PART I REPORTS FOR DEBATE

Eden District Council Planning Applications Committee Agenda Committee Date: 23 April 2009

INDEX

Application Item Page Applicant’s Name Location Number Number Number

Natural Retreats - 08/0333 Low Borrowdale Farm, Tebay 1 Mr E Kearney

Natural Retreats - 08/0339 Low Borrowdale Farm, Tebay 2 Mr E Kearney

Land adjacent to Prospect Terrace, 09/0060 Mr A Crosby 3 Kirkby Thore

Land adjacent to Staynegarth, 09/0079 Atric Ltd 4 Stainton

09/0098 Atkinson Homes Land at Beacon Farm, Eamont Bridge 5

08/0793 Mr M Lawson-Johnson Redhills, Penrith 6

1 PART I REPORTS FOR DEBATE

2 PART I REPORTS FOR DEBATE

Item No: 1

Application Number: 08/0333

Statutory Decision Date: 14 August 2008

Parish: Tebay

Description: Construction of ten Timber ECO holiday Lodges, conversion of farmhouse and buildings and new build to provide seven self catering cottages. Change of use of an agricultural building to provide a multi-purpose guest/community space and provision of a new agricultural building of vernacular construction, all as revised by plans and detail received by the Local Planning Authority 20 November 2008.

Location: Low Borrowdale Farm, Tebay

Applicant: Natural Retreats - Mr E Kearney

Recommendation Refuse Planning Permission

Site Plan:

3 PART I REPORTS FOR DEBATE The application is brought before Members given the level of general public concern with the development proposed, based on the number of objection (both original and subsequent to received revised plans) letters received by the Authority to the principle, nature, detail and scale of development of the site. In addition, the Officer recommendation to Refuse is contrary to the view of the Parish Council.

Proposed Development: As originally submitted, Full planning approval was sought for the construction of twenty-nine, three bedroom timber lodges, on agricultural grazing land within the valley together with associated landscaping, new and upgraded access roads, footpaths and parking area provision. This is together with the re-development, through part demolition conversion and new build, of the existing isolated farmstead known as Low Borrowdale Farm (a Grade II Listed farmhouse and associated curtilage buildings), to provide for a further seven self-catering cottages.

Subsequently the applicants, being aware of the significant level of objection to and concern with the development proposed, have revised the nature and detail of the Full planning approval now sought. The approval now being sought is for the construction of ten three bedroom timber lodges (indicated as utilising the latest green technology in terms of construction), with associated landscaping, new and upgraded access roads, footpaths and parking area provision. This again would be together with the re-development through part demolition, conversion and new build of the existing isolated farmstead known as Low Borrowdale Farm (a Grade II Listed farmhouse and associated curtilage buildings), to provide for a further seven self-catering cottages. This comprises three resulting from conversion, with the refurbished farmhouse, to be retained as manager‟s accommodation, and a new terrace of four two-storey, two bed, dwellings.

In addition, the overall re-development of the site proposed, also includes the removal of certain other existing farm buildings, and the provision of an existing larger, more modern wide-span agricultural building, to provide a multi-purpose guest/community building, including administration, operational and guest reception (identified as the Sanctuary), a cycle store, additional new parking area with spaces for twenty-nine vehicles, surface treatment for new pathways and lodge access roads, with low stone walls. Also a new 2500 sq ft agricultural barn is proposed, to assist with the future management of the retained farm and farming element.

Access to the site is via the existing junction to the A685 (Lune Valley), along the lower flank and valley bottom of the Borrowdale Valley, via the existing adopted narrow metalled single vehicle width road (5287) and then an upgraded existing farm access track, the majority of which is within the applicants ownership. Bridleway and footpath access exists across the site and valley.

The development is put forward and justified by the applicants as an innovative means of ensuring the future viability and vitality of the existing hill farm operation, enabling the positive and beneficial management of its farmed land, landscape and varied habitat through the introduction of a sympathetic tourism development, interdependent of the farming activities surrounding the site, and of benefit to the wider socio-economic community both in and around the area.

The application is also accompanied by additional supporting documentation; a Landscape and Visual Impact appraisal, Low Borrowdale Archaeological desk based Assessment report, Illustrative Planting Scheme, Flood Risk statement, Sustainable Design Statement, Green

4 PART I REPORTS FOR DEBATE Travel and Land Management Plans, Bat and Structural Surveys, Botanical Survey and a report on Ecological Constraints and Recommendations, as well as letters of support obtained by the applicants, in relation to the type of development envisaged.

Approval for the development overall, together with separate Listed Building consent (see accompanying Listed Building Consent Application Ref No 08/0339), is being sought by Natural Retreats, a relatively new company marketing themselves as “ a luxury holiday operator, promoting the concept of a high end holiday experience, in stunning locations across the country, but in an environmentally sensitive and ecologically sustainable way.”

Description of the Site and the Surroundings:

The application site is an isolated and remote hill farm small-holding of approx 136 Ha (336 acres). The main built form and main operational emphasis is to be focused on the existing farmhouse and associated mixed range of agricultural buildings at Low Borrowdale Farm. This is located midway along the Borrowdale Valley between the A6 (to the west) and the A685 (Lune Valley, to the east). The existing farm complex is located on the northern edge of the relatively flat valley floor within the Low Borrowdale Valley, which itself sub-divides the steeper, upland areas of Bretherdale/Roundthwaite Common (to the north) and Whinfell Common (to the south).

The Grade II listed farmhouse, and the older of the range of traditional attached stone built outbuildings nestle into the slope of the hillside to the immediate rear (north) of the farmhouse. This is a part walled and fenced enclosure containing a band of mature, deciduous tree planting (forming a shelterbelt) which, following the contour of the valley westward, stretches for a further 200m up the valley, before tapering out into a mixture of smaller hawthorn trees and stunted bushes. The valley and existing farm complex is crossed and subdivided by a combination of public Rights of Way (Bridleways 527022, 584022 and 367003), there being a junction to two of these immediately, through the farmyard and to the north-west of the farmhouse.

Noted for its walking, the rights of way through the valley, connect the A685 with the A6, via the valley floor, and partly via the Whinfell Common ridge to the south. Other footpaths and Bridleways link into the above, with connections extending north-eastwards over Roundthwaite Common towards Tebay, and south-westward along part of the Whinfell Common ridge skyline.

As indicated earlier, the farm is located approx midway between the Lune Valley (A685 and M6 at Low Borrow Bridge) to the east and the A6 (at High Borrow Bridge) to the west. Vehicular access to the site, which originates from a junction with the A685, (at Low Borrow Bridge) is within the administrative District of South Lakeland. This is a gated single track access road, partially metalled (5287) for approx 1klm, and thereafter by a rutted, hardcored surface single width farm access track, across a rail sleeper bridge over the Borrow Beck (and into the administrative area of Eden District) and along the floor of the valley for approx a further 2km. (Overall, the site is approx 6km (3¾ miles) from the nearest settlement, Tebay, to the north-east, and with it junction 38 of the M6 Motorway).

The Borrowdale Valley itself is located immediately to the east of the boundary of the Lake District National Park, and to the west of the Howgills, and as such in transition between the two areas shares many of their natural and landscape characteristics. The amenity attraction of its simple, large scale open landscape, with walled and fenced lower level pasture and

5 PART I REPORTS FOR DEBATE grazing enclosures, and the occasional shelter belt planting, being recognised by its landscape classification and its formal designation as being of County Landscape Importance. Though considered as being candidate area for possible inclusion within the National Park boundary, the area is not defined and therefore protected by any such actual designation.

Relevant Planning History:

90/0778 - Erection of Sheep building.

97/0363 - Replacement of existing roof over existing silage clamp and roofing of adjoining feed area. (2003/2004) On the ridges above the valley - Chalmerston Wind Power Limited - Whinash Wind Farm - This proposal comprised two applications, one for the construction and operation of a 67.5MW wind turbine generating station, the other seeking consent for the erection of 24 (115 metre high) wind turbines, accessed by 14km of new 5m wide access track. Following public inquiry, the Inspector concluded that the proposed wind farm “would have an adverse impact on the character and openness of the landscape and its value for recreation, not outweighed by benefits gained from securing renewable energy”. This finding was subsequently accepted by the Secretary of State.

Relevant National, Regional and Local Plan Policies: Planning Policy Statement 1 “Delivering Sustainable Development” Planning Policy Guidance 13 “Transport” Planning Policy Statement 7 “Sustainable Development in Rural Areas” North West of England Plan Regional Spatial Strategy Policy DP1”Spatial Principles” Policy DP3 “Promote Sustainable Economic Development” Policy DP4 “Make the Best Use of Existing Resources and Infrastructure” Policy DP5 “Manage Travel Demand; Reduce the Need to Travel, Increase Accessibility” Policy DP7 “Promote Environmental Quality” Policy RDF 2 “Rural Areas” Policy W1 “Strengthening the Regional Economy” Policy W6 “Tourism and the Visitor Economy” Policy W7 “Principles for Tourism Development” Policy RT2 “Managing Travel Demand” Policy EM1”Integrated Enhancement and Protection of the Regions Environmental Assets (A) Landscape (B) Natural Environment (C) Historic Environment Cumbria and Lake District Joint Structure Plan 2001-2016 (Saved Policies) EM16 “Tourism” Policy E37 “Landscape Character” Policy E38 “Historic Environment”

6 PART I REPORTS FOR DEBATE Eden District Local Plan (Retained Plan Policies) Policy NE1 “Development in the Countryside” Policy NE3 “Landscapes of County Importance” Policy NE8 “Agricultural Diversification” Policy NE9 “Building for Agriculture and Forestry” Policy BE9 “Protection and recording of Archaeological remains” Policy BE13 “Development affecting Listed Buildings” Policy BE19 “Quality of Design” Policy BE21 “Light Pollution” Policy TM1 “Tourism Developments General” Policy TM3 “Larger Scale Tourism Development” Policy TM6 “Caravan and Chalet occupancy” Policy PT3 “Traffic Implications of Development” Policy PT6 “Parking Provision” Policy RE5 “Development affecting Rights of Way” Policy SE1 “Sewage Disposal” Eden Core Strategy Submission Document (Emerging Policies) : Policy CS1 “Sustainable Development Principles” Policy CS3 “Rural Settlements and the Rural Area” Policy CS5 “Transport and Accessibility” Policy CS12 “principles for Economic Development and Tourism” Policy CS14 2Employment Development in Rural Areas” Policy CS15 “Tourism and the Visitor Economy” Policy CS16 “Principles for the Natural Environment” Policy CS17 “Principles for the Built (Historic) Environment” Policy CS18 “Design of New Development” Policy CS19 “Energy Conservation and Efficiency”

Legal Requirements:

None.

Method of Publicity and Summary of Representations: The application and its revisions, along with its associated Listed Building Application (08/0339) were publicised by notices in the Local Press, the placing of Site Notices at either end of the Borrowdale valley (A6 and A685) and by direct neighbouring landowner consultation.

7 PART I REPORTS FOR DEBATE Parish Response: Tebay Parish Council is fully behind such a development that will encourage tourism and bring jobs and business to the area, helping the local economy.

Consultation Responses: Campaign for National Parks: Object. Conservation Officer: Objects County Archaeologist: Recommends that an archaeological building programme assessment be undertaken in advance of any development. County Highways (South Lakeland Offices): Express concern about the sustainability of this choice of location in terms of vehicular activity and access. Cumbria County Council: No comment from a strategic planning perspective. Cumbria Tourism: Support the application. Cumbria Local Access Forum : Object. Environment Agency: No objection on the basis of revised detail submitted. Natural England : Object on the grounds of insufficient information about potential impacts on the landscape and ecology, and continue to maintain their belief that the Application should be accompanied by an Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA)*. *(The Local Planning Authority in their reading of the relevant EIA regulations chose to accept the application on the basis that no such EIA was required, a course of action that further consultation with the Government Office for the North West in the matter has failed to clarify with any further degree of certainty.)

Friends of the Lake District (FOLD): Noting that the revised scheme reduces the proposed number of lodges, and that revised design (of the cottages) aims to more closely reflect local vernacular, still object, as the proposal continues to raise serious conflicts with a variety of national and local policies, in particular regard to location and environmental impact and therefore should be refused. In addition, concerns are expressed over the viability of the development proposed. (Objection letters included as Appendix to this report.) Lake District National Park Authority : No objection. Ramblers Associations: Object to the proposals. South Lakeland District Council: Object to the developments proposed on the basis that the proposal conflicts with both national and local policy. (Objection letter included as Appendix to this report.) Society for the Protection of Ancient Buildings (SPAB): Object, largely on the grounds of insufficient information. United Utilities: No comment or observation received.

Others: The application, as originally submitted by the applicants was accompanied by copies of three letters of Support from Cumbria Tourism, Invest in Cumbria and the Country Land and Business Association: Their supporting comments, to a degree based on the detail of pre-

8 PART I REPORTS FOR DEBATE application discussions held with the applicant, Natural Retreats, are summarised as follows: The principle of a low density scheme which utilises the existing farm buildings and introduces high quality buildings inspired by the local setting is appropriate in this location. The development would expand the range and spread further the benefits of tourism to this lesser known part of the county, create new jobs, help sustain and generate new business for local shops and diversify other income streams in the area. The proposal should help both to preserve and conserve the landscape character of the area and help re-invigorate traditional farming activities. Development of this nature enables the tourist to experience the unique nature of the UK at first hand, in the most tranquil of settings. In addition to the above, the Local Planning Authority has received only one further letter of support from a resident living in the locality. Based on both the original and revised detail schemes submitted, the Local Planning Authority has been in receipt of an overall total of 302 letters of objection, with a total of 29 individuals and/or organisations further confirming that they would wish to be heard at Committee. The reasons for objection, both original (and in the light of received revised plans, there being much similarity) are summarised as follows: Low Borrowdale is one of the few remaining unspoiled and undeveloped valleys in the area and is, by its very nature, already of significant tourist value to the area and local economy. A tourism development proposal on this scale will be both conspicuous, in terms of existing character, and through increased pressure of human impact have significant detrimental effect on the environment of a quiet, secluded and beautiful dale. The development proposed is a major new, large scale and inappropriately located tourist orientated business venture, disguised and justified as a simple form of agricultural diversification. A tourism development of this scale and nature would serve only to degrade one of the last areas of exceptional tranquillity and solitude in both Cumbria and England, valued by walkers and cyclists for its remote, tranquil and suitably inspiring grandeur. The valley was noted by the well known author A A Wainwright in his book “Walks on the Howgill Fells” as being of much valued and significant importance in terms of its character and its unspoilt timelessness and tranquillity. The area and landscape quality are such that it has been recognised as being of such value as to possibly warrant inclusion within the re-defined boundary of the Lake District National Park, which development of this scale and nature could effectively compromise, this should be regarded as material by the Planning Authority in any consideration. The proposed eco-lodges, up-grading of access road and associated parking are completely out of character with the architecture of the existing buildings and the sensitive character and wildlife habitat of the area and surrounding valley.

9 PART I REPORTS FOR DEBATE Such accommodation and provision is fundamentally not unique in character, readily available and in use elsewhere in the County and Region (see the applicant‟s existing site at Richmond and in terms of areas within accessible distances from certain of their suggested access points, Oxenholme and Penrith) without need to compromise further to such precious, sensitive and finite undeveloped locations such as that found in the Borrowdale valley. Planting required to screen unsightly development and infrastructure will essentially be out of character with the area, possibly, if at all, only effective in the very long term, and invariably ineffective in terms of inevitable associated light pollution. The scale of the development proposed will totally compromise the character and setting of the existing farm and small-holding, and the intrinsic amenity and historical value of the Grade II Listed Farmhouse and associated traditional farm buildings. The use of the term redundant by the applicant is unfortunate, as (it is suggested) the farm could be maintained as a viable unit agriculturally, with reasonable and practicable habitat management maintained and secured without the necessity of large-scale tourism development. Present access to the site, unlike the large scale independent car based majority of that proposed, is essentially low key and pedestrian with just the occasional agricultural and farm delivery vehicle and is therefore fundamentally sustainable in its nature with limited carbon footprint. The attractiveness and popular beauty of the valley as existing can already be experienced by the visitor without the need to stay overnight. The valley of the Borrow Beck is a location for much sensitive habitat, where any pollution incident, or adverse increase in inappropriate level of use could have significant implication in terms of the environment, ecology of the area and protected species habitat. Alternative, sympathetic and more agriculturally orientated models of diversification exist with results more in keeping with the existing character of the local environment. The largely self-sufficient and enclosed nature of the proposed Natural Retreat enterprise is such that it will have little of significant or meaningful value to offer or add to the local economy in terms of relevant services of employment provision. The use of the site for this purpose is significantly and unsustainably reliant on the private motor car, with realistic alternative (and more sustainable connection) in the form of public transport linkage being severely limited both geographically and in terms of existing limited provision. The nature and scale of operation, with significant increase in visitor pressure and including significant change in level and type of access to and from the site remains, and would be of concern to other, remaining agricultural operators within the valley. Ecologically, the application site, valley and surrounding upland area, onto which visitors and their activities would be encouraged, are very sensitive, with developments of this scale and nature posing not only significant initial but also ongoing long term threat to the environmental well-being of the area. The lodges, albeit to be constructed out of natural materials, are in themselves and in their scale and design completely out of character with the traditional vernacular

10 PART I REPORTS FOR DEBATE architecture of existing buildings found not only in the valley, but also in the surrounding area. A large competing and essentially self-contained development in this relatively remote outpost is more likely to detract from, rather than encourage tourist spend in nearby hamlets. Following hard on the heals of the Whinash Public Inquiry, rejected on environmental grounds due to the unique and fragile ecology of the area, the construction of what amounts to a small village in the middle of a virtually uninhabited valley would amount to an act of environmental vandalism, of benefit only to the commercial interests of a company with interests fundamentally outside of the region.

Main Planning Issues Raised:

Principle of the type development sought. Need and overriding justification. Landscape and visual impact. Impact of character, including that to the fabric and of the setting of a listed building. Nature and ecological consideration. Accessibility and sustainability. Precedent.

Planning Assessment:

The application site, a traditional upland farm of some 136 hectares, together with associated fell grazing rights, is in its operation focussed around a Grade II Listed farmhouse and associated traditional outbuildings and is located in one of the few remaining significantly isolated and largely undeveloped valleys within the district.

The farm complex, as with the entire Borrowdale Valley, falls within a broader landscape area designated in its amenity value as being of County Importance (Policy NE1 and NE3 ELP). Also, peculiar to this particular geographical location, the site and area has historically also been, and remains under consideration in terms of its landscape character and amenity value, for possible inclusion within an again possible revised and extended boundary of the adjacent Lake District National Park.

The size of the farm is not untypical of many such similar found in the area, nor is it considered particularly exceptional in terms of the present scale and nature of its agricultural operation and the problems, limitations and challenges such operations face. However, it and the surrounding valley‟s isolation, particular geographical position, relative to some of the country‟s most cherished and popular amenity landscapes, now make it particularly commercially attractive in terms of that latter‟s draw and business potential in terms of the tourism market.

Though the application site is a relatively small, traditional upland farm, the applicants, Natural Retreats are by their own admission not farmers, but “…a young innovative company which provides a revolutionary new concept in sustainable, luxury tourism within special areas of the UK countryside”. The nature of the “diversification” being sought is therefore considered

11 PART I REPORTS FOR DEBATE against the backdrop of that commercial imperative, essentially with the proposal being a significant Tourism Development, (Policies W6 and W7 of the RSS, Policy EM16 of the saved JSP and Policy CS15 of the Core Strategy) being essentially incidental to, with certain economic benefit, but not necessarily fundamental in relation to the needs of the farm and its historic operation on a largely and purely agricultural basis.

The applicant‟s justification and argument put forward, is that the proposal represents a legitimate form of “innovative” and in principle “eco” based agriculturally orientated diversification (Policies DP4 and W1 and W6 of the RSS) and not a speculative major and essentially stand alone tourist based development. This is strongly contested, not only in light of the above and significant evident concerns identified by many of the objectors to the proposal but were a development of this scale and nature to be allowed to proceed for the following significant policy based reasons.

The application site, along with the valley within which it is located in principally undeveloped open countryside, designated as being of County Landscape importance and character (JSP E36/E37, ELP NE1 and NE3). This is highly valued for its sensitive and largely undeveloped nature. As an argument, the proposed designation of the area for possible inclusion with redefined boundary of the Lake District National Park (PPS7), demands that such an area should be given especial consideration and protection in relation to and with that possibility very much in mind.

The fundamental concerns with Policy guidance, is that such geographical areas, particularly sensitive countryside and landscape is of its own right of significant value for its quiet, undeveloped distinctive nature and character. New development is only permitted to meet local infrastructure needs (and which could include limited, very small scale and sensitively designed agricultural diversification projects), or if a need is established for the development in a specific location which is sufficient to outweigh such environmental costs as may be evident.

The revised development proposed (ten new lodges, seven new self-catering cottages, a Sanctuary/reception/administrative building, significant new planting and associated new and upgraded access to and within the site) is considered to represent, especially in such an isolated, remote and tranquil setting, a significant and major tourism development. Despite attempts made by the applicant to justify the interdependent and agricultural and ecologically beneficial nature of the scheme, it is not a small scale and sympathetic diversification scheme of the type which is envisaged and supported by National and Local planning policy, or in the light of the strict planning policy concerns of Tourism and Landscape Policies.

Although Tourism plays a major and valued role in the economy of the area (Policies W6 and W7 of the RSS), concerns are highlighted because such major, and essentially stand alone tourism development, should not be encouraged in such a remote and isolated, poorly connected tranquil and sensitive valley, being an acknowledged area of local landscape importance (Policies DP1,DP3, RDF 2). Also in seeking to prevent such scale of unsustainable development, the Local Authority is being mindful of the longstanding and more recently acknowledged importance of the landscape in terms of its ecological value and potential for National protection.

Again, in terms of its isolated and geographically remote location and poor physical connection to the road and public transport network and services, National guidance, in terms of PPS1, PPS7, PPG3, PPG13 as developed by Regional and Structure Plan Guidance

12 PART I REPORTS FOR DEBATE (Policies DP5 and RT2 of the RSS, Policy EM16 of the JSP) and Eden Local Plan Core Strategy and Policies (CS1 CS5, CS12 and CS14 together with NE1, NE3, NE8, TM1 and TM3) are held to apply. Relevant considerations of all place important and significant emphasis on the need to encourage and secure the promotion of all such major developments, but in locations where the fundamental and sustainable nature of the location enables both reasonable and practical accessibility, without need for significant physical change and/or upgrade which might lead to long term unacceptable compromise to the well being of the broader environment.

The location of the application site, its scale and significant emphasis on private car and vehicle born custom, servicing and supply reveal the weaknesses of the Green Travel Plan supplied. A very unconvincing case is made as to the ability, and/or desirability of the proposal, to meet the concerns and significant locational, sustainability and transport aims of relevant policies. In particular, the Joint Structure Plan (Policy EM16) directs that such new tourism facilities, of which this is considered to be a major example, to Key Service Centres, and to locations that enable physical and economic regeneration where they bring benefit to the local community. The closest identified Key Settlement to the site, within Eden District, is Kirkby Stephen, with the closest identified and lesser Local Service Centre in the hierarchy being Tebay, some 3¾ miles to the north. The type and nature of development proposed, given its isolation, is therefore considered to fail significantly in terms of the criteria concerns and relevant policy aims of the above relevant Guidance and adopted Structure and Local Plan policy.

The scale, design and nature of the development proposed, even as revised, in terms of the number and design of the lodges as well as the extent of redevelopment and new build in and around the listed farmhouse, is such that there is undoubted scope for significant adverse landscape and adverse visual impact to the much valued amenity of the area. This is not only to the valley, as it is considered that these would serve only to subsume existing character, would fail to limit or remove adverse visual impact both short and long term, and also in certain cases (namely in attempts to both mimic design and artificially landscape the area) only serve to negatively accentuate the inappropriate nature of those developments and their mitigating measures. As part of the consideration process, Eden District council, as Planning Authority have commissioned Capita Symonds Ltd (Countryside Services) to provide two successive independent opinions on the applicant‟s Landscape and Visual Impact Assessment (LVIA), including opinion on the scope and conclusions of that assessment and in the light of their revised detail submission. (Both reports, commissioned by Eden district council, are included as Appendix to this report.) Their conclusions, both original and subsequent however were as follows: “The openness of the landscape and lack of other developments makes this landscape, in our opinion sensitive to development in general. The nature and scale of this development means that it is unlikely that it could be accommodated in this landscape without significant effects on Landscape Character. The nature and scale of the proposed landscaping would lead to a change in landscape character in itself. The introduction of the lodges (which it will not be possible to fully screen), the creation of a more manicured landscape both around the development and potentially elsewhere in the valley, greatly increasing the occupancy of the farm buildings along with greater numbers of people/vehicles moving around/through the valley and the presence of large numbers of parked vehicles are likely to change the quite special character of the valley.

13 PART I REPORTS FOR DEBATE We saw no great evidence of landscape dereliction although certainly the landscape would benefit from the removal of some items of redundant farming/utility infrastructure. It must be recognised that the screen planting proposed will be slow to establish in the shallow, poor soils and high elevation of the valley. It is likely that they will take many years to make any great height, even with expert initial planting and establishment maintenance. This is clearly demonstrated by the tree planting undertaken by Friends of the Lake District further up the valley where trees were planted five years ago and establishment and growth rate are significantly below what might be expected. Establishment has been thwarted by deer problems, flooding and wind damage. It is our view that it would take many more years than the applicant suggests to achieve any significant screening effect through this planting. The proportion of evergreens is also not in character with the woodland elsewhere in the valley which (apart from the commercial plantations higher up) is largely deciduous in character (Oak/Ash) and some of the species proposed would have limited screening value due to their size. Therefore it is likely that for many years the visual impact over a significant area of the valley will be high. The visual impact to users of the bridleway as it passes through the development will be high irrespective of the success of the screen planting. The applicant does not make clear how the grassland around the proposed lodges will be maintained, if it is through grazing then the woodland blocks will need to be stock fenced to ensure their survival, if not then presumably a mowing regime will be instigated. Either way a „natural‟ feel will be difficult to maintain and the tendency may be towards an increasingly manicured approach. There is also the likelihood that there will be pressure in later years from guests to trim back or open up views gradually being obscured by maturing trees. In conclusion, our judgement is that the scale and type of the proposed development is not compatible with the sensitivity of the proposed site, the mitigation proposed is unlikely to have any great effect on the impact for many years if ever.” And in terms of the revised detail, received by the LPA on the 20th November 2008, their conclusion again being as follows : “The openness of the landscape and lack of other developments makes this landscape, in our opinion sensitive to development in general. Even at a reduced scale, the nature of this development means that it is unlikely that it could be accommodated in this landscape without significant effects on Landscape Character. Visual impacts although reduced to some extent will still be significant as the proposed elements within a landscape of this character will draw the eye and be difficult to mitigate. The nature of the development will inevitably mean that significant visual changes/impacts will be created. Although the area does not currently have a national landscape designation, it is under consideration for inclusion in the Lake District National Park. This is a recent, independent, confirmation of sensitivity and quality of this landscape.

In conclusion, our judgement is that the revised proposal, in terms of the scale and type of the development, is not compatible with the sensitivity of the proposed site, the mitigation proposed is unlikely to have any great effect in reducing the impact for many years if ever.

Additional planting and the nature of detail supplied, sought predominantly in relation to the new lodges as an extension to an existing shelter belt are likely only to raise and accentuate awareness of the scale and presence of new development in the sensitive area, such being it‟s likely limited effectiveness, by receptors both at valley floor level and elsewhere. Visual

14 PART I REPORTS FOR DEBATE impact, though mitigated to a degree through the reduction in numbers of lodges, is still very likely to be significant, given the general openness of the landscape and lack of other developments. Nationally, Regionally and Locally planning policies as have been adopted are there to protect such areas from the undesirable visual effects of such types of development.

The above fundamental concerns are evident within the overwhelming degree of correspondence received by the Authority. The valleys popularity and value as a low key area for informal rural outdoor recreation is evident, many of the objections being raised by walkers and walking groups and organisations. Development of this nature would not in itself preclude such use, it might even facilitate additional use, but what it would do would be to downgrade the much valued sense of undeveloped isolation, albeit in a farming landscape that has seen thousands of years of human intervention.

The “improved bio-diversity” argument and justification put forward by the applicant, raises broader question about the operation of the agricultural and farming economy, beyond that of the simple development detail of the application put forward. Potential for adverse impact on the ecology, fauna and flora of the area remains of significant concern, particularly to Natural England who, in objecting to the development, remain concerned with the significant potential for adverse impact on the landscape and ecology. However, perceived failings or otherwise of agricultural practice, management and long term stewardship are outwith the consideration of this application, and whilst development for which planning approval is sought could help to address or solve such issue, it could and should not be at a cost found unacceptable and/or unjustifiable in other resource sensitive and sustainable directions.

The tandem listed Building consent application (08/0339) is also addressed. Significant concern also remains in terms of both the specific and general effect of a development of this scale on the fabric, standing setting and character of this Grade II listed building, and it‟s associated buildings. Though undoubtedly recent development has occurred in relation to the site, most significantly across the latter part of the C20th, the overall character remains that of a small Cumbrian hill farmstead, not dissimilar to many found in the District. The development proposed, even as revised, would result in a significant change to that character, in appearance through physical alteration and additional new development, but also in perception of character, with the introduction of a more formalised, non agricultural undertaking, much accentuated through the presence of the new lodges, but also associated infrastructure development, such as formal car parking, access paths and roadways and overall, more formal layout. With the scale of development envisaged this would be a compromise to the simple low key agricultural theme and character of this presently humble complex, as well as to the hierarchical standing and setting of the existing farmhouse to its subordinate buildings and uses.

Human Rights Act:

The implications of the Human Rights Act 1998 have been considered during the processing of this application. Any impact on the rights of local property owners to a private and family life and peaceful enjoyment of their possessions (Article 8 and Article 1 and Article 1 of Protocol 1) are acceptable.

Summary Conclusions:

The fundamental concerns and therefore reasons for refusal of this application can be summarised as follows:

15 PART I REPORTS FOR DEBATE - The resulting significant potential for adverse landscape setting and visual amenity impact were a development of this scale, detail and nature to be approved in this highly sensitive location, - The potential for highly significant and adverse impact of a development of this scale and nature on the character and detail of the Listed Building, and the simple, low key agricultural visual amenity of its setting within the valley, - The poorly connected and serviced nature of the site and its remote location in terms of the sustainable aims of relevant planning policy guidance. - Outstanding concern at the potential for significant adverse effect on protected species and their habitat, - Concern that the establishment of a commercial development of this scale and nature, in the absence of convincing or overriding justification, will severely compromise the ability of the Authority to both resist further additional development in relation to this site, or to the many other such similar sites and locations which exist within the District.

Recommendation: Refuse for the following reasons:

1) The proposal would have a significant detrimental effect on the character and quality of the landscape generally and consequent upon the design, scale and nature of the proposed tourism orientated development, including significant new access and landscaping provision, would also have an unacceptable visual impact, by reason of the introduction of such significant elements of new development within this sensitive landscape. The scale and nature of the development proposed, including landscaping, given it‟s close physical proximity, would also result in significant visual detriment to and on the simple character and setting of Low Borrowdale Farm a Grade II listed farm, where the relationship between the two cannot be successfully mitigated, and where such may only serve to adversely accentuate the visual detriment to its setting within the broader landscape, and its associated and valued quality and character. The development would be conspicuous in the local landscape and in its many and varied elements, cumulatively add significantly to the visual impact of the whole on the landscape. The development is therefore contrary to adopted Policies DP7, EM1 of the North West RSS, Proposed retained Policies EM16, E37 and E38 of the Cumbria and Lake District Joint Structure Plan and Proposed retained Policies NE1, NE3 and BE13 of the Eden Local Plan.

2) In the absence of a convincing travel plan, and being very poorly served by a realistic public transport alternative, the nature of the site and its remote location are such that the creation of a significantly isolated major new commercial tourism venture of this type are such that the sustainable development and transport aims of relevant adopted policy guidance would not be met. The development is therefore contrary to PPS 1 and 7, adopted Policies DP4, DP5, RT2 of the North West RSS, Proposed retained Policy EM16 of the Cumbria and Lake District Joint Structure Plan.

Appendices:

Appendix 1: Capita Symonds Ltd (Countryside Services) Reports on the applicant‟s (Natural Retreats) Landscape and Visual Impact Assessment (LVIA), including opinion on the scope and conclusions of that assessment, both with regard to original and revised detail

16 PART I REPORTS FOR DEBATE submissions.

Appendix 2: Comment and reasoned basis for objection, received from the adjacent landowner, the Friends of the Lake District (FOLD).

Appendix 3: Comment and reasoned basis for objection, received from the adjacent Planning Authority, South Lakeland District Council (SLDC).

Appendix 4: Comment and reasoned basis for objection received from Natural England.

Contact Officer: Mr D R Cox

Telephone Number: 01768 212 476

17 PART I REPORTS FOR DEBATE

Item No: 2

Application Number: 08/0339

Statutory Decision Date: 4 July 2008

Parish: Tebay

Description: Alterations to main farmhouse and conversion of attached traditional former agricultural buildings to provide three self catering cottages, all as revised by plans and detail received by the Local Planning Authority on 20 November 2008.

Location: Low Borrowdale Farm, Tebay

Applicant: Natural Retreats - Mr E Kearney

Recommendation to Refuse Listed Building Consent Site Plan:

18 PART I REPORTS FOR DEBATE The application is brought before Members on the basis of the supporting letter being received from the Parish being contrary to the Officer recommendation to Refuse, and on the basis of significant level of concern expressed and objection (both original and subsequent to received revised plans) letters received by the Authority to the nature and principle of development of the site overall. Members are also advised that the nature of these current and revised applications were the subject of pre-application and on-going discussions with the applicants, their agents and advisors and that strong cautionary policy advice and suitably restrictive implications, given by various Officers, to the type of scheme currently envisaged by the applicants, was of the nature to that outlined below. Proposed Development: Listed Building Consent is being sought for the conversion of existing Grade II Listed Farmhouse (dated 1685), together with associated range of curtilage attached, traditional, natural stone built and part Westmorland slate, part tin/corrugated roofed, bank barn agricultural buildings. The revised scheme submitted, and consent sought (as part of an overall holiday lodge, tourism based diversification proposal, see application 08/0333) seeks approval to provide three self catering cottages through conversion of the above existing barns (units 1, 3 and 4), refurbishment of existing main farmhouse (unit 2) to be retained and used as the manager‟s accommodation, plus, within the immediate vicinity of the farmhouse and existing farm complex, the demolition of existing modern C20th agricultural buildings and outshut features and erection of a detached terrace (with two alternate elevational solutions proposed) of four, two storey, two bedroom, dwellings (units 5-8), together with a new 2500 square foot farm building, converted cycle store and sanctuary building, secured through the re-development of the site of an existing relatively modern wide-span, agricultural building. All are to be accessed and serviced from and via a new twenty-nine space car park, and linked through a combination of associated new footpaths and low walled walk-ways together with a re-surfaced cobblestone courtyard area. In addition, the refurbished and rebuilt farm complex would act as a link element through to the proposed ten new timber holiday lodges, as part of the remainder of the complex, to be built along the valley floor to the north and west of the farmhouse, the elements of which are to be part backdrop screened by a combination of reinforced existing mature shelter-belt screening and new interwoven site planting. Access to the site and development overall is to be from an existing junction to the A685, along the valley bottom via an existing adopted metalled single track road and as proposed to be subsequently upgraded farm access track, the majority of which is within the applicant‟s ownership. The Listed Building Consent sought is, together with the associated full detail application, put forward and justified as a means of ensuring the future viability and vitality of the existing hill farm operation, enabling the management of its landscape and varied habitat through the introduction of a sympathetic tourism development, interdependent of the farming activities surrounding the site, and of benefit to the wider socio-economic community. The applications overall are accompanied by the following documentation: a Landscape and visual impact appraisal, Illustrative Planting Scheme, Sustainable Design Statements, Green Travel and Land Management Plans, bat and Structural Surveys and a report on Ecological Constraints and Recommendations, as well as letters of support. The development overall is being sought by Natural Retreats (see accompanying revised Full Detail Application Ref No 08/0333), a relatively new company promoting themselves as luxury holiday operator, promoting their concept of a high end holiday experience, in stunning

19 PART I REPORTS FOR DEBATE locations across the country, but in an environmentally sensitive and ecologically sustainable way. Description of the Site and the Surroundings: The application site is an isolated and remote hill farm holding of approximately 136 hectares (336 acres). The main built form and operational emphasis being focussed on the existing holding and range of buildings at Low Borrowdale farm, is located on the northern edge of the valley floor within the Low Borrowdale valley, which subdivides the upland areas of Bretherdale/Roundthwaite Common and Whinfell Common. The farmhouse, a two storey, Grade II stone and slate roofed listed building, with timber frame windows is flanked on either gable end by two further farm buildings, comprising a pair of stone built, part slate/part profile tin and part corrugated asbestos roofed bank barns which, together with a range of more modern C20th additional outshut elements and stand alone agricultural buildings form the majority of the built elements of existing farm steading. The steading as a whole is located on the valley floor, but the older traditional listed farmhouse and associated bank barn elements themselves part nestle into the steep slope of the hillside to immediate rear (north) of the site. To the rear (north) and set on the hillside above the farmhouse and farm grouping is a part walled and fenced enclosure containing a band of mature, deciduous tree planting (shelterbelt) which, following the contour of the valley, stretches for a further 200m westward up the valley, before tapering out into a mixture of smaller hawthorn trees and bushes. The site and existing farm complex is subdivided by a combination of public Rights of Way (bridleways 527022, 584022 and 367003), there being a junction to the immediate north-west of the farmhouse. Noted for its walking, the various rights of way through the valley connect the A685 with the A6. Other footpaths and bridleways link into the above, with connections extending north-eastwards over Roundthwaite Common towards Tebay, and south-westward along part of the Whinfell Common sky-line ridge. The farm itself comprises mixed elements of walled valley bottom pasture and in-bye grazing, with access to surrounding higher, ring fenced fell side grazing, on both sides of the valley. The farm and its range of associated outbuilding are located approximately mid-way between the Lune Valley (A685 and M6 at Low Borrow Bridge) to the east, and the A6 (at High Borrow Bridge) to the west. Vehicular access to the site, which originates from a junction with the A685 (at Low Borrow Bridge) and is within the administrative District of South Lakeland, is a gated single track access road, partially metalled (5287) for approximately 1km and thence by a rutted, hardcore surface farm access track, across a rail sleeper bridge over the Borrow Beck (and into the Eden District administrative area) and along the floor of the valley for approximately a further 2km. (Overall, the site is approximately 6km (3¾ miles) from the nearest settlement, Tebay, to the north-east and with junction 38 of the M6 motorway.) The valley itself is located immediately to the east of the boundary of the Lake District National Park and as such shares many of its landscape characteristics. The simple, large scale open landscape, with walled lower level pasture and grazing enclosures, and the occasional shelter belt planting, is recognised by its designation as being of County Landscape Importance. Relevant Planning History: 90/0778 - Erection of Sheep building. 97/0363 - Replacement of existing roof over existing silage clamp and roofing of adjoining

20 PART I REPORTS FOR DEBATE feed area. (2003/2004) On the ridges above the valley - Chalmerston Wind Power Limited - Whinash Wind Farm - This proposal comprised two applications, one for the construction and operation of a 67.5MW wind turbine generating station, the other seeking consent for the erection of 24 (115 metre high) wind turbines, accessed by 14km of new 5m wide access track. Following public inquiry, the Inspector concluded that the proposed wind farm “would have an adverse impact on the character and openness of the landscape and its value for recreation, not outweighed by benefits gained from securing renewable energy”. This finding was subsequently accepted by the Secretary of State.

Relevant National, Regional and Local Plan Policies: Planning Policy Statement 1 “Delivering Sustainable Development” Planning Policy Guidance 13 “Transport” Planning Policy Statement 7 “Sustainable Development in Rural Areas” Regional Planning guidance for the North West (RPG13) North West of England Plan Regional Spatial Strategy Policy DP1”Spatial Principles” Policy DP3 “Promote Sustainable Economic Development” Policy DP4 “Make the Best Use of Existing Resources and Infrastructure” Policy DP5 “Manage Travel Demand; Reduce the Need to Travel, Increase Accessibility” Policy DP7 “Promote Environmental Quality” Policy RDF 2 “Rural Areas” Policy W1 “Strengthening the Regional Economy” Policy W6 “Tourism and the Visitor Economy” Policy W7 “Principles for Tourism Development” Policy RT2 “Managing Travel Demand” Policy EM1 ”Integrated Enhancement and Protection of the Regions Environmental Assets (A) Landscape (B) Natural Environment (C) Historic Environment Cumbria and Lake District Joint Structure Plan 2001-2016 (Saved Policies) EM16 “Tourism” Policy E37 “Landscape Character” Policy E38 “Historic Environment” Eden District Local Plan (Retained Plan Policies) Policy NE1 “Development in the Countryside” Policy NE3 “Landscapes of County Importance” Policy NE8 “Agricultural Diversification” Policy NE9 “Building for Agriculture and Forestry” Policy BE9 “Protection and recording of Archaeological remains”

21 PART I REPORTS FOR DEBATE Policy BE13 “Development affecting Listed Buildings” Policy BE19 “Quality of Design” Policy BE21 “Light Pollution” Policy TM1 “Tourism Developments General” Policy TM3 “Larger Scale Tourism Development” Policy TM6 “Caravan and Chalet occupancy” Policy PT3 “Traffic Implications of Development” Policy PT6 “Parking Provision” Policy RE5 “Development affecting Rights of Way” Policy SE1 “Sewage Disposal” Eden Core Strategy Submission Document: Policy CS1 “Sustainable Development Principles” Policy CS3 “Rural Settlements and the Rural Area” Policy CS5 “Transport and Accessibility” Policy CS12 “principles for Economic Development and Tourism” Policy CS14 2Employment Development in Rural Areas” Policy CS15 “Tourism and the Visitor Economy” Policy CS16 “Principles for the Natural Environment” Policy CS17 “Principles for the Built (Historic) Environment” Policy CS18 “Design of New Development” Policy CS19 “Energy Conservation and Efficiency” Legal Requirements: None. Method of Publicity and Summary of Representations: The application and its revisions along with its associated Full Detail Application (08/0333) were publicised by notices in the Local Press, the placing of Site Notices at either end of the Borrowdale valley (A6 and A685) and by direct neighbouring landowner consultation. Parish Council: Tebay Parish Council is fully behind such a development that will encourage tourism and bring jobs and business to the area. Consultation Responses: (Received also in association with application (08/0333) Campaign for National Parks: Object. Conservation Officer: Objection to proposed loss of porch element to main farmhouse, with consequent devaluation to its listed status through proposed window solution replacement. County Archaeologist: Recommends that an archaeological building programme be undertaken in advance of any development. County Highways (South Lakeland Offices): Express concern about the sustainability of this

22 PART I REPORTS FOR DEBATE choice of location in terms of vehicular activity and access. Cumbria County Council: No comment from a strategic planning perspective. Cumbria Tourism: Support the application. Environment Agency: No objection on the basis of revised detail submitted. Friends of the Lake District (FOLD): Noting that the revised scheme reduces the proposed number of lodges, and that revised design (of the cottages) aims to more closely reflect local vernacular, still object, as the proposal continues to raise serious conflicts with a variety of national and local policies, in particular regard to location and environmental impact and therefore should be refused. “…Clearly, the farmyard would benefit from a degree of improvement. The listed farmhouse and barn are of a high quality, but the modern farm buildings and inappropriate repair work detract from their overall appearance. FOLD welcome the remedial work proposed to the listed buildings therefore, and the clearance of the modern structures. We would express some concern over the proposed alterations to the listed buildings however. In particular, it is felt that the removal of the porch and the proposed glass linkage between house and barn would result in a loss of proportion and significant increase in massing. It is also felt that the glass linkage structure would appear incongruous in this remote, rural setting. We would therefore encourage the retention of the porch and the development of a linkage of a lower height, which utilises vernacular materials. With regard to the proposed „Sanctuary‟ building, we would note that this is a very large structure, which has only been permitted due to its agricultural function. We have concerns over the domestication of a building this size in a remote setting such as this; in particular the use of large amounts of glass.” (Objection letter included as Appendix to this report.) Lake District National Park Authority: No comment or observation received. Natural England: Object to the proposed development, based on the insufficient survey and ecological information provided. (Objection letter included as Appendix to this report.) Ramblers Associations: Object to the proposals. South Lakeland District Council: Object to the developments proposed on the basis that the proposal conflicts with both national and local policy. (Objection letter included as Appendix to this report.) Society for the Protection of Ancient Buildings (SPAB): Object, largely on the grounds of insufficient information. United Utilities: No comment or observation received. Others: The applications (08/0333 and 08/0339) as submitted by the applicants was accompanied by copies of three letters of Support from Cumbria Tourism, Invest in Cumbria and the Country Land and Business Association: Their supporting comments, to a degree based on the detail of pre-application discussions held with the applicant, Natural Retreats, are summarised as follows: The principle of a low density scheme which utilises the existing farm buildings and introduces high quality buildings inspired by the local setting is appropriate in this location.

23 PART I REPORTS FOR DEBATE The development would expand the range and spread further the benefits of tourism to this lesser known part of the county, create new jobs, help sustain and generate new business for local shops and diversify other income streams in the area. The proposal should help both to preserve and conserve the landscape character of the area and help re-invigorate traditional farming activities. Development of this nature enables the tourist to experience the unique nature of the UK at first hand, in the most tranquil of settings. In terms of Objection to the proposals, the Local Planning Authority has to date received 54 letters of objection, with twelve individuals and/or organisations further confirming that they would wish to be heard at Committee were a recommendation to approve to be made by Officers. Subsequent re-advertisement and re-consultation, based on the revised detail submitted to the Local Planning Authority has resulted in continued observation, with the receipt of a further ****** letters of objection, with a total of ******** individuals and/or organisations further confirming that they too would continue or wish to be heard at Committee. The reasons for objection, both original (and in the light of received revised plans, there being much similarity) are summarised as follows: Low Borrowdale is one of the few remaining unspoiled and undeveloped valleys in the area and is, by its very nature, already of significant tourist value to the area and local economy. A tourism development proposal on this scale will be both conspicuous, in terms of existing character, and through increased pressure of human impact have significant detrimental effect on the environment of a quiet, secluded and beautiful dale. The development proposed is a major new, large scale and inappropriately located tourist orientated business venture, disguised and justified as a simple form of agricultural diversification. A tourism development of this scale and nature would serve only to degrade one of the last areas of exceptional tranquillity and solitude in both Cumbria and England, valued by walkers and cyclists for its remote, tranquil and suitably inspiring grandeur. The valley was noted by the well known author A A Wainwright in his book “Walks on the Howgill Fells” as being of much valued and significant importance in terms of its character and its unspoilt timelessness and tranquillity. The area and landscape quality are such that it has been recognised as being of such value as to possibly warrant inclusion within the re-defined boundary of the Lake District National Park, which development of this scale and nature could effectively compromise, this should be regarded as material by the Planning Authority in any consideration. The proposed eco-lodges, up-grading of access road and associated parking are completely out of character with the architecture of the existing buildings and the sensitive character and wildlife habitat of the area and surrounding valley. Such accommodation and provision is fundamentally not unique in character, readily available and in use elsewhere in the County and Region (see the applicant‟s existing site at Richmond and in terms of areas within accessible distances from certain of their suggested access points, Oxenholme and Penrith) without need to compromise further

24 PART I REPORTS FOR DEBATE to such precious, sensitive and finite undeveloped locations such as that found in the Borrowdale valley. Planting required to screen unsightly development and infrastructure will essentially be out of character with the area, possibly, if at all, only effective in the very long term, and invariably ineffective in terms of inevitable associated light pollution. The scale of the development proposed will totally compromise the character and setting of the existing farm and small-holding, and the intrinsic amenity and historical value of the Grade II Listed Farmhouse and associated traditional farm buildings. The use of the term redundant by the applicant is unfortunate, as (it is suggested) the farm could be maintained as a viable unit agriculturally, with reasonable and practicable habitat management maintained and secured without the necessity of large-scale tourism development. Present access to the site, unlike the large scale independent car based majority of that proposed, is essentially low key and pedestrian with just the occasional agricultural and farm delivery vehicle and is therefore fundamentally sustainable in its nature with limited carbon footprint. The attractiveness and popular beauty of the valley as existing can already be experienced by the visitor without the need to stay overnight. The valley of the Borrow Beck is a location for much sensitive habitat, where any pollution incident, or adverse increase in inappropriate level of use could have significant implication in terms of the environment, ecology of the area and protected species habitat. Alternative, sympathetic and more agriculturally orientated models of diversification exist with results more in keeping with the existing character of the local environment. The largely self-sufficient and enclosed nature of the proposed Natural Retreat enterprise is such that it will have little of significant or meaningful value to offer or add to the local economy in terms of relevant services of employment provision. The use of the site for this purpose is significantly and unsustainably reliant on the private motor car, with realistic alternative (and more sustainable connection) in the form of public transport linkage being severely limited both geographically and in terms of existing limited provision. The nature and scale of operation, with significant increase in visitor pressure and including significant change in level and type of access to and from the site remains, and would be of concern to other, remaining agricultural operators within the valley. Ecologically, the application site, valley and surrounding upland area, onto which visitors and their activities would be encouraged, are very sensitive, with developments of this scale and nature posing not only significant initial but also ongoing long term threat to the environmental well-being of the area. The lodges, albeit to be constructed out of natural materials, are in themselves and in their scale and design completely out of character with the traditional vernacular architecture of existing buildings found not only in the valley, but also in the surrounding area.

25 PART I REPORTS FOR DEBATE A large competing and essentially self-contained development in this relatively remote outpost is more likely to detract from, rather than encourage tourist spend in nearby hamlets. Following hard on the heals of the Whinash Public Inquiry, rejected on environmental grounds due to the unique and fragile ecology of the area, the construction of what amounts to a small village in the middle of a virtually uninhabited valley would amount to an act of environmental vandalism, of benefit only to the commercial interests of a company with interests fundamentally outside of the region. In addition to the above, Eden District council, as Planning Authority have commissioned Capita Symonds Ltd (Countryside Services) to provide two successive independent opinions on the applicant‟s Landscape and Visual Impact Assessment (LVIA), including opinion on the scope and conclusions of that assessment and in the light of their revised detail submission. (Both reports, commissioned by Eden district council, included as Appendix to this report.) Their conclusions, both original and subsequent however were as follows: “The openness of the landscape and lack of other developments makes this landscape, in our opinion sensitive to development in general. The nature and scale of this development means that it is unlikely that it could be accommodated in this landscape without significant effects on Landscape Character. The nature and scale of the proposed landscaping would lead to a change in landscape character in itself. The introduction of the lodges (which it will not be possible to fully screen), the creation of a more manicured landscape both around the development and potentially elsewhere in the valley, greatly increasing the occupancy of the farm buildings along with greater numbers of people/vehicles moving around/through the valley and the presence of large numbers of parked vehicles are likely to change the quite special character of the valley. We saw no great evidence of landscape dereliction although certainly the landscape would benefit from the removal of some items of redundant farming/utility infrastructure. It must be recognised that the screen planting proposed will be slow to establish in the shallow, poor soils and high elevation of the valley. It is likely that they will take many years to make any great height, even with expert initial planting and establishment maintenance. This is clearly demonstrated by the tree planting undertaken by Friends of the Lake District further up the valley where trees were planted five years ago and establishment and growth rate are significantly below what might be expected. Establishment has been thwarted by deer problems, flooding and wind damage. It is our view that it would take many more years than the applicant suggests to achieve any significant screening effect through this planting. The proportion of evergreens is also not in character with the woodland elsewhere in the valley which (apart from the commercial plantations higher up) is largely deciduous in character (Oak/Ash) and some of the species proposed would have limited screening value due to their size. Therefore it is likely that for many years the visual impact over a significant area of the valley will be high. The visual impact to users of the bridleway as it passes through the development will be high irrespective of the success of the screen planting. The applicant does not make clear how the grassland around the proposed lodges will be maintained, if it is through grazing then the woodland blocks will need to be stock fenced to ensure their survival, if not then presumably a mowing regime will be instigated. Either way a „natural‟ feel will be difficult to maintain and the tendency may be towards an increasingly manicured approach. There is also the likelihood that there will be pressure in later years from guests to trim back or open up views gradually being obscured by maturing trees.

26 PART I REPORTS FOR DEBATE In conclusion, our judgement is that the scale and type of the proposed development is not compatible with the sensitivity of the proposed site, the mitigation proposed is unlikely to have any great effect on the impact for many years if ever.” Main Planning Issues Raised: Principle of the type development sought. Need and overriding justification. Landscape and visual impact. Impact of character, including that of the setting of a listed and associated buildings. Nature and ecological consideration. Accessibility and sustainability. Precedent. Planning Assessment: Listed Building application considered against the back drop of the associated Full detail application Ref No: 08/0333. The application site, forms the core element of a traditional upland farm of some 136 hectares, together with associated fell grazing rights, with its operation focussed around the Grade II Listed farmhouse and associated mixed range of traditional and more recent outbuildings. The farmhouse and associated and similarly protected associated cartilage bank barns are located in one of the few remaining significantly isolated and largely undeveloped valleys within the District. The listed farmhouse and associated mixed group of associated farm buildings, as with all of the Borrowdale valley, are located within a broader landscape area designated in its amenity value as being of County Importance (Policy NE1 and NE3 ELP). As a farmed and farming valley, the relatively small scale and nucleated focus of this grouping and agricultural character it portrays, is considered as being of integral amenity value in terms of the predominantly low key agricultural and farmed theme and character of the valley. The size and scale of the particular upland hill farm appears not untypical of the many such similar found in and across the District, nor is it considered particularly exceptional in terms of the scale and nature of its agricultural operation, containing a mix of both older, traditional and more recent functional elements in terms of the range of agricultural buildings present. However, the farm and the surrounding valley‟s very isolation, and in particular its geographical position, relative to some of the country‟s most cherished and popular amenity landscapes, now make it particularly commercially attractive in terms of that latter‟s draw and business potential in terms of the mass tourism and holiday market. The applicant‟s justification and argument put forward, both in terms of the conversion works proposed to the Listed and associated core farm buildings, but also in relation to the significant demolition and new build elements are that as an overall proposal they represent and enable a legitimate form of “innovative” and principle “eco” based agriculturally orientated diversification of the farm and its operation (Policy NE8 ELP) and therefore are not just to be seen as a speculative major, and essentially, stand alone tourist based development. It is considered that although arguably untidy, like the operation of many a farm found in the area, the complex and buildings are not necessarily run down, nor are they redundant, signs of recent use being much in evidence. Of significant concern here in general, but particularly

27 PART I REPORTS FOR DEBATE with regard to the listed farmhouse, and its associated range of outbuildings, is that whilst the loss of certain of those existing modern agricultural buildings, it could be accepted visually but not necessarily operationally be beneficial to the appearance of the farm. The radical nature and significant scale of the resulting redevelopment (even as revised), both through refurbishment, including loss of porch entrance to farmhouse, conversion and associated new build, to provide; one manager and seven self catering cottages, sanctuary building, bicycle store, twenty nine space car park and replacement agricultural building; though with traditional use of certain detail and facing materials, would only serve to drastically overwhelm, and visually compromise the simplicity and current low key agricultural them of the present small scale farm holding. In so doing, it would both effectively and unreasonably compromise and adversely affect the character and setting not only of the existing Grade II (Low Borrowdale Farmhouse) but also associated and equally valued, traditionally built , fundamentally sound and operationally viable curtilage agricultural buildings. The development proposed is, in terms of the scale of change, degree of loss and alteration and resulting significant degree of adverse impact on setting, to both listed building and landscape character is therefore considered contrary to the aims and criteria concerns of adopted Policy EM1 (c) of the RSS, Policies E37 and E38 of the CLDJSP (Saved Policies), Retained Eden District Local Plan Policy BE13 and the aims of evolving Eden Core Strategy as outlined within Policy CS17. Human Rights Act: The implications of the Human Rights Act 1998 have been considered during the processing of this application. Any impact on the rights of local property owners to a private and family life and peaceful enjoyment of their possessions (Article 8 and Article 1 and Article 1 of Protocol 1) are acceptable. Summary Conclusions: Low Borrowdale Farmhouse, and associated mixed range of farm buildings are in themselves, given their agricultural character and intimate scale of use, not untypical of many such similar upland agricultural small-holdings found both within the District, and also across the County as a whole. Historically the character and much that is owed in terms of the areas acknowledged beauty has, and continues to result from generations of farming practice and positive agricultural land management, from and in relation to such undertakings. Such, despite evident and ongoing commercial pressures remains the case today. The present development scheme put forward by the applicant, in the manner of promoting the wellbeing of both the agricultural unit and related economy, does in its various and cumulative elements represent a significant use change, both in emphasis and operation within this valley, and a more than significant and in terms of impact, unacceptable change in the overall theme and emphasis of the present low key agricultural use of the farm in particular and isolated valley in general. Essentially, approval is being sought for a not insignificant tourism venture, involving major new development and not inconsequential change to the simple agricultural them and character and much valued existing low key amenity of both the site and valley as a whole. In terms of the individual elements, and concerning the Listed Building consent being sought with this application, again in the light of the above, it is the cumulative nature (even as revised) of the many physical changes, and unsympathetic alterations being sought, not only to the fabric of the Listed Building/s and structures themselves, but also to their character setting in terms of the extent and level of new associated development, both in terms of additional terrace of cottages, sanctuary building and parking areas, but also the scale of the

28 PART I REPORTS FOR DEBATE impact of the adjacent associated lodge/chalet developments, which will significantly and adversely affect the setting (Policy BE13 ELP), of the existing Listed Building, its traditional curtilage buildings, and present limited visual impact on the broader character landscape setting within the valley (Policy NE3 ELP), in terms of the major increase in scale, change of theme and level of use, which will result from the significant tourist orientated development now being sought. Given the above, the significant level and degree of conversion development and major re- development sought, not only of the protected listed and associated buildings and structures, but also in relations to the site, their and its broader setting, is considered unacceptable and therefore to be contrary to the criteria concerns and adopted planning aims of the above relevant policies, but in particular to relevant Policy EM1 of the RSS, the furthering the aims of the relevant Saved Cumbria and Lake District Joint Structure Plan Policies E37 and E38, and Policies NE3, NE8 and BE13 of the (retained policies) adopted Eden Local Plan. Recommendation: Refuse for the following reasons: 1) The individual and cumulative nature and scale of the new development and refurbishment works proposed and/or envisaged through the scheme proposed would have significant and unjustified detrimental affect both to and on the fabric, character and amenity setting of this Grade II Listed Farmhouse, its simple form and traditionally detailed agricultural outbuildings and in the context of the present low key nature of its broader landscape setting and fundamental agricultural character. 2) The nature of cumulative alterations and refurbishments proposed, including the loss of the porch, together with the cumulative number, scale and theme of closely associated new and additional developments envisaged will result in an unacceptable compromise to the simple agricultural theme and established hierarchy of this farm, listed principle farmhouse and associated range of traditional, and more recent agricultural outbuildings, thereby being in conflict with the aims and criteria concerns of relevant adopted Policies EM1 of the RSS, E37 and E38 of the saved JSP Policies and Policy BE13 of the retained Eden Local Plan.

Appendix 1: Capita Symonds Ltd (Countryside Services) Report on the applicant‟s (Natural Retreats) Landscape and Visual Impact Assessment (LVIA), including opinion on the scope and conclusions of that assessment.

Appendix 2: Comment and reasoned basis for objection, received from the adjacent landowner, the Friends of the Lake District (FOLD).

Appendix 3: Comment and reasoned basis for objection, received from the adjacent Planning Authority, South Lakeland District Council (SLDC).

Appendix 4: Comment and reasoned basis for objection received from Natural England.

Contact Officer: Mr D Cox

Telephone Number: (01768) 212476

29 PART I REPORTS FOR DEBATE

Item No: 3

Application Number: 09/0060

Statutory Decision Date: 6 April 2009

Parish: Kirkby Thore

Description: Proposed three bedroom dwelling

Location: Land adjacent to Prospect Terrace, Kirkby Thore

Applicant: Mr A Crosby

Recommendation to Grant Planning Permission

Site Plan:

30 PART I REPORTS FOR DEBATE The application is brought before the Planning Committee because the Officer recommendation is contrary to that of Kirkby Thore Parish Council.

Proposed Development:

The application seeks full planning permission for the construction of a two storey detached dwelling. The external finish materials proposed are wet dashed, rendered blockwork over, with expressed reconstructed red sandstone details at cills, thresholds and heads of openings. The roof would be grey concrete slates and the windows white Upvc, double glazed. The dwelling will provide a modest three bedroom property providing approximately 112m² of floorspace across two floors and being 7.7m to its highest point.

The application also seeks consent for the construction of a single storey garage to the rear of the proposed dwelling. The garage will be constructed of materials to match the proposed dwelling, will have a footprint of approximately 22m² and will be about 4.4m to its highest point.

Access to the garage and rear of the property will be from Cross Street and will be via the new access road as granted under planning permission 08/0196.

Description of the Site and the Surroundings:

The application site, in the centre of the village of Kirkby Thore is currently partly a rough cut garden and partly rough ground that was the site of a joinery workshop which was recently demolished. The site is bounded by three terraced houses in Chapel Terrace, an end terraced property in Chapel Lane and a housing development comprising detached and semi detached properties. The site measures approximately 346m² and is behind a dry stone wall with cap stones on the Chapel Lane frontage. The wall has a retaining function as the ground level at the rear of the wall is 500mm higher than on the road side.

Kirkby Thore is a Local Service Centre and is designated as Landscape of County Importance within the Eden Local Plan.

Relevant Planning History:

15 May 2008 - Construction of four terraced properties with associated parking and construction of three detached garages associated with existing development - Full Approval

18 February 2008 - Construction of four terraced properties, one detached property with associated parking, and construction of three detached garages associated with existing development - Full Refusal on the grounds that the proposed detached dwelling, by reason of its location would have an overbearing effect on existing and proposed residential occupiers; fails to provide adequate amenity to occupiers; and has an unsatisfactory visual relationship between the existing and proposed dwellings

15 November 2007 - Residential development comprising six affordable homes - Withdrawn

Relevant Eden Local Plan Policies:

BE19: Quality of Design

31 PART I REPORTS FOR DEBATE Legal Requirements:

None

Method of Publicity and Summary of Representations:

The application was advertised by way of immediate neighbour notification letter and site notice posted - four letters of objection received which can be summarised as: The proposed house would overshadow the front of our house, blocking light to our kitchen and upstairs bedroom. The site is also elevated above our own property, increasing this effect. The proposed house is out of character and there appears to be little effort in the design to blend it with the style of neighbouring properties. Chapel Lane retains the appearance of a traditional village lane with old buildings and stone walls that are generally absent elsewhere in Kirkby Thore. The proposed house is too densely packed into a tight space between Prospect Terrace and Rossett House. The proposed house would have an adverse effect on drainage which is already a problem in Chapel Lane. The loss of this green space would be detrimental to the character of the area. The proposed house is not „affordable‟. A three bed detached house proposed adjacent to Prospect Terrace, being close to existing property could be damaging to the foundations of the 200 year old house. It is well documented that there is no need for additional housing in the Kirkby Thore area at present. Residents of Chapel Lane experienced several months of severe disruption in 2008 due to the collapse of Victorian waste drainage pipes, which resulted in sewage flowing onto footpaths and into resident‟s homes. The current drainage system running under Chapel Lane cannot support anymore additional houses. The proposed dwelling will severely affect the amount of daylight into the lane and will not fit in with the surrounding properties and the general Victorian areas of Kirkby Thore. I will be subject to noise and fumes from any vehicle using the garage. The turning head and garage will also be a magnate for children playing with footballs, causing more noise eg kicking the ball against the garage door. The garage will black light from my utility room, as the glass door from the side of the house is the only source of light into this room.

No objectors have asked to be heard at Committee.

Parish Response:

Kirkby Thore Parish Council are not sure why this application has been accepted as planning permission for this house has already been declined. Kirkby Thore Parish Council would like to object for the same reason as last time.

32 PART I REPORTS FOR DEBATE 1. There is no need for this type of property in the village. 2. It will further exasperate flooding problems in the area. 3. The development is too dense. 4. The impact on neighbours is too high. 5. Access to the site is not suitable for a large number of cars.

Consultation Responses: Highways Authority - The layout details shown on the submitted plan are satisfactory from a highway point of view. County Archaeolgist - Recommends that the site should be subject to a programme of archaeological investigation as the records indicate that the site lies within an area of high archaeological potential.

Main Planning Issues Raised:

Impact on character and appearance of area.

Impact on privacy and amenity of neighbouring residential properties.

Flood risk and impact on drainage system.

Access issues.

Planning Assessment:

The application seeks planning permission for the construction of a two storey detached dwelling on this infill site in Chapel Lane, Kirkby Thore.

Policy H19 of the Structure Plan requires the provision of affordable housing on sites of more than 0.4 hectares or more than ten dwellings. As this application is below these thresholds, it is not considered that an element of affordable housing is required. The applicant intends the dwelling to provide accommodation for a location family and is therefore willing to accept a local occupancy condition.

Permission for a detached dwelling on this site was refused in 2008 on the grounds that the proposed dwelling by reason of its location would have an overbearing effect on existing and proposed residential occupiers, fails to provide adequate amenity to occupiers and has an unsatisfactory visual relationship between the existing and proposed dwellings.

It is considered that the amended scheme currently under consideration has overcome these objections. The siting of the proposed dwelling has been amended so that the property will now be located approximately 5 metres form the front boundary wall, compared to just 1 metre in the previous application.

Although the distance between the proposed dwelling and 5 Chapel Terrace (opposite side of Chapel Lane) does not accord with the general principal of distances between principal windows of two properties, it is noted that the distance will be approximately 10 metres and as the windows are at an angle with each other it is considered that there will be no significant adverse impact on the privacy of both the new house and neighbours. The proposed dwelling will be approximately 6 metres from Rossett House and no windows are proposed on the side

33 PART I REPORTS FOR DEBATE elevations; therefore it is not considered that there will be an impact on the privacy and amenity of this property.

The proposed garage to the rear of the property will be just over 2 metres from the neighbouring property in Centurion Park and will be at a slightly lower level. The proposed garage will bound the garage/utility room of the neighbouring property and it is therefore considered that there will be little impact on their privacy and amenity.

The proposed house will be constructed of rendered blockwork in white with red sandstone string course and quoins and a slate grey concrete tile roof. It is considered that the materials proposed are acceptable in this location with a number of houses in the immediate vicinity being of a similar style. The property will infill an open site within this tight residential lane but the amended siting allows for an open area to the front of the proposed dwelling to be maintained.

With regards to objections raised by both occupiers of neighbouring properties and the Parish Council in relation to flood risk and the impact of the proposed development on the drainage system, United Utilities have raised no objections to the previous applications submitted for the site subject to the site being drained on a separate system. Therefore, a condition is recommended to be attached to any notice of approval requiring drainage details to be submitted prior to the commencement of development.

Access to the site is considered acceptable and no objections have been raised by the Highways Authority. The access from Cross Lane has previously been granted permission under planning application 08/0196 to serve fifteen car parking spaces and three garages. The proposed additional house will increase the number of parking spaces and garages served by this access to 16 and 4 respectively.

Human Rights Act:

The implications of the Human Rights Act 1998 have been considered during the processing of this application. Any impact on the rights of local property owners to a private and family life and peaceful enjoyment of their possessions (Article 8 and Article 1 and Article 1 of Protocol 1) are acceptable.

Summary Conclusions:

It is considered that the proposed detached residential unit is acceptable in this location and is recommended for approval subject relevant conditions. The proposal complies with the relevant Council policies and guidance.

Recommendation:

It is recommended that planning permission be granted subject to the following conditions: 1) The development permitted shall be begun before the expiration of three years from the date of this permission. 2) The development hereby granted shall be carried out strictly in accordance with the details and plans thereby approved (drawing no‟s 1551/00, 1551/01A, 1551/02A and 1551/03 received 2 February 2009) and shall not be varied other than by prior agreement in writing by the Local Planning Authority.

34 PART I REPORTS FOR DEBATE 3) Notwithstanding the provisions of the Town and Country Planning (General Permitted Development) Order 1995 (or any subsequent equivalent legislation) no development falling within Schedule 2, Part 1 of the said Order shall be carried out without the prior written permission of the Local Planning Authority. 4) The occupation of the dwelling hereby approved shall be limited to the following description of persons: a. who currently lives in the relevant locality and has done so for a continuous period of at least three years; and/or b. who works in the relevant locality; and/or c. who has moved away but has strong established and continuous links with the relevant locality by reason of birth or long term immediate family connections; and/or d. who has an essential need through age or disability to live close to those who have lived in the relevant locality for at least three years.

Definition of locality - This term will be taken to apply to the administrative area of Eden District. 5) 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 by the applicant and approved by the Planning Authority. This written statement will include the following components: i) an archaeological evaluation to be undertaken in accordance with the written scheme of investigation; ii) an archaeological recording programme the scope of which will be dependant upon the results of the evaluation and will be in accordance with the agreed written scheme of investigation; iii) where appropriate, a post-excavation assessment and analysis, preparation of a site archive ready for deposition at a store approved by the Planning Authority, completion of an archive report, and publication of the results in a suitable journal. 6) Development shall not begin until drainage works have been carried out in accordance with details to be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority; the scheme, as approved shall be carried out in full before any part of the development is occupied. 7) All paths, roads and parking areas shall be laid in permeable finishes or in accordance with a scheme of works to be submitted to and agreed in writing by the Local Planning Authority. 8) Details of the garages hereby approved shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority.

Reasons: 1) In order to comply with the provisions of the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004. 2) To ensure a satisfactory development and to avoid any ambiguity as to what constituted the permission. 3) In order to secure and maintain proper planning control of the development.

35 PART I REPORTS FOR DEBATE 4) In order to comply with Policy L5 of the North West of England Plan Regional Spatial Strategy to 2021. 5) To afford reasonable opportunity for an examination to be made to determine the existence of any remains of archaeological interest within the site and for the preservation, examination or recording of such remains. 6) To ensure that adequate drainage of the site is carried out as approved. 7) To ensure a satisfactory form of development. 8) In the interests of visual amenity.

Contact Officer: Miss A Richardson

Telephone Number: (01768) 212486

36 PART I REPORTS FOR DEBATE

Item No: 4

Application Number: 09/0079

Statutory Decision Date: 6 April 2009

Parish: Dacre

Description: Residential development

Location: Land adjacent to Staynegarth, Stainton

Applicant: Atric Ltd

Recommendation to grant planning permission subject to a Section 106 agreement

Site Plan:

37 PART I REPORTS FOR DEBATE (the application is being brought before the Planning Committee because the Parish Council view conflicts with the officer recommendation and because objectors have expressed a wish to make representation to Committee)

Proposed Development:

The application seeks outline planning permission for the development of an area of approximately 1500m2 of land within the village of Stainton. The applicant indicates that based on an average density of thirty dwellings per hectare some four or five dwellings could be accommodated on the site.

The applicant indicates that a condition requiring 33% of the dwellings to be affordable would be acceptable.

Description of the Site and the Surroundings:

The site fronts the village street just to the south of the village hall and public house. It is separated from the former by a small terrace of four dwellings. Adjoining the southern boundary of the site is the Brantwood Hotel. The land to the east remains in agricultural use.

The site is accessed from the public highway.

Relevant Eden Local Plan Policies:

Legal Requirements:

None

Method of Publicity and Summary of Representations:

The application was publicised by the posting of a site notice and letters to adjoining owners. Some six responses have been received objecting to the development on the following grounds: Highway safety, the site is on a blind summit with no pavement. The road is one of the narrowest in Stainton and already contends with traffic from existing housing developments, the recycling centre, the village hall, public house and hotel and the recreation field. The roads in the area are already well used and congested and are hazardous to the elderly and children. The adjacent land is prone to flooding since it lacks natural drainage and has a high water table. The site is one of the last fields left in the village and should not be built on. There has been far too much development in the village in the recent past.

Parish Council:

The Parish Council objects to this proposal for the following reasons:

The site forms an attractive edge to the eastern boundary of the village and the development would have a detrimental effect on the village.

38 PART I REPORTS FOR DEBATE Access to the site would have to be at the summit of a hill on the road through the village. This entrance would be virtually adjacent to the exit from the Brantwood Hotel and a very short distance from the village public house and the village hall. Parking for the latter two buildings is limited and vehicles use the road side for parking. Though the view from the proposed entrance to the site is good, vehicles emerging from the site would cause considerable difficulties for other vehicles moving along the road.

Drainage on the site is not good. Nearby properties have experienced flooding problems in heavy rain in the past, run off from the hardstanding that would necessarily be included on the site would exacerbate this problem. The area slightly downhill of the site is prone to flooding and is nearly perpetual marsh. (There is an actual error on the application form in the northernmost corner of the site is within 20 metres of a water course. (Kirksike Beck)

The effect on the local sewer system, which is barely capable of coping at present would be considerable and certainly cause further flooding and backing up of sewerage into nearby properties, several events of which have happened recently.

Were the Planning Committee minded to grant this application the Parish Council would expect that a considerable percentage of the properties built should be affordable and not market led. The Council is more concerned, however, that this application is only the fore runner for further applications for developments in the area outlined in blue on the application plan. The area outlined in red is the only entry into the whole area from a road. It is feared that any detailed application that could follow this outline application (should it be granted) would include a road leading directly into the blue area. Development of this area would have a drastic effect on many nearby houses and the village generally.

Consultation Responses:

Highways Authority:

No objections subject to conditions.

County Archaeologist:

The site lies within an area of archaeological value and request a condition requiring a scheme of archaeological investigation.

Main Planning Issues Raised: Impact on character of the area.

Planning Assessment:

The site is located within a settlement which offers a good range of facilities including a school, public house and a bus service, together employment opportunities and tourist facilities. It is proposed that the village be designated a local service centre in the forthcoming local development framework.

The site relates well to the existing pattern of development in the village and would constitute a small infill cluster of houses in contrast to the much larger housing schemes that have taken place in recent years.

39 PART I REPORTS FOR DEBATE In respect of the concerns raised to its development the site itself is not known to officers to be prone to flooding, indeed it is not within an identified flood zone. In respect of access it is noted that the highway authority has raised no objection to the proposal on highway safety grounds. The fear, expressed by the Parish Council, that approval of the application could lead to the development of adjoining land may well be reasonable but the situation is that the application specifically relates only to the land identified. If a subsequent proposal is made to develop additional land then that issue would be addressed at that stage.

The applicant is offering two affordable homes, if the development consists of five houses. This level of provision accords with the Council‟s present view on the level of provision of such housing on new sites within local service centres.

The Council‟s housing officers have indicated that seventeen houses per year are required in the Parish to meet housing need and that these should be for rental rather than shared ownership to address the low incomes in the area. The applicant has indicated that rental housing would be acceptable.

In respect of the remaining housing provision on the site there is currently no policy basis available to ensure the same. The Regional Spatial Strategy requires that a need for such a restrictive occupancy condition to be clearly demonstrated, ie by providing evidence of the need to limit inward migration to the District. No evidence of such a need is available. It is not therefore proposed to attach such a condition to any approval since there is no evidence to justify it.

Human Rights Act:

The implications of the Human Rights Act 1998 have been considered during the processing of this application. Any impact on the rights of local property owners to a private and family life and peaceful enjoyment of their possessions (Article 8 and Article 1 and Article 1 of Protocol 1) are acceptable.

Summary Conclusions:

The proposed site is appropriately located in the village and is of a size which would allow the provision of a limited number of houses commensurate with its location. In addition the development would offer the benefit of two affordable houses being provided in the parish for which there is a clearly established need.

Recommendation:

It is recommended that subject to the applicant entering into an agreement that two of the dwellings constructed on the site are offered on a rental basis then the application be approved subject to the following conditions: 1) Application for approval of all reserved matters shall be made to the local planning authority before the expiration of three years of the date of the grant of this permission.

2) The occupation of the two rental properties shall be limited to persons resident within the Parish of Dacre or, if such a letting cannot be made, with the written agreement of the local planning authority, from persons resident within the administrative district of Eden.

40 PART I REPORTS FOR DEBATE 3) 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 by the local planning authority.

4) No trees on the site shall be lopped topped or felled without the prior written consent of the local planning authority and any scheme submitted for approval of reserved matters shall be accompanied by details showing all planted material to be retained on the site after development and the measures to be undertaken for the protection of such material during the course of development.

5) The carriageway and footways shall be designed, constructed, drained and lit to a standard suitable for adoption and in this respect details, including longitudinal/cross sections, shall accompany any application for reserved matters approval.

6) Ramps shall be provided at all road junctions to enable wheelchairs, pushchairs, etc to be safely manoeuvred at kerb lines.

Reasons:

1) In order to comply with the requirements of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990.

2) In order to ensure that the units are available to members of the local community in need of housing.

3) To afford reasonable opportunity for an examination to be made to determine the existence of any remains of archaeological interest within the site and for the preservation, examination or recording of such remains.

4) In the interests of the character and amenity of the area.

5) 6) In the interest of highway safety and operational efficiency.

Contact Officer: Mr M.Johnson

Telephone Number: (01768) 212446

41 PART I REPORTS FOR DEBATE

Item No: 5

Application Number: 09/0098

Statutory Decision Date: 15 May 2009

Parish: Penrith

Description: Residential development

Location: Land at Beacon Farm, Eamont Bridge

Applicant: Atkinson Homes

Recommendation

Site Plan:

42 PART I REPORTS FOR DEBATE The application is being brought before the Planning Committee at the request of the local Member and because objectors have expressed a wish to make representation to Committee.

Proposed Development:

The application seeks outline planning permission for a development comprising of 24 houses. The drawings submitted with the application indicate a development comprising ten pairs of semi detached properties and a terrace of four. The road serving the development would be an improvement, by way of new turning lanes, to the roadway granted, on appeal, to serve the chicken sheds presently on the site. This would also necessitate a new junction arrangement to the A6 road.

The houses would be set against the fall in the landform from the A66 roadway.

The application follows a refusal by Committee of application ref.08/0447 which was a detailed proposal for 27 dwellings which include a mix of affordable and market led.

Description of the Site and the Surroundings:

The application site sits in an area of open countryside to the north of Skirsgill Lane, and to the west of the A6 at Kemplay Bank. The site is generally flat, although behind it the ground rises steeply up to the A66 trunk road. The site is generally separated from other residential uses by open fields.

The site is presently occupied by a range of large chicken sheds and is accessed via an incomplete track from the A6 or alternatively from Skirsgill Lane.

The site is within the administrative area of Penrith but is more clearly physically and visually associated with the village of Eamont Bridge.

Relevant Planning History:

The most recent relevant planning applications are as follows:

89/1024 - nine detached bungalows with garages.

Refused as the site lay beyond the limits of the village, adverse impact on amenity of the location; Skirsgill Lane incapable of accommodating additional residential development; approval would set a precedent for further residential development along the lane.

92/0853 - thirty detached houses and bungalows and ten low cost flats.

Refused as the site is in open countryside outside consistently accepted limits of Eamont Bridge; no justification to override policy to protect the open countryside; affect on rural amenity; unacceptable reduction in separation of Penrith from distinct and detached settlement of Eamont Bridge; precedent for further development.

An appeal against this refusal was dismissed.

00/0824 - Access road to agricultural development.

Refused because of the impact on the character of streetscape through loss of substantial

43 PART I REPORTS FOR DEBATE part of wall; impact on highway.

This application was allowed on appeal.

02/0168 - private access road.

Refused because of inadequate turning facilities; impact on flood plain; would lead to pressure for development since the design of the road was not commensurate with need; detrimental to visual amenity and amenity of local residents.

04/0689 - three affordable houses and associated car parking.

Refused because site outside limits of village; contrary to policy and guidance with no demonstrable proven need.

08/0447 - development of 27 affordable homes.

Refused as the dev would encroach into the countryside; no overriding need for the development is established.

Relevant Eden Local Plan (Retained Policies):

NE1 Development in the countryside

HS6 Affordable housing for local needs

Cumbria and Lake District Joint Structure Plan:

H19 Affordable housing outside the Lake District National Park

ST5 New development and key service centres outside the Lake District National Park

E37 Landscape character

Regional Spatial Strategy:

Legal Requirements:

None

Method of Publicity and Summary of Representations:

Letters have been received from some fourteen local residents objecting to the development on the grounds of: Impact on flooding in the locality. Impact on road safety and congestion to the A6 and Kemplay roundabout on the A66(T). Safety concerns about pedestrian movement particularly when accessing Penrith. The junction would cause serious traffic congestion and will endanger the safety of cyclists and pedestrians.

44 PART I REPORTS FOR DEBATE The site is greenfield land and should not be developed in advance of more appropriate locations which would better fulfil local and national planning policy criteria. The site is not sustainable being outside the village which is not identified as a local service centre. The development will encroach into the countryside outside of Penrith and Eamont Bridge contrary to Policy NE1. The proposal does not accord with any sequential approach to site selection. The development will encroach into the countryside outside of Penrith contrary to Policy NE1. The development is not consistent with housing development in the village in terms of location or appearance. Development of the site could lead to further development in the area which would erode the buffer separating Eamont Bridge from Penrith. Dispute the need for this housing in Eamont Bridge. The figures used for traffic and flood risk implications are questionable. The application has also received 27 letters of support, from both residents of the District and local building suppliers who support the provision of affordable housing, particularly for the young, the construction of which would support the building and supplies trade, helping to improve job security and restore some confidence to the industry.

Civic Society:

This application reduces the number of proposed dwellings by three from the 27 included in planning application No 08 0447, but otherwise all considerations remain virtually identical.

We appreciate the need for affordable houses, for meeting targets for the provision of such and at this particular time, the need to support the local building industry but these considerations should not take priority over long-term environmental, amenity and safety issues.

On another site, Penrith Civic Society would have been likely to have fully supported this proposal but from the very beginning we have expressed reservations about the creation of a new vehicular access point from the very steep Kemplay Bank section of the A6 road.

The first application for such access related to a then existing agricultural use when vehicle movements in and out of the site would have been very low. At that time we were concerned at the visual impact of the removal of the then high sandstone wall and the removal of a vast quantity of earth behind on this west side of the road, opening up a huge gap and visually very much changing the character of Kemplay Bank. The resultant appearance we feel, fully justifies these concerns. We were also concerned that other developments might follow, and these too have been justified.

If the agricultural operation for which the vehicular access was granted is no longer appropriate, then we suggest that the opening be closed off and the enclosing banking and stone boundary wall be reinstated to restore, as much as possible, the original appearance and character of the area.

45 PART I REPORTS FOR DEBATE Subsequently we have expressed highway safety fears in relation to housing development that apply to the present proposal. We notice that a central pedestrian refuge with filter lanes both sides is to be provided as a pedestrian crossing over the busy A6. In other parts of the town, we have seen signage bollards associated with such refuges damaged by moving vehicles, all the more likely, we suspect on a steep hill. We do not believe that such provides a safe pedestrian crossing point over this road.

The development now proposes 24 houses and we would imagine that they would be likely to appeal to and be occupied by younger families, perhaps with a rather higher than average ratio of children. It follows that there would be likely to be a higher than average vehicular use of the junction onto Kemplay Bank, considerably higher than is suggested in the planning application supporting documents.

We have previously stressed the lack of a continuous footpath provision on the west side of the Kemplay Bank section of the A6 road southwards of the new junction, resulting in all residents, including children wishing to use the facilities of Eamont Bridge having to either cross the A6 in a dangerous location, or walk down the nearside of the actual carriageway.

It would seem reasonable to assume that the majority of children living in this development would attend school in Penrith. Since they are unlikely to be bussed into town, there will be likely to be an increase in the number of vehicles on the „school run‟ not only using the new junction, but Kemplay roundabout junction with the A66 trunk road at times of peak traffic flows.

We would suggest that car journeys in and out of the development will, as a result, be considerably higher than suggested in evidence supporting the application.

We would suggest that car journeys in and out of the development will, as a result, be considerably higher than suggested in evidence supporting the application.

Alternatively, children walking into town will have to cross the A66 dual carriageway road that has no specific safe crossing facility. If anticipated visitor numbers to the Penrith New Squares development are to be achieved the A66 road and Kemplay roundabout can be expected to carry even higher traffic levels than at present.

We understand that improvements to Kemplay roundabout are likely to form part of the Penrith New Squares development but have no knowledge of what these will be apart from the likelihood of a third lane on the roundabout itself. In our opinion, no matter what measures are taken other than a pedestrian bridge over the A66, the road will always present an element of danger.

Our other concern has been that further development in this area is likely to debase Eamont Bridge to that of a suburb of Penrith rather than that of a separate village with its own identity. We retain our earlier opinion that any further development of the village should be on the south side of the river where any village amenities are located.

Penrith Civic Society is sorry to comment negatively on this application but we do feel that there must be sites available better related to the amenities of the town and in particular schools, and that highway safety factors are particularly important in relation to any housing provision, but particularly so when children are involved.

46 PART I REPORTS FOR DEBATE Consultation Responses:

Cumbria County Council (Environment):

The site is considered acceptable in respect of its location and landscape impact and would contribute to meeting the affordable housing needs of both Eamont Bridge and Penrith. The County Council, subject to conditions, considers that the site complies with its relevant policies.

Highways Agency:

No objections are raised.

Highways Authority:

No objections subject to conditions.

County Archaeologist:

The site lies within an area of archaeological value and request a condition requiring a scheme of archaeological investigation.

Environment Agency:

No objection subject to conditions.

Director of Technical Services:

The comments made in respect of flooding by objectors confirm my understanding of the flooding mechanism along Skirsgill Lane from the river and that the application site did contribute to surface water flooding of Skirsgill Lane properties in the 2005 event.

The Council has no jurisdiction to enforce land drainage defences against surface water flooding and would look to the developer to identify the risk through a Flood Risk Assessment, which he has done. The sufficiency of the control measures arising from such an assessment is for the applicant to determine and to demonstrate through appropriate calculations that the measures proposed are sufficient to deal with the identified flood risk.

I would recommend that if planning approval is granted for this development it is done so on the basis that the developer provides calculations to the satisfaction of the Council as Planning Authority that demonstrates the quantum of the surface water flooding risk, how this will be controlled and that the over ground flow discharging to land lower than the development site will not be in excess of the existing greenfield flow.

Main Planning Issues Raised: Impact on character of the area. Development in the countryside

Planning Assessment:

The site is clearly within the countryside and in such a location needs to satisfy the tests

47 PART I REPORTS FOR DEBATE inherent in Policy NE1.Whilst the application relates to the provision of affordable housing, although the application fails to identify what the term affordable means, it is considered that there are more sequentially preferable locations within, or appropriately adjacent to, the built area of the town suitable for the provision of housing. Such locations are identified in the Strategic Housing Land Assessment.

The agricultural use of the land is excluded from the definition of previously developed land in Annex B of PPS3. The site does not accord therefore with the sequential approach to selection.

In respect of highway considerations the County Council require that if the development is approved that no dwellings should be occupied, or work commenced, until a pedestrian controlled crossing is provided across both carriageways of the A66. This is in order to provide walkers/cyclists etc, with safe access to the facilities and public transport provision of Penrith. The Highways Agency however will not permit such a facility unless Kemplay Bank roundabout is traffic light controlled. This would have occurred as consequence of the Southend Road development but as that is now in abeyance and the County Council is of the view that such a condition is needed in view of the uncertainty about the redevelopment scheme.

In terms of the area generally the local settlement pattern has a north/south linear character with a ribbon of development along Skirsgill Lane on the north bank of the River Eamont. The site in question contributes to the enclosure of the settlement by agricultural activity and to the separation of the settlement from Penrith itself, the site forming a distinctive break between the two. The development would intrude significantly into that open break and reduce its value both as a break between the two settlements and the relationship of the village itself to the countryside beyond.

In considering the appeal against the refusal of application 92/0853 the inspector took the view that the development would “significantly extend the built area of Eamont Bridge to the north and west into the open break between the existing northern limits of the settlement and the A66 and the southern limits of Penrith. The scale of the development would intrude significantly into that open break and reduce its value as an open buffer between two distinct settlements.” In addition the inspector considered that whilst the development would take place on relatively flat land and would be screened from some views by the steep rise in ground levels up to the A66 it would be open to view from roads and footpaths to the south and west and the proposed access would require major earthworks through a high embankment which would be prominent from the A6. This latter feature has of course already occurred. At the same appeal the matter of supporting the local building trade was raised by the then appellant as was the lack of available land, within the settlement of Eamont Bridge, for housing development. The inspector considered that these considerations did not justify approval of the site for development, even to meet a special requirement, since they would not outweigh the environmental harm the scheme would cause. In addition it was felt that if approved the development would be likely to lead to pressure for further development thus further eroding the character of the area.

It is considered that this assessment remains appropriate to this site.

In respect of the development itself it is considered that the scale and layout of the scheme does not reflect, by reason of its standardised house form and regularity of layout, imposed by the land form and flood plain constraints, the more informal, and individually distinctive,

48 PART I REPORTS FOR DEBATE traditional disposition and architectural character of the settlement. It is considered that any residential development of the site will result, because of the constraints on the land, in a development which would have the character of simply a street of houses in a field unrelated to either the settlement of Eamont Bridge or Penrith itself, unlike the more typical form of rural development.

In respect of housing need the Council‟s Housing Department advises that the need for the ward in which Eamont Bridge is located amounts to some seven houses per year over the next five years, of which three would be for low cost ownership and four for rental. Clearly the proposed scheme exceeds this indicated need in terms of the number of houses proposed.

In the case of Penrith, the ward in which the site actually sits administratively, the question of need does not arise, it generally being understood that Penrith as the principle settlement of the District requires the greatest numbers of „affordable‟ dwellings. In the present case the greatest indicated need is for rental housing rather than some form of shared ownership in a ratio of 80 to 20 respectively. On the question of numbers it is confirmed by the Council‟s housing officers that 145 units, in the ratio mentioned, is the identified requirement for Penrith over the next five years.

The Council is has concluded its Strategic Housing Land Availability Assessment. That process has identified land suitable for housing development over a five, ten and fifteen year period. This site was eliminated from that study as being unsuitable for such development because of the negative impact it would have on the existing settlement and because it was considered to be an unnecessary expansion into the countryside poorly related to the village. Other more sequentially appropriate sites are identified as being available for development within the first five year period.

It is considered that the development would form an intrusion into open countryside contrary to good planning principles and the thrust of policy designed to protect the character of the countryside. It is not considered that the identified demand for housing of this character, or the ability of the Council through the planning process to provide it, is so overwhelming or unlikely to occur, that the approval of the application can be sustained in the light of the environmental costs that would accrue by the loss of this area as a buffer between the two settlements and its impact on the scale and character of the rural nature of the locality.

Human Rights Act:

The implications of the Human Rights Act 1998 have been considered during the processing of this application. Any impact on the rights of local property owners to a private and family life and peaceful enjoyment of their possessions (Article 8 and Article 1 and Article 1 of Protocol 1) are acceptable.

Summary Conclusions:

It is not considered that the application raises any new issues to warrant a reconsideration of the development of the land over and above that concluded for the previous application. The site remains in open countryside and would result in a development out of character with the area. The Council‟s Policy Section, in its consideration of land suitable for housing, does not propose the site for residential development and the strategic assessment the Council has undertaken of appropriate land for housing does not identify the site as such.

49 PART I REPORTS FOR DEBATE Recommendation:

It is recommended that: 1) The proposed development would encroach into the countryside outside the settlements of Penrith and Eamont Bridge and no overriding essential need for such development is established to the satisfaction of the Council sufficient to outweigh the environmental costs that would occur to the character of the site, its setting and the local environment. The development proposed would therefore be contrary to Policy NE1 of the Eden Local Plan and Policy E37 of the Cumbria and Lake District Joint Structure Plan.

Contact Officer: Mr M Johnson

Telephone Number: (01768) 212446

50 PART I REPORTS FOR DEBATE

Item No: 6

Application Number: 08/0793

Statutory Decision Date: 7 January 2009

Parish: Dacre

Description: New workshop and administration facility

Location: Redhills, Penrith

Applicant: Mr M Lawson-Johnson

Recommendation to grant full planning permission

Site Plan:

51 PART I REPORTS FOR DEBATE (the application is brought to Committee because it conflicts with policy)

Proposed Development:

Consent is sought for the provision of a new building to house various workshop and administration facilities for the Sunbeams Music Trust charity. The building would be of grass covered roof over 2 storeys and built, at the rear, into the sloping ground which the site occupies. The two storey height is to provide double height spaces for acoustic requirements otherwise all activity within the building would be at ground floor level only. A small car park would be offset to one side. Vehicular and pedestrian access would be from Redhills Lane.

The building would provide music therapy for a wide age range of persons who also suffer varying degrees of mental and physical handicaps. Traffic flow associated with the use would be in the order of some 25 journeys over an eight hour day

Description of the Site and the Surroundings:

The site is adjacent to a variety of office developments which have been undertaken over the past few years along Redhills Lane. The offices immediately adjacent result from a series of barn conversions. In front of those, and again immediately adjacent, is the Limes Hotel which occupies a Victorian style building. Both of these uses are well located in the landscape benefitting from either the topography or mature vegetation, although The Limes is much more visually apparent, particularly in the winter months. Adjoining these uses is a range of modern offices buildings and a food manufacture/office nursery unit. These buildings occupy a more open frontage to the lane but in the wider landscape view are well hidden by the local land form. To the west of the site, and separated from it by agricultural land, is the Rheged Visitor Centre.

Access to the site is from Redhills Lane after leaving the A66 at the Little Chef. The A66 runs, in a cutting, to the rear of the site.

Relevant Planning History:

None

Relevant Eden Local Plan Policies:

NE1 Development in the countryside

Legal Requirements:

None

Method of Publicity and Summary of Representations:

The application was advertised by the posting of a site notice and letters to adjoining owners. No objection to the development has been offered.

Parish Response:

The Parish Council has no objections or comments related to this application, save for concern voiced at the potential for additional traffic travelling from the site along the lane

52 PART I REPORTS FOR DEBATE towards Penrith.

Consultation Responses:

Highways Authority:

No objection subject to conditions.

Main Planning Issues Raised: Location of site Design

Planning Assessment:

The site is adjacent to a substantial group of buildings, both converted and new, which has in recent years been established along this minor road since the provision of the road user facility at Redhills itself. These primarily amount to office accommodation and, more recently, a food / office nursery facility. Planning consent for these developments was granted because it was considered that there were special circumstances related to the office uses, in connection with the support for rural activity and economic wellbeing, that over-rode the presumption against development in the area. This view was supported on appeal when a proposed speculative office development was refused.

The proposed development would extend this group but it is again argued by the applicant that there are particular reasons for site selection. The charity provides therapeutic care for a wide range of disabled people, from children to the elderly, and from a wide area of the north of England. Persons are generally brought to the site by carers/parents and are left there for a period. The care primarily involves a variety of music workshops so the development requires a range of particular rooms and layouts which cannot be met by the reuse of existing buildings, for instance those generally available in town centre locations. In addition there are particular requirements for room heights in order to facilitate the musical acoustics required to maximise the therapy‟s impact. Town centre locations do not offer the advantages of a relaxed, relatively quiet location or views of the countryside which are thought conducive to the caring regime. In addition users require a great deal of supervision and it is argued that urban locations would lead to an overly secure building in order to prevent users wandering off.

The charity presently operates from various diverse locations which is inefficient to the provision of care and administration. Importantly, because of the charitable status of the applicant the donation of the site is of significant assistance to them.

It is considered that there are particular requirements for this type of use which could be difficult to satisfy within a more urban location.

In respect of the impact of the building in the landscape the structure has been design to follow the natural contour and to be embedded into the rising land to the rear which will act as a buffer to traffic noise from the A66. The building has been designed on “green” principles utilising timber, grassed roof solar cells and grey water re-use. The building, which will have a floor area of some 515sqm, will be set low into the ground and the green roof and extensive use of timber will reduce its visual impact from distant views, which will be further aided by

53 PART I REPORTS FOR DEBATE landscape planting, both on this site and those adjacent.

In respect of the matter of traffic movements raised by the Parish Council, it is anticipated that this will amount to some 25 vehicle movements over an eight hour day and these will generally comprise of a single minibus and cars associated with staff and carers/parents dropping off or picking up.

Policy NE1 requires that development in the countryside must meet local infrastructure needs or must establish a need which is sufficient to outweigh the environmental cost and if the following criteria are satisfied: I. the siting of the development and any landscaping proposed will minimise impact; II. the design and materials proposed are appropriate to the location; and III. an unacceptable level of harm will not be caused to any interests of acknowledged importance.

In this respect it is considered that the particular needs of the use make it unlikely that a town centre location could be found or would be appropriate for this type of use. In respect of need the development will undoubtedly needs the needs of a specific section of the community although it is accepted that those needs might be equally well met on another site. In respect of design and materials theses are considered appropriate in this location. The building accommodates the local landform and the materials are neutral in their offsite impact. The addition of appropriate landscape will further help to assimilate the site into its landscape setting. Finally the site is not subject to any statutory protection in respect of archaeology or wildlife interest or the like.

It is considered that the particular circumstances of the proposed scheme render it, on balance, although it is a fine balance, acceptable in this location as a site meeting a particular need that can be accommodated within policy NE1.

Human Rights Act:

The implications of the Human Rights Act 1998 have been considered during the processing of this application. Any impact on the rights of local property owners to a private and family life and peaceful enjoyment of their possessions (Article 8 and Article 1 and Article 1 of Protocol 1) are acceptable.

Summary Conclusions:

It is considered that the proposed development is acceptable in this location where its particular area of work and health advantages to a particular community group outweigh any policy conflict.

Recommendation:

Approve subject to the following conditions 2) The development hereby permitted shall be begun before the expiration of three years from the date of this permission.

54 PART I REPORTS FOR DEBATE 3) The development hereby approved shall be carried out strictly in accordance with the details and plans hereby approved shown on drawing numbers 4739 AL(0)04 [Rev A], 4739 AL(0)03 [Rev A], 4739 AL(0)02 [Rev A], and AL(0)01 [Rev C] and shall not be varied other than by prior written agreement form the local planning authority.

4) Prior to the commencement of development precise details of all landscaping works, including the formation of bunds, shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the local planning authority. The scheme shall indicate the size, species and disposition of all material to be planted and cross sections showing the height, width and grading of the bunds. The scheme shall also indicate a phased programme of planting which can take place as the built development progresses. Any scheme which may be approved shall be commenced within the first planting season following the commencement of development and on completion shall thereafter be retained for the life of the development. Any planted material which may die, become diseased or be otherwise removed shall be replaced with the same, or with the written approval of the local planning authority a similar species.

5) The development shall not commence until visibility splays providing clear visibility of 45m x 2.4m x 45m measured down the centre of the access road and the nearside channel line of the public highway have been provided at the junction of the two roads. No obstruction shall thereafter be caused to the operation of these visibility splays. The splays shall be constructed before the general development of the site commences.

6) The access shall be surfaced in bituminous or cement bound materials, or otherwise bound and shall be constructed and completed before the development is brought into use.

7) The use shall not be commenced until the access and parking requirements have been constructed in accordance with the approved plans. Any such access and 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 written consent of the local planning authority.

8) The portion of the access lying within highway limits shall be constructed and drained to the satisfaction of the local planning authority.

Reasons:

5) In order to comply with the provisions of the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004.

6) To ensure a satisfactory development and to avoid any ambiguity as to what constitutes the permission.

7) In order to assimilate the development into the local landscape and ensure that the character of the area is retained.

8) In the interests of highway safety.

9) In the interests of highway.

55 PART I REPORTS FOR DEBATE 10) To ensure a minimum standard of access provision when the development is brought into use.

11) In the interests of road safety.

Contact Officer: Mr M.Johnson

Telephone Number: (01768) 212446

56