as such will need to be agreed as off site works via a S278 Agreement (this is agreed directly with County Highways). An indicative layout has been submitted which shows how the access may be configured and is similar to the access at other large supermarkets. Given the support of County Highways, it is considered that the Inspector’s concerns about the scheme being detrimental to the free flow of traffic have been overcome.
Sequential Test Since the Inspector’s decision, the circumstances at alternative sites have changed. The Sequential Test is a policy requirement, set out in Policy EC15 of PPS4. The policy reads as follows: In considering sequential assessments required…Local Planning Authorities should: 1. ensure that sites are assessed for their availability, suitability and viability; 2. ensure that all in centre options have been thoroughly assessed before less central site are considered;
28 3. ensure that where it has been demonstrated that there are no town centre sites to accommodate a proposed development, preference is given to edge of centre locations which are well connected to the centre by means of easy pedestrian access; ensure that in considering sites in or on the edge of existing centres, developers and operators have demonstrated flexibility in terms of: • scale: reducing the floorspace of their development; • format: more innovative site layout and store configurations such as multi-storey developments with smaller footprints; • car parking provision; reduced or reconfigured car parking areas; and • The scope for disaggregating specific parts of a retail or leisure development, including those which are part of a group of retail or leisure units, onto separate, sequentially preferable sites. However, Local Planning Authorities should not seek arbitrary sub-division of proposals. PPS4 also sets out the definition of need (Policy EC1, sub paragraph EC1.4). When assessing the need for retail and leisure development Local Planning Authorities should: • take account of both the quantitative and qualitative need for additional floorspace for different types of retail and leisure developments; • in deprived areas which lack access to a range of services and facilities, give additional weight to meeting these qualitative deficiencies. However any benefits in respect of regeneration and employment should not be taken into account, although they may be material considerations in the site selection process; • when assessing quantitative need, have regard to relevant market information and economic data, including a realistic assessment of: existing and forecast population levels, forecast expenditure for specific classes of goods to be sold and forecast improvements in retail sales density; and • when assessing qualitative need for the retail and leisure uses, assess whether there is provision and distribution of shopping, leisure and local services, which allows genuine choice to meet the needs of the whole community…in light of the objective to promote the vitality and viability of town centres and the application of the sequential approach, and take into account the degree to which shops may be overtrading and whether there is a need to increase competition and retail mix. It is worth noting that “need” no longer forms part of the policy tests of national retail policy, but it may still be relevant to the policy tests that remain i.e. sequential assessment and impact. The retail studies submitted with this application, and considered in detail at the Public Inquiry indicate that there is significant overtrading occurring at both Morrisons and ASDA. Consequently there is considered to be capacity within Kendal to accommodate a new supermarket, of a size that would address the scale of overtrading. The details of the retail studies were considered at depth during the Public Inquiry and the Inspector concluded that there would be no adverse impact on the vitality or
29 viability of the Town Centre as a result of the scale of development planned at KRUFC. Since the Inquiry, there have been updates to population and national retail databases for statistical use, however there have been no local updates to the Health Check or other supplementary documents. The Core Strategy has been adopted and contains policies which clearly seek to protect Kendal town centre from unacceptable development. There has also been a shift in the emphasis of planning policy, to increase the importance of sustainable economic growth in considering planning applications. These changes in policy are important, but do not affect the original assessment of the impact of the development on the Town centre. Given the development is of the same scale and convenience / comparison split, there is nothing in policy to indicate that the conclusions of the Local Planning Authority should reach a different conclusion. The retail assessment submitted with the application, considers the impact on vitality and viability on the town centre, reaching conclusions that the proposed development would result in approximately 8.2% of current convenience turnover in the town centre would be diverted to the new development, and -7.2% in terms of comparison goods, given the commitments to extend Marks & Spencer and redevelop Woolpack Yard which will increase existing turnover in the Town centre well above current levels, so the diversion when taken in combination with those developments will not affect the town centre. For clarification purposes the household survey which informed the South Lakeland Retail Study (SLRS) was conducted in 2005, and the SLRS produced in 2007. However it still remains the most recent study the Council has to draw on and is still therefore considered to be valid and material. The expressed “need” for a supermarket, as suggested in terms of the overtrading by current stores, is not site specific i.e. it does not have to be in a certain location to be able to operate. The provision of a supermarket and associated retail could be provided on any site within Kendal, and as such it is important to ensure that it is the most appropriate (sequentially preferable) site that gains permission. The other bulky goods retail units are more location specific, and tend to be located through choice and necessity in out of centre locations. One of the tests is availability. The timescale generally applied to this test is 5 years, and has emerged from Inspectors Appeal Decisions and High Court judgements. Paragraph 6.39 of the Guidance Notes advises that “…whether it is appropriate to assess availability over three to five years, or a longer time period will depend on local circumstances.” KRUFC is an out of centre location, which is the least preferable in sequential terms. The preference is for town centre, then edge of centre. However the fact that it out of centre is not in itself a reason for refusal, unless it can be proved that there are other sites which are sequentially preferable in terms of distance, that are also suitable, available and viable. There are two other sites which may be considered at this time: Canal Head and Kendal Cricket Club. Both sites have engaged in pre application discussions with the Council, held public exhibitions and have made representations against this application, on the grounds that their sites are sequentially preferable.
30 Kendal Cricket Club (KCC) This is an out of centre location. The development of this site would require the relocation of KCC to an alternative site, currently suggested as being Jubilee Fields. Even though this is an out of centre location, it is closer to the Town Centre than the application site as such would be sequentially preferable if all other tests are met. It is close to the Railway Station and has good public transport links. The Inspector looked at this site during the Public Inquiry. He states that: “whilst the site may be suitable and viable for the development proposed, there is a significant question mark over its availability…the current position of the Executive Committee is that KCC does not wish to relocate. It is accepted that there is no legal means by which KCC can be forced off the site before 2026. When or if this position will change is a matter of speculation and there is nothing in evidence before me to suggest that this might happen and the KCC site would become available within a reasonable timescale.” With regard to the three tests of the sequential approach, the proponents of the Cricket Club considered it meets all three tests. As such they sought to delay the determination of the Morbaine application on the basis of a forthcoming Extra- ordinary General Meeting, which would determine the views of KCC membership as to whether or not they wished to progress discussions about the redevelopment of the site and relocation of the club to another site. This meeting was held on 19 October 2011, and the membership voted 64 to 1 against the proposal. The club therefore considers the site to be unavailable.
Availability The site is owned by Fields in Trust and leased to KCC. Fields in Trust have not opposed discussions about the development. As stated above, a meeting of the membership of KCC was held on 19 October, specifically to discuss the possible redevelopment of the site and relocation of the club. The membership voted 64 -1 against the proposal and consequently confirmed that the site is not available. KCC have a lease on the site until 2026.
Suitability The site is well served by public transport and does have pedestrian linkages with the town centre. It is a sports field site within an area of mixed uses including industrial, commercial, quasi retailing and residential. It is therefore suitable for development of the nature proposed, subject to meeting normal criteria and the three tests. The concerns about increased traffic in northern Kendal and the impact on the AQMA would be the same as for the Rugby Club. However given agreement on both fronts for the Rugby Club it is conceivable that the same agreements could be found for KCC. The promoters of the site have indicated that it would accommodate a store of just over 8000 sq m (gross), smaller than, though comparable to, the store proposed as part of this application.
31 Viability If agreement could be reached with current tenants, extensive and detailed pre application discussions have been held about both this site and the Jubilee Fields site. It is therefore considered that submission of an application would not be significantly delayed. It is realistic, if the tenants are in agreement, to deliver this site within 5 years. The relocated Cricket Club would have significantly improved facilities and would be included as part of the delivery of improved outdoor recreational facilities as part of a Sports Village, a concept also heavily ingrained into the Council’s objectives in the Core Strategy.
Sequential Conclusion on Kendal Cricket Club Whilst being in agreement with the Inspector that the site is suitable and viable for a development as suggested, the position in terms of availability has been clarified by KCC. This accords with the conclusions of the Inspector, and there have been no other material changes in circumstances which may lead the Council to reach a different conclusion. Therefore this site fails the sequential test.
Canal Head This site is an edge of centre location, accessed from the one way system just off Aynam Road. It is occupied by a number of Landowners, including Gilbert Gilkes & Gordon, SLDC and Mealbank Properties. The relative proximity to the town centre means that the site is well served by pedestrian links, and other means of transport such as buses. The objection from the Canal Head developers indicates that one store of approx 9,290 sq m (gross) would be proposed on their site, therefore the net store area would be approx 2,500 sq m larger than the proposed supermarket at the Rugby Club. They contend that this would be appropriate and would not affect the vitality or viability of the town centre. The regeneration of Canal Head is considered to be a Key aim as set out in Policy CS2 of the Core Strategy. The aim is to designate a regeneration area at the former Kendal Canal Head area to be delivered through the preparation of an Area Action Plan (AAP). The Core Strategy justification text states that a comprehensive planning application would be considered and that applicants would not be refused solely on the basis of prematurity of the AAP. The developers of Canal Head are working to submit a planning application in advance of the AAP. It is important to note that the key components of the regeneration are considered to be canal based developments; possible restoration of the Canal; new commercial sector including a cluster of knowledge based industries; housing and appropriate scale retail developments. The current position of the AAP is described in the Policy Issues section of this report. The Council have since formally resolved to cease the then Preferred Options and have agreed to consult on a revised Preferred Option which includes retail use on the site. With regard to the three tests of the sequential approach the proponents of the Canal Head site consider it meets all three tests and therefore is sequentially preferable.
32 In October 2011, Gilkes were announced as a recipient of Regional Growth Fund (RGF) grant of £2.75m, subject to Due Diligence. “This is to provide a contribution towards the capital costs of the necessary works in rebuilding and improving the Gilkes premises, which would in itself then support the regeneration of the Canal Head Area” (letter from Signet Planning to Mr D Sykes, 2 November 2011). The proponents of the scheme argue that this is an indication of Government support for the principles of the scheme. They advise that the grant will assist in the viability and deliverability of the scheme, and increase return to between 15% and 20% (up from the 12% originally / or 13% as indicated in the objection document). They point out that the retail development, even with this grant, remains critical to the scheme and that without the supermarket, the scheme, and therefore regeneration, will not happen. A synopsis of the project proposal submitted to the RGF is as follows: • The project is to support the refurbishment and expansion proposals of a specialist renewable energy manufacturer based in Kendal Since 1853. • Total cost of project: £7,775,000.00 • RGF fund sought: £2,750,000.00 (This level of support is the company’s current best estimate of the difference between the cost of redevelopment on the current Kendal site and the costs of developing a comparable facility elsewhere). • Jobs Created: 25 • Jobs safeguarded: 157 • Indirect Jobs created: 470 • Indirect Jobs safeguarded: 90 • “…the retention of Gilkes on their existing site (sic) would play a significant role in unlocking the wider development and economic potential of Canal Head, facilitating a mixed use development with the potential to lever in excess of 70m of private investment” (based on a land sale between Gilkes and Genr8). • The application is based on the significant role Gilkes would place in unlocking the wider benefit of the site. These benefits include: • a new bridge over the river; • new supermarket (5,500sqm); • 550 New car parking spaces; • up to 200 new housing units including some affordable; • 120 bed hotel; • 2,250sq m office space; • public realm improvements; • re-location of Household Waste Recycling centre (CCC and council depot (SLDC). (to be agreed)
Availability The private sector landowners have signed documents allowing them to promote the
33 site as a whole, and the public sector landowners have indicated their willingness to negotiate the release of their sites. Both SLDC and CCC have landholdings in the development area. There are no landowners who currently have expressed opposition to the scheme. It is considered that the site is available, given the appropriate timescales involved.
Suitability Although there is support for the regeneration of the Canal Head area, it must be of a suitable form as set out by Policy CS2. The site itself is therefore clearly suitable for development of some form, which may include a retail element. To address site access, the current proposals include a new bridge over the River Kent, from New Road. The revised Preferred Option Report – October 2010, included a transport assessment which considered that a bridge was required to enable suitable highways access to Canal Head, based upon the Gilkes proposals. The Report recognised that the development would have impact on a number of junctions in the town. The report concluded that mitigation measures were possible at these junctions, though detailed modelling and design work would be required to verify that capacity issues would be addressed. The question of whether this site is suitable for such a development, given the apparent need for a bridge is relevant and appropriate. The bridge would link New Road to Little Aynam / Bridge Street. It would need to cross riverside Common Land at New Road. The designation would need to be changed, which requires agreement from SLDC as landowners, consultation with the public, and approval to deregister the land through application to the Secretary of State. The river itself is a designated flood area, and designated SSSI and SAC. Finally it is within the Conservation Area of Kendal. These factors mean that the design and construction methodology of the bridge will be complex, require time and potentially increase costs. There is still considerable work to be done. The highways implications of the development need to be carefully considered. The location of the site on the already congested one way system of Kendal may result in increased traffic using the network. As is the case with the Rugby Club, it may be that traffic volumes will not increase but that journeys will be re-ordered as a result of a development in this location. In any case junction and highway improvements will be required at a number of locations both close to the site and within the wider network. At present, the Council only has access to the work undertaken in the Revised Preferred Options report as described above, which indicates what highway works may be required. There is no agreed position between the Highways Authority and the developer on the junction improvements that may be required. At the planning application stage for the development, an agreed retail assessment would be required to accurately estimate the trip generation and model traffic impacts through the Saturn Model. This will identify capacity issues and where mitigating measures are required. The work in the Preferred Options Report indicates that a range of junctions are likely to require mitigation measures. Significant work will be required with the Highways Authority on the detailed Transport Assessments and to agree works and complete a
34 Section 278 Agreement. Some junction improvements may require Compulsory Purchase Orders (CPO’s). On the basis of current information, it is not possible to conclude with confidence that development as proposed on the Canal Head site would be acceptable to the functioning of the Kendal traffic system. As with the Rugby Club application, issues about Air Quality will need to be considered given the likely increase in standing traffic within the AQMA.
Viability Although the proponents of the scheme argue it would be viable i.e. that there is a reasonable probability of it occurring within 5 years, it is difficult to assess the viability of such a large scheme without access to detailed development appraisals. Summaries of appraisals have been provided which indicate the viability of the scheme with the larger retail floorspace, associated with the wider regeneration project. The proponents also state that the success of the RGF application strengthens the viability of the scheme. They also state that recent discussions with a retail end user suggest that the scale of retail provision may be reduced and still remain viable. As described under the suitability section above, the proponents say that the development of the Canal Head site, to include retail, requires the provision of a new bridge across the River Kent. This bridge would have to be privately funded, would be a significant cost to the development and be provided before the development was occupied. The developers have included the costs of the bridge in their development appraisal though without a detailed appraisal, it is not possible to accurately assess whether the financial provisions in the appraisal are realistic for the delivery of the bridge. The development also has a dependency on the relocation of the Council’s depot. Similar to the bridge, it is not possible to accurately assess whether the financial provisions in the appraisal are realistic to deliver the relocation. It is clear that there are some key issues which a development at Canal Head still has to address. They require full assessment, design, negotiation and approval with authorities and agencies to enable the development to proceed. These matters require time to address and will affect the chances of the deliverability of the scheme to be within 5 years. It is the developers view that they are able to address matters and deliver the scheme within 5 years. The impact of such a large store, in such proximity to the town centre, could severely unbalance the retail trends in the town, or it may complement the existing situation. The proposed retail store is much larger than that discussed at the Rugby Club and therefore it is not possible to assume that it would be acceptable in retail terms. Similarly the mix of proposals on the site may not achieve what the AAP set out to do. When considered at the appeal, and with a smaller retail store, the appeal Inspector, paragraph 22, states that “a development of this scale and nature would conflict with the lpa’s objectives for the redevelopment of this important area.” Since this appeal decision the Core Strategy has been adopted and Policy CS2: Kendal Strategy includes the designation of the Canal Head as a regeneration area. The following paragraphs justify this strategy (paragraph 3.32 and 3.33) and state that if an application is received in advance of adopting the AAP then inter alia “The
35 potential provision of an appropriate scale of retail development” will be part of the considerations. Appropriate is not defined, but would be a matter of interpretation when an application was submitted. The revised Preferred Options report may add clarity to this; however this document has not yet been made public and available, and has not been though the appropriate consultation process. Therefore its weight in materiality terms is limited. The development of the site with a large retail scheme as a catalyst for the wider regeneration is a benefit however, and there is stated Council support for the principle of development.
Sequential Conclusion on Canal Head
Suitability The site is evidently suitable for a development of the scale proposed at the Rugby Club, and this was agreed by the Inspector. This position has not changed, and the Core Strategy does reflect the importance of Canal Head as a regeneration site.
Availability The Inspector raised concerns about the availability of the site, however the main private landowners seem to now be moving forward, with the assistance of a development company, resolving some of the concerns about availability. Some of the land required, including the Depot and New Road common land, is owned by SLDC. Although the Council has indicated an in principle agreement to this, it has not been finalised. However, in the wider sense, there is confidence that the site as a whole would be available given the progress made since the Inquiry.
Viability It has been suggested that a 9290sq m superstore would be the anchor for this development and would make the development viable financially. However another test of viability is the deliverability within 5 years. In this respect there are two main points of concern. Firstly, highways: The location of the site within the already congested one way system of Kendal will result in increased traffic locally using the network. Junction and highway improvements may be required at a number of locations both close to the site and within the wider network. Although documents have been sent to County Council Highways, there has been no meaningful dialogue between the developers and highways and there is no agreed position on the number of junctions to be improved, or how they are to be improved. Certainly, without a fully agreed retail assessment the traffic impacts cannot be estimated and fed into the Saturn Model. This needs to be done to indicate where problem junctions will be to inform appropriate discussions about alterations. Given the scale and scope of potential impacts, such negotiations are likely to be extensive and protracted. Some of the works are likely to require Compulsory Purchase Orders which can be a time consuming process in itself and can only progress once there is an agreed position with the County Council. The details involved in signing the Section 278 Agreement (the legal agreement between the developer and Highways detailing exactly what works will be done and the costs involved, and requiring a great deal more detail than required at the Planning Application stage) can also add
36 extra time onto the negotiations as this would need to be agreed in advance of any works starting on the site. Additionally a new bridge is proposed. This would link New Road to Little Aynam / Bridge Street. There is the need to cross riverside common land at New Road. The designation would need to be changed, which requires agreement from SLDC as landowners, consultation with the public, and approval to deregister the land through application to the Secretary of State. The river itself is a designated flood area, and designated SSSI and SAC. Finally it is within the Conservation Area of Kendal. These factors mean that the design and construction methodology of the bridge will be complex, require time and potentially increase costs. Given there have been no meaningful discussions to date about the bridge, there is still considerable work to be done. There is also the AQMA, which affects traffic routes around and leading to the site. Any increase in traffic will affect air quality and therefore may not be acceptable. Therefore a scheme needs to be proposed which would mitigate the impacts of any increased traffic. This is only possible once the highways works have been largely agreed, and in conjunction with agreed traffic movement data, will lead to a detailed Air Quality Management Plan for the area. Given the proximity of the site to the AQMA, and the necessity for large delivery vehicles to move through the AQMA, resolving the air quality issue could be complicated and expensive. The second issue: is the scale of the proposed development. At the original inquiry, the supermarket proposed was of a comparable size to the Rugby Club. Given the data provided by Morbaine to support their application, it was reasonable for the Inspector to conclude that if a supermarket of the size proposed was feasible at the Rugby Club, it was also feasible at Canal Head. It is noted that the proposed supermarket at the Cricket Club was larger than this, at 7923 sq m, and may have been viable according to the Inspector. However since then, the proposed supermarket at Canal Head has grown to 9290 sq m (gross). The documents provided by Canal Head indicate that a store of this size is required to ensure the scheme is viable financially. However, normally it is the data provided by the retail assessment which will indicate the size of store that is appropriate for the locality, addressing the overtrading which currently occurs in Kendal. This is part of the measures to ensure that the new store should not adversely affect the vitality and viability of the Town Centre. It is recognised that the economic viability of a store is also a consideration. However, no data has been provided to indicate if a store of this size would be justifiable in terms of retail data / population data, or how it would affect the Town Centre. Without further data, it cannot be confidently assumed that a store of this size would be appropriate. If a smaller store would not be financially viable, which appears to be the argument made by the developers, then the site is not viable in the wider sense for retail development and consequently would fail the appropriate test. It would also potentially conflict with Policy EC16 of PPS4, ensuring that where development is on the edge of the town centre, that the proposal is of an appropriate scale (in gross terms) in relation to the size of the centre and its role in the hierarchy of centres. However it is not known, because insufficient information has been provided, how the need for a larger store is affected by costs for the wider redevelopment of the site. In sequential terms, it is only an alternative site for a supermarket that is to be considered and not the wider developments. The current argument of the Canal
37 Head developers is unclear and unsupported and therefore there remains doubt about the viability of the site. Whilst the Guidance Notes for PPS4 indicate that “it will rarely be necessary to undertake detailed development appraisals to test the viability of the sites”, this is one of the cases when the Council considers that a detailed appraisal would have either proved the Canal Head case in terms of there being capacity for a larger store and its effect on the vitality and viability of the Town Centre, or proved that the larger store could not be justified and a small store would have been reconsidered. The Guidance Notes also state: “…it will be inappropriate to reject a more central opportunity as being currently unviable without allowing a reasonable period of time to test whether a viable opportunity comes forward.” This is fair advice and appropriate. The proposed redevelopment of Canal Head has been under discussions for many years, with the detail of the scheme changing with each discussion. The size of the supermarket has increased from the Inquiry, to the Core Strategy Inquiry (7,900 sq m gross) to the objection document (9,290 sq m gross). The RGF fund bid indicates a supermarket of just 5,500 sq m. The latest letter from Signet Planning, dated 2 November 2011, indicates that there is a possibility that the proposed 9,290 sq m may be scaled down. Despite having provided evidence at the Public Inquiry in 2009, and there having been some progress of the site in terms of landowner agreement and appointment of a developer company, no final layout or masterplan has been presented. Since 2009, the Rugby Club application has been under consideration and it has been clear to all parties that only one supermarket could be granted in Kendal, yet it was only with the Objection document from Canal Head that the increased size of supermarket was formally unveiled with breakdowns of floor area (gross / net, and respective comparison / convenience). The conflict with the gazette article and RGF fund details indicate that a proposed scheme is far from being decided. It has been previously indicated on more that one occasion that an application for the site would be forthcoming by certain times. To date we have not seen a finalised layout and there has been no planning application. Additionally the RGF fund bid outlines the development proposed. We are currently seeking clarification as to the nature of the bid and how binding the described development is. For example it lists a 5,500sq supermarket and housing. The supermarket size has changed and the numbers for housing is dependant on the Village Green application. If the site is bound by the submitted description that will affect timescales and layout. Given the likely time frame involved in preparing a planning application, having appropriate pre application discussions, preparing application supporting evidence, as well as resolving the issues detailed above during and after the application stage, should the proposal be found acceptable, then it would seem unlikely that the site could be considered for development formally and all issues resolved within the next 5 years. A reasonable time scale, in the last two years, has given the Canal Head developers the option to progress and come forward with a site that could be sequentially preferable. However it remains the fact that there are still considerable legal issues with regard to land designations, ownership, relocations and development that could affect the viability and potentially even availability, resulting in a site that is not sequentially preferable at this moment.
38 Sequential Assessment Conclusions There are no other sites within Kendal that should be considered as part of the Sequential Assessment. Although there are some vacancy rates at existing retail and industrial units, none are big enough to accommodate a significant part of the proposed development, although some disaggregation of the current proposal could occur to other sites. However the Inspector himself noted that the ability to relocate a small proportion of the proposed development is not reason in itself to refuse the application. PPS4 also states that local authorities should not seek arbitrary sub- division of proposals. It may be possible to relocate the supermarket element of the Rugby Club to Canal Head in terms of suitability and size of site, however there are doubts about the viability and deliverability of a supermarket of the size proposed by the Rugby Club and whether or not, given the issues affecting the development of the site in terms of highways and ownership, the site could be delivered in 5 years. Although in location terms, the application site is the least preferable, the two significant alternatives do not convincingly pass the three sequential tests, and therefore cannot be considered as sequentially preferable to KRUFC. Given the lack of other sequentially preferable sites, the site at KRUFC is considered to meet the tests set out by PPS4, Policy EC15.
Impact Assessment PPS4 also carries a requirement for an Impact Assessment under Policy EC16 and EC17. This assessment concerns itself, amongst other things, with the impact of the proposal on the vitality and viability of the town centre, future impacts of the proposal in terms of trade and turnover on the town and wider area, and the appropriateness of the scale of the proposal in relation to the size of the centre. These issues were considered at the Public Inquiry and the impacts were considered to be acceptable. As discussed above in the compliance section of the report, there have been no material changes in the retail analysis of the town and wider area.
Air Quality Since the original application was submitted it has been agreed that the Air Quality Management Area (AQMA) should be extended. It now covers Highgate, Lowther Street, Kent Street, Stramongate, Blackhall Road, Sandes Avenue, Station Road, Wildman Street and Longpool. This is due to the monitoring of levels of Nitrogen Dioxide at above the Government's objective level in locations outside Lowther Street. This will take the north east tip of the AQMA up to the railway bridge to the south of the proposed development. The development will therefore be on the edge of an AQMA and air quality is a material planning consideration. Any development which would increase congestion and levels of Nitrogen Dioxide in Kendal and in particular within the AQMA would be unacceptable. A detailed Air Quality Assessment was requested from the developers to show that air quality would be improved. The process of assessing air quality, takes into account accurate assessments of traffic numbers and routes using the SATURN highway modelling programme. SATURN is designed to show the proposed alterations, and calculate vehicle numbers using each junction; taking into account displaced traffic and altered routes as a result of the changes. The modelling plots
39 the expected traffic movements for the next 10 years. A provisional Air Quality Assessment has been considered, and updated at various stages of the application, taking into account each suggested change to the Highways layout. There is some difficulty in preparing a detailed Air Quality Assessment given that the end users have not been identified, and as such the models cannot be run and provide exact data about traffic movements, so the precise details of the mitigation measures cannot be assessed at this time. However indicative details provided to date, and a more updated model has been requested and is anticipated prior to Planning Committee, show that air quality will not be reduced as a result of this development. If this is indeed the case, and the results will be reported to Members, then it would be appropriate to grant outline permission for the development, with a condition that requires a full Air Quality Assessment to be submitted with the Reserved Matters application. This allows us to be certain that the AQMA would not be harmed by this proposal, given our confidence in the principle at this stage.
Compliance In all cases, in order to gain permission, a development must conform with the Development Plan for the area unless material considerations indicate otherwise. Saved Policy R2 of the South Lakeland Local Plan and Policy CS7.5 of the Core Strategy indicates that development outwith the town centre will not be allowed unless it can be demonstrated that it does not have an adverse impact on the vitality and viability of the Town centre. The relevance of the Previous Inspector’s decision is dealt with below. It is noted that the Inspector studied the results of the 2008/2009 Health Check of Kendal, and looked at vacancy rates within the town centre, as well as planned developments such as the expansion of Marks & Spencer and the proposed supermarket at Grange. He concluded that: “In these circumstances, I consider the proposed development would not have an unacceptable impact on the vitality or viability of Kendal Town Centre.” The 2008/2009 Health Check is still the most recent document on the health of Kendal Town Centre. There have been further approvals of retail stores in the District, notably a larger Spar and new Booths in Milnthorpe. However there have been no material changes in the retail provision within Kendal itself, or to the assessments covering the town centre. As such there is no evidence before the Committee that would indicate that a view contrary to that taken by the Inspector should be made, and surmise that the proposed retail development would not be harmful to the vitality and viability of Kendal Town Centre, and consequently would be in accordance with Saved Policy R2, Core Strategy CS7.5 and EC 16 of PPS4. Core Strategy Policies CS1.2 and CS2 relate to the role of Kendal as a Principal Service Centre, and ensuring that the development is appropriate. The impact on the wider concerns of Kendal and the District are controlled by these policies. The Core Strategy has been adopted since the Inspector’s decision and so these have not been considered previously. However the location of this development in Kendal and the submission of outline travel plans and air quality documents indicate a compliance with the aims of these policies.
40 Policy CS2, also refers to the designation of a regeneration area at Canal head. This is the only regeneration area listed in Kendal. The policy indicates that an AAP will be prepared. The text which follows this policy in the Core Strategy amplifies this objective as follows: 3.31 A significant regeneration opportunity exists to bring forward co- ordinated and complementary development within the formal canal head area, including improvements to Kendal’s riverside, linkages to the town centre and the conservation area. 3.32 The regeneration of the former canal head area will be delivered though the preparation of an area action plan. This will explore: • ways to bring about the possible restoration of the former canal; • the delivery of a new commercial sector to include a cluster of knowledge based industries; • other canal-based developments complementing and linking with the town centre; • ways to deliver a substantial element of new housing that would make a significant contribution towards the Council’s achievement of targets for development on previously developed land; and • the potential provision of an appropriate scale of retail development.” 3.33 In order to enable the early delivery of the regeneration scheme, any comprehensive planning applications submitted prior to the adoption of the AAP would be considered in the context of the criteria listed above, the objectives of the emerging AAP and other elements of the Core Strategy. Applications would not be refused solely on the basis of prematurity of the AAP. Clearly the provision of the retail development at the Rugby Club would not deliver this objective of the policy. It is argued, by the proponents of the canal head development, that allowing retail development at the Rugby Club would be contrary to the objectives of this policy by preventing the development of Canal Head. They advocate that it is only retail use that will deliver sufficient value to enable the delivery of a mixed use development which is capable of delivering the objectives of the policy. The Canal Head development requires additional work to demonstrate how far it can meet the stated objectives, and there is further discussion required over the scale of retail that would be appropriate. However, the Council has, in its work to revise the Preferred Options for the AAP, acknowledged that a residential led scheme will not enable the delivery of the AAP objectives. High value generating uses are limited and as such, whilst it is acknowledged that more detailed work is required to finalise a scheme, it is considered that a retail use will enable delivery. A full options appraisal would be required to justify the argument that only a retail led scheme would enable regeneration and / or retain Gilkes. At present this information has not been made available. Core Strategy Policy CS10.2 relates to the transport impact of the development. This was a matter of significant concern at the original inquiry, and is addressed in more detail below. However it is considered that the changes now proposed to the wider
41 network, by the applicant, will overcome the Inspector’s concerns satisfactorily and therefore ensuring the development is compliant with this policy. Saved Policies S2, S10 and S3, and Core Strategy Policies CS8.10, CS8.7 and CS8.3 are all detailed development management policies and would be more closely considered at Reserved Matters stage. However there is confidence that each of these policies can be met with an appropriate design and layout. In terms of PPS4 and the appropriate policies, it should be clear that the proposal meets the appropriate policies, as follows. Policy EC15: sets out certain criteria to be addressed, which are concluded as follows: • The sequential assessment is considered in greater depth previously in this report. Each site has been assessed for availability, suitability and viability. • Whilst there are no “in centre” sites, there are two “edge of centre” and one “out of centre” site capable of taking all or part of the proposed site. • It is acknowledged that in terms of pedestrian accessibility, the most preferable site would be Canal Head, then the Cricket Club followed by the Rugby Club. • Given the lack of availability of other sites, it would be hard to show the flexibility indicated at EC15.1.d, regardless of the fact that it applies to in or edge of centre development, whereas the proposed site is out of centre. Given this, and the preceding Sequential Assessment, it is considered that the sequential assessment as required by EC15 has been fully complied with and shows that the proposed site is appropriate in terms of its location. Policy EC17: A sequential approach has been adopted and followed, resulting in the application site being the only site available; there would be no adverse impacts in terms of any of the impacts set out in Policies EC10.2 in that the buildings would be designed to BREEAM standards and the development would be subject to a travel plan to reduce emissions and reduce reliance on car led travel; promote bus and cycle routes; create employment and allow the Rugby Club to relocate and regenerate their facilities: also Policy EC16.1 in that it would not affect existing, planned or committed investment in the centre; that vitality and viability of the centre is not adversely affected; there are no allocated sites that would be affected by this proposal and it has considered the impact into the future using population and retail expenditure data. There are no locally important impacts on centres that would be affected by this proposal. The Canal Head developers argue that their development would have a positive impact on the town centre, increasing linked trips between the development and existing retail area. However this claim is unsupported. Policy EC17.2 - indicates that the positive and negative impacts of the proposal should be considered in terms of the impacts listed in EC10.2 and EC16.1, and any other material considerations.
42 Policy EC10.2 Positives Negatives Whether the proposal Compliance with Loss of green field with effect has been planned over BREEAM, agreement to on local carbon dioxide levels; the lifetime of the travel plans to reduce car distance from town centre may development to limit journeys; additional limit walking; nature of carbon dioxide funding for bus and cycle shopping means car journeys emissions and minimise routes; landscaping, Air more likely than other modes of vulnerability or provide Quality considered in an transport, will increase traffic resilience to, climate outline management movements in this area of change. plan. town.
The accessibility of the Existing bus routes to Distance from town centre proposal by a choice of nearby supermarket and and difficulties of highway means of transport school, expansion of bus network which is naturally including walking, network through constrained by existing cycling, public transport additional funding; buildings. and the car, the effect on contribution to new cycle local traffic levels and network; pavement congestion after public access and alteration to transport and traffic highway network should management measures help traffic flow more have been secured. easily on principal routes.
Whether the proposal This is an outline application so design and layout of the secures a high quality site are not yet agreed and inclusive design which takes the opportunities available for improving the character and quality of the area and the way it functions.
The impact on economic Will deliver more jobs (circa The proposal is not within and physical 450) which will bolster local the area which the Core regeneration in the area economy and allow the Strategy identifies as a including the impact on established Rugby Club to regeneration area – the deprived areas and move to new and Canal Head. There is a social inclusion appropriate facilities. risk that the proposal may objectives. undermine the deliverability of proposals to regenerate Canal Head as it will remove the prospect of the inclusion of high value supermarket led development to deliver the Canal Head regeneration. The Canal Head proposal has greater
43 scope to provide growth in higher paid employment.
The impact on local Deliver 450 jobs locally. May affect the scale of employment. regeneration of Canal Head and the number and quality of jobs which could be created there instead of the Rugby Club site (see above).
Policy EC16.1 Comment The impact of the proposal It is not considered that there will be any negative effect on existing, committed and on any of the existing, committed or planned planned public and private investments in the area. It is anticipated that the retail investment in a centre or development in its wider sense will add to the value of centres in the catchment Kendal and encourage more investment and visits, and area of the proposal. reduce spillage to other areas. However it is accepted that the RGF fund bid given that Canal Head is a planned investment, will be affected by the loss of the supermarket, and the Canal Head proponents suggest that there will be a loss of current investment levels if Gilkes were to relocate.
The impact of the proposal This was considered at the previous Inquiry and it is on town centre vitality and considered that whilst the Core Strategy has been viability, including local adopted, there are no other material considerations that consumer choice and the would affect the previous Inspector’s assessment of the range and quality of the impact of the proposal on the town centres in the area. comparison and Consequently the impacts are considered acceptable. convenience retail offer.
The impacts of the There are no allocated sites for retail development proposal on allocated sites outside the town centres. outside town centres being development in accordance with the development plan.
In the context of retail or This is a retail proposal, and when the retail leisure proposal, the assessment was updated it took into account new impact of the proposal on population and expenditure data, updated since the in-centre trade / turnover Inquiry. This forecasts growth and expenditure for the and on trade in the wider future. It should be noted that the SLRS, which informs area, taking account of this process, was written in 2006. The capacity is current and future considered to be acceptable for the future and that consumer expenditure trade over the next five years will not be adversely
44 capacity in the catchment affected. area up to five years from the time the application is made, and, where applicable, on the rural economy.
If located in or on the edge This is an out of centre development therefore this does of a town centre, whether not apply. the proposal is of an appropriate scale (in terms of gross floorspace) in relation to the size of the centre and its role in the hierarchy of centres.
Any locally important This is a rural economy, and as such development must impacts on centre under be appropriate to this. We must also consider the role Policy EC3.1.e. of Canal Head in regeneration terms, and the impact this development would have on that site, which has the potential to create stronger linkages with the centre. Allowing a supermarket on this site, would prevent a supermarket on canal head, and would limit the regeneration opportunity for the site.
In terms of Ec10.2, there are clearly positive and negative impacts to the proposal, however given this is an application that would secure a sustainable economic growth (EC10.1) it should therefore be treated favourably. In relation to the cumulative effect of recent permissions, developments under construction and completed developments, those of note and within the 1km distance, would include the Auction Mart, North East Sandylands housing development and Marks & Spencer, as well as some new industrial units in Mintsfeet Estate. These all have permission, although works have not yet commenced on any. These will all add traffic to the network, but this has been considered when discussing highway implications and air quality and the cumulative impacts are considered to be acceptable. As such, and taking all the above into account it is considered that the proposed development would be in accordance with Policy EC17
Other matters It is a current policy requirement that all developments of this nature submit a Travel Plan. This is a long term management strategy for an occupier or a site that seeks to deliver sustainable transport objectives through positive action. This management strategy is set out in a document that is regularly reviewed to assess its effectiveness in delivering the intended results, or amended to attempt to resolve any failure to meet the targets set.
45 This is a user specific document, with each unit users specifying how they intend to manage the travel of their staff and reduce car dependence. As this is an outline application, the end users are not known and it is therefore difficult to predict the exact models of travel. An outline Travel Plan has been submitted with the application, indicating an approximate plan which would be in accordance with the aims of the policy, however this is not specific enough to meet the needs of the policy. Given the difficulties associated with agreeing details at the outline stage, it would be appropriate to have confidence that such a plan can be agreed upon and require that it is submitted before any of the units are occupied. The Section 106 Agreement will back this condition up, by enforcing the penalty section of the Agreement, whereby if users do not meet their targets a financial penalty must be paid. The site is within Flood Zone 2, and this has been considered in terms of potential flooding issues to the development and displacement of water to surrounding properties and users. A surface water drainage scheme will help to control the flows of water falling on the site. A flood risk was submitted and assessed and it is not considered that the scheme will increase flood risk in other locations. The planning permission for the relocation of the Rugby Club is still valid and would provide equal to better facilities than currently exist, and as such developing this site would not be harmful to the current supply of recreational facilities in the town. A clause in the S106 Agreement would ensure that the development of the Rugby Club site could not commence until KRUFC have fully relocated to completed facilities. An S106 Agreement is essential for a development of this nature. Section 106 (S106) of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 allows a Local Planning Authority (LPA) to enter into a legally-binding agreement or planning obligation with a landowner in association with the granting of planning permission. These agreements are a way of delivering or addressing matters that are necessary to make a development acceptable in planning terms. They are increasingly used to support the provision of services and infrastructure, such as highways, recreational facilities, education, health and affordable housing. The scope of such agreements is laid out in the government’s Circular 05/2005. This has been supplemented by the CIL legislation. The NPPF proposes that the circular be updated to incorporate the CIL, but until that time, the matters agreed as part of a S106 must be: • relevant to planning; • necessary to make the proposed development acceptable in planning terms; • directly related to the proposed development; • fairly and reasonably related in scale and kind to the proposed development; • reasonable in all other respects. The scope of the S106 would cover a number of key elements. • That works could not start on the retail site, until the Rugby Club has been fully relocated and the site is wholly vacant. • The implementation of the travel plan, including the financial penalties if the targets are not met. • A financial contribution towards the provision of public art, either on or off site.
46 • A significant financial contribution towards a cycle route from the town centre to Queen Katherines Avenue, which has already been proposed by County Highways. • A financial contribution towards the provision of a new or extended bus route to the site, which may or may not take in other sites such as K village. • Provision of information boards, similar to those already found in the town centre, on the site which will promote linkages to the town centre.
Full details about the access, layout, appearance, design, materials and landscaping would be submitted as part of the Reserved Matters application. The layout submitted is just indicative and may well vary once the users are agreed. It would be at this next stage that details about noise insulation, servicing spaces, noise reduction measures, lighting, green technologies and appearance would be considered. One of the most common points of concern about supermarket and retail development is the noise created at unsociable hours. A condition is suggested that would restrict the opening hours of the units, and also restrict the times that deliveries could be received. A further condition is suggested to indicate how deliveries will be managed to try and prevent vehicles, especially refrigerated wagons, parking on local roads waiting for the service yard to open. The hours of opening have been chosen as being appropriate in terms of opening hours on other retail parks of similar nature and the proximity of the site to housing. It is worth noting at this stage that ASDA currently operates on a 24 hour basis, and although Morrison’s does not, there was no restriction on opening hours placed on the store when permission was granted. Therefore both existing large supermarkets could operate 24 hours a day, and it would be inappropriate in terms of competition, which is now inherently part of the planning process through Planning for Growth, to severely restrict opening hours of the new supermarket. This must be balanced against the need to protect the nearby residential properties for excessive noise at unsociable hours. Undoubtedly the development of this site for retail will impact on the residential properties in the vicinity, however the residential position has not changed since the Inspector determined the appeal in 2010, and given that it was determined an appropriate site to develop, we are bound by that decision and must consider that any harm caused to local residents can be controlled by conditions within acceptable bounds.
SUMMARY The outcome of the Inspector’s report left only highway matters to be resolved. It is considered that the proposals made by the applicant will help to ease traffic flow issues in northern Kendal and as such the highways objection is considered to be overcome. Given the time elapsed since this decision and the change in circumstances regarding Air Quality and the other potential sites, we have also had to consider these matters as material concerns. We have also had to reconsider the terms of PPS4, ie the sequential and impact assessments, which encompass the impact on the vitality and viability on the Town Centre; look at the Core Strategy which has been adopted since the Public Inquiry; the progress of the AAP; and recent
47 ministerial statements such as Planning for Growth. Air Quality has been addressed, but a final assessment cannot be submitted until the highways works are agreed via an S278 Agreement. However there is sufficient confidence that this development would not reduce air quality and it could be dealt with at the Reserved Matters stage. Finally the Sequential Assessment has been carried out. Although the alternative sites have progressed, there is still significant doubt about the viability of Canal Head within the next 5 years, and there is significant doubt about the availability of Kendal Cricket Club. Consequently, the Rugby Club is still the sequentially preferable site for a new retail development. The proponents of the Canal Head scheme hinge the importance of the development on the retention of Gilkes in Kendal. Gilkes are an important part of the town, in terms of history and employment provision. Clearly retaining them is desirable. However in terms of this process, it is not about retaining Gilkes. The decision making process needs to focus on the availability of another site for a supermarket. Additionally the claims by the Canal Head developers that allowing a supermarket is the only way Gilkes will stay are unproven. No other schemes have been suggested or put forward, and whilst the retention of Gilkes and the regeneration of Canal Head are clearly important to the Council and area, we are not considering an application for that development at this time. Therefore, whilst important in terms of delivering Core Strategy objectives, the weight attached to the retention of Gilkes as part of the proposed scheme must be given appropriate weight in the assessment. Focus must remain on the Rugby Club and whether or not there is a site which is sequentially preferable. Further work, including a fully evidenced options and impacts assessment, by the Canal Head developers would be required to provide information and justification so that it can be confidently argued that retail development at the Rugby Club would prevent development at Canal Head and therefore would be contrary to Policy CS2. Morbaine have acknowledged the RGF fund bid, and have responded, acknowledging that it is good for Gilkes but is not “seed capital” to being about a redevelopment, supermarket and bridge, but is money to help Gilkes redevelop. Additionally this money does not overcome the major issues with this application in terms of finalised scheme, ownership, highway etc. They also counter that claims made that this money would pave the way for £80m to flow into the site from the private sector, by doubting the reality and suggesting that a funding agreement is provided to back up the claims. They conclude with the positives about their scheme, creating circa 450 jobs on the new site, allowing the Rugby Club to relocate to modern and appropriate facilities, and are ready to deliver potentially within 2 years. Within this time, they say, other options for retaining Gilkes could be explored. Therefore they maintain that there are no other sequential sites available, despite the recent updates and progressions by Canal Head. There is capacity within Kendal to accommodate another supermarket. Only one large new supermarket would be allowable under the current retail policies and assessments. It is therefore important that all the above factors about alternative sites, including their regeneration benefits (be it commercial regeneration or improved replacement sports facilities) be carefully assessed to ensure that this is the site that best meets Kendal’s wider needs and objectives.
48 RECOMMENDATION: GRANT subject to the submission of details of the application to the Secretary of State for determination, subject to the signing of an appropriate Section 106 Agreement and subject to the following conditions:
Condition (1) The development to which this permission relates must be begun not later than whichever is the later of the following dates: FIVE YEARS from the date hereof the expiration of two years from the final approval of the reserved matters, or, in the case of approval on different dates, the final approval of the last such matters to be approved. Application for approval of the reserved matters must be made not later than THREE YEARS from the date hereof. Reason To comply with the requirements of Section 92 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990.
Condition (2) Details of the appearance, landscaping, layout, access and scale, (hereinafter called "the reserved matters") shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority before any development begins and the development shall be carried out as approved.
Reason To ensure a satisfactory standard of development on the site.
Condition (3) The development hereby permitted shall be carried out in accordance with the following approved plan: red line plan 6549- 018 received by the Local Planning Authority on 8 Mar 2010. Reason For the avoidance on doubt and in the interests of proper planning.
Condition (4) No development shall take place, including acts of demolition, until the details of the access to the site have been agreed in writing with the Local Planning Authority. Reason In the interests of highway safety.
Condition (5) No development shall take place, including acts of demolition, until the highways works have been agreed via a Section 278 Agreement, and a copy of the Agreement has been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. Furthermore, before the retail units hereby granted are first brought into use, all the highways works, as contained in the S278 Agreement shall be fully completed. Reason To ensure that the highway network and access can accommodate the changes in traffic patterns as a result of this development and in accordance with Saved Policy R2 of the South Lakeland Local Plan.
49
Condition (6) Demolition or construction works shall not take place outside 08.00 to 18.00 hours Mondays to Fridays and 08.00 to 13.00 hours on Saturdays and at no time on Sundays or Bank Holidays. Reason To protect the amenity of neighbouring occupiers.
Condition (7) No development shall take place, including any works of demolition, until a Construction Method Statement has been submitted to, and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The approved Statement shall be adhered to throughout the construction period. The Statement shall provide for: the parking of vehicles of site operatives and visitors; loading and unloading of plant and materials; storage of plant and materials and the siting of portacabins used in construction; the erection and maintenance of security hoarding including decorative displays and facilities for public viewing, where appropriate; wheel washing facilities; measures to control the emission of dust and dirt during construction; a scheme for recycling / disposing of waste resulting from demolition and construction works. Reason To protect the amenity of nearby residents. Also in the interests of highway safety.
Condition (8) No retail premises hereby permitted shall be open for customers between 22.00 hours and 07.00 hours. Reason To protect the nearby occupiers from noise nuisance at unsociable hours.
Condition (9) The proposed supermarket shall not exceed 5,110 sq m gross internal floorspace area and the net sales area 1 shall not exceed 3,066 sq m. Reason To ensure that the proposal does not exceed the area of floorspace considered in the supporting quantitative assessment and to ensure that retail uses permitted do not adversely impact on shopping centres within the retail hierarchy, in accordance with Policy R2 of the South Lakeland Local Plan.
Condition (10) No more than 35% of the net sales area 1 of the supermarket shall be used for the sale of non-food products. Reason To ensure that the proposal does not impact negatively on shopping centres within the retail hierarchy with a high percentage
50 of non-food floorspace, in accordance with Saved Policy R2 of the South Lakeland Local Plan.
Condition (11) Not less than 65% of the net sales area 1 of the supermarket shall be used for the sale of food products. Reason To ensure that the proposal does not impact negatively on shopping centres with too high a percentage of convenience goods.
Condition (12) The proposed retail warehouses including any garden centre shall not exceed 5,573 sq m gross internal floorspace area and the net sales area 1 shall not exceed 4,458 sq m. Reason To ensure that the proposal does not exceed the area of floorspace considered in the supporting quantitative assessment and to ensure that retail uses permitted do not adversely impact on shopping centres within the retail hierarchy in accordance with Saved Policy R2 of the South Lakeland Local Plan.
Condition (13) The non-food retail warehouse units shall be restricted to the sale of DIY; gardening and related products; furniture; floor coverings; household furnishings; electrical appliances; audio visual, telephone and computer equipment; bicycles and care and bicycle accessories; pets and pet supplies; sports and camping equipment; office equipment and supplies; toys; and hobby equipment. Reason To ensure that the proposal does not impact negatively on shopping centres within the retail hierarchy with a high percentage floorspace dedicated to the sale of non-bulky goods, in accordance with Saved Policy R2 of the South Lakeland Local Plan.
Condition (14) No more than three of the retail warehouse units to be provided shall have a gross retail floorspace of less than 929 sq m and no retail warehouse units shall at any time be provided or subdivided to create one or more units of less than 465 sq m gross internal floorspace, without the express consent of the Local Planning Authority. Reason To ensure that the proposal does not provide units of a similar size to those available within shopping centres within the retail hierarchy, in accordance with Saved Policy R2 of the South Lakeland Local Plan and the South Lakeland Retail Study.
Condition (15) Development shall not begin until a surface water drainage scheme for the site, based on sustainable drainage principles and an assessment of the hydrological and hydro-geological context of the development has been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The scheme shall subsequently be implemented in accordance with the approved details before the development is completed.
51 The scheme shall also comply with the Environment Agency’s “Greenfield Run-off Criteria - Specification Summary for Developers”. Reason To prevent the increased risk of flooding, to improve and protect water quality, improve habitat and amenity, and ensure future maintenance of the surface water drainage system in accordance with the provisions of Planning Policy Statement 25 – Development and Flood Risk (PPS25).
Condition (16) Before the retail units hereby granted are first brought into use, external lighting shall be installed in accordance with a scheme which shall have first been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The scheme shall include the specification of the type, size, wattage, location, intensity, hours of illumination and direction of the lighting, calculations for the distribution, overspill and glare. The lighting shall be maintained in accordance with the approved scheme at all times thereafter and express planning permission shall be obtained for the installation of any additional lighting. Reason To protect the amenity of nearby occupiers and minimise the light pollution in accordance with Policy C5 of the South Lakeland Local Plan.
Condition (17) The retail units hereby granted shall not first be brought into use until the operators have submitted to the Local Planning Authority for its written approval, a Travel Plan which shall identify the measures that will be undertaken to encourage the achievement of a modal shift away from the use of private cars to visit the site, to sustainable transport modes. The measures identified in the Travel Plan shall be implemented by the applicant before the retail store is first brought into use and shall be thereafter maintained. Reason To aid the delivery of sustainable transport objectives in accordance with Tr10 of the South Lakeland Local Plan and extended Policy T31 of the Cumbria and Lake District Joint Structure Plan.
Condition (18) A report reviewing the effectiveness of the Travel Plan and including any necessary amendments or measures shall be prepared by the operator(s) and submitted for the approval of the Local Planning Authority 12 months after the building has first been brought into use. The agreed amendments shall be implemented by the operator(s) within 12 months of the approval by the Local Planning Authority and shall be thereafter maintained. Reason To aid the delivery of sustainable transport objectives in accordance with Tr10 of the South Lakeland Local Plan and extended Policy T31 of the Cumbria and Lake District Joint Structure Plan.
52 Condition (19) The car park shall not be used for any purpose between 22.30 hours and 06.30 hours unless otherwise agreed in writing by the Local Planning Authority. A mechanism to prevent access between these times shall be agreed in writing with the Local Planning Authority and installed prior to the occupancy of the first unit and shall be maintained as such thereafter. Reason To protect the amenity of neighbouring occupiers from noise disturbance at unsocial hours.
Condition (20) There shall be no deliveries arriving or leaving the site (including the emptying of waste containers), delivery or service vehicle movements within the site or any external movement of goods or roll cages between the hours of 22.00 hours and 06.00 hours. Reason To protect the amenity of neighbouring occupiers from noise disturbance at unsocial hours.
Condition (21) Before the retail units hereby granted are first brought into use, an operational plan shall be submitted indicating how deliveries and delivery vehicles will be managed to prevent vehicles creating nuisance to nearby residential properties outside of approved opening hours and during loading / unloading. The plan shall include sound mitigation measures for the loading area. Reason To prevent unnecessary noise and disturbance to residential properties as a result of vehicles waiting to access the site and whilst loading and unloading.
Condition (22) No development shall commence within the site until the applicant has secured the implementation of a programme of archaeological work in accordance with a written scheme of investigation which has been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. This written scheme will include the following components: (i) an archaeological evaluation to be undertaken in accordance with the agreed written scheme of investigation; (ii) an archaeological recording programme the scope of which will be dependent upon the results of the evaluation and will be in accordance with the agreed written scheme of investigation; (iii) where appropriate, a post-excavation assessment and analysis, preparation of a site archive ready for deposition at a store approved by the Local Planning Authority, completion of an archive report, and publication of the results in a suitable journal. Reason To afford reasonable opportunity for an examination to be made to
53 determine the existence of any remains of archaeological interest within the site and for the preservation, examination or recording of such remains, in accordance with Policy C19 of the South Lakeland Local Plan.
Condition (23) The buildings shall achieve a BREEAM rating of Good or above. Each building shall not be brought into use until final certification has been issued for that building certifying that the specified BREEAM rating has been achieved. Reason In the interests of resource conservation and environmental sustainability in accordance with Policy CS8.7 of the adopted South Lakeland Core Strategy.
Condition (24) A biodiversity plan shall be submitted prior to the erection of each building, showing how that building will incorporate features to support biodiversity such as bat boxes, bird boxes / roosts and planting. Reason To mitigate against the loss of the green fields and in accordance with Policy CS8.4 of the adopted South Lakeland Core Strategy.
Condition (25) Prior to the commencement of development, a complete Air Quality Assessment shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The assessment shall include all necessary data to show that air quality will not be reduced by the development. All mitigation measures outlined in the report will be implemented prior to use commencing of any unit, or as otherwise may be agreed in writing with the Local Planning Authority, and shall be maintained thereafter. Reason To comply with the requirement of Policy CS2 of the adopted South Lakeland Core Strategy.
REASON FOR GRANTING PLANNING PERMISSION The principles of the proposed retail development, car parking, servicing areas and access, are considered to be acceptable and in accordance with the aims and objectives of Policies CS1.2, CS2, CS7.5, CS9.2 and CS10.2 of the adopted South Lakeland Core Strategy. Additionally there are no sequentially preferable sites and the impact of the proposal is considered to be appropriate in terms of PPS4.
54 SCHEDULE A
Complex Planning Applications
SCHEDULE No: 2 SL/2011/0315
PRESTON PATRICK: MILLNESS LANE MILLNESS CROOKLANDS LA7 7NT
PROPOSAL: ERECTION OF TWO STOREY DWELLING
MR DAVID ASKEW
24/11/2011 E353551 N483086
SUMMARY: The revised design and positioning of the house is an improvement on the original submission in terms of its appearance and its effect on the nearby property. The site, together with the lane and nearby land, is prone to flooding but the Environment Agency has raised no objection to the development. Grant.
PRESTON PATRICK PARISH COUNCIL: The Parish Council was opposed to this application as originally submitted for the following reasons : (1) Millness is not identified in the Council’s Local Development Framework as being suitable for additional development unless it is for affordable housing to meet a specific local need. There is no such justification in this case. (2) The scale of the proposed dwelling is excessive in relation to the adjoining properties and would have a detrimental impact upon them. (3) There is serious concern about flooding. The development of this site will have the effect of diverting flood waters into neighbouring dwellings and gardens and that the mitigation measures outlined in the Flood Risk Assessment would seem to be insufficient. Should the District Council be minded to approve this application, further investigation is recommended. The Parish Council has made the following representations in respect of the amended proposals : (1) The Parish Council has noted that the District Council has accepted the principle of a house on the site and that the revised plans show a reduction in the scale of the proposed building. However, it is considered that a further reduction in the scale and improvements to the design/use of materials are required to better reflect the scale and character of adjacent dwellings.
55 (2) There remains a serious concern about localised flooding issues and it is considered that development on this site will have the effect of diverting flood waters that accumulate currently on the application site into neighbouring dwellings and gardens. Since the application was first considered in June, there have been two further localised flooding incidents that have affected the adjacent properties and, because of this, residents are now saying that they are having difficulties obtaining insurance for their properties. The flooding of Skip Burn is exacerbated by a drainage channel from the M6 motorway that drains surface water, gravel and silt into Skip Burn immediately to the east of the application site. The Skip Burn requires permanent continual management to prevent flooding, therefore, the Parish Council considers that a legally binding agreement or planning conditions should be put in place to ensure that all of the requirements of the Flood Risk Assessment and the Environment Agency are met and maintained by the property owner.
CUMBRIA HIGHWAYS: No fundamental objections.
ENVIRONMENT AGENCY: Because of known flooding problems currently experienced by neighbouring properties, the Environment Agency recommends that the following conditions be attached should planning permission be granted : • Finished floor level to be no lower than 41.5m AOD. • A maintenance plan for Skip Burn. • A scheme to ensure that Skip Burn is cleared to the modelled capacity before development is commenced. This will include the re-grading of the bed, the removal of excess gravel and the removal of any obstructions to ensure normal flow. • The removal of permitted development rights in respect of walls. • No raising of ground levels without the provision of compensatory storage. • Details of effluent treatment and disposal.
BRITISH WATERWAYS: No objections.
WARD MEMBER (COUNCILLOR BINGHAM): Councillor Bingham has written to explain that he is not opposed in principle to small- scale development in a rural setting such as Millness especially where, as in this case, the applicant has strong connections with the area. Certain aspects of the application are, however, a cause for concern : . The site is subject to flooding which would be made worse by the large area of hardstanding.
56 . The house is out of scale with neighbouring properties and is too large for the site. . The access lane is narrow. . The bridge over the beck is not strong enough to support builders’ vehicles and machinery. . Septic tanks serving neighbouring properties are situated within the site. . The “suburban estate” design of the proposed house is contrary to the vernacular style of most buildings in Millness.
OTHER : Five objections were received in respect of the original proposal together with one letter of support and one e-mail expressing no objections but drawing attention to floodwater flowing onto the road. The letter of support is from a resident of Millness for over 47 years. The writer explains that it would be very comforting to have a member of her family living nearby. The main concerns of those who wrote to object to the development can be summarized as follows : • The site and the lane are prone to flooding. • The access lane is narrow and inadequate to accommodate additional traffic. • The proposed house is far larger than any neighbouring properties and would not be in keeping with the locality. • The proposed house would be over-bearing in respect of the neighbouring house to the west and would adversely affect the living conditions of the occupants of that property. At the time of writing, one objection has been received in respect of the revised proposals; the main grounds of concern can be summarised as follows : • The primary concern of neighbouring householders is the increased risk of flooding caused by the development of the site. • This part of Skip Burn has seriously flooded on four occasions this year. • Every time Skip Burn floods, a large volume of water flows through the application site, across the road and into the adjacent field. It is not known where the floodwater will be diverted to if the site is developed. • It would appear that this planning application has been allowed to progress on the basis of erroneous information supplied by the Environment Agency who continue to state that the area is not a flood risk. In addition, one of the neighbouring residents has written stating that he has no objections to a house being built on the application site provided that the problems of flooding can be satisfactorily resolved. In this regard, it is essential that the Environment Agency’s recommendations are made mandatory.
57 HISTORICAL CONTEXT: Following a site visit, the Committee deferred consideration of this application at the August meeting. Members accepted the principle of the development but expressed concern over the size and appearance of the proposed dwelling and gave instructions that a revised scheme be negotiated. Members were of the opinion that the house should exert less of a harmful influence on the neighbouring property and should be of a design more in keeping with the character of Millness.
DESCRIPTION AND PROPOSAL: The hamlet of Millness comprises a small, loosely-knit group of buildings in the open countryside, north of Junction 36 and to the west of the A65 and the Lancaster Canal. The application site, a small paddock, is located between a pair of cottages and a detached house at the northern end of the hamlet. Agricultural land extends westwards towards Milton and northwards to the canal and Crooklands. A watercourse, Skip Burn, flows along the eastern boundary of the site. The site, together with the lane and nearby land regularly floods. The revised proposal comprises a two-storey, 4-bedroom dwelling positioned on the site so that it will not have an overbearing effect on the closest neighbouring property, 1 Rose Cottages, and nor will it cause overlooking or loss of privacy. In comparison with the original proposal, the house will have less of a harmful effect on the living conditions enjoyed by the occupants of the neighbouring house. It is plainer in appearance than its predecessor with a mix of limestone and render as the external materials and slate as the roof covering. The removal of the integral garage has led to a reduction in the bulk of the building but Members’ attention is drawn to the two-storey projection at the rear which is clad with horizontal timber boarding.
POLICY ISSUES: The South Lakeland Core Strategy was adopted in October last year. The Development Strategy (Policy CS1.2) explains that development will be concentrated in Kendal and Ulverston, then in the Key Service Centres, followed by a number of designated Local Service Centres and, finally, the smaller villages, hamlets and the open countryside. The Strategy states that approximately 11% of new housing and employment development will be in the network of smaller villages and hamlets. Development boundaries are not identified for these settlements; instead, new, small- scale development, in the form of infilling and rounding-off, will be permitted in order to satisfy local need in the smaller villages and hamlets scattered across the District. The terms “infilling” and “rounding-off” are defined in paragraph 2.25 of the Core Strategy. Infilling is defined as building taking place on a vacant plot in an otherwise built-up street frontage; rounding-off is defined as the completion of an incomplete group of buildings on land which is already partially developed, in such a way that will either complete the local road pattern or finally define and complete the boundaries of the group. Policy CS5 of the Core Strategy explains the spatial strategy for the east of the District and, in the context of this current application, makes provision for small-scale housing development in the Local Service Centres and, to a lesser extent, in the smaller rural settlements, such as Millness in order to ensure a readily available supply of affordable housing.
58 Under Policy CS6.4 (the Rural Exception Policy), housing developments outside of settlement boundaries in the Service Centres and where they do not constitute infilling or rounding-off in the smaller villages and hamlets will only be considered where they provide 100% affordable housing, subject to defined criteria. Core Strategy Policy CS8.8 sets out a policy framework for flood risk. On the subject of design, Planning Policy Statement 3 (“Housing”) states that “Design which is inappropriate in its context …. should not be accepted” (paragraph 13). Policy CS8.6 of the Core Strategy requires the siting, design, scale and materials of all developments to be of a character which maintains or enhances the quality of the landscape or townscape and, where appropriate, should be in keeping with the local vernacular tradition. The policy concludes by stating that designs that support and enhance local distinctiveness will be encouraged. 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. The Government publication “The Planning System : General Principles” includes, in paragraph 12, impact on the neighbourhood as a material consideration in the determination of planning applications.
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 are three issues to be resolved. Firstly, whether the development of this flood- prone site will cause flooding elsewhere. Secondly, whether the revised proposal will detract from the reasonable residential enjoyment of the nearest house and, thirdly, whether the design, scale and materials of construction are in keeping with the character of the hamlet. With regard to the first issue, the question of flooding has proved, not surprisingly, to be controversial locally. The Parish Council has again raised serious concerns as have neighbouring householders. The Environment Agency, however, has raised no objections to the revised proposal provided certain conditions are included as part of the planning permission. The recommended conditions are aimed primarily at ensuring that the ground floor is above the likely flood level and ensuring that the channel of the Skip Burn watercourse is cleared and subsequently maintained. The use of porous surfacing materials would also seem appropriate in the circumstances as would the removal of permitted development rights in respect of walls. As requested by the Committee, the re-design ad re-positioning of the house has reduced its impact on the closest neighbouring property, 1 Rose Cottages. Unlike the original scheme, the latest proposal will not exert a harmful and overbearing
59 influence on this property and nor will it cause overlooking or a serious loss of privacy. The third issue, that of design and appearance, is perhaps more subjective but the plainer, more straightforward design complements other development in the hamlet more successfully than the original proposal. The suitability of horizontal timber boarding for the rear projection is open to question but, otherwise, the scale, design and materials of construction are appropriate for this particular site.
RECOMMENDATION: GRANT subject to the following conditions: Condition (1) The development hereby permitted shall be commenced before the expiration of THREE YEARS from the date hereof. Reason To comply with the requirements of Section 91 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 as amended by Section 51 of the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004.
Condition (2) This planning permission relates to the drawings numbered 9918/1A and 9918/2B deposited with the Local Planning Authority on 28 September 2011. Reason For the avoidance of doubt.
Condition (3) No development shall commence until details of the finished ground floor level of the dwelling hereby permitted have been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The finished ground floor level shall be established no lower than 41.5 metres above Ordnance Datum. Reason To reduce the risk of flooding to the proposed development and to ensure that the development is compatible with the aims of Policy CS8.8 of the adopted South Lakeland Core Strategy.
Condition (4) No development shall commence until a scheme to ensure that Skip Burn is cleared to the modelled capacity described in the Flood Risk Assessment prepared by Michael Lambert Associates has been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The submitted scheme shall include details of bed re-grading, the removal of excess gravel and the removal of obstructions to ensure normal flow. The approved scheme shall be fully implemented before any development work commences and Skip Burn shall thereafter be permanently maintained to ensure that it remains cleared to its modelled capacity. Reason To ensure that the capacity of Skip Burn is maintained thereby reducing the risk of flooding and to ensure that the development is compatible with the aims of Policy CS8.8 of adopted South Lakeland Core Strategy.
60 Condition (5) No development shall commence until a scheme for the future maintenance of Skip Burn has been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The submitted scheme shall describe how the design capacity of the watercourse is to be maintained and the watercourse shall thereafter be permanently maintained in accordance with the approved arrangements. Reason To ensure that the overall capacity of the channel of Skip Burn is maintained thereby reducing the risk of flooding and thus ensuring that the development is compatible with the aims of Policy CS8.8 of the adopted South Lakeland Core Strategy.
Condition (6) No development shall commence until details of a surface water storage system with a flow rate limitation to “greenfield” run-off or lowest possible hydro-brake flow limit has been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The approved surface water storage system shall be installed before any building works are commenced and shall be retained fully operational thereafter. Reason To restrict surface water discharge from the site and to ensure that the development is compatible with the aims of Policy CS8.8 of the adopted South Lakeland Core Strategy.
Condition (7) No development shall commence until details of the measures to be undertaken to prevent surface water discharging onto the public highway have been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The approved measures shall be implemented before any building works are commenced and shall be retained fully operational thereafter. Reason In the interests of highway safety.
Condition (8) Ground levels with in the site shall not be raised without the prior written consent of the Local Planning Authority. Reason To reduce the possibility of adjacent properties being flooded and to ensure that the development is compatible with the aims of Policy CS8.8 of the adopted South Lakeland Core Strategy.
Condition (9) All hard-surfacing laid within the application site shall be constructed of porous materials. Reason To restrict surface water discharge from the site and to ensure that the development is compatible with the aims of Policy CS8.8 of the adopted South Lakeland Core Strategy.
Condition (10) No development shall commence until details of the treatment and disposal of foul drainage have been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The development shall not proceed except in accordance with the approved details.
61 Reason To protect the quality of controlled waters.
Condition (11) Notwithstanding the provisions of the Town and Country Planning (General Permitted Development) Order 1995 (or any order revoking and re-enacting that Order with or without modification), no development of the type described in Class A, B and E of Part 1 of the Second Schedule of that Order shall be undertaken without the express permission of the Local Planning Authority. Reason To ensure that subsequent alterations, extensions or buildings within the curtilage of the dwelling are in keeping with the character of the property and, in the case of the latter, do not obstruct the flow of surface water.
Condition (12) Notwithstanding the provisions of Class A of Part 2 of the Second Schedule of the Town and Country Planning (General Permitted Development) Order 1995 (or any order revoking and re-enacting that Order with or without modification), no walls or fences shall be erected without the express permission of the Local Planning Authority. Reason To ensure that walls or fences do not obstruct the flow of surface water.
Condition (13) A sample panel of the proposed stonework to be applied to the south west, north west and south east elevations of the dwelling shall be erected on the site for the further written approval of the Local Planning Authority before any building works commence. Reason To ensure that the development is consistent with the aims and objectives of Policy CS8.8 of the adopted South Lakeland Core Strategy and saved Policy S2 of the South Lakeland Local Plan.
Condition (14) The roof shall be covered with natural slates of a similar colour and texture to those quarried within the County of Cumbria. A sample of the slate to be used shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority before any building works commence. Reason To ensure that the development is consistent with the aims and objectives of Policy CS8.8 of the adopted South Lakeland Core Strategy and saved Policy S2 of the South Lakeland Local Plan.
REASON FOR GRANTING PLANNING PERMISSION The development is compatible with the aims and objectives of Policies CS1.2, CS8.6 and CS8.8 of the adopted South Lakeland Core Strategy and saved Policy S2 of the South Lakeland Local Plan.
62 SCHEDULE A
Complex Planning Applications
SCHEDULE No: 3 SL/2011/0373
PENNINGTON: EWEDALE FARM PENNINGTON ULVERSTON LA12 0NX
PROPOSAL: SITING OF 10 HOLIDAY LODGES, INSTALLATION OF SEWAGE TREATMENT PLANT AND LANDSCAPING
MR STEVE PARR 24/11/2011 E324753 N478897
SUMMARY: Proposal for holiday lodge development in a remote location adjacent to the Pennington Reservoirs. The main issues relate to landscape impact and drainage. Outstanding consultation response awaited from United Utilities in respect of amended proposals. Refuse.
LINDAL AND MARTON PARISH COUNCIL: The council wish to express “no comment” on the principle of the development but recommended that attention be given to the effect additional traffic could have on the Snipe Ghyll junction.
CUMBRIA HIGHWAYS: The remoteness of the location creates some concerns about the sustainability of this choice of location, but given the size of the development Cumbria Highways does not wish to object to this proposal. The applicant has offered to provide a travel plan and this should be encouraged.
SLDC ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION OFFICER: Further details regarding the proposed package treatment plant to be used need to be submitted so that the suitability of the proposal can be assessed.
ENVIRONMENT AGENCY: The Agency has no objection to the proposals to discharge surface water through soakaways. The applicant will need to ensure that the foul sewage treatment
63 solution is appropriately specified. It is likely that an environmental permit will be required from the Agency to authorise the discharge of treated sewage effluent to groundwater. The proposed development will only be acceptable if a planning condition is attached to any planning permission relating to the submission and approval of the detailed specification for the foul sewage treatment.
UNITED UTILITIES: Object to this planning application. The site is located halfway between two operational impounding reservoirs Poaka Beck and Harlock and within the catchment of Poaka Beck Impounding Reservoir. If the development were to proceed a risk to our raw water quality in the event of sewage treatment plant failure of associated sewage pipes for each dwelling would be introduced. We would be concerned as to the destination and final quality and quantity of the effluent produced and its impact on water courses feeding Poaka Beck Impounding Reservoir. I feel that the close proximity to our reservoirs combined with the very serious nature of the consequences make this an unacceptable risk to United Utilities. Subsequent to these comments, an amended scheme has been submitted and has been forwarded to United Utilities for further comment.
OTHER: One letter of objection has been received from the owners of a residential property adjacent to the site. Their concerns with respect to the amended scheme are as follows: 1. The scale and massing of the development continues to be not in keeping with the valley. In the immediate vicinity there are a total of six properties, three of which have full residential status including ours. Within 2km there are only three residences and the introduction of eight holiday lets would have a significant impact on this tranquil location. 2. The style of the development is not in keeping with the other construction in the valley and will detract form the visual environment. It will be clearly visible from the public footpath on the Ewedale side of the valley and the road and public bridleway on the opposite side of the valley. 3. There is concern about the hazards associated with the access road. The revised plans note an absence of accidents to date on the access road which ignores the proposed increase in the number of vehicle movements arising from the development. 4. The additional traffic adjacent to our property would have a significant impact. Our property is immediately adjacent to the access road and the increased traffic would pass directly by bedroom, bathroom, living room and dining room windows, causing a loss of privacy. The noise from the adjacent cattle grid would also cause disturbance at night time. 5. The proposal is not readily accessible by public transport.
64 6. The previous comments from United Utilities refer to the development as posing an unacceptable risk. Information provided by the application confirms poor drainage at the site and the revised plans show soakaways close to Poaka beck, below the car park. There may be need for an oil interceptor.
DESCRIPTION AND PROPOSAL: The site is located to the south of a former farmstead which was converted during the 1980’s to create 3 holiday lets and 2 dwellings in additional to the farmhouse. The applicant owns all but one of the properties, Ash Tree Barn, which is an unrestricted dwelling currently used as a second home. The site is located at the end of a private access lane between the Harlock reservoir and the Poaka Beck reservoir in a relatively remote upland valley some 6km to the west of Ulverston, close to the Local Authority’s administrative boundary. The site itself comprises an area of open grass land extending to 3.9 ha. The land slopes downwards from east to west. A ménage and stable blocks are positioned at the northern end, between the site and the Ewedale Farm Group. An established small woodland area adjoins the northern boundary of the site. A public footpath runs along the eastern boundary, and the land rises beyond this point up to the road which follows the eastern side of the valley. Poaka beck which is the watercourse connecting the two reservoirs runs along the western side of the site. The application relates to the establishment of a relatively modest holiday lodge development with associated drainage, access and landscape works. The original submission included the siting of 10 timber holiday lodges positioned centrally within the site. This has subsequently been amended to 8 lodges. The lodges would be arranged in an informal grouping around a central access road, surfaced with slate chippings, each with parking. Each lodge would be a timber clad twin unit caravan with a footprint of approximately 13m by 6.5m. An extensive landscaping belt is proposed around the perimeter of the site to include a mix of native species. Access to the site is through the existing building group, via a cattle grid entrance off the private lane, adjacent to Ash Tree Barn. The private lane also serves as access to the reservoirs. A separate enclosed bin store would be constructed adjacent to one of the stable buildings. Revised drainage plans and additional information have also been submitted following concerns raised by United Utilities. These include the installation of a new package treatment plant to the northern end of the site with a soakaway network directed westwards within the field. Percolation tests have been undertaken which confirm that the ground has poor absorption rates, as a result the surface water run- off system has been changed so that it is directed towards a number of soakaways on the western boundary of the site adjacent to Poaka beck. In support of the proposal, the applicant’s agent has stated that the design of the proposal has been strongly influenced by the need to retain the rural character and reduce the visual impact. The development is sited away from public vantage points and dwellings other than the public footpath to the east and substantial landscape mitigation is proposed. They state that the site is within 4 km of a considerable number of local tourist attractions.
65 POLICY ISSUES: Planning Policy Statement 4: Planning for Sustainable Economic Growth includes the consideration of tourism developments in rural areas. Policy EC7 states that authorities should support sustainable rural tourism developments that benefit rural businesses and communities in appropriate locations where the impacts do not outweigh the need to protect landscapes and environmentally sensitive sites. Policy CS7.4 of the adopted South Lakeland Core Strategy states that support will be given to the economic needs of rural communities by encouraging suitable employment related development where it is of a scale in keeping with its surroundings and is not detrimental to the character or appearance of the landscape or does not give rise to unacceptable levels of traffic. Policy CS7.6 supports the improvement of the quality and range of visitor accommodation. Policy CS8.2 states that development proposals should be informed by and be sympathetic to the distinctive character landscape types identified in the Cumbria Landscape Character Guidance and Toolkit. Policy CS8.10 states that the siting, design, scale and materials of all development should be of a character which maintains or enhances the quality of the landscape. Saved Policy T6 of the South Lakeland Local Plan states that outside the Arnside - Silverdale Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty, proposals for new caravan development, or small scale extensions to existing sites, will only be permitted where there is no adverse impact on the conservation of the landscape, the capacity of the surrounding road system and the adequacy of the access. Saved Policy S26 states that development which fails to provide adequate means of sewage disposal and treatment will not be permitted. The installation of septic tanks will be favourably considered, providing there is no adverse impact on amenity.
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 are a number of issues raised by this proposal including visual impact upon the landscape, impact upon the amenity of neighbouring residents, traffic generation and sustainability considerations and foul and surface water drainage. Given the relatively modest scale of the proposal and the nature of the use of the existing site, it is not considered that the proposal raises significant highway issues. The proposed development would generate more vehicular movements to the site, and past the neighbour’s property, but it is considered that the impacts arising from this alone would not be unreasonable. Due to the topography, the site itself is not particularly prominent from the east and north, apart from the public footpath which crosses the site. The site is, however,
66 more prominent from the minor public road which skirts the western side of the valley, albeit from a more distant vantage point. In the context of the location, it is considered that the proposed development would have a significant visual impact on this relatively open landscape even when viewed from this more distant aspect. The proposed landscaping would help to mitigate this impact to some extent, but the planting would take several years to establish to provide an effective screen for the lodges and the associated infrastructure including access lanes, parking areas and external lighting. Whilst it is considered that a small scale development more closely related to the existing building group may be acceptable, the scale of the current proposal is considered to be excessive for this remote open area and it is questioned whether such a development could be regarded as sustainable. Additionally, Members will note that United Utilities have strongly objected to the proposed development as originally submitted because of the risk of contamination to the water supply. They have been consulted with regard to the amended drainage details which have been submitted. Given the sensitivity of the location of the site in respect of public water sources, unless the concerns regarding the drainage can be addressed, it is recommended that permission be refused.
RECOMMENDATION: Subject to the outstanding consultation response from United Utilities the application be REFUSED for the reasons below -
Reason (1) The proposed development by reason of its scale and nature would have an adverse visual impact on the rural character of this remote upland area, contrary to Saved Policy T6 of the South Lakeland Local Plan.
(2) The introduction of a holiday lodge development of this scale in such an isolated rural location would not represent a sustainable form of development and as such would be contrary to the aims and objectives of Policy CS7.4 of the adopted South Lakeland Core Strategy.
(3) The proximity of the proposed development to the adjacent impounding reservoirs and water course presents an unacceptable contamination risk to a public water source. Insufficient information has been provided to safeguard contamination arising from surface water and foul drainage discharges, contrary to Saved Policy S26 of the South Lakeland Local Plan.
67 SCHEDULE A
Complex Planning Applications
SCHEDULE No: 4 SL/2011/0442
LOWER HOLKER: WILLOW TREE CARAVAN PARK MOOR LANE FLOOKBURGH LA11 7LU
PROPOSAL: REMOVAL OF CONDITION 3 (RESTRICTED OCCUPANCY) ON PLANNING PERMISSION 5/92/1939 24/11/2011 MR HUGH DALY E336793.2 N475212.5
SUMMARY: The business case is persuasive and appropriate alternative conditions can be used to prevent occupation of the caravans as permanent residences. Grant.
LOWER HOLKER PARISH COUNCIL: Object to the application on the following grounds:- i. If this application were granted the site, despite the imposition of the suggested conditions, would become permanent residences for the owners thus resulting in the loss of a holiday venue. ii. The proposed conditions would be ineffectual in preventing permanent occupation by the owners. iii. The granting of this application would result in loss of revenue by way of Council Tax to SLDC.
ENVIRONMENT AGENCY: The location is protected from tidal flooding by an earth / armour stone protected embankment. The applicant accepts that the caravan park is liable to flooding however providing that an early warning procedure and evacuation plan is developed that would enable access and egress from the park, the Agency would have no objection in principle to the proposed extension to all year round holiday occupancy for caravans.
68 HISTORICAL CONTEXT: The site has operated since circa 1976. The original condition placed restricted occupancy for the period between 1 March and 14 November. This was relaxed in 1992 to 1 March to 15 January. It has operated within this time frame since.
DESCRIPTION AND PROPOSAL: The site is located on the corner of Willow Lane and Moor Lane, to the south of Flookburgh. It is within Flood Zone 3. It is an existing site and vans are present there all year round currently. The proposal is to remove the current restriction on the open season, to be replaced with new conditions as recommended in the Good Practice Guide on Planning for Tourism. The occupancy could then be year round, but with appropriate restrictions to prevent permanent occupancy.
POLICY ISSUES: PPS 4 Planning Policy Guidance for Sustainable Economic Development states that: “planning authorities should support rural tourism and leisure developments that benefit rural businesses, communities and visitors and which utilise and enrich, rather than harm, the character of the countryside. Furthermore, planning applications that secure sustainable economic growth should be treated favourably.”
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.
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 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
69 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. Policy CS8.8 relates to development and Flood Risk, seeking to locate development in Flood Zone 1, but applying the criteria that would have to be considered if the development were in any other flood zone.
South Lakeland Local Plan 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.
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 application seeks permission to remove the requirement for a closed season and to operate the caravan site all year round. A sound business case for all year round operation has been submitted. This is in line with one submitted by Holgates PLC for removal of the occupancy restriction on their sites in Arnside and Beetham, which were considered and approved by Committee in September this year. Alternative occupancy conditions in line with recommendations within the Good Practice Guide on Tourism have been suggested. The main issue for consideration is therefore whether the alternative conditions would encourage use of the caravans as main permanent homes and whether these conditions could be enforced. The site is located within the open countryside where public transport is limited and pedestrian access to services involves long walks, and the site is subject to flooding. The location of the site is not considered to be sustainable in terms of an area where permanent residential accommodation should be provided. Guidance within a number of Planning Policy Statements (PPS) including PPS1, 3 and 7 discourage the provision of permanent residential accommodation in such locations. Such accommodation should only be provided as an exception to meet a local, agricultural or specific business need. Any changes to the operation of the site which could result in the use of the caravans as permanent homes would be contrary to the principles of sustainable development.
70 Saved Policy T7 of the South Lakeland Local Plan was saved in order to deal with requests to extend opening periods and provide greater flexibility. The policy requires a minimum of six weeks closure. Static caravans are now built to a high specification and level of insulation which allows all year round occupancy and use as a primary residence. A six week closure period has been considered sufficient but necessary to discourage the use of the caravans as primary places of residence since compliance would be difficult, requiring extended holidays or spells staying with friends and family. A minimum of six weeks closure has been consistently required. Planning permission was refused for a shorter closed period of only two weeks at The Pastures, Allithwaite in 2010. Similar alternative conditions were suggested to control the occupation of the caravans. In the Allithwaite case, portions of land were leased to caravan owners on long term agreements. The lease agreements in place had no restrictions with regard to the use of the caravans as permanent homes and it was not considered that the caravan site owner would be in a position to enforce these conditions. The Inspector agreed with the Council’s stance and dismissed the appeal. Appeals elsewhere in the country have however been lost with Inspector’s determining that the alternative conditions are appropriate. In this case, the pitches are provided on an annual contract rather than leased to the caravan owners. When rent is paid each year, the tenants agree to abide by the site rules. These rules specifically state that the agreement does not permit use of the caravan as a permanent residence and requires documentary evidence of a main place of residence to be supplied. As there are already agreements in place to restrict occupancy to holiday occupation and the information necessary to enforce the alternative conditions is readily available to the Local Planning Authority, the alternative conditions will provide the Council with sufficient control to prevent use of the caravans as permanent homes. This important distinction between the two sites is considered to be sufficient for the Council to make a different determination in this case. The caravans are already in place and used for all but six weeks during the winter period. Use of the caravans for an additional six weeks will not affect the character of the area, nor the flood risk. While the proposal will remove the short quiet period for nearby residents, the use during these six weeks is unlikely to be intense and will not generate vehicles or disturbance any greater than that already accepted. Given the business case and the previous decision made by Committee there is adequate justification for a decision contrary to the requirements of Saved Policy T7 of the South Lakeland Local Plan. Careful consideration will need to be given to all future applications to ensure that site owners are in a position to enforce the alternative conditions suggested by the Good Practice Guide for Tourism.
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 Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004.
71 Condition (2) The caravans shall not be occupied other than as holiday accommodation. They shall not be used at any time as sole and principal residences by any occupants. Reason To safeguard the local tourist economy in accordance with Policy CS7.6 of the adopted South Lakeland Core Strategy.
Condition (3) The owner / operator of the site known as “Willow Tree Caravan Park” (outlined in red on the submitted plan) shall maintain an up-to- date register of the names of all of the individual caravan owners and occupiers and their main home addresses, and shall make the following information available to the Local Planning Authority upon request: copies of the register; copies of a caravan owner’s / occupier’s Council Tax bill for their main residence for the relevant financial year; and a copy of the licence between the site owner / operator and the caravan owner / occupier for each pitch. For the avoidance of doubt the expression “for the relevant financial year” shall mean that each financial year (1 April – 31 March) the caravan owner will provide an up-to-date Council Tax bill so for example if the request was made in September 2012 then a bill for the tax year 2012 – 2013 would be provided or if the request was made in May 2014 then the 2014 – 2015 bill would be provided. Reason (3) To safeguard the local tourist economy in accordance with Policy CS7.6 of the adopted South Lakeland Core Strategy.
REASON FOR GRANTING PLANNING PERMISSION The use of the caravan site all year round will have a positive impact on the local economy. The alternative conditions will ensure that the caravans remain as holiday accommodation and cannot be used as permanent residences. The proposal therefore accords with the material considerations set out in the Planning System: General Principles and national and local policies as set out in Planning Policy Statement 4, The Good Practice Guide for Tourism and Policies CS1.1, CS7.6 and CS8.4 of the adopted South Lakeland Core Strategy.
72 SCHEDULE A
Complex Planning Applications
SCHEDULE No: 5 SL/2011/0647
LEVENS: LAND AT HIGH SAMPOOL, LEVENS KENDAL LA8 8EQ
PROPOSAL: ERECTION OF POULTRY UNIT WITH MANURE STORE
MR J MASON
24/11/2011 E348344 N484716
SUMMARY: This is an application for the erection of a large poultry building at High Sampool near Levens. The key issues are the impacts on residential amenity; the highway; landscape; flooding; and environmentally designated areas. Refuse.
LEVENS PARISH COUNCIL: Since Levens parish council wrote to you on 1 March 2011 three things have happened: 1. The whole Parish Council has visited the site (as we recommend the Planning Committee should do). 2. A revised planning application has been submitted. 3. A petition opposing the application has circulated within the village.
The Parish Council has now further considered the application and has the following comments and concerns: • We do not know how many people signed the petition or what was the motivation for any individual signature. • It is clear from our site visit that the building will be well shielded by trees from the west and south. It is also shielded and some distance downwind from the nearest properties at High Sampool. • While it will be visible from a few properties in Levens and Leasgill they are almost a mile away and the building will be no more intrusive on the environment than several other similar farm buildings in the area.
73 • Concerns about odour, noise from fans and any increased risk of flooding will no doubt be double checked by SLDC. • We live in a rural, farming area. Not only is there a need for the country to ensure adequate food supplies, there is also an entitlement for a farmer to be able to earn a living. This is particularly so when intensive battery hen farming will be banned from January 2012 and the proposed building appears to conform to current good practice. • The parish council are concerned that if planning permission is refused by SLDC the applicant might go to appeal and win. This could result in considerable unnecessary expense for all parties. At the conclusion of discussion the parish council voted on whether to recommend to SLDC that the application be approved subject to expert input on the risk of flooding. The results of the voting are as follows: 3 for, 0 against, 3 abstained and 2 members declared an interest and did not participate in the discussion or voting.
CUMBRIA HIGHWAYS: The proposal is broadly acceptable to Cumbria Highways. Have some concerns regarding the extraordinary damage to the public highway that may result from this proposal, and a joint inspection should be made with their engineers prior to commencement of construction with a view to monitoring the road beyond the bridge in particular. Further joint inspection should be undertaken, as to be agreed. Conditions with regard to the access drive gradient, construction of access and parking requirements before the use is commenced, surfacing of the access drive, a scheme of surface water drainage and access gates recessed have been requested.
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION OFFICER (SLDC): Noise The building is to be located 52 meters from the nearest boundary of High Sampool. This is a large residential garden area. The developer engaged Scenic Acoustics to carry out a BS 4142 Noise Assessment for the proposed unit which covers the impact of the poultry unit on background noise levels and the likelihood of complaints. The new application states that ten cooling fans will be placed within the eastern gable end wall facing Levens. Natural ventilation will be provided by a number of vents along the sides of the building under the eaves and an open vent at the apex of the roof. The cooling fans are electronically controlled and are not engaged until the temperature rises to a preset level within the building. I am aware that the use of all fans running will be seasonal and they will not all be running at night when temperatures fall. Background noise levels have been measured at night at the boundary of High Sampool on the western elevation. The lowest background noise level recorded by Scenic Acoustics over a 5 min monitoring period was 30 dBA L90. I have carried out
74 my own noise monitoring and have established a background of 35dBA L90 over a 5 min period. It has been calculated that with ten fans running simultaneously and with a 5 dBA correction factor for tonal noise and 3 dBA reduction for the building façade reflections the fans will be 7 dBA above background of 30 dBA L90 5min (background) at the boundary. It is unlikely that this noise level will be a nuisance at this location at night. It is unlikely that ten fans will be running at this time of night. Fan noise should not be audible within bedrooms. The lowest daytime noise levels at the boundary of High Sampool is 42.8 dBA L90 5min, this increase is due to traffic on the A590, passing traffic and wildlife. The predicted fan noise of ten fans at the boundary with a tonal correction of 5 dBA and a 3 dBA reduction for the façade reflection will be 37 dBA Leq. The fans should not impact upon background noise levels and it is not likely that nuisance will occur to the residents of High Sampool. Dust I have been informed that ventilation within the building will be natural ventilation with the addition of cooling fans when required. There are to be no extract fans. Dust will be emitted through the side vents which are to be located under the roof overhang. Odours and dust will naturally emanate from the vents. Should vents be located closer to ground level then they should be pest proof and will emit dust more readily. The siting of the feed hopper should be at the eastern elevation to minimise noise from its filling, by the building structure. All spillages from the hopper should be cleaned regularly so as not to attract rats. Manure The manure should be kept dry as it will be contained within a purpose built building. Manure when spread gives off strong odours and the likelihood of odours when wet increases. Should the manure not be ploughed into the ground and is rained upon, nuisance odours may arise. I am aware that Sampool Holiday Park is in close proximity of neighbouring farmland. Flies A particular problem associated with poultry buildings are House Flies. It is imperative that the manure is checked for larvae and kept dry. The storage of manure heaps in fields should be discouraged and not allowed to become wet. Suitable drainage should be incorporated in order that the floor inside the building does not become wet. Pest control Rats are inquisitive and will explore the premises. A pest control contract should be in place. An integrated pest management plan should be devised for the business. All spillages should be cleaned up immediately. Manure should be examined for larvae and Neporex larvicide applied if necessary. Earth mounds, voids under concrete and dense vegetation should be avoided around the building as this will provide harbourage for rats.
75 Drainage I am aware the land has been flooded in the past and I have seen photographs. Suitable land drainage should be incorporated in order that neighbouring land does not become affected by run-off. Advice should be sought from the Environment Agency. Dead poultry A suitably sized freezer should be incorporated within a room to store dead hens prior to collection by a licensed carrier. Nuisance Due to the close proximity of the building to neighbouring properties any failures in manure management, fan maintenance and general husbandry will have implications to cause nuisance.
ENVIRONMENT AGENCY: The Agency’s comments on planning application ref. SL/2011/0045 are also applicable to this proposal (particularly the condition requested for foul and surface water drainage). These comments are included below. A condition requesting a scheme to manage the disposal of poultry manure, has also been requested. Environmental Management The proposed total number of bird places is just 150 below the 40,000 threshold for a permit issued under the Environmental Permitting (England & Wales) Regulations 2010. The operator will need to ensure that the maximum number of places is below this threshold. The operator should apply the Best Available Techniques (BAT) to the construction and operation of the poultry building to reduce the risk of pollution. In summary, the Agency would expect the poultry building to meet the following requirements to help reduce the risk of pollution: • drinkers and troughs should be designed to prevent leakage; • housing should be well insulated, have an impermeable floor and have a damp proof course; • the ventilation system should match the necessary health and welfare of the birds and be designed to minimise emissions from the building; • litter should be kept as dry and friable as possible to minimise ammonia emissions; • if the building has roof outlets any roof water drains should not drain directly to a watercourse / surface water without interception eg to an appropriate soakaway or swale to allow attenuation of any dust within the water; • the midden should have contained drainage; • appropriate wash water collection tanks should be in place to capture all wash water from the shed; wash water should be spread in line with the Code of Good Agricultural Practice. The tank design should ensure there is no risk of pollution from wash water; • any fuel storage should be in line with The Water Resources (Silage, Slurry
76 and Agricultural Fuel Oil) Regulations 2010; • feed silos should be located to minimise the risk of collision. Construction of the building should ensure the risk of pollution from silty water run-off or other pollutants is minimised, with particular regard to the nearby River Kent. Poultry waste should be stored and spread on land in accordance with the DEFRA Code of Good Agricultural Practice “Protecting our water, soil and air.” We strongly recommend that a comprehensive manure management plan is produced which will help meet the standards of environmental management set out in this Code. Flood Risk The site is located within the indicative tidal flood plain, the area of which is based on the approximate extent of floods with a 0.5% annual probability of occurrence. The site falls within a high risk flood zone. PPS25 recommends that for planning applications within a high risk flood zone, a Flood Risk Assessment (FRA) appropriate to the scale and nature of the development, should be provided by the applicant. The site is also at risk from fluvial flooding from the River Kent or a combination of fluvial / tidal. An FRA has been produced by Planning Branch Ltd., dated June 2010 and has been submitted with the application. The Agency would recommend that the applicant is aware of the Shoreline Management Plan (SMP) and any implication on their proposals. It is understood that there will be some ground raising activity to bring the level up to that of the road which should reduce flood risk to the development. As this area is identified as being at risk of tidal flooding there would be no issues with loss of flood plain storage. The applicant should be fully aware of the flood risk, potential depth of flooding and flood frequency at this location and any impact this may have on their proposal. Flood resilience measures should be considered where practicable during the build construction. Where practicable the use of rainwater harvesting or sustainable drainage systems (SuDS) should be used to improve water quality and reduce surface water run-off. Although there are no issues of loss of flood storage associated with development in the tidal flood plain the applicant should ensure that flow routes are not affected should there be a breach of the River Kent embankment. It is recommended that the developer discharge surface water to a swale or infiltration ditch directly adjacent to the building to prevent further exacerbation of existing drainage / flooding problems in the local drainage system. This will also provide additional storage prior to discharge into the existing drainage system. Any culverting of a watercourse requires the prior written approval of the Local Authority and the prior written consent of the Agency. The Agency seeks to avoid culverting, and its consent for such works will not normally be granted except for access crossings. There are currently ongoing discussions regarding the pumping stations as to whether the Agency will transfer ownership or decommission this facility. The applicant should consider any effect such changes may have on their proposals.
77 Biodiversity This development is less than 200m from the River Kent and Morecambe Bay Site of Special Scientific Interest, Special Area of Conservation, Special Protection Area and Ramsar. There are also drainage ditches near to the development which provide a potential pathway for pollutants from the development to the Kent and designated site. Prior to planning permission this development will need to be assessed under the Conservation of Habitats & Species Regulations 2010 for any impacts on the Morecambe Bay SPA, SAC. The aerial emissions, wash water, manure and any other potentially polluting substances have the potential to be relevant to the Morecambe Bay European site. Any external lighting and noise might also be relevant to the SPA. Natural England should be consulted. A condition has been requested requiring a scheme to dispose of foul and surface water to be submitted.
NATURAL ENGLAND: We have considered the proposal against the full range of Natural England’s interests in the natural environment but our comments are focussed on the following specific matters: Designated Sites Natural England can confirm that the proposals within the planning application are located close to nationally and internationally designated sites as listed in the ecological report and Natural England’s response letter of 8th March 2011 in connection with the earlier planning application (SL/2011/0045). The sites in closest proximity include Morecambe Bay SAC/SPA and the Witherslack Mosses SAC – and component SSSIs within these sites. The River Kent SAC, whilst designated upstream of the development site, is also potentially relevant as the downstream reach of the river forms an important part of the overall functioning of the wider river system and its interest features. In view of the national and international importance of these sites, Natural England advises that before considering granting planning permission for the development, South Lakeland District Council must ensure the scheme is fully assessed under both the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981, as incorporated by The Countryside and Rights of Way Act 2000 (the 1981 Act) and the Conservation of Habitats and Species Regulations 2010 (“Habitats Regulations”). We would remind SLDC that Section 28G of the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981, as inserted by Section 75 of and Schedule 9 to the Countryside and Rights of Way Act 2000, places a duty on public authorities, including local planning authorities, to take reasonable steps consistent with the proper exercise of their functions to further the conservation and enhancement of SSSIs. Similarly, Regulation 9(5) of the Conservation of Habitats and Species Regulations 2010 (“Habitats Regulations”) requires every competent authority, in the exercise of any of its functions, to have regard to the requirements of the Habitats Directive. The Conservation of Habitats and Species Regulations 2010 (the ‘Habitats Regulations’) In accordance with Regulation 61 of the Habitats Regulations, the City Council, as competent authority, must complete a Habitats Regulations Assessment (HRA) of the effects on the interest features of the European site(s) before
78 considering granting permission for this development. The Habitats Regulations Assessment is required to assess any likely significant effects on the interest features of the European Site, with reference to the site conservation objectives. The HRA needs to look at any potential effects of the proposed development project, alone or in combination with other plans or projects, for all phases of the development – including construction and permanent operation. If likely significant effects are identified then the Council is required to carry out an Appropriate Assessment under the Habitats Regulations. Natural England’s view is that the Habitats Regulations Assessment should consider the following: • Whether the development and its operation would have a likely significant effect on the interest features of the European sites as a result of emissions to air, particularly ammonia. This should be assessed in relation to potential N deposition at the Witherslack Mosses SAC in particular. • Whether the development and its operation would have a likely significant effect on the interest features of the European sites as a result of a deterioration in water quality arising from surface run-off and pollutants via all relevant pathways. The risk of water quality impacts on the European sites should be fully assessed for all phases of the development. In general terms, for development proposals adjacent to SAC / SPA sites such as Morecambe Bay and the River Kent, the issues likely to be relevant during construction, operation and decommissioning phases include: • the potential for direct damage, modification or disturbance to SAC / SPA species and their habitat; • the potential for sediment or other polluting run-off to enter the river - both during the construction period (including earthworks, storage and use of machinery, materials and fuels) and any potential siltation, run-off or other pollution arising from the development in its construction / permanent / operational phase. This must include consideration of manure management and spreading on adjacent land. Any discharge from the site arising from foul drainage / sewage treatment / other drainage must not lead to a deterioration in water quality in the river or its feeder tributaries; • the potential for introduction and / or spread of invasive non-native species; • and any other issues that may lead to significant effects on the SAC interest features arising from the development proposals. Natural England notes that the proposed development site is within Flood Zone 3 and this should therefore be taken into account in the Habitats Regulations Assessments. In line with the precautionary principle underpinning the Regulations, we would also advise the Council on the importance of reviewing whether the information supplied is sufficient to adequately assess all relevant issues and ensure confidence in the assessment of effects. Also, to enable compliance with the requirements of S28I of the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981, as amended by the Countryside and Rights of Way (CROW) Act 2000 (the 1981 Act), the Council also needs to consider any potential effects on the additional interest features of the SSSIs.
79 Protected species We have adopted national standing advice for protected species. As standing advice, it is a material consideration in the determination of the proposed development in this application in the same way as any individual response received from Natural England following consultation and should therefore be fully considered before a formal decision on the planning application is made. Biodiversity enhancements Planning applications may provide opportunities to incorporate features into the design which are beneficial to wildlife, such as the incorporation of roosting opportunities for bats or the installation of bird nest boxes. We would normally advise that the authority should consider securing measures to enhance the biodiversity of the site from the applicant, if it is minded to grant permission for this application.
Response to further information provided by the applicant: Designated Sites Natural England has previously advised on the need for the District Council to complete a Habitats Regulations Assessment (HRA) for this proposal in our response letter dated 19th September 2011. The HRA needs to look at any potential effects of the proposed development project, alone or in combination with other plans or projects, for all phases of the development – including construction and permanent operation. If likely significant effects are identified then the Council is required to carry out an Appropriate Assessment under the Habitats Regulations. We would therefore advise that the District Council take account of any relevant information supplied with the “Additional Information” when completing this assessment. In line with the precautionary principle underpinning the Regulations, we would also advise the Council on the importance of reviewing whether the information supplied is sufficient to adequately assess all relevant issues and ensure confidence in the assessment of effects.
CUMBRIA WILDLIFE TRUST: Cumbria Wildlife Trust is concerned that the application will have an adverse effect on nationally and internationally designated wildlife sites including Morecambe Bay SAC / SPA and the Witherslack Mosses SAC and the component SSSIs within these sites. Cumbria Wildlife Trust has had sight of the consultation response from Natural England regarding the need for a full ecological assessment of the possible impacts that this development may have on the protected sights and wholeheartedly agrees that these issues need to be addressed. We therefore object to the application on the grounds of a lack of ecological information. Currently there is not enough information available within the application documents for SLDC to make a decision. The applicant needs to supply further information regarding: • potential for direct damage to SPA / SAC species and habitats;
80 • damage during the construction phase (e.g. from sedimentation or discharge into the watercourse); • the potential for damage during the operation of the facility; • the potential for nitrogen deposition from the development when in operation; • the potential impact on water quality in the River Kent from run-off from fields that have been spread with chicken manure. Only with this information supplied will there be enough evidence for a Habitats Regulations Assessment to be carried out by SLDC as the competent authority under The Conservation of Habitats and Species Regulations 2010 (the ‘Habitats Regulations’).
Response to further information provided by the applicant: We do not consider that there has been enough information provided by the applicant to address the issue of pollutant run-off from fields spread with chicken manure into the River Kent and thus into the Morecambe Bay Natura 2000 site (SAC/SPA/Ramsar). It has not been demonstrated that this manure spreading would not have an adverse effect on the interest features of the protected sites. According to the Habitats and Species Regulations 2010 it needs to be determined by SLDC whether there will be an adverse impact on the Natura 2000 sites through an assessment of whether there will be a likely significant effect of the development on the protected sites. Page 9 of the Design and Access Statement indicates that “the hen manure would be spread on the High Sampool land” and the Manure Management Plan indicates that “As soon as it is removed from the manure building it will either be spread on the land or delivered to the neighbouring farmers”. Without information about pollutant pathways under both normal and flood conditions, an assessment of the likely significant effect on the Natura 2000 sites of the spreading of this manure on the High Sampool land cannot be made. The Flood Risk Assessment document states on page 8 “the proposed site is at high risk of fluvial flooding, at its present level and distance from the water body.” Local people have photographs of the fields where the manure is to be spread underwater during recent floods. In these conditions, it is hard to see how manure and its chemical by-products will not end up in the Morecambe Bay SAC / SPA / Ramsar site. Cumbria Wildlife Trust takes issue with the statement in the Flood Risk Assessment that the site is not at risk from tidal flooding as the River Kent in its tidal range lies less than 300m from the application site, and the sea walls have failed in recent times. The Envirotech ecological report offers a rather bland comment regarding transportation of contaminants indicating that: “The potential for off site transportation of contaminants both during and post construction, both organic and inorganic, will need to be addressed by way of a pollution control plan. In particular the storage and disposal of chicken manures will need to be undertaken in accordance with Environment Agency guidelines for the storage, transportation and spreading of such waste.”
81 No pollution control plan has been submitted, and it is hard to see how pollution from the spread manure can be controlled if the fields next to ditches and watercourses which drain directly into the Natura 2000 site. Even in normal, non-flooding situations, run-off from the fields will end up in the protected site via the network of ditches and watercourses which drain the site. Cumbria Wildlife Trust therefore continues to object to this application on the basis that it has not been shown that there will be no adverse impact on the Morecambe Bay SAC / SPA / Ramsar site.
FRIENDS OF THE LAKE DISTRICT (CPRE): FLD submitted comments on the earlier application relating to this development (SL/2011/0045). The current proposal appears to be virtually unchanged from the earlier proposal. Given this, we would wish to reiterate the views expressed in regard to the earlier application. LDF Core Strategy Policy CS8.2 states that proposals for development should be informed by, and be sympathetic to, distinctive landscape character types. The site lies within Landscape Sub-Type 8B “Broad Valleys”, as defined by the recently updated Cumbria Landscape Character Assessment (LCA). The LCA describes a medium scale landscape, the more open parts of which exhibit a sense of calm within a working farmland, which are sensitive to changes in land management. In regard to “Changes in the Landscape”, the LCA notes that “Large scale farm buildings can be found in some parts and are introducing uncharacteristic development into the farmed landscape”. Guidelines include “Minimise development impact on local character through ensuring design and scale respects the local vernacular and character particularly regarding the introduction of modern large scale farm buildings”. This application proposes a large scale, intensive farming activity, which would involve the construction of a very large utilitarian building. It is therefore key to consider the potential impact this proposal would have upon the character of the area. The proposed site lies in an isolated, tranquil location, within an area of flat, largely undeveloped countryside on the floor of the Lyth Valley. The generally flat nature of the valley floor affords wide views across the surrounding countryside. These characteristics make the area particularly attractive to a cyclists and walkers. The route of the Cumbria Coastal Way passes directly adjacent to the site. Much of the higher ground which surrounds the site in all directions is covered by public rights of way, and / or open access designations, such as Whitbarrow Scar. The Grade I Listed Levens Hall lies in close proximity. The proposed site would be visible from the grounds of the Hall. The potential visual impact of this development is therefore significant, given the key characteristics of the local landscape, and the amount, and sensitivity of, potential receptors affected. The scale and nature of the proposed operation are also likely to significantly impact upon the tranquillity of the area, through an increase in noise, traffic and general activity.
82 In FLD’s view therefore, given the above issues, this development raises conflict with LDF Core Strategy Policy CS8.2, RSS Policy EM1, saved Structure Plan Policy E37 and saved Local Plan Policy C15.
DEFRA: No response received.
OTHER: A total of 54 letters of objection have been received which raise the following concerns: • The scale and location of the proposed building is out of proportion with the existing properties and will be seriously detrimental to the visual amenities of the area. It will be highly intrusive in this low lying landscape and would result in the loss of views across the estuary. It will be highly visible and unsightly from all local aspects, including Levens, Heversham and Leasgill. • The scale of the building proposed is such that it would be up to 25% larger than the other buildings within the area and, with its attendant feed silos, turning area and fencing, would be read as an excessive addition to the landscape particularly when viewed from the properties at High Sampool, Waterside and Leasgill and the popular public viewpoint of Heversham Head from where it will appear as a particularly strident feature in the landscape. • The Core Strategy Policy CS8.2 says that proposals for development should be informed by and sympathetic to the distinctive character types in the Cumbria Landscape Character Toolkit. The landscape where the building is to be sited is classified as broad valleys and it states that we should minimise development impacts on local character through ensuring that design and scale respects the local character particularly regarding the introduction of modern large-scale buildings. • This area is bordering the National Park which has been proposed to include the Lyth Valley. • Unacceptable smell from the unit, manure store and from spreading chicken manure on adjacent fields and those of neighbouring farms. It would have a significant negative impact on surrounding areas and in particular with the prevailing winds. It would affect neighbouring properties, the nearby caravan park and residents of Levens including the school and playing fields. • The manure is likely to become wet when spread on the land given the high rainfall in this area and it will then produce an offensive smell. • Dust will be emitted into the atmosphere and the air quality will suffer. • There will be an impact on tourism as the proposed development will be near to Levens Hall and the Cumbria Coastal Way. The caravan park will be severely affected and all aspects of the economy of Levens and the surrounding area will suffer. • The noise report states that the sound levels overnight will exceed current background levels if more than one fan is running. It should therefore be
83 determined on exactly how many nights a year that more than one fan will run, especially as the report states that the welfare of the birds should take precedence over any noise levels. • To cope with power cuts a stand-by generator will be needed which will be another source of noise. • The development would attract rats and flies which would impact on the people who live close to the site and cause a public health risk. • The vast amounts of manure and wastewater produced pose a threat to the vulnerable drinking water supply. • The buildings next to the site are privately owned houses which will be badly affected by noise, smell and general disruption. • The narrow country lane is not conducive to an operation of this size and type, which will result in an increase in heavy vehicles, and could make the road unstable. • In addition to the increase in level of traffic to and from the site, it would impact adversely on the A590 which is already a dangerous road. • The building will be on a flood plain and at present floods regularly. The hard surfaces and building will further limit seepage and run off in this area and would compound the flooding problem. The new building will lead to increased flooding of adjacent properties in the area. • This is an area that is currently kept free from flooding by the land pumps which are expected to be turned off in 2012. • The large amount of raw chicken manure constantly produced and planned to be spread on local fields will cause a high concentration of nitrogen and phosphate. These fields are frequently wet and the run-off goes to local streams, the River Kent and Morecambe Bay. This will reduce the water quality and fish, wildlife and the delicate balance of nature of the bay. • The site lies close to the Morecambe Bay and River Kent SSSI. Morecambe Bay is also designated as a SAC, SPA and Ramsar site. These are all clearly important national designations and yet the application contains no Assessment of Likely Significant Effect of the proposal upon them, as required by the Conservation of Habitats and Species Regulations 2010. Given the possibility that discharges from the proposed poultry unit could cause contamination this would appear to be a serious omission, and without such an assessment, it would be totally inappropriate to approve the application. • Welfare of the poultry kept in the building. Although the three closest neighbouring properties at High Sampool have been included in the total number of objections received, they have also raised the following additional concerns. Within these are included the comments from two planning consultants, one on behalf of one neighbouring property and the other on behalf of three of the adjacent dwellings, and three other properties on Sampool Lane. • Risk to residents health as a result of the smell, dust, noise, flies and vermin. Factory poultry manure produces arsenic which is a known carcinogenic agent. Airborne contaminants in confined poultry units include a mixture of
84 agents made up or organic poultry dust, all of which are blown out of the unit with the air circulation fans. Ammonia fumes from the nitrogen in decomposing droppings damages the systems of both humans and birds. • The proposed unit is only 72 metres from High Sampool House and 43 metres from the garden. This is unacceptable for an industrial farm building of this nature. Future enjoyment of outdoor life within the gardens and surroundings will no longer be possible due to the smell, flies and noise that the proposed operation will generate. • Part 6 of the GPDO 1995 sets up a 400m cordon sanitaire around the curtilages of “protected buildings”, which includes a residential property normally occupied by people unconnected with a farm. Some Local Planning Authorities use this figure as a rule of thumb, or in Local Plans / UDP’s policies (e.g. Flintshire, Beverly etc.) whilst others use 250m. Government advice is that Planning Authorities should exercise particular care when considering planning applications for houses or other new protected buildings within 400m of established livestock units. There are clearly no operational reasons as to why the building is proposed to be erected in this location. • The proposal is next to residential properties and not an existing farm complex as stated in the submission. • Despite moving all 10 industrial scale fans to the furthest point of the building from the dwellings at High Sampool, the report concludes that if all fans were operating at night then noise levels would exceed the existing very low night time background noise level sufficient enough to cause complaint. Similarly the feed blower will exceed daytime background noise levels. • Noise and disturbance from the increase in heavy traffic. • The very localised weather patterns that occur at Sampool, driven by the pattern of tides and swirling winds, means that noise, smell and airborne dust will be spread across the entire Sampool / Waterside area. • The building is proposed to be sited against a small wooded area over which the applicant has no control. The application states that trees will be planted to screen the noise and smell. However these will take some 10 years to grow to a position where they will begin to mitigate the visual harm caused by the building. • There is no provision of facilities for staff, such as toilets. • The proposed grain silos will tower above the building. • Manure spreading will occur regularly given the amount produced which will impact on the nearby residents. The manure store does not appear to be large enough for the amount produced. • The Cumbrian Coastal Way directly passes the site and the application wrongly states that no footpaths are in the vicinity. • They have not supplied the most obvious viewpoint which is of the building as you go down Sampool Lane. The building will be in full view of all lane users. • The proposed land is in Flood Zone 3 and is waterlogged throughout the wet months of the year. The manure to be spread on the land will seep into the surrounding dykes, River Kent and Morecambe Bay. Spreading this amount
85 of poultry manure on approx. 60 acres of grassland exceeds the DEFRA guidelines. • Given the site’s extremely sensitive location and within Flood Zone 3, an Environmental Impact Assessment should have been required. • The Flood Risk Assessment advises that surface water will be drained into existing field drains. Given the site’s history of flooding, this will create additional risk to adjacent properties in the locality, not only with flood water but as manure will be stored on the site and the resulting effluent when the site and surrounding area floods. Raising the ground level of the site will force water onto the adjacent property, flooding the area and septic tanks. • The application does not state how the unit will be powered. Currently there is not enough power to supply the existing house (High Sampool House). • High Sampool Lane is not able to cope with the increased traffic this operation will generate. The lane is already subsiding into the River Kent. This is a very narrow part of the road and already takes large vehicles dangerously near the river and the remains of the Peel Tower of Low Levens Farm. The lane was not built for heavy traffic and is already, due to very heavy modern farm traffic, subsiding all along its length where it is flanked with ditches on either side. • The application site has sub standard visibility splays to the south west and the applicant is not in a position to improve them as the adjacent land is not in his ownership. This access is on the approach to residential properties and a caravan park which has 219 units. There is therefore a significant risk posed at this intensified access. • Sampool Lane becomes flooded due to rainfall preventing any use of Sampool Lane for large vehicles. • The land has rarely been used for grazing over the past 10 years, as suggested in the application, but has mostly been cultivated for grass silage and more recently for the production of maize. The barns belonging to the applicant have been used for storage and keeping a few calves. • This proposal for an intensive poultry unit does not accord with Policy S23 of the South Lakeland Local Plan in that the amenity of local residents, nature conservation interests and visual amenity will be severely jeopardised and negatively affected. • No steps have been taken by the applicant towards involving the community in any consultation process or taking account of the strong feelings and concerns to the location of this scheme. In addition to the above, petitions containing a total of 352 signatures and 59 standard letters have been received which strongly oppose the application.
HISTORICAL CONTEXT: A planning application (ref. SL/2011/0045) was submitted in January 2011 for the erection of a poultry unit and manure store. This was withdrawn in March 2011, before it was reported to the Planning Committee, for a noise assessment to be undertaken.
86 The dwellings at High Sampool adjacent to the site previously formed part of a group of farm buildings, which included a farmhouse, owned by the applicant’s family. Planning permission was granted in 1992 for an extension of the farmhouse into an adjoining barn to form an additional dwelling. In 1995 planning permission was granted for the conversion of a barn and ancillary building to form two dwellings.
DESCRIPTION AND PROPOSAL: The site is located between the A590 and the River Kent on the area of low lying land to the south west of Levens village. It has access off a minor road, Sampool Lane, which leads off the slip road to the A590. The road also serves a farm, a number of residential properties and Sampool Caravan Park. The Cumbria Coastal Way, which is a long distance walking route, also runs along Sampool Lane. The site relates to an agricultural field to the north east of High Sampool which consists of a group of four dwellings. There are two agricultural buildings, owned by the applicant, to the south west of these residential properties. To the north east of the site is a large area of trees on land owned by one of the residential properties. The boundaries to the site consist of hedgerows and post and wire fences. In an adjacent field to the south east there are large earth bunds along the side of the River Kent which is designated as a Special Area of Conservation (SAC) upstream of the site. The site is in close proximity to Morecambe Bay which is designated as a SSSI, Special Protection Area (SPA), Special Area of Conservation (SAC) and a Ramsar site and the site is within a Flood Zone 3. It also lies close to Witherslack Mosses SAC, Foulshaw Mosses SSSI, Underlaid Wood SSSI, Nichols Moss SSSI, Meathop Moss SSSI, Scout and Cunswick Scars SSSI and Whitbarrow SSSI. The applicant currently farms a tenanted dairy farm at Levens, and has approx 66 acres of land around High Sampool. Planning permission is sought for the erection of a large poultry building in order to diversify his business. The total floor area would be 1705 square metres and it would have a length of 94.6 metres, a width of 18 metres, a ridge height of 6.7 metres and an eaves height of 5.3 metres. The building would house approximately 39,850 birds in enriched cages and would include an egg sorting area, egg storage area and a manure store on the south east side of the building. It would have a steel portal frame construction with a concrete floor. The walls would be a combination of concrete panels, block work and box profile sheeting and the roof would be green box profile steel sheeting. Two feed silos are proposed on the north west elevation, close to the entrance to the field. These would be 7.4 metres high and 3.35 metres wide and finished in juniper green to match the building. Ten fans are proposed on the north elevation to control the internal building temperature. A noise report has been submitted in relation to these. There would be an open continuous void along the roof of the building, approx. 200mm wide. Within the building there would be a mechanism which closes to react to the ventilation requirements. The building would be sited 12 metres to the north west boundary of the site, 46 metres from the south west boundary and 18 metres from the highway. It would be 74 metres from the nearest dwelling and 54 metres from the boundary of this residential property. The proposal includes raising the site level by 0.41 metres to be the same as the road. An area of hard standing is proposed around the building and on the north east of the site to provide room for parking and turning. There is an
87 existing access to the field off Sampool Lane which will be used to serve the building. Delivery of food would be once a week and egg collection twice a week. Poultry manure would be allowed to dry within the building and will be stored until it is spread on the land. The manure store is 68.2 metres long, 5 metres wide and extends up to the south west elevation of the building. It is proposed to plant an area of the field opposite the site to help screen the site from the north. Planting is also proposed to the south west of the building to create additional screening between the proposed building and the nearest residential property and to the north west.
POLICY ISSUES: National Policy The most relevant to this proposal is PPS7 – Sustainable Development in Rural Areas. With regards to agricultural development, this policy states that development proposals should be supported that will enable farming and farmers to: become more competitive, sustainable and environmentally friendly; adapt to new and changing markets; comply with changing legislation and associated guidance; diversify into new agricultural opportunities; or broaden their operations to “add value” to their primary produce. Regional Spatial Strategy DP1 - Spatial Principles DP3 - Promote Sustainable Economic Development DP78 – Promote Environmental Quality RDF 2 – Rural Areas EM1 – Integrated Enhancement and Protection of the Region’s Environmental Assets. Cumbria and Lake District Joint Structure Plan Policy E37 relates to landscape character and states that development and land use should be compatible with the distinctive characteristics. Proposals will be assessed in relation to locally distinctive natural or built features; visual intrusion or impact; scale in relation to the landscape and features; the character of the built environment; public access and community value of the landscape; historic patterns and attributes; biodiversity features, ecological networks and semi-natural habitats; and openness, remoteness and tranquillity. South Lakeland Local Development Framework - Core Strategy Policy CS7.4 identifies that support will be given to the economic needs of rural communities by supporting sustainable farming and food production. Policy CS8.1 relates to green infrastructure and sets out that the Core Strategy will seek to protect the countryside from inappropriate development whilst supporting its positive use for agriculture, recreation, biodiversity, health, education and tourism. Policy CS8.2 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.
88 Policy CS8.4 relates to biodiversity and geodiversity and states that development proposals that would have a direct or indirect adverse effect on nationally, sub- regional, regional and local designated sites will not be permitted unless they cannot be located on alternative sites that would cause less or no harm; the benefits of the development clearly outweigh the impacts on the features of the site and the wider network of rural habitats; and prevention, mitigation and compensation measures are provided. Policy CS8.8 states that development within Flood Risk Zones 2, 3a and 3b will only be acceptable when it is compatible with national policy. All new development will only be permitted if it can be demonstrated that it would not have a significant impact on the capacity of an area to store floodwater; measures required to manage any flood risk can be implemented; surface water is managed in a sustainable way; provision is made for the long term maintenance and management of any flood protection and / or mitigation measures; and the benefits of the proposal to the community outweigh the flood risk. Policy CS8.10 states that the siting, design, scale and materials of all development should be of a character which maintains or enhances the quality of the landscape or townscape and, where appropriate, should be in keeping with local vernacular tradition. Policy CS10.2 relates to the transport impact of new development. Development proposals should be served by safe access to the highway network without detriment to the amenity or character of the locality; the expected nature and volume of traffic can be accommodated by the existing road network without detriment to the amenity or character of the surrounding area or highway safety; the proposal incorporates parking standards that are in accordance with any adopted and emerging sub- regional and / or local policy and guidance. Saved Policies of South Lakeland Local Plan Policy S2 states that design should take account of existing distinctive local character. This should not exclude good local contemporary architecture. Attention should be paid to public views onto, over or out of the site. Views should not be significantly harmed and opportunities should be taken to enhance them. The design and materials of new buildings should relate to those around them and be well proportioned with appropriate architectural detail and decoration. Policy 23 states that new agricultural buildings will only be acceptable where the proposal has no significant adverse impact on the visual amenity of the local area, in terms of siting, profile, roof-pitch, and colour; taking into account the need for additional landscaping; the amenity of any nearby residential properties; and local nature conservation interests. In considering proposals, full regard will be had to the operational needs of agricultural businesses. Policy C6 states that proposals for development or land use change which may affect a European site, a proposed European site, or a Ramsar site will be subject to the most rigorous examination. Development which is likely to have significant effects on the site and which adversely affects the integrity of the site will not be permitted unless there is no alternative solution and there are imperative reasons of overriding public interest or land use change. Policy C7 states that proposals in or likely to affect Sites of Special Scientific Interest will be subject to special scrutiny. Where such development may have a significant adverse effect, directly or indirectly on interests of nature conservation importance, it
89 will not be permitted unless the reasons for development clearly outweigh the value of those interests. Cumbria Landscape Character Guidance and Toolkit The landscape character assessment identifies the site as being within an area which is classified as broad valleys. The guidance outlines that one of the issues that this landscape could face over the next 10-20 years is from large scale farm buildings that are introducing uncharacteristic development into the farmed landscape. It states that the impact on local character from development should be minimised through ensuring design and scale respects the local vernacular and character, particularly regarding the introduction of modern large-scale farm buildings.
HUMAN RIGHTS ACT: This application has been determined to accord with the rights and limitations of the Act in relation to Article 6 (Right to a fair and public hearing), Article 8 (Right to respect for private and family life, home and correspondence), Article 14 (Prohibition of discrimination) and Article 1 of Protocol 1 (Right to peaceful enjoyment of possessions and protection of property).
ASSESSMENT: The main issues relate to impacts on the highway, residential amenity, landscape, flood risk and nearby environmentally designated areas. Impact on the Highway The applicant has explained that the development would require one feed delivery per week (35 tonne vehicle) and two egg collections (8-10 tonne vehicle). However manure generated from the development would be used in the neighbouring fields therefore reducing the need for slurry deliveries. Cumbria Highways consider that the proposal is broadly acceptable. However they have raised some concerns regarding the extraordinary damage to the public highway that may result from this proposal and have advised that a joint inspection should be made with their engineers prior to commencement of construction with a view to monitoring the road beyond the bridge in particular. Landscape Impact The application has been accompanied by a landscape and visual impact assessment dated July 2011. This assessment includes photographic evidence from key viewpoints towards the application site. The area is described as having wide and deep valleys with open floodplains and pockets of woodland and coniferous plantations. The report explains that many of the viewpoints indicated that the site would not be visible because of the existing farm buildings or would appear against the backdrop of them and the residential buildings at High Sampool. Other viewpoints showed that the building would be seen through trees and established hedgerows or would have a backdrop of trees which appear much higher than the building due to distant views. The land to the west of the A6 undulates and as such screens most views towards the site from Heversham and Leasgill. In addition, groups of trees and agricultural buildings provide context for the development. Heversham Head is approximately
90 2km from the site and as such the building would not have a significant visual impact from this point. From Levens, to the north of the site, views of the building would be partially screened by established hedgerows and trees. In addition, the existing buildings at High Sampool and the established trees around the site would provide a backdrop for the proposed building. From the west, the existence of trees would prevent direct site of the building. Whitbarrow Scar is approximately 4km from the site which limits the visual impact of the building from this position. However, the building is likely to be very prominent from local views given its scale and close proximity to the highway. This will particularly be the case when travelling along Sampool Lane from the north east. A view point from this location does not appear to have been provided within the landscape and visual impact assessment. This road provides access to the nearby caravan park, to the south west, and is also the route of the Cumbria Coastal Way. There are two other agricultural buildings close to the site, however when viewed from Sampool Lane, these are not visible until approx. 200 metres further along the road than the entrance to the site. In addition, these are much smaller than the proposed building which will not be contained within this existing group. The other nearby buildings are residential properties, some of which have been converted from farm buildings. These are all of a traditional appearance. In addition to the poultry building, there will be two feed silos and a large area of hard standing. The feed silos will be 7.4 metres high and will be close to the highway and as such will be particularly visible. The building is unlikely to be unduly prominent within the landscape from distant views as it will be seen against the nearby residential properties and farm buildings. There are also several groups of farm buildings nearby so it will be seen in the context of these. However, it will be very prominent when viewed locally and is likely to appear isolated, incongruous and out of scale with the other buildings within this low lying open landscape. Combined with the large area of hard standing and the two large silos, it will have a detrimental impact on the character and appearance of the area. Flooding Given that the application site is within Flood Zone 3, a flood risk assessment was submitted with the application. This has been reviewed by the Environment Agency as the use is classed as “less vulnerable”. However, conditions have been recommended to ensure that the disposal of poultry manure and foul and surface water is dealt with appropriately. Residential amenity There are various issues to consider relating to residential amenity. The most quantifiable is the noise impact. The fans have been positioned on the gable of the building furthest from the residential properties. A detailed noise assessment has been submitted. This is a relatively quiet rural location with some noise from the nearby A590. Background noise levels are likely to be quite low, particularly at night. The Environmental Protection Officer has assessed the submitted noise assessment and concludes that it is unlikely that the noise level will be a nuisance. The fans should not impact upon background noise levels during the day and it is unlikely that
91 ten fans will be running at the same time during the night. Fan noise should not be audible within bedrooms. With regard to odours, this is likely to be from the air vent rather than from the building itself. The hen manure which is stored, is dried within the building which reduces the odour. There is the risk that this could become wet if the building is the subject of flooding, although the floor level would be raised to hopefully prevent this. However, although measures to help control odours and pest infestations could be imposed, there is still the potential for nuisance and public health concerns to occur due to unexpected problems and maintenance issues. Given the scale of the proposal, it is considered that there is an insufficient buffer zone between the building and residential properties to protect the enjoyment of those properties. Impact on Environmentally designated sites and protected species A response from a consultant acting on behalf of a neighbouring resident has suggested that an Environment Impact Assessment is required with the application. A Screening Opinion was issued when the first application was submitted and, following consultation with Natural England, concluded that an EIA was not required. As the main details of this application remained the same as the previous one, the Screening Opinion for this proposal has the same conclusion. However, this does not negate the need for a full assessment of potential impact of the proposal on nearby designated sites. The proposal lies close to several designated areas. The sites in closest proximity include Morecambe Bay SAC/SPA and the Witherslack Mosses SAC – and component SSSIs within these sites. The River Kent SAC, whilst designated upstream of the development site, is also potentially relevant as the downstream reach of the river forms an important part of the overall functioning of the wider river system and its interest features. There is the potential for the proposal to impact on these designated areas, particularly as the site is located within Flood Zone 3. A manure management plan has been submitted with the application which sets out how it would be stored and disposed. An ecological statement has also been provided which concludes that the processes put in place as part of the development would not adversely affect the designated areas. These initial reports were not considered to fully address the potential impacts on the designated areas. As such, a further ecological report has now been submitted. Given the proximity of the proposal to the ecologically designated areas, there are various potential risks that must be considered and fully assessed. These include direct damage to SPA / SAC species and habitats; damage during the construction phase (e.g. from sedimentation or discharge into the watercourse); damage during the operation of the facility; nitrogen deposition from the development when in operation; and impact on water quality in the River Kent from run-off from fields that have been spread with chicken manure. From the report it is clear that some of the concerns highlighted by Natural England in their initial response have not been fully addressed. This has been confirmed in the response from Cumbria Wildlife Trust. It has not been demonstrated that manure spreading would not have an adverse effect on the interest features of the protected sites. According to the Habitats and Species Regulations 2010 the Council must determine whether there will be an adverse impact on the Natura 2000 sites through an assessment of whether there will be a likely significant effect of the development on the protected sites.
92 Page 9 of the Design and Access Statement indicates that “the hen manure would be spread on the High Sampool land” and the Manure Management Plan indicates that “As soon as it is removed from the manure building it will either be spread on the land or delivered to the neighbouring farmers”. Without information about pollutant pathways under both normal and flood conditions, an assessment of the likely significant effect on the Natura 2000 sites of the spreading of this manure on the High Sampool land cannot be made. The Flood Risk Assessment document states on page 8 “the proposed site is at high risk of fluvial flooding, at its present level and distance from the water body.” Local people have photographs of the fields where the manure is to be spread showing it underwater during recent floods. In these conditions, it is hard to see how manure and its chemical by-products will not end up in the Morecambe Bay SAC / SPA / Ramsar site. Cumbria Wildlife Trust have also highlighted the statement in the Flood Risk Assessment that the site is not at risk from tidal flooding, when the River Kent in its tidal range lies less than 300m from the application site, and the sea walls have failed in recent times. The Envirotech ecological report offers a rather bland comment regarding transportation of contaminants indicating that: “The potential for off site transportation of contaminants both during and post construction, both organic and inorganic, will need to be addressed by way of a pollution control plan. In particular the storage and disposal of chicken manures will need to be undertaken in accordance with Environment Agency guidelines for the storage, transportation and spreading of such waste.” No pollution control plan has been submitted, and it is hard to see how pollution from the spread manure can be controlled in the fields next to ditches and watercourses which drain directly into the Natura 2000 site. Even in normal, non-flooding situations, run-off from the fields will end up in the protected site via the network of ditches and watercourses which drain the site. From the information submitted, it is not possible to fully ascertain whether the proposal will adversely impact on the designated sites. Conclusion The negative impacts have to be weighed against the positive effects of the economic case for the agricultural diversification and the draft National Planning Policy Framework that creates the presumption in favour of sustainable development. This is a balanced decision, however it is considered that greater weight be given to the impact on residential amenity, landscape protection and the environmentally designated sites.
RECOMMENDATION: REFUSE for the reasons below: Reason (1) The proposed development would result in a detrimental impact on the amenity of residents by reason of odours, pests and general disturbance. The development is therefore contrary to Saved Policy S23 of the South Lakeland Local Plan, Planning Policy Statement 1: Delivering Sustainable Development, and The Planning System: General Principles.
93 Reason (2) The proposed building is large in scale and would be of a utilitarian appearance and in an isolated position within open countryside. If constructed it would cause material harm to the character and appearance of the area. It is therefore contrary to the aims and objectives of Government Policy as set out in Planning Policy Statement 7 and Local Policies as set out in Policy E37 of the Cumbria and Lake District Joint Structure Plan, Saved Policy S23 of the South Lakeland Local Plan and Policy CS8.2 of the adopted South Lakeland Core Strategy and the Cumbria Landscape Character Guidance and Toolkit.
Reason (3) Insufficient information has been provided to show that there will be no adverse impacts on the Morecambe Bay SAC / SPA / Ramsar site. The proposal is therefore contrary to Policy EM1 of the North West Regional Spatial Strategy, Policy E37 of the Cumbria and Lake District Joint Structure Plan, Policy CS8.4 of the adopted South Lakeland Core Strategy and Saved Policy S23 of the South Lakeland Local Plan.
94 SCHEDULE A
Complex Planning Applications
SCHEDULE No: 6 SL/2011/0695
LUPTON: OLD WATER PUMPING STATION, LUPTON LA6 2PZ
PROPOSAL: CONSTRUCTION OF OPEN-FRONTED BARN TO PROVIDE STORAGE FOR MACHINERY AND MATERIALS
MR FRED GIBSON 24/11/2011 E357454 N483550
SUMMARY: The economic benefits do not outweigh the detrimental impact of the building on the surrounding landscape. Refuse.
LUPTON PARISH COUNCIL: Supportive of the proposals. The building will assist in security and the protection of equipment from adverse weather conditions, and believes the building will improve the view across the valley. The scheme will assist a rural business, and safeguard local jobs.
HIGHWAYS: More information is required about the nature of the business and the suitability of this location for this activity as many of the roads are single track with few passing places. I have concerns about damage to the public highway network resulting from this development.
OTHER: One letter of support has been received from the agent representing the Underley Estate, where the business was previously located. Mr Gibson provides a valued and respected service to local businesses, and the application should be approved.
HISTORICAL CONTEXT: In 2005 planning permission was granted for the use of the former water pumping station as a workshop and tractor store. The applicant’s business was based at
95 Home Farm, Kearstwick but was under notice to find alternative premises due to a redevelopment of the site into office and business accommodation. Permission was granted despite highway concerns over the capacity of the highway network to accommodate such a use, and concerns about the impact of the scheme on the character of the locality, given its isolated rural location. The application site was limited to a small area adjacent to the building, and alterations to the building were proposed. A number of conditions were attached in order to limit the appearance of the development in the landscape. The applicant was able to maintain his business at the Underley Estate for longer than initially anticipated, although operations have now transferred to the former pumping station Planning permission is sought to erect an open store on the site to house vehicles associated with the business. Although the existing building has been modified, a large part of it is now used to house pigs. The parking area associated with the building extends beyond the application site boundary identified in the original application.
DESCRIPTION AND PROPOSAL: The former pump house occupies an isolated rural location in an undulating landscape, near to Tarnhouse Tarn, Lupton. Vehicular access is via a track from a single carriageway road which heads north towards the B6254. There are some passing places along the highway. The proposal involves the erection of an open barn-style building adjacent to the former water pumping station building to provide covered storage for machinery and materials associated with the applicant’s fencing business. The walls of the building are to consist of vertical timber boarding over a concrete plinth, and the roof will be covered with dark green metal sheeting. The floor area of the structure measures 25 metres in length and 9 metres in width and it will have a maximum height of 4 metres.
POLICY ISSUES: Planning Policy Statement 1 – Delivering Sustainable Development (PPS1) refers to the need to protect and enhance the quality, character and amenity value of the countryside. One of the core principles of the draft National Planning Policy Framework, published in July, is that “planning should proactively drive and support the development that this country needs. Every effort should be made to identify and meet the housing, business, and other development needs of an area, and respond positively to wider opportunities for growth. Decision-takers at every level should assume that the default answer to development proposals is “yes”, except where this would compromise the key sustainable development principles set out in this Framework.” One of the key principles is that the planning system should protect and enhance the natural environment. Planning Policy Statement 4: Planning for Sustainable Economic Growth (PPS4) Policy EC7 states that Local Planning Authorities should ensure that the countryside is protected for the sake of its intrinsic character and beauty, the diversity of its landscapes, heritage and wildlife, the wealth of its natural resources and to ensure it
96 may be enjoyed by all. The conversion and re-use of appropriately located and suitably constructed existing buildings in the countryside (particularly those adjacent or closely related to towns or villages) for economic development is supported. Planning Policy Statement 7: Sustainable Development in Rural Areas (PPS7) identifies one of the key principles of sustainable development as the effective protection of the environment, and requires the quality and character of the wider countryside to be protected. Saved Policy E37 of the Cumbria and Lake District Joint Structure Plan requires that development and land use change should be compatible with the distinctive characteristics and features of Cumbria’s landscape types, with proposals being assessed in relation to a number of criteria including visual intrusion, scale in relation to landscape and features, public access, biodiversity, openness, remoteness and tranquillity. Policy CS8.2 of the Core Strategy seeks to protect, conserve and enhance South Lakeland’s highly valued landscape character. Policy CS8.10 of the Core Strategy relates to the design of new development which should be compatible with the landscape. Policy CS7.4 of the Core Strategy which relates to the rural economy states that favourable consideration will be given to suitable employment related development in rural areas where the proposal is in keeping with its surroundings, is not detrimental to the character or appearance of the landscape or settlement and does not give rise to unacceptable levels of traffic.
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: Apart from the former pump house, there are no other buildings in the immediate vicinity. The landscape here is unspoilt in the sense that it contains nothing to detract from its natural qualities. The building and the application site are clearly visible from the local road network. The former pump house building is currently used for the housing of livestock and the storage of equipment. The site appears to be operating in part as a smallholding. Permission was originally granted for the relocation of the fencing contracting business to this site on the basis that the proposal utilised a vacant building, with operations being limited to the building with a limited amount of land adjacent to the building for parking. The parking area has expanded beyond the area identified in the original application, and materials and equipment are being stored outside. The applicant cites security as one of the reasons the open barn is necessary, to store vehicles out of site. Nevertheless any vehicles and equipment will remain vulnerable to theft given the isolated location of the site, an issue which will have been apparent from the outset. The planning authority would expect the vehicles and
97 equipment associated with the business to be stored within the former pumping station, as outlined in the original application, rather than construct new buildings for this purpose. The existing building has the appearance of a traditional isolated agricultural building, and at the time of the original application it was considered that the fencing business could be accommodated without causing detriment to the character and appearance of the area. In comparison the new building proposed will appear utilitarian in this isolated rural setting. It will be clearly visible and its scale and design, isolated from any farmstead, would significantly harm the character and appearance of this high quality landscape. Permission to locate the business here related solely to the existence of the vacant pumping station; without the building, planning permission would not have been granted for this business use in such an attractive, isolated rural location served by narrow lanes. The land that lies within the ownership of the applicant is not large, and is insufficient to justify the need for a new building on agricultural grounds. The fact that the applicant chooses to use the building for other purposes does not justify the erection of a new building for the fencing business. From the information supplied with the application the number of employees has not increased and nor has the size of the business. In response to highway concerns, the applicant’s agent has indicated that there will be no increase in the level of traffic above the level anticipated in the original application. It is acknowledged that the applicant operates an important rural business which provides local employment, but there is insufficient evidence to demonstrate that an additional building is essential to the operation of this business in this location, especially when considering the harmful impact it will exert on the high quality local landscape. The building would be prominent and out of character in an attractive open landscape into which it would intrude and from which it would detract. As a consequence, the proposal fails to accord with the objectives of Policies CS7.4, CS8.2 and CS8.10 of the adopted South Lakeland Core Strategy and saved Policy E37 of the Structure Plan; is not compatible with PPS1 in that it does not protect or enhance the quality, character and amenity value of the countryside; and does not accord with one of the key sustainable development principles set out in the draft National Planning Policy Framework which aims to protect and enhance the natural environment.
RECOMMENDATION: REFUSE for the following reason: The building will occupy a prominent and isolated site in an attractive open landscape in which buildings play a subsidiary role. It would be clearly visible from the adjacent highway network and would be out of character in the landscape into which it would intrude and from which it would detract. The proposal is, therefore, in conflict with the aims and objectives of Policies CS7.4, CS8.2 and CS8.10 of the adopted South Lakeland Core Strategy and saved Policy E37 of the Cumbria and Lake District Joint Structure Plan. By failing to protect and enhance the natural environment, the proposed building does not accord with one of the key sustainable development principles set out in the draft National Planning Policy Framework.
98 SCHEDULE A
Complex Planning Applications
SCHEDULE No: 7 SL/2011/0699 ALDINGHAM: GARDEN OF FLOSH FIELDS, SCALES ULVERSTON LA12 0PF
PROPOSAL: ERECTION OF NEW DWELLING AND DETACHED GARAGE
MR & MRS T and L DOUGLAS 24/11/2011 E326909 N472510
SUMMARY: Outline application for the construction of a dwelling. Main issues relate to whether the proposal constitutes infilling or rounding off, relationship to neighbouring properties and impact on trees. Deferred from the October meeting for a site visit. Refuse.
ALDINGHAM PARISH COUNCIL: Parish Council Members have raised a couple of points of concern. The first is that the proposed plans lie outside the development boundary and it is debatable whether it constitutes a rounding off of the village. The second is that the area is covered with mature trees, many of which will need to be removed to accommodate the building and access route. It isn’t clear from the plans how many trees will be retained.
CUMBRIA HIGHWAYS: The proposal is acceptable to Cumbria Highways.
DESCRIPTION AND PROPOSAL: The outline application relates to the construction of a new single storey detached dwelling and garage on an area of land adjacent to the applicants house on the northern side of the village of Scales. The site incorporates part of the applicants garden land and part of an adjacent separate parcel of orchard and woodland which contains a number of mature trees. The southern boundary of the site adjoins the garden of a neighbouring detached dwelling known as Hollow Stones. Access to the site is via a private lane which serves the village hall, a farm and two residential properties including the applicants house. The submitted plans indicate that the proposed dwelling would be positioned towards the southern boundary of the site and would be in the form of an ‘L’ shaped single
99 storey bungalow. A new access drive would be created to serve the development off the private lane adjacent to the farm which would cut through the woodland area. A detached garage, parking and turning areas are also proposed. The applicants, who are retired, currently live in Flosh Fields House which is now too large for their requirements. They wish to stay in the village and the new dwelling will provide more suitable single storey accommodation.
POLICY ISSUES: The South Lakeland Core Strategy was adopted in October last year. The Development Strategy (Policy CS1.2) explains that development will be concentrated in Kendal and Ulverston, then in the Key Service Centres, followed by a number of designated Local Service Centres and, finally, the smaller villages, hamlets and the open countryside. The Strategy states that approximately 11% of new housing and employment development will be in the network of smaller villages and hamlets. Development boundaries are not identified for these settlements; instead, new, small- scale development, in the form of infilling and rounding-off, will be permitted in order to satisfy local need in the smaller villages and hamlets scattered across the District. The terms “infilling” and “rounding-off” are defined in paragraph 2.25 of the Core Strategy. Infilling is defined as building taking place on a vacant plot in an otherwise built-up street frontage; rounding-off is defined as the completion of an incomplete group of buildings on land which is already partially developed, in such a way that will either complete the local road pattern or finally define and complete the boundaries of the group. Policy CS3 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 of the Core Strategy 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 CS8.6 of the Core Strategy requires the siting, design, scale and materials of all developments to be of a character which maintains or enhances the quality of the landscape or townscape and, where appropriate, should be in keeping with the local vernacular tradition. The policy concludes by stating that designs that support and enhance local distinctiveness will be encouraged. Saved Policy S2 of the South Lakeland Local Plan requires all new development to take account of the South Lakeland Design Code.
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
100 possessions and protection of property).
ASSESSMENT: The main planning issues raised by this application are whether the proposal can be regarded as appropriate infilling or rounding-off of Scales, bearing in mind the adopted planning policies for the area; whether the building would have a harmful impact upon the mature trees and shrubs on the northern part of the site. Policy CS1.2 of the Core Strategy states that new, small-scale development, in the form of infilling and rounding-off, will be permitted in order to satisfy local need in hamlets and small villages. The definition of infilling and rounding-off is clearly set out in the Core Strategy: Infilling: Building taking place on a vacant plot in an otherwise built-up street frontage. Rounding-off: The completion of an incomplete group of buildings on land which is already partially developed, in such a way that will either complete the local road pattern or finally define and complete the boundaries of the group. Such rounding off should not: change or distort the character or tradition of the group or the settlement in any undesirable way; extend the grouping in such a manner that, when the development has taken place, undeveloped areas remain or further land is opened up where pressure for development is likely to occur. Scales consists of two main building groups centred upon the highway which runs east / west through the village. The site is located to the north of the western building group and outside the previously established development boundary. Although there is a substantial farmstead to the east of the site, it is considered that the proposed dwelling would be poorly related to the other dwellings in this part of the village in that it would extend the building group northwards and would not result in a coherent group of properties. There is also concern that by allowing a development in this location, it could set a precedent for further similar proposals. As such it is considered that the proposed development could not be described as infilling or rounding-off as defined in the Core Strategy. The second issue relates to the impact of the development upon a number of mature trees and shrubs on the northern and western part of the site, particularly where the proposed access and garage would be built. Although none of the trees individually are of special interest, and the land is somewhat overgrown, they do form an attractive grouping which contributes to the amenity of the area. The proposed siting of the dwelling itself will not affect any of the trees, but the access and garage will result in the removal of a number of these trees and the desire to create a manageable garden associated with the dwelling could also result in pressure for the removal of additional trees and shrubs. Members will have had the opportunity to visit the site and assess the proposal in relation to the surrounding area.
101 RECOMMENDATION: REFUSE for the reasons below: Reason (1) The proposed dwelling 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 an undesirable extension of the village, which would detract from the rural character of Scales 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 development would result in the removal of a number of mature trees and shrubs which 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.
102 SCHEDULE A
Complex Planning Applications
SCHEDULE No: 8 SL/2011/0719
BROUGHTON WEST (Duddon): MOSS HOUSE FARM KIRKBY in FURNESS LA17 7UY
PROPOSAL: CONVERSION OF FARM BUILDING TO 3 HOLIDAY LETTING UNITS, EXTENSION TO FARMHOUSE AND - SEWAGE TREATMENT PLANT
MR WILLIAM 24/11/2011 BRAKEWELL E322950.1 N483948.8
SUMMARY: Proposed conversion of redundant barn to three dwellings for holiday letting, and extension of the farmhouse. In principle considered to be acceptable. Outstanding matters regarding drainage and access. Grant.
DUDDON PARISH COUNCIL: Duddon Parish Council are concerned about access onto the main highway as it does not appear to be very clear on the plans. They think for safety reasons access to the main highway should be via Kirkby and not Foxfield over the level crossings.
CUMBRIA HIGHWAYS: To be reported.
SLDC ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION OFFICER: Details of the size of the proposed treatment plant are required and the design of the soakaway or final discharge.
ENVIRONMENT AGENCY: In the absence of an acceptable Flood Risk Assessment the Agency objects to the proposal. The submitted FRA does not comply with the requirements set out in PPS 25. The FRA should clarify whether there are any habitable uses of the ground floor and if so the applicant should demonstrate that the floor level is set appropriately and is suitable for flood resilience.
103 If a satisfactory FRA is submitted the Agency recommends a condition be attached to any consent requiring details of the foul and surface water drainage to be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority.
NATURAL ENGLAND: Considers that the scale of the impact of the development upon bats is low and that mitigation has been provided which is appropriate and proportionate. Permission may be granted subject to appropriate conditions including a detailed mitigation and monitoring strategy for bats.
DESCRIPTION AND PROPOSAL: The site comprises a working farm located on the low lying land adjacent to the Duddon Estuary, between Kirkby in Furness and Grizebeck. The farm is located at the end of a minor public road which originates from the level crossing to the south of Foxfield Station and crosses the railway line twice before reaching the farm, the second gated crossing being unmanned. Beyond the farm to the west, the road connects to a private access lane (which is also a public bridleway) which joins the main A595 approximately 1 km to the west. This is the shorter and most commonly used access to the site. The farm comprises of a conventional range of modern and traditional buildings, the main range being in the form of a three sided courtyard containing the farmhouse and a substantial stone built barn. It is proposed to extend the farmhouse, to convert the barn into three holiday letting units and to install a new package treatment plant to serve the site. The proposed single storey extensions to the eastern and western side of the farmhouse would accommodate a double garage, utility room and small conservatory. The extensions would be constructed of materials to match the main farmhouse to the eastern side of the property with stone faced walls and slated pitched roofs. The proposed conversion of the barn would comprise the vertical subdivision of the building to form three self contained holiday letting units. The accommodation would be arranged over three floors to create two, two-bedroomed units and one three-bedroomed unit with integral garages on the ground floor. The conversion would be contained within the walls and roof of the existing barn, a number of new window and door openings would be created, particularly on the front and rear elevations. The other main alteration would be the creation of two small roof terraces from remodelled extensions to the barn at first floor level. A number of roof lights would also be inserted. The asbestos sheeted roof would be replaced with local roofing slates. Each unit would have an integral garage accessed from the internal farm yard, plus parking spaces to the east and west gable ends and to the northern side of the building. The existing boundary wall adjacent to the western end of the building would be realigned to create an access, and parking area to unit 3. A new foul drainage scheme would be constructed to serve the proposed development in the form of a package treatment plant, which would be installed immediately to the west of the building group. Further details of the plant have been requested by the Environmental Protection Officer. A structural survey of the barn has been submitted which concludes that the walls of the barn are solid constructed of good quality local slate masonry with no distortion or
104 structural cracking. The barn is structurally suitable for conversion into three residential units. A bat and barn owl survey has been submitted which concludes that there was no evidence of any bats or barn owls roosting or nesting in the building. It recommends that a mitigation strategy be adopted based upon a precautionary approach, including the provision of access points to the building within the new roof. The site is located within a high flood risk zone. A flood risk assessment has been submitted with the application. Members will note that the Environment Agency have requested further information and clarification regarding the FRA.
POLICY ISSUES: Planning Policy Statement (PPS) PPS 7 – Sustainable Development in Rural Areas. The PPS states that the provision of self-catering holiday accommodation in rural areas should be supported where this would accord with sustainable development principles. PPS 4 – Planning for Sustainable Economic Growth. Policy EC12 of PPS4 states that the re-use of buildings in the countryside for economic development purposes will usually be preferable. Local Authorities should take account of the economic and social sustainability of the area.
South Lakeland Core Strategy Policy CS7.6 of the adopted Core Strategy supports the enhancements and expansion of tourist infrastructure. Particular emphasis is placed on improving the quality of existing visitor accommodation and the need to broaden the range of accommodation provided.
South Lakeland Local Plan In the Local Plan, Saved Policy T4 deals with the provision of self-catering holiday accommodation outside development boundaries. It is clearly stated that the policy applies only to “traditional buildings and barns”.
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 proposed extensions to the farmhouse are acceptable in terms of scale and design. The principle of converting the barn into holiday letting units is considered to be acceptable. The substantial building is in good structural condition and the
105 conversion will help to support the farm business. Some of the finer details of the alterations require further work to ensure that the character of the barn is not adversely affected, but most of this aspect could be covered by condition. In view of the close relationship of the barn to the main farmstead, it is considered that a condition should be attached to any consent to retain the holiday letting units and the farm as a single planning unit. Further details regarding the Flood Risk Assessment have been requested from the applicant. The accommodation has been arranged so that the ground floor does not contain habitable rooms and the conversion is contained within the existing building, and in this respect it is considered that this issue can be addressed. Likewise the applicant has been asked to confirm the capacity of the new treatment plant and any additional information received will be reported at the meeting. With respect to the access to the site, the safest and most direct access is via the unmade private lane from the A595 and it is this route which is more commonly used to the site. The public road access from the north is a more tortuous and difficult route because of the level crossings. The applicant’s farm does have a right of way across the private lane which is owned by a neighbouring farm and it is understood that there is an informal agreement between users of the lane to contribute to its maintenance. However this lane is narrow with limited passing places and is not ideal. The issue is whether the increase in traffic likely to be generated by the development is likely to create unacceptable highway safety problems for existing users of the access routes. The response of the highways authority is still awaited and will be reported at the meeting.
RECOMMENDATION: At present no written response has been received from Cumbria County Council’s Highways officer. Subject to no adverse comment being received from them, and subject to a satisfactory conclusion to negotiations over the details it is recommended that delegated authority be given to the Interim Corporate Director (Communities) to grant planning permission subject to the following conditions:
1. Standard time and reason. 2. Materials to be agreed. 3. Parking area and boundary details. 4. Drainage details to be agreed. 5. Restriction of use to holiday letting. 6. Retention of site to a single planning unit.
106 SCHEDULE A
Complex Planning Applications
SCHEDULE No: 9 SL/2011/0741
URSWICK: LAND ADJACENT TO DAISY HILL COTTAGE GREAT URSWICK ULVERSTON LA12 0ST
PROPOSAL: DWELLING, DETACHED GARAGE AND ACCESS
MR & MRS S and J SWARBRICK
24/11/2011 E327145 N474608
SUMMARY: Outline proposal for the construction of a detached dwelling. Recent consent to remove mature protected trees on the site granted subject to replanting. The site is located outside the development boundary and is awkwardly related to adjacent properties. Significant interest in the proposal from the local community. Refuse.
URSWICK PARISH COUNCIL: The Council has the following objections to the proposed development: Location of development • the proposed development lies outside the development sites identified in the Local Development Framework (Map 38), in an area used by wildlife as a corridor from farmland to the Tarn; allowing this application would set a precedent for similar development on green field sites; • the elevated nature of the site means that it is obtrusive in the locality; • the proposed development would overshadow adjacent properties and constitute over-development of an already congested area; • access to the proposed development would pose an additional traffic hazard, as it is adjacent to a blind hill, and add to parking difficulties experienced by local residents. Design of proposed dwelling The dormer/chalet design of the house is out of keeping with the historic character of the village and existing properties.
107 Location of new sycamore trees The location of the replacement trees under the Tree Preservation Order No 231, 2011 Daisy Hill, Great Urswick, appears on the plans for the development to be some distance from the original agreed site. Problem with drainage of surface water There is a concern about drainage of surface water from the proposed hard standing and drive-in ramp. Previous planning applications Previous applications for the development of this site (Nos. 5941390 and 5881013) were refused. The grounds for refusal remain relevant to the current application. Urswick Parish Council would therefore recommend refusal of this application.
CUMBRIA HIGHWAYS: Details of gradients should be provided, sightlines must be 2.4m x the length of the site frontage with nothing higher that one metre within those splays. Recommends conditions to be attached to any consent relating to surface water, gates, and parking and turning.
CUMBRIA COUNTY COUNCIL HISTORIC ENVIRONMENT OFFICER: Recommends that a condition be attached to any consent requiring an archaeological evaluation of the site to be undertaken.
UNITED UTILITIES: No objections.
OTHER: The application has generated a great deal of interest from the local community. A total of 19 letters of objection to the proposal have been received and 14 letters of support. The main concerns are as follows: • The site is agricultural land outside the development boundary for the village. • The site does not comply with the strategy of infilling and rounding off. • Cars regularly park alongside the site and visibility from the new access would be restricted. The proposed access does not have the necessary sightlines. • Daisy Hill is a busy and congested road, on the brow of a blind hill. • There is concern that the proposal could lead to further developments within the field. • Previous applications on the site have been refused and the refusal reasons remain valid. • The elevated position and size of the proposed dwelling is out of keeping with the area and would dominate and overshadow the adjacent properties.
108 • The position of the proposed workshop would be very close to the adjacent dwelling and be unneighbourly. • The proposed design of the dwelling would be out of character with the village’s strong historic character. • The development is speculative, there is no proven local need for the dwelling. • The developer has undertaken landfill on the site without consent and obstructed the public highway. • Three protected sycamore trees have been removed from this site there are no signs of any replacement tree planting or the rebuilding of the boundary wall which has been removed. • The remains of Urswick Hall are included in the paddock which may be of archaeological interest. • The development would exacerbate the flooding problems on Daisy Hill. The letters of support state: • The proposal is an infill development between two houses and will not impede views of the tarn. • The dwelling on the left of the site Old Hall Cottage was built on a green field only 30 years ago. • The applicant is local. • The trees were dangerous and the applicant will plant replacement trees. • A good designed residence will only enhance the land. The plans are in keeping with the village.
HISTORICAL CONTEXT: Planning permission has previously been refused for residential development on this site, most recently in 1994 when outline consent was refused for the construction of a bungalow. The reasons for refusal were: Reason (1) The Local Planning Authority do not consider this development to constitute either "infilling" or "rounding off". As such, this proposal is considered to be contrary to the provisions of Policy A3 of the Cartmel and Furness Local Plan.
Reason (2) Due to the elevated nature of the site, the proposed development would be obtrusive in the locality.
Reason (3) The proposed development would have a harmful effect on the mature trees which flank the road frontage of the site and are subject of a Tree Preservation Order.
Reason (4) The likely increase in traffic which would be generated as a result of the proposed access would be detrimental to the amenities of the occupiers of the existing residential property which flanks the access.
109
Earlier this year Members granted consent for the removal of the three mature sycamore trees to the frontage of the site, and which were the subject of a Tree Preservation Order. There was evidence that they were not sound and were affecting the structure of the retaining stone wall. The consent was granted subject to a condition that three heavy standard replacement trees were planted within 5m of the original trees by March 2012.
DESCRIPTION AND PROPOSAL: The outline application relates to the construction of a detached dwelling and separate garage / workshop on part of a field which fronts onto Church View, to the northern side of Urswick Tarn. This part of the village is characterised by traditional cottages directly adjoining the highway interspersed by open spaces. The site has a 28 metre frontage on the roadside and extends to 0.2 hectares. The level of the site is approximately 1.7 m above the level of the highway, retained by a traditional stone wall, and slopes upwards away from the road to the higher land beyond. The site wraps around the rear of Daisy Hill Cottage which directly adjoins the site to the east at the lower road level. A detached dwelling, Urswick Hall Cottage adjoins the site to the west and a small group of cottages are located opposite the site frontage to the south. Three mature sycamore trees have recently been removed from the frontage of the site and the retaining wall has been partly dismantled to facilitate this work. The proposed detached dwelling would be set back from the road frontage by approximately 10 metres. The indicative plans show a relatively substantial two storey dwelling with a finished floor level some 2.2 metres above the road level. A new vehicular access would be created to the eastern side of the frontage leading to a parking and turning area and a detached garage / workshop which would be positioned to the rear of Daisy Hill Cottage. The ground levels to the site frontage would be reduced and the retaining wall reduced to 1 m in height. The three replacement trees are shown in the approved positions along the site frontage.
POLICY ISSUES: The South Lakeland Core Strategy was adopted in October last year. The Development Strategy (Policy CS1.2) explains that development will be concentrated in Kendal and Ulverston, then in the Key Service Centres, followed by a number of designated Local Service Centres and, finally, the smaller villages, hamlets and the open countryside. The Strategy states that approximately 11% of new housing and employment development will be in the network of smaller villages and hamlets. Development boundaries are not identified for these settlements; instead, new, small- scale development, in the form of infilling and rounding-off, will be permitted in order to satisfy local need in the smaller villages and hamlets scattered across the District. The terms “infilling” and “rounding-off” are defined in paragraph 2.25 of the Core Strategy. Infilling is defined as building taking place on a vacant plot in an otherwise built-up street frontage; rounding-off is defined as the completion of an incomplete group of buildings on land which is already partially developed, in such a way that will either complete the local road pattern or finally define and complete the boundaries of the group. Policy CS3 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
110 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 of the Core Strategy 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 CS8.6 of the Core Strategy requires the siting, design, scale and materials of all developments to be of a character which maintains or enhances the quality of the landscape or townscape and, where appropriate, should be in keeping with the local vernacular tradition. The policy concludes by stating that designs that support and enhance local distinctiveness will be encouraged. Saved Policy S2 of the South Lakeland Local Plan requires all new development to take account of the South Lakeland Design Code.
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 planning issue raised by this application is that the site is located outside the development boundary for the village of Great Urswick. The alignment of the boundary was established in the South Lakeland Local Plan and is proposed to remain unchanged in this part of the village. Therefore there is a policy presumption against allowing any development on this site unless there was an exceptional local need for an affordable dwelling. No such justification has been put forward as part of the proposal. This attractive site is important to the character and appearance of the village, despite the recent removal of the mature sycamore trees. Additionally it is considered that the elevated nature of the site and the proposed position of the dwelling would result in an awkward relationship with the adjacent properties. The proposed dwelling would be set back some 10 metres from the road frontage and be set at approximately 2.2m above the level of the adjacent properties and the road. As such the dwelling would appear dominant in the locality and have an overbearing and unneighbourly impact on the existing properties. There would also be concern that the proposal if allowed could lead to further development on the adjacent land. The creation of a vehicular access and the lowering of the boundary wall would also combine to have a significant harmful impact on the character of the locality. Although there are properties to the east, west and south of the site, it is considered that the proposed dwelling would be poorly related to the other dwellings in this part of the village in that it would extend the building group northwards and would not result in a coherent group of properties. There is also concern that by allowing a development in this location, it could set a precedent for further similar proposals.
111 RECOMMENDATION: REFUSE for the reasons below: Reason (1) The proposed dwelling would be located outside the development boundary of Great Urswick and in the absence of any justification for the development under the affordable housing exceptions policy, it is contrary to Policy CS6.4 of the adopted South Lakeland Core Strategy.
Reason (2) The development of this elevated site would result in an overbearing form of development, which would have a harmful impact on the character and appearance of Great Urswick. The acceptance of development on this site could lead to pressure for further development on adjacent sites to the detriment 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.
112 SCHEDULE A
Complex Planning Applications
SCHEDULE No: 10 SL/2011/0756
KENDAL: UNIT 8, DOCKRAY HALL INDUSTRIAL ESTATE, DOCKRAY HALL ROAD, KENDAL LA9 4RU
PROPOSAL: CHANGE OF USE FROM CLASS B1 / B2 (BUSINESS/GENERAL INDUSTRIAL) TO CLASS A1 (RETAIL) AND CLASSES B1 AND B8 (STORAGE) 24/11/2011 MRS A WOLFENDEN E351530.6 N493643.1
SUMMARY: The retail use forms a small part of a wider enterprise providing bulky household waste collection, furniture restoration and training. While the provision of a retail use in this location conflicts with Saved Policy E6 of the South Lakeland Local Plan, the wider benefits are supported by national policies and those within the Core Strategy. Grant.
KENDAL TOWN COUNCIL: The Town Council recommends approval of the application.
CUMBRIA HIGHWAYS: The proposal is acceptable provided that the planning permission is specific to this user.
HISTORICAL CONTEXT: Planning permission was granted for the erection of an industrial building incorporating three units in 2007. The permission restricted the use to light industrial / offices (B1) and general industry (B2).
DESCRIPTION AND PROPOSAL: The site is located within the eastern part of Dockray Hall Industrial Estate. It is proposed to change the use of the end unit within a recently built row of three industrial buildings. The site includes a small parking area to the front of the building.
113 The application seeks planning permission to change the use of the building to a mixture of office space at first floor and retail space at the ground floor. The use would be part of a larger enterprise by the Oaklea Trust within this and two other nearby buildings. The Trust has been awarded the contract by South Lakeland District Council to collect bulky household items. The service provided will collect bulky furniture and then store, recycle and reuse items. It is also intended to provide employment and training opportunities for people with learning disabilities and other disadvantaged groups. As a consequence of the operations some items will either be saleable as collected or once restoration work is carried out. The retail element of the scheme will allow reuse of such items and provide income to support the wider social aspect of the enterprise. Some of the items displayed within the retail space will be donated to families on low incomes and people in need.
PLANNING POLICIES: Planning Policy Statement 4: Planning for Sustainable Economic Growth The objective of the PPS is to encourage the vitality and viability of town centres and seeks to focus retail uses within town centres. When assessing an application for a town centre use not in a centre, the authority should consider whether a proposal will have a positive impact on economic regeneration and aid social inclusion. South Lakeland Local Plan
Saved Policy E6 - states that the change of use of employment land will not be permitted except where the existing use is unneighbourly because of traffic generation, noise, or disturbance to amenity; or the change of use would assist a move to more suitable premises in the vicinity. South Lakeland Core Strategy Policy CS7.3 - seeks to foster opportunities for skills development and ensure development contributes to training needs.
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 site is within the Dockray Hall Industrial Estate where policies seek to retain units for business use to provide greater employment opportunities. The use of units for retail within industrial estates is usually discouraged and enforcement action has previously been taken to remove retail uses from this estate. However, the proposal in this case is part of a wider enterprise which reduces waste, provides employment and training opportunities and cheap furniture for disadvantaged people. The Oakleigh Trust has leased three buildings in this location. Two of the buildings will be used for breaking down of furniture and separation of materials, storage of
114 material prior to recycling and repair / restoration of furniture. The unit subject to this application will provide office space at the upper floor with retail space and toilet provision at the ground floor. The retail element will utilise about 10% of the floor space leased by the Trust in this area. The retail element will also not provide the Trusts main source of income. Access to the site is through an industrial area, pedestrians will therefore need to take care. However, there are other businesses such as a garage which attract members of the public and the increase is unlikely to be at such a level that safety would be compromised. The site has adequate parking for the proposed use. While such uses are generally discouraged within industrial estates the specific requirements and positive benefits of the whole enterprise outweigh policy objections. However, planning permission should be granted for the Oakleigh Trust only and on a temporary basis during the life time of the current bulky waste contract.
RECOMMENDATION: GRANT subject to: Condition (1) The development hereby permitted shall be commenced before the expiration of THREE YEARS from the date hereof. Reason (1) 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 use hereby permitted shall be carried on only by The Oakleigh Trust. When the premises cease to be occupied by The Oakleigh Trust the use hereby permitted shall cease and all materials and equipment brought onto the premises in connection with the use shall be removed. Reason (2) Planning permission is justified only on the basis of the personal circumstances of the applicant and therefore the permission is restricted to the Oakleigh Trust only.
Condition (3) The retail use hereby permitted shall be discontinued and the use reverted to a B1 or B2 use on or before five years from the date of the planning permission. Reason (3) Planning permission is justified only on the basis of the personal circumstances of the applicant and therefore the permission is restricted to the Oakleigh Trust only. To ensure that once the specific requirements cease and the consent expires that use is restored to the previously permitted use.
Condition (4) The area to the used for retail use shall be restricted to the area hatched in red on the floor plan received by the Local Planning Authority on 31 October 2011. Reason (4) To ensure that the retail use is of a limited scale and a B1 use is retained at first floor in accordance with Saved Policy E6 of the South Lakeland Local Plan.
115 REASON FOR GRANTING PLANNING PERMISSION: The proposed retail use is justified because of the wider social enterprise provision by the applicant. While the proposal does conflict with Saved Policy E6 of the South Lakeland Local Plan, it conforms to the aims of Planning Policy Statements 1 and 4, the South Lakeland Corporate Plan and Policy CS7.3 of the adopted South Lakeland Core Strategy.
116 SCHEDULE A
Complex Planning Applications
SCHEDULE No: 11 SL/2011/0774
ALDINGHAM: TARN FOOT HOUSE LEECE, ULVERSTON LA12 0QY
PROPOSAL: INSTALLATION OF TWO 15M HIGH WIND TURBINES
MR NATHAN WELCH
24/11/2011 E324482.1 N469307.6
SUMMARY: Siting of two 15 metre wind turbines. Concerns regarding visual impact. Additional information regarding noise impact assessment required. Refuse.
ALDINGHAM PARISH COUNCIL: To be reported.
CUMBRIA HIGHWAYS: The proposal is acceptable to Cumbria highways.
SLDC ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION OFFICER: The data that they have provided, including the map showing the outer zone at which the turbines can apparently be heard operating, is based on manufacturers’ data at 11mph (5m/s) wind speed. The average wind speeds for this area (in m/s) are in excess of 5m/s. Therefore, taking this information into account, it will be necessary for the map to be altered to show a more realistic representation of predicted noise spread. As per other developments of this type, we would also require background noise monitoring to be undertaken at the nearest noise sensitive properties, which are to the south west of the proposed development (The Crest and The Croft). 24 hour monitoring under appropriate mid-range conditions (which should be noted) should be undertaken at the outside facade of one of the properties. This will enable me to accurately assess whether or not the proposal is likely to cause any noise nuisance problems.
117 Additional information has been submitted and the updated response from the Environmental Protection Officer will be reported at the meeting.
OTHER: Two letters of objection has been received from neighbouring residents. One states that whilst they have no objection to the principle of wind turbines they are aware that the noise estimates given by developers can be greatly underestimated and refer to a case in Barrow where noise nuisance occurred from turbines in Ireleth. They have concerns about the proximity of the two turbines to houses in Leece and ask that the Council should fully test the claims made by the developer. The other letter raises concerns regarding noise and disturbance arising from the turbines.
DESCRIPTION AND PROPOSAL: The proposed three bladed wind turbines would be mounted on towers 15metres in height and constructed of galvanised steel with white blades. The diameter of the rotor blades would be 9.7 metres which will result in a total height to the blade tip of 19.8 metres. The two turbines would be located on relatively low lying, open pasture land approximately 180 metres to the east of the applicant’s farm at Tarn Foot. The site is in an area characterised by gently undulating (low drumlin) pasture land, incorporating medium to large fields enclosed with hedgerows and stock proof fencing, and very few trees. The turbine structures would be positioned on a raised area within the field approximately 85 metres apart, at approximately 25 metres above sea level. There is a public footpath which crosses the field some 50 metres to the north of the proposed turbines, and the road connecting Leece to the Coast Road (Kiln Lane) skirts around the site to the west and south. The nearest residential properties are located approximately 200m to the west and south west of the westernmost turbine in the village of Leece. The turbines would be screened to a certain extent from these properties by farm buildings and a belt of trees in front of the two properties to the southwest (The Croft and The Crest). A small group of residential properties are also located approximately 370m to the east of the site, they have less in the way of screening. The two turbines will provide electricity for the farm and associated buildings with the potential capacity of producing excess electricity to be fed into the National Grid. Information contained in the application indicates that the turbines could generate an estimated output of 60,800 kWh of electricity each year. A noise report has been submitted with the application which sets out the noise output measurements which were taken from a site which contains one of the types of turbine that are proposed to be used. The outer distances at which the turbines can be heard operating have been plotted on the submitted plans some 150m from the bases of the turbines.
POLICY ISSUES: National Policy Government policy in respect of renewable energy is contained in PPS22 and the climate change supplement to PPS1. It is a key principle of PPS22 that small-scale projects can provide a limited but valuable contribution to the overall output of
118 renewable energy and local planning authorities are urged not to reject planning applications simply because the output is small. It is recognised that of all the renewable technologies, wind turbines are likely to have the greatest visual and landscape effects. In assessing planning applications, local authorities are advised that they should recognise that the impact of turbines on the landscape will vary according to the size and number of turbines and the type of landscape involved and that these impacts might be temporary if conditions are attached to planning permissions which require the future decommissioning of turbines. The supplement to PPS1 states that “An applicant for planning permission to develop a proposal that will contribute to the delivery of the Key Planning Objectives set out in this PPS should expect expeditious and sympathetic handling of the planning application.”
Regional Policy Policy EM17 of the Regional Spatial Strategy for the North West promotes the development of renewable energy capacity which will contribute towards the delivery of the targets contained in the RSS. It states that local planning authorities should give significant weight to the wider environmental, community and economic benefits of proposals for renewable energy schemes. The visual impact of such schemes is a matter to be taken into account but should not be used to rule out or place constraints on the development of all, or specific types of, renewable energy technologies. RSS Policy 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. RSS Policy DP7 promotes the protection and enhancement of environmental quality, including green infrastructure, but at the same time respecting the character and distinctiveness of landscapes and the maintenance and enhancement of the tranquillity of the open countryside.
Structure Plan Policy Saved Structure Plan Policy R44 states that outside the Lake District National Park and the AONB proposals for renewable energy will be favourably considered if: (1) there is no significant adverse effect on the landscape character, biodiversity and the natural and built heritage of the area either individually or cumulatively through their relationship with other utility infrastructure; (2) there is no significant adverse effect on local amenity, the local economy, highways or telecommunications; (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, it requires proposals to be assessed in relation to:
119 (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.
Local Plan Policy Saved Policy C26 of the Local Plan covers wind energy proposals and states that their acceptability will be judged according to whether a number of defined criteria can be satisfied. One of the criteria is that the proposal’s energy contribution and other benefits outweigh any significant adverse impact on the character and appearance of the landscape, the amenity of residential properties, nature conservation, archaeological or geographical interests.
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 two main issues raised by this proposal are the visual impact of the wind turbines on the character and appearance of the surrounding rural landscape, and the potential noise impact of the turbines on the nearest residential properties. The open nature of the countryside is such that the turbines would appear as isolated and prominent vertical structures when viewed from the nearest public view points, both from the public footpath which passes the site to the north and from Kiln Lane to the east and south. There are no landforms, woodlands or groups of buildings or other structures that would serve to act as a foil for the turbines which might reduce their prominence. Instead, the landscape is such that they would be silhouetted against the skyline, thus accentuating their height and prominence. Members will note from the comments received from the Environmental Protection Officer that there is concern about the noise assessment information which has been submitted to support the application. The applicants have submitted additional information relating to the noise impact of the proposed turbines and this has been forwarded onto the Environmental Protection Officer for a further response. Although it is recognised that the wind turbines will have wider environmental, economic and energy benefits, it is however, on balance, considered that the harmful visual impact
120 of the proposed turbines outweighs the potential benefits in this particular case and the application is recommended for refusal.
RECOMMENDATION: Subject to outstanding consultation responses from the Parish Council and the Environmental Protection Officer the application be REFUSED for the reason below:- The proposed turbines would appear as isolated and prominent vertical structures which would appear incongruous in their surroundings. As a consequence, the turbine will have a harmful effect on the character and appearance of the landscape and would thus be in conflict with the aims and objectives of Saved Policies R44 and E37 of the Cumbria and Lake District Joint Structure Plan and Saved Policy C26 of the South Lakeland Local Plan.
121 SCHEDULE A
Complex Planning Applications
SCHEDULE No: 12 SL/2011/0794
PRESTON PATRICK: LAND TO THE SOUTH EAST OF A6070, AND SOUTH OF A65 CROOKLANDS
PROPOSAL: VARIATION OF COND. 4 (COMPLETION OF ROUNDABOUT, FOOTWAYS, PEDESTRIAN CROSSING ETC) AND COND. 12 (APPROVED PLANS) ON SL/10/0990 24/11/2011 TIME AND TIDE E353650 N482242
SUMMARY: This is an application to continue development without complying with conditions 4 and 12 of SL/2010/0990. Those conditions controlled the development by defining the approved plans and highway matters. Whilst this type of application is known as a variation of condition, the resultant decision is in effect a new permission and amended or altered conditions can be attached. Conditions have been amended to take account of separate applications to discharge conditions. The previous committee report is attached as an appendix for complete information and this report only addresses the changes. A variation of the legal agreement is also needed. This application is also subject to the Environmental Impact Regulations.
PRESTON PATRICK PARISH COUNCIL No objections to this application.
CUMBRIA COUNTY COUNCIL (SPATIAL PLANNING TEAM) Not commenting because it is not a Category 1 application.
CUMBRIA COUNTY COUNCIL (HIGHWAYS) Highways request that a condition is attached defining approved drawings and that the design of the roundabout is progressed so that it is ready before occupation.
122 CUMBRIA COUNTY COUNCIL (HISTORIC ENVIRONMENT OFFICER) The archaeologist has no objections.
HIGHWAYS AGENCY No objection.
NATURAL ENGLAND No objection.
ENVIRONMENT AGENCY No objection.
SLDC ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION To be reported.
SLDC ARBORICULTURALIST The variation of conditions mainly concerns the reduction of levels for a number of the structures and some parking areas of the site. This is due to an issue the developers have encountered since the commencement of development. The reduction of the levels varies throughout the site from a maximum of 2.75m to 0.5m. The reduction of these levels will actually benefit the development from a visual amenity perspective, reducing the prominence of the site in the local landscape and increasing the impact of the proposed planting and hard landscaping surrounding the site. The soft landscaping and planting proposed to surround the site will screen more of the buildings than previously proposed. Providing the planting schemes for the site are still implemented as proposed, the reduction in levels will have a positive impact upon this development.
HISTORICAL CONTEXT In June this year planning permission was granted subject to conditions and the completion of an S106 legal agreement for the Auction Mart to be relocated from Appleby Road, Kendal. Conditions have been in the process of being discharged and work has commenced on site. The scheme had been designed about a single drainage system and floor levels and internal road gradients were predicated on achieving the correct fall. During the course of setting out the land levels it was discovered that the buildings could have their floor levels reduced if two drainage systems could be used. During the course of discharging the drainage conditions the applicant sought advice from the Environment Agency and this application is the result.
123 DESCRIPTION AND PROPOSAL: Site description The proposed development is situated on a triangular shaped site and is located immediately adjacent to the roundabout junction of the A65 and the A6070. The site, currently in agricultural use, slopes down generally from its northern corner both easterly along the A65 and southerly along the A6070 boundaries. To the west of the site is Moss End Farm Business Park and Moss End Farm House whilst approximately 300m to the east of the site is a café/coffee shop and residential properties. The site is bounded to the west by the A6070 and a new access from this road will be created incorporating a new roundabout south of the existing roundabout on the A65. To the north, the A65 carriageway to Kirkby Lonsdale runs the full length of this boundary. To the south east is an unclassified watercourse leading to Farleton Beck, beyond which is a further field which will be used for lairage.
Proposed development A full description of the works is stated in the attached report and only the changes are reported in this section. All other works are the same as previously reported. THE MART BUILDING The upper wall cladding will be of natural red Cedar wood and not a synthetic material. The finished floor level will be 0.5m lower than that approved. Front Section:- This will now comprise of company offices for L & K Group, NW Auctions Ltd, MB Hodgson Land Agency Offices, Restaurant facilities, wholesale butchery, display of agricultural products and letable office space. As a result of the changed internal arrangements, additional fire escape doors are needed and one additional door is required in the northwest elevation (one of the fire escapes into the front elevation).
ANCILLARY UNITS Unit 1: An additional roller shutter door is included and the cladding will be natural red Cedar wood. The finished floor level will be 1.4m lower than that approved. All other details are as previously reported and are included in the appendix. Unit 2: This unit will be sub-divided, with consequent alterations to doors and is constructed with grey wet dash render and natural red Cedar wood cladding with Slate Blue panel roof. The finished floor level will be 2.75m lower than that approved. All other details are as previously reported and are included in the appendix. Unit 3 : It will be constructed with grey wet dash render and natural red Cedar wood cladding with Slate Blue panel roof.
124 The finished floor level will be 1.8m lower than that approved. All other details are as previously reported and are included in the appendix.
POLICY ISSUES: National Policy PPS1: Delivering Sustainable Development. PPS4: Planning for Sustainable Economic Growth: EC2: Planning for Sustainable Economic Growth; EC6: Planning for Economic Development in Rural Areas; EC12: Determining Planning Applications for Economic Development in Rural Areas; PPS5: Planning for the Historic Environment. PPS7: Sustainable Development in Rural Areas. The key principles are: (i) To raise the quality of life and the environment in rural areas; (ii) To promote more sustainable patterns of development; (iii) Promoting the development of the English regions by improving their economic performance so that all are able to reach their full potential; (iv) To promote sustainable, diverse and adaptable agriculture sectors. PPG13: Transport.
Regional Spatial Strategy DP1 Spatial Principles; DP2 Promote Sustainable Communities; DP5 Manage Travel demand; DP7 Promote Environmental Quality; DP9 Reduce Emissions and adapt to Climate Change; and RDF2 Rural Areas.
Saved Joint Structure Plan Policies ST4: Major Development; T30: Transport Assessments; T31: Travel Plans.
Core Strategy CS1.1 Sustainable Development Principles; CS1.2 The Development Strategy; CS2 Kendal Strategy; CS7.4 Rural economy;
125 CS8.1 Green infrastructure; CS8.2 Protection and enhancement of Landscape and Settlement Character; CS8.4 Biodiversity and geodiversity; CS8.6 Historic environment; CS8.7 Sustainable construction; CS8.10 Design; CS10.1 Accessing services; and CS10.2 Transport impact.
Saved Local Plan Policies C3: Agricultural land; C5: External lighting; C19: Sites of archaeological interest; C20: Historic landscape; S2: South Lakeland Design Code; S3: Landscaping; S10: Parking provision; S12: Crime and Design; S23: Agricultural buildings; and S26: Sewerage Treatment and Disposal. Material Considerations in the Sustainable Community Strategy. Objectives set in the Jobs Skills and Regeneration Chapter; and Objectives set in the Quality Environment Chapter. Material Considerations in the Local Transport Plan. LD4: Transport Assessments and Travel Plans; LD5: Access to new developments; LD7: Design standards; LD8: Safety and security.
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).
126 ASSESSMENT: Whilst the key issues of the proposal are listed below, only items i. and iii. will be discussed in this report and Members should refer to the appendix report for all the other details: i. previous planning history; ii. location / sustainability; iii. impact on the landscape; iv. impact on the highway network; and v. development benefits.
Previous Planning History A previous Auction Mart application at Deepthwaite was refused in March 2010. The arguments relating to this issue are set out in the appendix report and the approved development was distinguished from the above decision and the notice granting permission was issued in June 2011. In accordance with legal principles, the planning approval decision now sets the precedent for further decision making. In this instance the precedent of approval exists and it is considered that this application presents no issues that would exert a contrary conclusion.
Location / Sustainability The previous report concluded that this location was acceptable and this is still the conclusion for this application. The full arguments are set out in the appendix report.
Landscape Impact This report addresses what impact the variation in the finished floor levels has on the landscape. The conclusions of the Landscape Impact Assessment in the previous application report stated: “The submission identifies a realistic location for the proposed re-location of the Auction Mart re-labelled as the Agri-quarter. The local drumlin landscape is of medium scale and would “hold” the development, as the development is of appropriate scale. There are some mitigation measures that could be improved upon, but generally the proposal is good, practical and achievable.” Based on this advice, a condition was attached to the previous permission that would achieve the consultant’s suggestion to increase the mitigation. As stated by the Arboriculturalist, the details submitted to discharge a landscaping condition are acceptable for this amended proposal and a condition requiring the landscaping to be undertaken in accordance with the plan will be attached to this permission. The design, including roof ridges, was considered in pre-application discussions and as a result the application design reflects the business and animal welfare requirements. The floor level of the Auction Mart building will be 0.5m lower with a consequent reduction in overall height of the building in the landscape. Included in the pre-application discussions was the location of the additional units and it was consider that these should be located close to the existing Moss End
127 Business Park so that from medium and far distant views the units would be seen as part of the existing group. The reduction in floor levels will significantly reduce the visual impact of these building when viewed from Moss End Business Park and farmhouse. The impact of the buildings will still be the same from the assessed view points. It is still concluded that the local drumlin landscape is of medium scale and would “hold” the development, as the development is of appropriate scale. There are no new factors that would indicate that refusal is warranted.
Impact on the Highway The reduction in height has no impact on the transport assessment. It is concluded that the subdivision of one of the ancillary units does not create such a significant increase in traffic generation as to exert an adverse impact on the highway network. All conditions relating to highways will be amended and attached to the new permission and the legal agreement regarding the travel plan will be amended.
Development Benefits The reduction in height and amendments to the internal road layout do not alter the benefits derived from the relocation of the Auction Mart from Appleby Road to Moss End. The full details are set out in the appendix report.
Other Material Considerations The sub-division of unit 2 and the internal alterations to the main building do not create significant adverse impacts on the above considerations because the potential increases in activity are marginal. Car parking, for example, is based upon floor area and the floor area is not increased.
Utility Provision The reduction in height does not impact on the utility provision, only the internal sewerage and drainage system. The use of two systems is acceptable. The proposal has incorporated sustainable energy techniques which maximise the everyday operation of the site, and which produce the most suitable renewable resources. The effluent collected at the end of each day will be separated into matter which can be treated on-site and discharged as clean water into the watercourse. Rainwater and surface run-off from the wash-down on-site will also be collected and filtered to provide a re-useable water supply for use on the site. This will ensure the best possible re-use of all effluent produced on site. The need to cleanse the pens after a sale requires large volumes of water and the grey water / recycling system reduces the need for extraction from a borehole. Modern building methods and technology to control resources all contribute to reducing the carbon footprint created by this proposal.
Conclusions Your officers concluded that whilst the development has some moderate adverse environmental impacts with respect to landscape, these are either outweighed by the benefits or have been mitigated. Having regard to the Environmental Statement, the
128 altered development is considered acceptable though there are still some moderate adverse impacts with respect to landscape and these are either mitigated or are outweighed by the positive contributions to the objectives of the Council set out in the Core Strategy and other documents.
RECOMMENDATION: That delegated authority be granted to APPROVE the application subject to the satisfactory completion of an amended S106 legal agreement - amendment relating to provisions in the Travel Plan and subject to conditions including the following:
(1) The development hereby permitted shall begin not later than three years from the date of this decision.
(2) The development hereby permitted shall be constructed of the materials details of which are shown on plan Nos.: 3203-14C 3203-15G
(3) Prior to first occupation of the site the access, roundabout junction, footways, pedestrian crossing facilities and improvement works (based on drawing number 3203-11D) shall be completed in accordance with such details that form part of an agreement with the Highway Authority under Section 278 of the Highway Act 1980, unless otherwise agreed, in writing, with the Local Planning Authority, so that traffic can safely access and egress the site.
(4) The footway shall be designed, constructed and drained to a standard suitable for adoption and in this respect further details, including longitudinal / cross sections, shall be submitted to the Local Planning Authority for approval before work commences on site. No work shall be commenced until a full specification has been approved. These details shall be in accordance with the standards laid down in the current Cumbria Design Guide. Any works so approved shall be constructed before the development is complete.
(5) Ramps shall be provided on each side of every junction to enable wheelchairs, pushchairs etc. to be safely manoeuvred at kerb lines. Details of all such ramps shall be submitted to the Local Planning Authority for approval before development commences. Any details so approved shall be constructed as part of the development.
(6) There shall be no additional means of access to the development from the A65 and A6070 other than that hereby approved.
129 (7) The use shall not be commenced until the access and parking requirements have been constructed in accordance with the approved plan. Any such access and or parking provision shall be retained and be capable of use when the development is completed and shall not be removed or altered without the prior consent of the Local Planning Authority. NB. All vehicles including articulated vehicles must be able to join the public highway in a forward gear at all times. The position and use of gates needs to be carefully considered.
(8) Details indicated on Plan ref: 555/PL/01 for the parking of vehicles engaged in construction operations associated with the development hereby approved, and vehicular access thereto, shall be used for or be kept available for these purposes at all times until completion of the construction works.
(9) The access and parking / turning requirements shall be substantially met during any building work on site so that constructional traffic can park and turn clear of the highway.
(10) Prior to first occupation of the main building, a plan shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority, showing the access arrangements to lairage directly from the site. Any such access shall be retained and be capable of use when the main building is occupied and shall not be removed or altered without the prior consent of the Local Planning Authority.
(11) For the avoidance of doubt, the development hereby permitted shall be constructed to accord with details which are shown on plan Nos.: 3203-5 3203-10A 3203-11D 3203-12A 3203-13A 3203-14C 3203-15G 3203-16
(12) Landscaping shall be implemented to accord with the details and plan submitted on 24 August 2011 by Roger N. Cartwright. Any trees / shrubs which are removed, die, become severely damaged or diseased within five years of their planting shall be replaced in the next planting season with trees / shrubs of similar size and species to those originally required to be planted unless the Local Planning Authority gives written consent to any variation.
130 (13) During the construction phase of the development no machinery shall be operated, no process shall be carried out and no deliveries taken at or despatched from the site outside the following times: 0800 hours to 1800 hours Monday to Friday and 0800 hours to 1300 hours on Saturdays, nor at any time on Sundays, Bank or Public Holidays.
(14) For the avoidance of doubt, the activities herby permitted include: Main Building B1 and A2 in the room annotated LS1 on the approved plan ref 3203- 12A; retail by auction and sales in the areas annotated SR1, SR2 and Ancillary Sales Room; temporary keeping of livestock in connection with auctions and sales; A3 use shall be ancillary and for use by staff and auction/sales customers, and not as an independent business; all other B1 office space indicated on approved plan ref 3203-12A shall be used in connection with the operation of the auctions/sales business; and all kiosks annotated K1 – K10 on plan ref 3203-12A shall be used for ancillary A1, A2 and B1 uses in connection with auctions / sales and shall only be occupied at the times defined by Condition 15 on days when auctions / sales are taking place.
Units 1, 2 and 3 agricultural Merchants trading in products used in connection with agriculture as defined in S336 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 (as amended); agricultural Machinery Traders trading in all machinery and parts used in connection with agriculture as defined in S336 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 (as amended); veterinary practice; and blacksmiths.
AND The premises shall be used for primary uses stated above and for no other primary purpose (including any other purpose in Class A1, A2, B1, B2 and B8 of the Schedule to the Town and Country Planning (Use Classes) Order 1987, or in any provision equivalent to that Class in any statutory instrument revoking and re-enacting that Order with or without modification).
131 (15) The uses, except sale of agricultural products by auctions / sales, hereby permitted shall not take place other than between the following hours:- 08:00 – 18:00 Mondays - Saturdays with the exception of emergency access, unless otherwise agreed in writing with the Local Planning Authority. The sale of agricultural products undertaken by auction / sales events, shall not take place other than between the following hours: 07:00 – 19:00 Monday - Friday; 07:00 – 18:00 Saturdays; 09:00 – 13:00 Sundays and Bank or Public Holidays. For the avoidance of doubt, agricultural products is construed as any products resulting from or required for agricultural activities defined by S336 Town and Country Planning Act 1990 (as amended); with the exception of access to drop off and collect animals, unless otherwise agreed in writing with the Local Planning Authority.
(16) The development shall be completed in accordance with the approved scheme to dispose of foul and surface water. The development shall not be occupied until the surface water and sewage disposal works have been certified in writing to the Local Planning Authority as complete in accordance with the approved plans and details.
(17) The development permitted by this planning permission shall only be carried out in accordance with section 5.1.1 – run-off from permeable surfaces in the approved Assessment (FRA) dated 3rd November 2010, referenced 1749 Level 2 FRA V.1_1 and with section 9 of the Environmental Statement, dated November 2010 and Level 2 FRA v1.2 - dated 2 December 2010 produced by Indigo (and associates) and the following mitigation measures detailed therein. The post development surface water run-off discharge rates generated by the 1 in 100 year critical storm event plus allowance for climate change shall be discharged from site at the calculated Qbar greenfield run-off rate so that it will not exceed the run-off from the undeveloped site and not increase the risk of flooding off-site.
(18) Within 6 months of the date of this permission the written programme of archaeological post-excavation assessment and analysis, the preparation of a site archive ready for deposition at a store, the completion of an archive report, and the preparation and submission of a report of the results for publication in a suitable specialist journal shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority.
(19) The approved approved dust prevention measures will be implemented at all times during construction.
132 (20) The approved scheme for the provision of external lighting shall be implemented in full prior to first occupation of the development hereby approved.
(21) Prior to the first occupation of the development hereby approved a Travel Plan, conforming to the requirements set out in the S106 agreement, shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The approved Travel Plan shall be implemented in accordance with the timetable contained therein and shall continue to be implemented as long as the development is occupied.
(22) The boundary treatments indicated on the plan and in details submitted by Roger N Cartwright on 24 August 2011 shall be completed as approved before the development is occupied or in accordance with a timetable agreed in writing with the Local Planning Authority.
(23) The development shall be constructed to accord with the approved details of earthworks indicated on the plans.
(24) There shall be no raising of land in Flood Zone 3 as defined in the Proposed New Kendal Auction Mart drawing 3203-11D, dated 21 September 2011 produced by Day Cummins. Any further revisions must reflect this position.
(25) The development shall be carried out in accordance with the approved Working Method Statement to protect Elm Tree Gill and any subsequent amendments shall be agreed in writing with the Local Planning Authority.
NOTE 1 In order to mitigate the impact that the creation of large impermeable areas would have on the local surface water drainage system, the Environment Agency would recommend that any developer incorporates some form of Sustainable Drainage System (SUDS) in preference to underground tanked storage which do not provide any water quality benefit.
NOTE 2 The applicant’s attention is drawn to the advice contained within the attached letter from Natural England regarding protected species, breeding birds and sustainable drainage.
REASON FOR GRANTING PLANNING PERMISSION: The decision to grant planning permission has been taken, having regard to the policies and proposals in the development plan set out below and to all other material planning considerations. The proposal is in accordance with those national and local policies, although there is some conflict with policies CS1.1 Sustainable Development Principles, CS1.2 The Development Strategy of the Core Strategy and some of the policy elements in most of the below policies; in this instance the issues
133 raised do not outweigh the general support afforded by the policies.
Regional Spatial Strategy DP1 Spatial Principles; DP2 Promote Sustainable Communities; DP5 Manage Travel demand; DP7 Promote Environmental Quality; DP9 Reduce Emissions and adapt to Climate Change; and RDF2 Rural Areas.
Saved Joint Structure Plan Policies ST4: Major Development; T30: Transport Assessments; T31: Travel Plans.
Core Strategy CS1.1 Sustainable Development Principles; CS1.2 The Development Strategy; CS2 Kendal Strategy; CS7.4 Rural economy; CS8.1 Green infrastructure; CS8.2 Protection and enhancement of Landscape and Settlement Character; CS8.4 Biodiversity and geodiversity; CS8.6 Historic environment; CS8.7 Sustainable construction; CS8.10 Design; CS10.1 Accessing services; and CS10.2 Transport impact.
Saved Local Plan Policies C3: Agricultural land; C5: External lighting; C19: Sites of archaeological interest; C20: Historic landscape; S2: South Lakeland Design Code; S3: Landscaping; S10: Parking provision; S12: Crime and Design;
134 S23: Agricultural buildings; and S26: Sewerage Treatment and Disposal.
135 APPENDIX: Copy of Committee Report for Planning Application SL/2010/0990.
SUMMARY: This is an application for the relocation of the Auction Mart from Appleby Road, Kendal to a site in open countryside opposite the business units at Moss End Farm. The key issues are: precedent, impact on the landscape; development benefits of relocation from the town centre; impact on the highway network and sustainability.
CONSULTATION RESPONSES: PRESTON PATRICK PARISH COUNCIL: Object to this application for the following reasons: 1. The scale, physical massing, prominent and conspicuous nature of the development in this isolated rural location is such that it will intrude to a significant extent into the countryside surrounding the site which is designated as a County Landscape and, as a consequence, would be in conflict with Development Plan Policies that seek to safeguard the character and appearance of the landscape. 2. The proposed development would exert a harmful influence on the living conditions currently enjoyed by the occupiers of neighbouring residential properties by reason of its scale, the activity associated with the auction mart and the increase in traffic movements and possibly verge side parking in the locality. 3. The roundabout at the junction of the A65 and A6070 and the approach road to the site from it are currently considered inadequate to deal with the additional traffic that would be generated by the proposal. By way of explanation, Preston Patrick Parish Council has long resisted proposals for new commercial development in the vicinity of Junction 36 in order to protect the landscape character and visual amenity of this important “gateway to the Lakes”, and in this it has been supported by the District Council when dealing with other proposals for large scale development in the area. Although recognising the vitally important role that the Kendal Auction Mart plays in the economic and social wellbeing of the area and its need to move from its current site, there are great concerns that to approve this application would set a huge precedent that would lead to further commercial development in the area. Whilst noting that SLDC‘s Emerging Land Allocations Document states that commercial development around Junction 36 is a “not preferred option”, the representative of Time and Tide (South Lakes) Ltd expressed his continued desire to see the development of a full business park at Moss End. Members were of the opinion that the relocation of the auction mart should be addressed via the LDF Land Allocations process with a comprehensive appraisal of all suitable sites. It was considered that elements of the landscaping scheme submitted with the aim of screening the development would have the effect of obscuring extensive public views towards the west, whilst the planting proposed on the eastern boundary is considered to be inadequate.
136
Concerns were also expressed at some of the conclusions in the Transport Assessment submitted with the application. This indicates that the A6070/A65 roundabout has the capacity to deal with the additional traffic movements that the auction mart would produce. This is a small roundabout and there is concern that it is not capable of catering for the number of animal transporters that would use it. Furthermore, the section of the A6070 from the roundabout to the proposed site is narrow and poorly aligned, and it was considered that alterations are required to this section of road if an auction mart is to be established here. It is understood that as part of the planning permission to develop Moss End Business Village the developer has to provide a footpath link to the A65 and a new bus stop. The Parish Council wishes to ensure that this work will be carried out. The Road Safety Audit submitted with the Transport Assessment highlights the fact that there should be no wide verges at the entrance to the auction mart as this would encourage people to park on them, causing a hazard to other road users. The plans have been amended to prevent such parking by introducing a boundary wall and hedge planting in the vicinity of the entrance. However, the Audit does not refer to the verge parking that currently takes place on the two arms of the A607/A65 roundabout leading to the M6 and back towards Crooklands. Although supporting the principle of lift sharing, the Parish Council has been concerned about this parking for some time on the grounds that it causes a highway hazard and is unsightly and has discussed the matter with the County Council. The acknowledged 25% increase in traffic that the Auction Mart will produce in this area will increase even further the risk of accidents and the Parish Council considers that this issue should be resolved by the permanent banning of cars parking in this area, along with the reinstatement of the verges, if the auction mart application is to be approved. Finally, the Parish Council would not wish to see any activities on the site on Sundays should the application be approved.
SLDC DEVELOPMENT STRATEGY GROUP: 1.0 Introduction 1.1 The following response considers planning application SL/2010/0990 in relation to policies in the South Lakeland Core Strategy (adopted 20 October 2010) and also the policies of the Regional Spatial Strategy (RSS) - which remains part of the Development Plan, although the Government has stated its intention to revoke the RSS. The response considers the following matters of principle in relation to RSS and Core Strategy policy rather than matters of detail: • location in open countryside; • consideration of alternative sites; • other Policy Considerations of Particular Relevance. 1.2 The proposed relocation of the auction mart would make available for redevelopment its current site on Appleby Road, Kendal. A parallel application for the redevelopment of the Appleby Road site for residential use has recently been submitted.
137 The proposed new site for the auction mart, close to J.36 of the M6, forms part of a larger site put forward for consideration for a range of employment purposes in the emerging Land Allocations document of the South Lakeland Local Development Framework. This larger site (including the application site) has not been put forward by the Council as an ‘emerging option’ for local or strategic employment for public consultation early in 2011, because the consultation document has (at this stage in plan preparation) identified sufficient employment land to meet Kendal’s needs to 2025 (21 ha) in more sustainable locations within or adjoining the town, in line with the sequential approach to meeting Kendal’s need for a strategic employment site, in Appendix 1 (Section 8) of the Core Strategy. 2.0 Issue of location in open countryside 2.1 The principles and policies in the RSS (DP1, DP2, DP5, RDF2) and Core Strategy (CS1.1, CS1.2) promote development in sustainable locations in or close to key and local service centres. However polices in both RSS (RDF2) and Core Strategy (CS1.2) also allow, exceptionally, for development in open countryside which has a requirement for a rural location that cannot be accommodated elsewhere. It is considered that several factors may justify a rural location for the auction mart, taking account of wider objectives in the Core Strategy. • As most of the auction mart’s customers (mainly livestock farmers) are based in rural areas, a rural location is arguably suitable in principle. • The desirability of not locating an auction mart in close proximity to residential areas, in view of noise and (periodic) significant traffic generation. These factors affect the suitability of the auction mart’s current site, although they would not in themselves preclude consideration of potentially suitable sites on the edge of (or even within) the key service centres, provided they are suitably located in relation to existing development and transport routes. • The Core Strategy (CS1. 2 and CS2) requires provision in Kendal of over 2,000 new homes (net of completions, permissions and small sites) and 21 ha of employment land by 2025. The relocation of the auction mart to a rural site would help ensure that the limited supply of sites in Kendal are available to meet the town’s core housing and employment requirements. The 5.3ha proposed auction mart site would represent about 25% of the Kendal’s employment land requirement. The location of an auction mart of similar size within or on the edge of Kendal would reduce site options for employment provision in Kendal and potentially risk the achievement of a key Core Strategy objective to provide sufficient employment land in Kendal. • The capacity of Kendal’s road and transport network is a key issue in the delivery of the development strategy for Kendal. The removal of the auction mart from its current site at Appleby Road will have benefits for capacity of roads in the Appleby Road/Shap Road area (where the Transport study highlights particular problems) but also for traffic circulation in Kendal as a whole and therefore contribute to the implementation of the Kendal Area Strategy’s priorities for delivering new land for housing and employment.
138 3.0 Consideration of alternative sites 3.1 To justify an exceptional rural location, it is considered that the principle of sustainability requires a sequential approach to considering alternative locations adjoining or closer to key service centres such as Kendal or Milnthorpe. While this issue was assessed in relation to an earlier application for an auction mart at Deepthwaite, it is considered that a brief review of the alternative sites should be undertaken. 4.0 Other Policy Considerations of Particular Relevance 4.1 In addressing the detail of the application, it is considered that the following Core Strategy policies are of particular relevance and should be taken into account. • Mitigating the transport impacts of locating employment in a rural location some distance from key and local service centres through a Travel Plan and other measures (Policy CS10.1). • Mitigating landscape and any biodiversity impact as well wider Green Infrastructure need and opportunities (CS8.2, CS8.4, CS 8.1). • The need to address requirements for sustainable construction, energy efficiency and renewable energy (CS8.7). 4.2 Policy CS7.4 draws attention to these and other important factors in the assessment of employment related development in rural areas. 4.3 The policy basis for securing mitigation measures and other necessary improvements through developer contributions is set out in Policy CS9.2.
CUMBRIA COUNTY COUNCIL: No objection is raised to the principle of the development provided that the Local Planning Authority: i. Ensure they are satisfied with the reasons why the alternative sites have been discounted. ii. Ensure that the use of the additional units is restricted to those which are complementary to the main function of the site as an auction mart, thereby restricting unnecessary non agricultural related movement. iii. Ensure that any retail sales should complement the use of the site as an auction mart and should not affect the vitality of established key service centres and local service centres. iv. Ensure that the applicant implements the biodiversity mitigation and enhancement measures, including the use of appropriate lighting which will not disturb bat use along the beck, the provision of bat boxes and effective waste water treatment and that appropriate measures are taken to protect the beck on where it abuts the lairage. v. Seek from the developer further mitigation measures to offset the proposals’ impact on landscape character. vi. Request the developer to implement a programme of archaeological work in accordance with a written scheme of investigation which has been approved by the Local Planning Authority (Annex 1).
139 vii. Ensure that all the Highway Authority requirements are covered by conditions and a Section 106 Agreement.
HIGHWAYS AGENCY: No objection.
NATURAL ENGLAND: No objection. Request conditions be attached.
ENVIRONMENT AGENCY: No objection. Recommend conditions be attached.
SLDC ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION: No objections. Recommend conditions be attached.
SLDC / NPS LANDSCAPE ARCHITECT: The submission identifies a realistic location for the proposed re-location of the auction mart re-labelled as the Agri-quarter. The local drumlin landscape is of medium scale and would ‘hold’ the development, as the development is of appropriate scale. There are some mitigation measures that could be improved upon, but generally the proposal is good, practical and achievable.
OTHER: Thirty seven letters have been received. Twenty seven letters supporting the application raise the following issues: • economic benefit to the local community securing existing jobs and creating new ones boosting regional agriculture; • located in an ideal site benefiting from excellent road and motorway links; • relocation of the auction mart creates housing opportunities desperately needed by young families; • revitalise the market attracting new businesses to trade at the auction mart; • allows for the necessary improvements to take account of animal welfare requirements that were not feasible at the old auction mart site; • as a farmer my vital weekly visit to the auction mart is where I trade. If the auction mart closed I would have to travel a significant distance adding to my business costs; and • supports farmers who contribute to the attractive landscape.
140 Two letters support the principle stating that there are benefits to Kendal and to the auction mart arising from improved transport links and support for the rural economy, whilst expressing the following concerns: • impact on neighbouring properties; • visual impact especially from Farleton Knot; • landscaping; • adverse impact on Lancaster Canal; • inadequacy of junction of A65 and A6070 and accident record; • traffic generation based solely on agricultural activity; • impact on the environment, particularly birds, from discharge of foul water and animal waste; • create a precedent for further green field development; • consideration of other sites particularly land to the north east (sic) of Moss End Farm; and • consider the provision of additional workshop units at the site for rural industries. Eight letters of objection express the following issues: • inadequacy of junction of A65 and A6070 and long wait times; • prematurity, application is in advance of land allocation adoption and this is not a sustainable location for development; • the auction mart would make J36 like most other industrial areas with 24/7 activity; • a better site would be the County Showground; • the A6070 is used by walkers, cyclists, horse riders and school buses and is heavily used by cars and lorries; • the Road Safety Audit was undertaken at 3pm and does not reflect traffic at 8am - 9am; • buildings are of such a scale that they would be detrimental to the landscape character of the surrounding area and would cause a vast scar on the currently scenic landscape of this part of South Lakeland; • it is fairly obvious that the development would not only be used as a cattle mart but would involve extra activities outside the scope of its initial proposal; • increased traffic on the Endmoor – Crooklands section of the A65 will adversely affect traffic waiting to exit Millness Lane; • if SLDC are funding / partly funding the new roundabout, this can’t be morally right in the current climate, the money would be better directed to health provision; • escaped animals pose a danger to traffic especially on the M6;
141 • it is not an option for sewerage, by-products and runoff to discharge into Peasey Beck. Connection to the mains would cost millions and SLDC should not support this; and • predictably, there will be increased noise, smells and pollution associated with such a site. In addition the applicant has collected 84 standard letters and 34 hand written letters from mart users supporting the application. The Association of Independent Meat Suppliers and the Livestock Auctioneers Association also support the move.
APPLICANT’S REPRESENTATIONS Cumbria Vision A letter of support from Cumbria Vision was submitted with the application. The following comments were made: “The provision of a modern, convenient auction mart is vital to the future of the farming community in South Cumbria and North Lancashire. There are 3,802 registered farm holdings within Cumbria; this new site will provide them with facilities that exceed modern welfare standards, a site that is significantly easier to access and one that will attract more buyers from across the north of England and further afield to purchase their products.” “Kendal has great plans and ambition to create higher value employment growth; this is set against a backdrop of a local housing market that has no capacity for growth. The development of the old auction mart site will help to underpin growth in the local economy. The two projects are inextricably linked; both developments need to proceed concurrently to underpin the future of the area, provide routes to market, employment opportunities and a new housing offer.” Tim Farron MP Support from Tim Farron MP was submitted with the application. The following comments were made: "The South Lakes needs to have an auction mart and I am keen to support plans to move it to near Junction 36. This will deal with the traffic issues that plagued the previous proposal in Crooklands. Dozens of new affordable homes could be built on the old site to help local families if the new site gets through. So I hope planners will say yes to the development. We need them to see the value in this and realise if we continue to dither we keep the auction mart at it's current location and in future threaten it's existence in the South Lakes."
HISTORICAL CONTEXT The western edge of this site was included in the South Lakeland Gateway Project ref: SL/2006/0321. The main site for this project was on land to the west of the A6070 and this included livestock auction, agricultural sales, exhibition sales, exhibition space, retail, commercial, tourist information, food, parking, show ground and ancillary development. This application was withdrawn.
142 The current application is more modest, in that it focuses on just the auction mart and related businesses.
DESCRIPTION AND PROPOSAL: Site description The proposed development is situated on a triangular shaped site and is located immediately adjacent to the roundabout junction of the A65 and the A6070. The site, currently in agricultural use, slopes down generally from it’s northern corner both easterly along the A65 and southerly along the A6070 boundaries. To the west of the site is Moss End Farm Business Park and Moss End Farm House whilst approximately 300m to the east of the site is a café/coffee shop and a residential property. The site is bounded to the west by the A6070 and a new access from this road will be created incorporating a new roundabout south of the existing roundabout on the A65. To the north, the A65 carriageway to Kirkby Lonsdale runs the full length of this boundary. To the south east is an unclassified watercourse leading to Farleton Beck, beyond which is a further field which will be used for lairage. Proposed development THE MART BUILDING (Area 6,740 m2 ) Front section:- Company Offices for L & K Group, NW Auctions Ltd, MB Hodgson Land Agency Offices, Restaurant facilities and lettable office space. Rear section:- The Livestock Mart with two sales rings and adjacent covered stock penning area, Kendal Auction Rooms now renamed 1818, sale room(s) with adjacent storage areas, offices; all with independent entrances to the main mart building. Here also is further independent lettable office floor space plus a number of kiosks being small lettable areas which can be used by external companies serving the farming community on sales days. The main mart building will be of a size to cater for all the accommodation and operational requirements of the L & K Group of companies including, predominantly North West Auctions who administer the livestock mart encompassing the sales rings and the covered stock penning area to meet the potential future stock numbers. The proposed covered space includes approx 200 pens that can be used for both cattle and sheep, together with adjacent covered clear multi purpose space which can be used for additional special penning or for exhibition use. The building will be constructed from a variety of materials: Front elevation: slate blue aluminium curtain walling and window frames. Side elevations: slate blue aluminium walling, grey wet dash render and grey concrete panels to animal pen area. Above the latter two sections will be cladding having the appearance of cedar wood to match the buildings at Moss End Business Park; Rear elevation: concrete panels and cladding above; and Roof: slate blue panels.
143 The applicant states the following companies are interested in the opportunity to bring their agricultural related business to the site: Nigel Davis - Agricultural Solicitors; C. T. Haytons Ltd; Wynnstay ( Hattons ); Laycocks Farm Supplies; Solway Plastics Recycling; Westmorland Veterinary Group; Ribble Fuel Oils; NFU together with local banks, solicitors and accountants. ANCILLARY UNITS Unit 1 Premises for Agricultural Engineers ( site area 3085 m2 including building area 800 m2 ). This company supplies and services various types of agricultural vehicle. Constructed with grey wet dash render and cladding with slate blue panel roof. Unit 2 Premises for Agricultural Merchants (site area 1865m2 including building area 448 m2). Constructed with grey wet dash render and cladding with slate blue panel roof. Unit 3 Premises for Agricultural Merchants (site area 1415 m2 including building area 400 m2). Constructed with grey wet dash render and cladding with slate blue panel roof. Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy The project includes all aspects of sustainability in an attempt to minimize the carbon footprint of the proposed development and the following renewable resources are included in the development: • solar panels; • borehole water supplies; • grey water recycling installations; • rainwater collection / washdown systems; • surface water attenuation; • water and effluent treatment systems; • low water consumption appliances; • lighting management systems; and • low energy consumption appliances.
POLICY ISSUES: National Policy PPS1 Delivering Sustainable Development. PPS4 Planning for Sustainable Economic Growth. EC2 planning for Sustainable Economic Growth; EC6 planning for Economic Development in Rural Areas; EC12 determining Planning Applications for Economic Development in Rural Areas. PPS5 Planning for the Historic Environment.
144 PPS7 Sustainable Development in Rural Areas. The key principles are: (i) to raise the quality of life and the environment in rural areas; (ii) to promote more sustainable patterns of development; (iii) promoting the development of the English regions by improving their economic performance so that all are able to reach their full potential; (iv) to promote sustainable, diverse and adaptable agriculture sectors. PPG13 Transport.
Regional Spatial Strategy DP1 Spatial principles. DP2 Promote sustainable communities. DP5 Manage travel demand. DP7 Promote environmental quality. DP9 Reduce emissions and adapt to climate change. RDF2 Rural areas.
Saved Joint Structure Plan Policies ST4 Major Development T30 Transport Assessments T31 Travel Plans
Core Strategy CS1.1 Sustainable development principles. CS1.2 The development strategy. CS2 Kendal strategy. CS7.4 Rural economy. CS8.1 Green infrastructure. CS8.2 Protection and enhancement of landscape and settlement character. CS8.4 Biodiversity and geodiversity. CS8.6 Historic environment. CS8.7 Sustainable construction. CS8.10 Design. CS10.1 Accessing services. CS10.2 Transport impact.
145 Saved Local Plan Policies C3 Agricultural land. C5 External lighting. C19 Sites of archaeological interest. C20 Historic landscape. S2 South Lakeland design code. S3 Landscaping. S10 Parking provision. S12 Crime and design. S23 Agricultural buildings. S26 Sewerage treatment and disposal. Material Considerations in the Sustainable Community Strategy Objectives set in the Jobs Skills and Regeneration Chapter; and Objectives set in the Quality Environment Chapter.
HUMAN RIGHTS ACT: This application has been determined to accord with the rights and limitations of the Act in relation to Article 6 (Right to a fair and public hearing), Article 8 (Right to respect for private and family life, home and correspondence), Article 14 (Prohibition of discrimination) and Article 1 of Protocol 1 (Right to peaceful enjoyment of possessions and protection of property).
ASSESSMENT: The key issues of the proposal are: i. previous planning history; ii. location / sustainability; iii. impact on the landscape; iv. impact on the highway network; and v. development benefits.
PREVIOUS PLANNING HISTORY: The previous auction mart application at Deepthwaite was refused in March 2010 for the following reasons: 1. The scale of the development is such that it will intrude to a significant extent into the countryside surrounding the site and, as a consequence, would be in conflict with Development Plan Policies that seek to safeguard the character and appearance of the landscape; notably, Policies DP7 and EM1(A) of the Regional Spatial Strategy, Policy E37 of the Cumbria and Lake District Joint Structure Plan and Policy E7 of the South Lakeland Local Plan.
146 2. The proposed development would exert a harmful influence on the living conditions currently enjoyed by the occupiers of neighbouring residential properties by reason of its scale, the activity associated with the auction mart and the increase in traffic movements in the locality. As a consequence, the proposal is not compatible with the aims and objectives of Policy E7 of the South Lakeland Local Plan. 3. The Local Planning Authority is not persuaded that there is an exceptional need for the auction mart to be established on the application site. The proposal is, therefore at variance with the aims and objectives of Policy RDF2 of the Regional Spatial Strategy. 4. An auction mart on the application site would be poorly located in terms of accessibility. The roads around the site are generally narrow with few passing places; the site is not accessible by public transport; and accessibility by pedestrians and cyclists is limited. The proposal is, therefore, contrary to the aims and objectives of Policy LD5 of the Local Transport Plan 2006 – 11 and Policy DP5 of the Regional Spatial Strategy. 5. The arrival and departure figures used in the Transport Assessment do not provide an adequate representation of the traffic impact of the proposed development. Queuing may occur on the B6385 between the A65 and the Crooklands canal bridge and on the A65 itself to the detriment of the safety and free flow of traffic. Consequently, the proposal is incompatible with the objectives of Policy T30 of the Cumbria and Lake District Joint Structure Plan and Policies LD4 and LD8 of the Local Transport Plan. 6. The visibility splay to the south west when exiting Woodhouse Lane onto the B6385 is not adequate and does not comply with Local Transport Plan Policy LD8. The principle of precedent was set out by Mann L J in North Wiltshire District Council v Secretary of State for the Environment [1992] 65 P&CR 137 at 145. This precedent establishes that like cases should be decided in a like manner so that there is consistency in the process. Consistency is self evidently important, not only to both developers and development control authorities, but it is also important for the purpose of securing public confidence in the operation of the development control system. Whilst this proposal is located at a different site, having different characteristics and constraints, it is considered pertinent to assess whether there are any similarities. Reasons 4, 5 and 6 all relate to site specific traffic reasons that are not relevant to the proposed site, the subject of this application. It is also considered that Reason 2 is site specific. The nearest dwelling, Moss End Farmhouse is approximately 150m from the auction mart, though only approximately 50m from Unit 1, other dwellings are approximately 300m away. It is considered that the development will not exert a significant adverse impact on the amenities of residential properties because of the spatial separation from the auction mart coupled with a condition restricting the hours of operation to business hours. Reason (1) relates to the impact on the landscape and an Environmental Impact Assessment was required for this proposal. It is considered that the conclusions of that assessment, discussed below, distinguishes this proposal from the previously refused application.
147 In relation to Reason (3), it is considered that the policy position and proposal constraints have become clearer. The development requires a large land take coupled with access to lairage and this requires a site having access to green fields. The sites adjacent to urban areas are considered more suitable for standard employment uses in Classes B1, B2 and B8 where larger workforces have access to services and alternative travel choices. It is considered that the significant land requirement would require enlarged areas to be allocated for these business uses in the environs of Kendal. This application has been submitted with information relating to alternative sites; this compares similarly with the evidence included in the land allocations document. It is concluded that there is an exceptional need for the development to be situated in this location. Location / Sustainability This proposal is primarily for an auction mart for agricultural livestock which is not an employment use within the land use categories nor is it a retail use within the land use categories. This proposal is termed Sui Generis which is taken to mean individual development not fitting into a specific category. There are ancillary offices for the business. In addition a sale room is included for business efficiency and the ancillary restaurant is for the convenience of farming customers. The business serves a wide rural area not just the urban environment of Kendal or it’s fringes. Guidance in PPS7 states; “The Government recognises the important and varied roles of agriculture, including in the maintenance and management of the countryside and most of our valued landscapes. Planning policies in RSS and LDDs should recognise these roles and support development proposals that will enable farming and farmers to: (i) become more competitive, sustainable and environmentally friendly; (ii) adapt to new and changing markets; (iii) comply with changing legislation and associated guidance; (iv) diversify into new agricultural opportunities (eg renewable energy crops); or (v) broaden their operations to ‘add value’ to their primary produce.” The applicant’s state, “The current auction mart is located on Appleby Road in Kendal town centre and is no longer suitable to accommodate the livestock mart and associated facilities. The building itself is in need of refurbishment, whilst the premises are struggling to meet the capacity needs and animal welfare standards, given the lack of available open land surrounding the mart. The mart has constrained access which restricts its ability to continue to attract vendors and purchasers from around the region and further afield. This impacts on viability.” There is no reason to doubt the above statement and the mart management have been searching for a new site, which caters for expansion of the business. Members will remember the application for a similar proposal at Deepthwaite last year. That application was refused for the reasons stated above. The applicant’s have undertaken a search for a site using the sequential approach. The applicant’s concluded there was no suitable, available and deliverable site in Kendal Town Centre. The next area considered was Kendal Urban area: sites at Parkside Road, Shap Road and Meadowbank were considered. None of these are suitable for the proposal.
148 The next area considered was the South Kendal Corridor and around Junction 36. Eight sites were considered: two at or near Shenston, six near Sedgwick and Brettargh Holt Junction on the A590/A591, including land surrounding Low Sizergh Farm and Force Lane. Then the wider area was considered including sites at Milnthorpe Station Yard, south of Milnthorpe Station (these locations are served off the same road as the Deepthwaite site), Fall Beck at Gatebeck, Grisleymires Lane and the Gateway Proposals near Crooklands. All of these sites have transport, water or utility constraints that render them unsuitable for the proposal. It has to be acknowledged that animals are transported by road vehicles; they are not driven to market nor are there rail facilities today. As such this proposal will not reduce road travel by animals. Sellers and purchasers travel with the animals. Any new location will increase travel for some and reduce it for others. Overall however, when taking into account where the mart’s customers live and the location of the proposal on a major transport interchange, the distance of trips will likely reduce when compared to trips made to the current mart in Kendal. This will improve animal welfare. It is considered that the travel associated with the ancillary uses is not significant in the total trips generated by the development and is balanced with the opportunities for employment in the rural area. The reason for the location of the additional units are the synergies created by proximity and that linked trips will be undertaken to these associated businesses. The design has incorporated many methods to reduce the use of resources, in particular water. The need to cleanse the pens after a sale requires large volumes of water and the grey water / recycling system reduces the need for extraction from a borehole. Modern building methods and technology to control resources all contribute to reducing the carbon footprint created by this proposal. It is concluded that the applicant’s have conducted an evidenced based site search and that this is the sequentially preferable site that is suitable, available and deliverable. Landscape Impact During the pre-application discussions it was acknowledged that the size of the development would impact on the landscape. This was one of the determining factors when it was decided that the application should be submitted with an Environmental Statement. A chapter was devoted to the visual/landscape impacts and this was examined by a consultant engaged by the Council. His conclusions are set out below. The Landscape Character Assessment The addition of the proposal would not change the landscape character of the area. The overall slight magnitude of change against the moderate to high sensitivities of the landscape character receptors in proximity to the proposed site would have a moderate adverse impact significance. Visual Impact Assessment The proposed development would introduce a moderate adverse impact on some viewpoints to the north east of the site. This is due to the moderate to major adverse magnitude of impact against the visual receptor sensitivities of medium to high, which would have a visual impact of moderate adverse impact significance.
149 Mitigation Measures There are mitigation measures included in the landscape proposals which are adequate and achievable particularly with mounding and screening. However the following may improve the design and siting of the proposal: • Include mounding details particularly along the A6070 and A65 and planting trees adjacent to and within hedgerows. • Increasing the percentage mix of Holly and Ilex aquifolium in the planting. • Extend woodland mix 2 around the curve of the planting bay and between the parking bays and plant specimen trees. • Build further stone walls at the existing roundabout. • Use different pitches of roof-line and “separate” roof line. The submission identifies a realistic location for the proposed re-location of the auction mart re-labelled as the Agri-quarter. The local drumlin landscape is of medium scale and would “hold” the development, as the development is of appropriate scale. There are some mitigation measures that could be improved upon, but generally the proposal is good, practical and achievable. Based on this advice, it was considered that the landscaping details should be amended; there were similar requirements from Highways. A condition attached to the permission would achieve the consultant’s suggestion to increase the mitigation. The design, including roof ridges, was considered in pre-application discussions and as a result the application design reflects the business and animal welfare requirements. Included in the pre-application discussions was the location of the additional units and it was consider that these should be located close to the existing Moss End Business Park so that from medium and far distant views the units would be seen as part of the existing group. It is concluded that the impact on the landscape is not so significantly adverse as to warrant refusal. Impact on the Highway The Applicant has submitted a Transport Assessment (TA) in support of the application in accordance with JSP Policy T30 and LTP Policy LD4 (part). The TA has been checked and subsequently additional information has been provided by the developer in order to address inadequacies in information contained within the report. As such, the TA is now considered acceptable and satisfies saved and extended JSP Policy T30 and LTP Policies LD4. The applicant has also submitted an outline Travel Plan (TP) in support of the application in accordance with JSP Policy T31 and LTP Policy LD4 (part). The outline TP sets out the principles for developing a full travel plan for the site. The outline TP has been checked, and a target reduction of 10% for reducing employee single occupancy commuting journeys to the development has been established and agreed. This target applies to both the proposed auction mart and ancillary units employees. The applicant has agreed that a full framework Travel Plan covering the proposed auction mart and ancillary businesses will be developed for the site within 6 months
150 of occupation and submitted for approval, and that all the Highway Authority requirements will be covered by conditions and a Section 106 Agreement. The submitted plans indicate a cattle lairage adjacent to the red line of the site, however, no details have been provided regarding how this area will be accessed. The existing field access is inadequate to accommodate the resulting intensified use by the auction mart and therefore represents a significant highway safety issue. In order to address this, access to the lairage is required to be provided via the development site rather than via the highway network. Further plans regarding the access arrangement will therefore need to be submitted for approval, however, it is considered that this issue could be satisfactorily covered through the use of an appropriate condition. An updated Road Safety Audit which takes into account the amendments that the applicant has made to the design, including a 1.8 metre wide footway linking the site to the bus stop on the A65, has been provided together with the Designer’s response. It is therefore considered that subject to the use of the appropriate conditions, the proposal satisfactorily addresses LTP Policies LD7 and LD8. Due to the location, the proposed site has very limited accessibility by walking and cycling. The proposal therefore does not accord with LTP Policy LD5. However, the site will be accessible by public transport via the proposed footway. Given the nature of the proposal and the mitigating measures proposed, including the Framework Travel Plan, it is accepted that the proposal should be treated as an exception to LTP Policy LD5. Development Benefits Relocation from Appleby Road removes an un-neighbourly development from the predominantly residential area and provides a site for housing in a sustainable area. This development is discussed elsewhere in the agenda. Planning gain yields affordable housing and/or other contributions. Moving Kendal Auction Mart out of the urban area of Kendal reduces the volume of traffic attending the current site, reducing congestion and reducing the number of vehicles travelling through the Air Quality Management Area. It is considered that the sustainable location of the housing will not result in a similar number of vehicles entering and exiting the site. Thus it is considered that there will be a net reduction of vehicle particulates polluting the Air Quality Management Area. The relocation of the auction mart allows the business to expand and progress which is one of the aims of SLDC Corporate Plan and the Sustainable Community Strategy. This would also allow the agricultural industry to become more competitive and adapt to new and changing markets in accordance with the policy objectives of central government. Other Material Considerations Both the Parish Council and individual objectors state that the development is premature because the Land Allocation DPD has not been adopted, or that this proposal should be included in that process. The principle of prematurity was revoked with the adoption of previous central planning guidance in PPS3. An auction mart is a one off non-strategic development which would usually not be considered as part of the Land Allocations DPD. Whether it is or not does not prevent an application being submitted nor is it a reason for refusal. This application is determined in accordance with existing policies and material considerations.
151 A second concern has been raised that approval of this application will set a precedent for further development creating the “Gateway Project” at Junction 36. It is acknowledged that land in the environs of Junction 36 has been proposed as part of the Land Allocation DPD for B1, B2 and B8 uses. As explained above the auction mart is not included in these land uses and has specific requirements that need a green field as well as the buildings. It is concluded that this does not set a precedent and that any additional development would have to present the same evidence in a sequential test of sustainable locations. Utility Provision The proposal has incorporated sustainable energy techniques which maximise the everyday operation of the site, and which produce the most suitable renewable resources. The effluent collected at the end of each day will be separated into matter which can be treated on-site and discharged as clean water into the watercourse. Rainwater and surface run-off from the wash-down on-site will also be collected and filtered to provide a re-useable water supply for use on the site. This will ensure the best possible re-use of all effluent produced on site. The need to cleanse the pens after a sale requires large volumes of water and the grey water / recycling system reduces the need for extraction from a borehole. Modern building methods and technology to control resources all contribute to reducing the carbon footprint created by this proposal.
Conclusions Your officers concluded that whilst the development has some moderate adverse environmental impacts, with respect to landscape, these are either outweighed by the benefits or can be mitigated. The development is considered acceptable and contributes to the objectives of the Council set out in the Core Strategy and other documents.
RECOMMENDATION: That delegated authority be granted to APPROVE the application subject to the satisfactory completion of a S106 legal Agreement relating to provisions in the Travel Plan and subject to conditions relating to the following:
(1) Statutory period. (2) Materials. (3) Details roundabout design. (4) Details of construction footway. (5) Provision of ramps. (6) Use of approved access only. (7) Access/parking – turning. (8) Parking during construction works.
152 (9) Access during construction. (10) Access to lairage. (11) Approved plan Numbers. (12) Landscaping. (13) Materials, spoil or rubble shall not be stacked or deposited on the highway. (14) Demolition or construction works limitations. (15) Restrictions of use of the additional units. (16) Restriction of hours of operation of the businesses. (17) Drainage. (18) Adherence to Flood Risk conclusions. (19) Archaeology survey. (20) Dust control. (21) Light emissions. (22) Travel plan.
REASON FOR GRANTING PLANNING PERMISSION: The decision to grant planning permission has been taken, having regard to the policies and proposals in the development plan set out below and to all other material planning considerations. The proposal is in accordance with those national and local policies, although there is some conflict with Policies CS1.1 Sustainable Development Principles, CS1.2 the Development Strategy of the Core Strategy and some of the policy elements in most of the below policies; in this instance the issues raised do not outweigh the general support afforded by the policies. National Policy PPS1 Delivering Sustainable Development. PPS4 Planning for Sustainable Economic Growth. PPS5 Planning for the Historic Environment. PPS7 Sustainable Development in Rural Areas. PPG13 Transport. Regional Spatial Strategy DP1 Spatial principles. DP2 Promote sustainable communities. DP5 Manage travel demand. DP7 Promote environmental quality. DP9 Reduce emissions and adapt to climate change. RDF2 Rural areas.
153 Saved Joint Structure Plan Policies ST4 Major Development T30 Transport Assessments T31 Travel Plans
Core Strategy CS1.1 Sustainable development principles. CS1.2 The development strategy. CS2 Kendal strategy. CS7.4 Rural economy. CS8.1 Green infrastructure. CS8.2 Protection and enhancement of landscape and settlement character. CS8.4 Biodiversity and geodiversity. CS8.6 Historic environment. CS8.7 Sustainable construction. CS8.10 Design. CS10.1 Accessing services. CS10.2 Transport impact.
Saved Local Plan Policies C3 Agricultural land. C5 External lighting. C19 Sites of archaeological interest. C20 Historic landscape. S2 South Lakeland design code. S3 Landscaping. S10 Parking provision. S12 Crime and design. S23 Agricultural buildings. S26 Sewerage treatment and disposal.
154 SCHEDULE A
Complex Planning Applications
SCHEDULE No: 13 SL/2011/0824
LOWER HOLKER: SANDGATE FARM FLOOKBURGH GRANGE OVER SANDS LA11 7LD
PROPOSAL: INSTALLATION OF 24.6M HIGH WIND TURBINE
Mr E Wilson
24/11/2011 E335370 N475437
SUMMARY: An application for two smaller turbines was withdrawn earlier in the year because of issues relating to the noise levels generated. This application seeks permission for one larger but quieter turbine. When balanced against the benefits of the scheme, the visual impact of the turbine is considered to be acceptable. The noise level resulting from the turbine is within appropriate limits. Consultation responses are however still awaited with regard to the ecological impact.
LOWER HOLKER PARISH COUNCIL: The Parish Council objects to the proposal for the following reasons: • the fact that the proposed wind turbine mast could be seen from local properties and was unsightly; • the proposed wind turbine would be a blot on the landscape; • the proposed wind turbine would make excessive noise; • the proposed wind turbine presented a health hazard.
SLDC ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION OFFICER: The acoustic data supplied and the changes to the installation location have been assessed and compared with the previous application. The distance between the turbine location and residential properties is sufficient to reduce any noise emitted by the turbine to below that of the existing background noise level. No additional conditions in relation to noise are necessary.
155 NATURAL ENGLAND: To be reported. However, in response to the last application Natural England stated that in their opinion that proposal would not materially or significantly affect the nearby protected areas of the Morecambe Bay SPA, SAC, SSSI and Ramsar, Roundsea Wood and Mosses SAC and SSSI, Humphrey Head SSSI, Barker Scar SSSI and Wart Barrow SSSI. A condition requiring the development to comply with the recommendations of the ecological report to ensure protected species are not harmed was requested.
RSPB: To be reported. In response to the last application the RSPB did not object as the group was satisfied that the developer has demonstrated (via bird surveys and desk based assessment) that there will be no significant impact on birds and the habitats on which they rely from this development.
CUMBRIA WILDLIFE TRUST: To be reported.
BRITISH TRUST FOR ORNOTHOLOGY: A Construction Method Statement should be submitted providing more information with regard to access and construction traffic. Back Lane may be unsuitable for construction use.
CUMBRIA HIGHWAYS: No objection.
CUMBRIA COUNTY COUNCIL RIGHTS OF WAY: The proposal will not affect any public rights of way.
RAMBLERS: To be reported. The Ramblers objected to the last proposal as the site is adjacent to the popular Cumbria Costal Way and the preferred course of the English Costal Route. It is also a popular tourist area with a number of large caravan sites nearby.
MINISTRY OF DEFENCE: To be reported.
NATS ON BEHALF OF NERL (AIR TRAFFIC): No safeguarding objection to the proposal.
156 CIVIL AVIATION AUTHORITY: To be reported.
BRITISH GLIDING ASSOCIATION: To be reported.
LANCASHIRE CONSTABULARY: To be reported.
ELECTRICITY NORTH WEST: The proposal will have no impact on the Electricity Distribution System infrastructure or any other ENW assets.
COMMUNICATION COMPANIES: To be reported.
OTHER: To be reported. During the course of the last application two petitions and three letters in objection from residents of Ravenstown and Flookburgh were received.
HISTORICAL CONTEXT: A planning application for two turbines with hub heights of 15.08 metres and 9.8 metre rotor blades giving a total height to the blade tip of 19.98 metres were submitted earlier in the year. The application was reported to the Planning Committee in March but was deferred to allow the applicant to address outstanding noise issues. The application was subsequently withdrawn. In 2005 planning permission was granted for 27 static caravans in fields to the north east of the site. The permission was subject to an S106 Agreement ensuring that the caravan site remained part of Sandgate Farm and that a long term management plan for tree screening around the site was adhered to. The landscaping has now become established and the site is in operation. Permission was granted for conversion of a barn to form two holiday lets in 2007. The development has been commenced but has not yet been completed.
DESCRIPTION AND PROPOSAL: It is proposed to construct one 50kW triple bladed wind turbine in a field to the south of Sandgate Farm. The turbines would measure 24.6 metres to the hub height, with a rotor blade diameter of 19.2 metres which will result in a total height to the blade tip of 34.2 metres. The tower would be finished in a matt grey colour with white blades and hub.
157 The site is located at Sandgate Farm which is located on the edge of Morecambe Bay to the west of Flookburgh. It is accessed via Main Street through the village and along the road to the old “Sandgate” across the bay. The site is separated from Flookburgh and Ravenstown by rolling agricultural fields with the nearest village properties approximately 640 metres to the east. The field in which the turbines would be located rises from the east then falls back to the bay. The proposed turbines would be located on the eastern (Flookburgh) side of the brow of the hill. The farm buildings together with three associated dwellings are located to the north of the site. However, the closest residential property located 290 metres to the north does not form part of the farming unit.
PLANNING POLICIES: National Policy Government policy in respect of renewable energy is contained in PPS22 and the climate change supplement to PPS1. It is a key principle of PPS22 that small-scale projects can provide a limited but valuable contribution to the overall output of renewable energy and local planning authorities are urged not to reject planning applications simply because the output is small. It is recognised that of all the renewable technologies, wind turbines are likely to have the greatest visual and landscape effects. In assessing planning applications, local authorities are advised that they should recognise that the impact of turbines on the landscape will vary according to the size and number of turbines and the type of landscape involved and that these impacts might be temporary if conditions are attached to planning permissions which require the future decommissioning of turbines. The supplement to PPS1 states that: “an applicant for planning permission to develop a proposal that will contribute to the delivery of the Key Planning Objectives set out in this PPS should expect expeditious and sympathetic handling of the planning application.”
Regional Policy Policy EM17 of the Regional Spatial Strategy for the North West. Promotes the development of renewable energy capacity which will contribute towards the delivery of the targets contained in the RSS. It states that local planning authorities should give significant weight to the wider environmental, community and economic benefits of proposals for renewable energy schemes. The visual impact of such schemes is a matter to be taken into account but should not be used to rule out or place constraints on the development of all, or specific types of, renewable energy technologies. RSS Policy 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. RSS Policy DP7. Promotes the protection and enhancement of environmental quality, including green infrastructure, but at the same time respecting the character and distinctiveness of landscapes and the maintenance and enhancement of the tranquillity of the open countryside.
158 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 the landscape character, biodiversity and the natural and built heritage of the area either individually or cumulatively through their relationship with other utility infrastructure;
(3) there is no significant adverse effect on local amenity, the local economy, highways or telecommunications;
(4) the proposal takes all practicable measures to reduce any adverse impact on 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. It 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.
Local Plan Policy Saved Policy C26 of the Local Plan covers wind energy proposals and states that their acceptability will be judged according to whether a number of defined criteria can be satisfied. One of the criteria is that the proposal’s energy contribution and other benefits outweigh any significant adverse impact on the character and appearance of the landscape, the amenity of residential properties, nature conservation, archaeological or geographical interests.
159 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 planning issues raised by this application are the visual effect of a 34.2 metre high turbine on the character and appearance of the surrounding landscape, the noise impact on nearby residential properties and the impact upon Morecambe Bay which is designated as a SAC, RAMSAR, SPA and SSSI together with the surrounding habitat. The turbines will occupy a prominent and elevated site within an open field system between Flookburgh/Ravenstown and Morecambe Bay with the Cumbria Coastal Way running to the north and west of the site. While the single turbine is 14 metres higher than the two previously submitted, it is proposed to erect it to the southwest, at a lower point on the hillside and further away from the residential property to the north and Ravenstown. The base level of the turbine would be approximately 10 metres lower than the previous scheme. The turbines will be visible from and have a significant impact on views across the bay from residential properties in Ravenstown and from the farm to the south. The undulating landform will contain the visual impact of the turbine from longer distance views from the north, west and south. The immediate area along the shoreline and the nearby footpaths are well used by walkers. However, when using this area the main view is across the water and toward the north rather than inland up the hill on which this turbine would be sited. Views from across the estuary are from a considerable distance. The Cumbria Wind Energy Supplementary Planning Document identifies the landscape in this area as having the capacity for a small group of turbines. However, the document relates to the larger commercial structures and the siting of one 34 metre high turbine would have a significantly lower impact than that envisaged in the document. The landscape impact of the proposal should be balanced against the benefits to the business, contributions to reducing reliance on electricity generated by higher carbon methods and the positive stance of national, structure and local plan policies in relation to such development. It is the intention to utilise electricity from the turbine to service the farm and associated caravan park which has provided diversification for the farm. The turbine is likely to generate in the region of 142 Kw hrs of electricity per year. These positive aspects of the proposal and the strength of policy support therefore outweigh the mainly local landscape impact of the proposal. Following a background noise survey and further work with regard to the noise impact of the previous scheme, the position and type of turbine has been amended. Background noise monitoring has been carried out and an acoustic assessment in relation to the noise level has been carried out. The previous scheme resulted in noise levels above accepted levels. In response to this outcome the type of turbine has been changed, a single turbine is now proposed and the position has been
160 altered. The assessments carried out indicate the noise level generated by the proposed turbine at residential properties will be below the existing background noise. The proposal will therefore not result in noise levels which would adversely affect residential amenity. When positioning the turbine account has been taken in relation to the nearby public footpaths. The distance ensures that the proposal would not adversely affect safety. Given the distance and position in relation to residential property the turbine would not create shadow flicker or other health hazards. The response of Natural England and Cumbria Wildlife Trust will be reported. It is however anticipated that the comments will be similar to the previous scheme. The ecological report was produced for the previous scheme. However, the surveys, conclusions and mitigation are equally relevant for this scheme. The survey concludes that there will be no effect on the protected Morecambe Bay. While the proposal may cause a minor displacement of bird populations but that the short and long term disturbance to bird species will not be significant. Similarly the long term impact on bats will be minor. Mitigation measures with regard to the construction phase have been proposed and should be subject to conditions.
RECOMMENDATION: Subject to a satisfactory response from Natural England, the application be GRANTED subject to conditions relating to the following:
(1) Standard time limit. (2) Development in accordance with the approved plans. (3) Implementation of the ecological mitigation proposals. (4) Approval of the base level. (5) A Method Statement relating to construction traffic. (6) Removal of the turbine if it ceases to be in use for a period of 12 months. (7) Decommissioning of the turbine before the expiry of 25 years from installation.
161 162 PART I
Agenda Item No:7
South Lakeland District Council PLANNING COMMITTEE
Meeting Date: 24 November 2011 Report Author: Mark Shipman Development Management Group Manager Portfolio: Not applicable Report from: David Sykes (Interim Corporate Director, Communities) Wards affected: All Key Decision: Not applicable Forward Plan: Not applicable
APPEALS UPDATE AT 11 NOVEMBER 2011
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.
2.0 RECOMMENDATIONS Note the report.
3.0 BACKGROUND Appeals as set out in Appendix 1.
4.0 RESEARCH AND CONSULTATION Not applicable.
5.0 PROPOSAL Not applicable.
6.0 ALTERNATIVE OPTIONS Not applicable.
7.0 NEXT STEPS Not applicable.
163 8.0 IMPLICATIONS 8.1 Financial and Resources The recommendations in this report do not have any cost implications. 8.2 Human Resources The recommendations in this report do not have any staffing implications. 8.3 Legal Not applicable. 8.4 Social, Economic and Environmental Impact This report does not have any registered significant environmental effects.
9.0 RISK ASSESSMENT Not applicable.
10.0 EQUALITY AND DIVERSITY 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 This report links to the objective of Improving Environmental Quality across South Lakeland, of the Corporate Plan. National Indicator BVPI 204 sets a target of a maximum number of appeals allowed as 33%. The current performance, calculated from those decisions received since 1 April 2011, is 28.5%.
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 Appeals table (commencing 1 April 2011), updated to include new appeals and appeal decisions received between 14 October and 11 November 2011.
CONTACT OFFICERS Mark Shipman, Development Management Group Manager - Tel: 01539 79756
164 BACKGROUND DOCUMENTS AVAILABLE Various planning files.
TRACKING Assistant Director Portfolio Holder Solicitor to the Council CMT Admin 11/11/11 D Leather
165 166 APPENDIX 1
Site Description SLDC Decision Planning Inspectorate Ref Planning and start date Inspectorate Appellant Decision South Lakeland Planning Ref EGTON with Appeal against Enforcement APP/M0933/C/10/2137528 DISMISSED NEWLAND: Enforcement Notice 30/11/10 23 June 2011 Woodbine Cottage Erection of decking to rear of garden SL/2010/1057 Penny Bridge OLD HUTTON AND Storage and animal treatment Refused 14/10/10 APP/M0933/A/11/11/2144733 DISMISSED HOMESCALES: building (Committee) 17/1/11 16 May 2011 Little Eskrigg End PO Recommend: SL/2010/0089 Farm, Old Hutton Refuse
KENDAL: Erection of office building Refused 18/11/10 APP/M0933/A/11/2144785 DISMISSED Grass Island (Delegated) 17/1/11 14 Apr 2011 Meadowbank Business SL/2010/0831 Park, Shap Road
KENDAL: Appeal against issuing of Enforcement APP/M0933/ C/11/2145284 DISMISSED Enforcement Notice Land at Bridge View, 24/1/11 Public Inquiry 16/8/11 (upheld Burton Road, SL/2011/0066 Enforcement Oxenholme Notice - with variation) 5 Sept 2011 167
Site Description SLDC Decision Planning Inspectorate Ref Planning and start date Inspectorate Appellant Decision South Lakeland Planning Ref
STRICKLAND ROGER Staff accommodation building and car Refused 26/10/10 APP/M0933/A/11/2145103 ALLOWED Land adjacent to parking (Delegated) 28/1/11 CONDITIONALLY Tenement Tarn SL/2010/0277 18 May 2011
KENDAL: Demolition of existing building and Refused 24/1/11 APP/M0933/A/11/2146150 DISMISSED erection of new office building Meadowbank House (Delegated) 28/1/11 14 Apr 2011 Meadowbank Business SL/2010/0830 Park, Shap Road
GRANGE over Directional sign Refused 20/10/10 APP/M0933/H/11/2143818 DISMISSED SANDS: (Delegated) 15/2/11 24 May 2011 Grange Bakery SL/2010/0771 Kents Bank Road
OLD HUTTON AND Conversion of redundant barn to Refused 17/2/11 APP/M0933/A/11/2149508 DISMISSED HOMESCALES: holiday let and installation of sewage (Delegated) 28/3/11 2 Aug 2011 treatment plant Eskrigg End Barn SL/2010/1016 Old Hutton PENNINGTON: Erection of Wind turbine Refused 23/12/10 APP/M0933/A/11/2149683 ALLOWED Lindal Cricket Club (Committee) 30/3/11 CONDITIONALLY Lindal PO Recommend: SL/2010/0928 20 July 2011 Refuse Corrected by PI
168 19 August 2011
Site Description SLDC Decision Planning Inspectorate Ref Planning and start date Inspectorate Appellant Decision South Lakeland Planning Ref
HEVERSHAM: Erection of detached garage to front Refused 8/2/11 APP/M0933/D/11/2149987 DISMISSED of dwelling The Stables, High (Delegated) 5/4/11 10 May 2011 Haverflatts, Haverflatts SL/2010/1074 Lane
MILNTHORPE: Agricultural building for hay storage Refused 10/01/11 APP/M0933/A/11/2151146 DISMISSED and shelter for lambing sheep OS Field 7684 (Delegated) 26/4/11 22 July 2011 Haverflatts Lane SL/2010/1011
LOWER Erection of ancillary domestic Refused 26/10/10 APP/M0933/A/11/2151793 ALLOWED ALLITHWAITE: accommodation (Delegated) 24/5/11 CONDITIONALLY The Pastures SL/2010/0662 11 Aug 2011 Templands Lane
KENDAL: Detached dwelling Refused 25/2/11 APP/M0933/A/11/2154465 110 Oxenholme Road (Delegated) 14/6/11 SL/2011/0024
KENDAL: First floor rear extension Refused 20/6/11 APP/M0933/A/11/2155958 DISMISSED 8 West Street (Delegated) 11/7/11 15 August 2011 SL/2011/0351
169
Site Description SLDC Decision Planning Inspectorate Ref Planning and start date Inspectorate Appellant Decision South Lakeland Planning Ref
BEETHAM: Dwelling Non- APP/M0933/A/11/2158993 Determination Land at Barcaldine 24/8/11 Leighton Drive SL/2011/0067 Slack Head
PRESTON PATRICK: Erection of wind turbine of 15M high Refused 30/6/11 APP/M0933/A/11/2159458 Moss End Farm mast 2/9/11 Crooklands SL/2011/0363
KIRKBY LONSDALE: Alterations and extensions Refused 25/8/11 APP/M0933/D/11/2160070 DISMISSED 2 Leyfield Court 9/9/11 (Householder) 4 November 2011 SL/2011/0335
ULVERSTON: Erection of portable shower cabin Refused 7/7/11 APP/M0933/A/11/2160453 Priory view camping (retrospective) 15/9/11 and caravan club SL/2011/0269 Sandhall
MILNTHORPE: Detached dwelling Refused 29/7/11 APP/M0933/A/11/2160508 Crosby House 15/9/11 Ackenthwaite SL/2011/0318
170
Site Description SLDC Decision Planning Inspectorate Ref Planning and start date Inspectorate Appellant Decision South Lakeland Planning Ref
KENDAL: Extended area to previously Refused 15/7/11 APP/M0933/D/11/2160844 ALLOWED approved garden deck together with 131 Burneside Road 21/9/11 (Householder) 3 November 2011 garden shed (part retrospective) SL/2011/0345
BARBON: Two storey extension Refused 1/7/11 APP/M0933/D/11/2161333 DISMISSED The Old Post Office 28/9/11 (Householder) 1 November 2011 SL/2011/0330
SKELSMERGH: Conversion of barn to dwelling and Refused 28/7/11 APP/M0933/A/11/2162244 Red Bank Farm installation of septic tank / treatment 14/10/11 unit with drainage mound soakaway SL/2011/0034
ALDINGHAM: Two dwellings Refused 29/9/11 APP/M0933/A/11/2163288 Land adjacent to 31/10/11 Beech Mount SL/2011/0490 Goadsbarrow
GRANGE over Demolition of dwelling and Refused 25/8/11 APP/M0933/A/11/2163949 SANDS: outbuildings; erection of five detached 9/11/11 dwellings and alteration to access Pengarth, Ashmount drive SL/2011/0439 Road
171
172 PART I
Agenda Item No: 8
South Lakeland District Council PLANNING COMMITTEE MONTHLY ENFORCEMENT REPORT
Meeting Date: 24 November 2011 Report Author: Mark Balderson, Planning Enforcement Officer Portfolio: Not applicable Report from: David Sykes (Interim Corporate Director, Communities) Wards affected: All Key Decision: Not applicable Forward Plan: Not applicable
A REPORT ON ENFORCEMENT ACTIVITY FROM 5th SEPTEMBER TO 7th OCTOBER 2011
1.0 PURPOSE OF REPORT 1.1 To inform Members about enforcement activity between 5th September and 7th October 2011. This report aims to provide a brief and informative insight into current enforcement cases. If there are any specific enforcement cases that Members would like to be updated on at the next Planning Committee meeting, please contact Mark Balderson, Planning Enforcement Officer.
2.0 RECOMMENDATIONS It is recommended that Members note the report and appendices.
3.0 BACKGROUND 3.1 Enforcement cases which have been resolved: 5 outstanding cases from the enforcement caseload have been resolved between 5th September and 7th October 2011. 3.2 New enforcement cases: Between 5th September and 7th October 2011, 15 complaints have been recorded and are presently being investigated. 4 of these cases have been resolved. 3.3 Enforcement cases for which Committee consideration is sought: None.
173 3.4 An update on enforcement cases involving enforcement action: An update on those cases involving formal enforcement action is attached as Appendix 1 for Members information.
4.0 RESEARCH AND CONSULTATION Not applicable.
5.0 PROPOSAL Not applicable.
6.0 ALTERNATIVE OPTIONS Not applicable.
7.0 NEXT STEPS Continue dealing with cases listed in the priority table in appendix 1, receiving and prioritising all new cases, and taking appropriate action where necessary in accordance with the relevant Acts and guidance.
8.0 IMPLICATIONS 8.1 Financial and Resources Cost implications only arise if the matter ultimately requires court or direct action in default. 8.2 Human Resources The recommendations in this report do not have any staffing implications. 8.3 Legal See report. 8.4 Social, Economic and Environmental Impact This report does not have any registered significant environmental effects.
9.0 RISK ASSESSMENT Risk Consequence Controls required The failure of a Ombudsman To maintain sufficient statutory requirement maladministration resources in planning to investigate investigation. Result in enforcement and prioritise breaches of planning inappropriate forms of and co-ordinate the law, to have an development, which would investigation of breaches effective investigative have an adverse impact on of planning control. compliance and the character, and enforcement system. appearance of the District’s rural landscape.
174 10.0 EQUALITY AND DIVERSITY 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 This report links to the aim of providing a “High Quality Environment” enhanced local environmental quality and supports national performance indicators. Having an effective robust planning enforcement regime involving people will help make South Lakeland the best place to live, work and visit. Dealing with unauthorised development in an efficient, firm and fair manner, fosters strong links with the community, increased public confidence in the Council and value for money.
12.0 CONCLUSION AND EXPECTED OUTCOMES 12.1 See report in appendix.
APPENDIX ATTACHED TO THIS REPORT Appendix No. 1 A report on enforcement cases that Committee authorisation to take enforcement action has been sought - 2006 to 7 October 2011.
CONTACT OFFICERS Mark Balderson, Planning Enforcement Officer, Tel: 01539 797566 email: [email protected]
BACKGROUND DOCUMENTS AVAILABLE Various planning files.
TRACKING Assistant Portfolio Solicitor to CMT Scrutiny Development Director Holder the Council Committee Management Group 10 Nov 2011 14 Nov 2011
175 176 A REPORT ON ENFORCEMENT ACTIVITY - FROM 2006 TO 7th OCTOBER 2011. APPENDIX 1 The purpose of this appendix is to provide a summary of the enforcement cases in which committee authorisation was sought.
REF NO. PARISH SITE ADDRESS BREACH/CONTRAVENTION PROGRESS/NEXT STEP
06/068 ALDINGHAM Low Sunbrick Farm Installation of uPVC windows Listed Building Enforcement Aldingham in Listed Building. Notice, requesting windows are replaced after 10 yrs.
07/025 LOWER Priory Close Internal alteration to Listed Seeking legal opinion whether ALLITHWAITE Cartmel Building. there are grounds to prosecute.
07/156 KENDAL Bridge View Creation of extra dwelling unit. Enforcement Notice served and Burton Road appealed. Inspector at inquiry dismissed the appeal and upheld the Notice. Pursuing compliance with Notice.
07/283 GRANGE over SANDS 2 Methven Terrace Extensions not built as per New owners have submitted a plan and breach of conditions. retrospective application for the unauthorised alterations. Permission has been granted. Monitoring compliance with other agreed minor operations.
09/352 URSWICK Beckside Holdings, between Unauthorised use of land – Most of the other unauthorised Scales and Stainton storage of equipment not building has been removed. ancillary, unauthorised Awaiting removal of remainder.
177 buildings.
REF NO. PARISH SITE ADDRESS BREACH/CONTRAVENTION PROGRESS
08/144 KENDAL Beech House Hotel Unauthorised uPVC windows Site visit confirms that windows to 40 Greenside in Conservation Area. the front elevation have been replaced with timber framed windows in accordance with the Enforcement Notice. Monitoring further compliance for the side windows.
08/345 SKELSMERGH Holme House Unauthorised development Compliance date for parts 1 - 7 is Garth Row Lane involving the construction of the 29th September 2011. They caravan / chalet structures and have not been complied with. business uses. Considering prosecution.
09/377 ULVERSTON 22 Hallfield Use of dwelling for the running Further compliance monitoring. of Taxi business. Recent information indicates circumstances may change.
10/022 ALDINGHAM Lime Kiln, Low Sunbrick Lane Erection of unauthorised Enforcement Notice served. Baycliff agricultural building. Effective date 23 Nov 2011.
10/124 EGTON with Woodbine Cottage, Penny Erection of extensive timber Appeal dismissed and NEWLAND Bridge decking with sauna and Enforcement Notice upheld. Jacuzzi. Compliance deadline to remove decking structure - 23 Oct 2011, site visit confirms that work has commenced to remove it. Owner’s agent has telephoned to say the decking etc has been
178 removed. Further site visit necessary to confirm the requirements in the Notice have been complied with in full. REF NO. PARISH SITE ADDRESS BREACH/CONTRAVENTION PROGRESS
10/208 LOWER Blenket wood caravan park Laying new 300m access Notice served effective date 2 ALLITHWAITE track. Nov 2011. Notice withdrawn and re-serving with amendments.
10/209 KENDAL Boundary Bank Unauthorised use of site for Proceeding with enforcement the storage of machinery and action. Serving Planning hardcore. Contravention Notice.
10/289 BEETHAM Fern Bank, Hale Unauthorised siting and Enforcement Notice served residential use of caravan. effective date 22 sep 2011, Compliance period 8 month from when Notice takes effect.
10/311 CASTERTON Chapel House Farm Unauthorised removal of Hedge Replacement Notice hedge. served 12 July 2011. Received appeal to Notice, awaiting inspector’s decision.
11/061 HINCASTER Cherry Hill, Hincaster Unauthorised erection of tree Enforcement Notice served 17 house in tree that has Tree June, effective 1 Aug 2011 with 6 Preservation Order. month compliance period.
11/086 MILNTHORPE Dallam Barn, Haverflatts Unauthorised erection of Section 330 Notice served and building. returned. Considering further information prior to Enforcement Notice.
179