SL/2017/0335

PARISH: URSWICK Land adjacent to Daisy Hill Cottage, Great Urswick

PROPOSAL: Erection of self-build dwelling and alterations to vehicular access (revised scheme of SL/2016/1023)

APPLICANT: Mr and Mrs S Swarbrick

Grid Ref: E: 327131 N: 474624 y

r

r

k

e

e

n

e

h

a

r

B T

C

e t t s o u o C e H s

e t u s a o o 4 o H

R B t f o r C 2 e g a C t hu t k r o c ch i C V w ie t s e w f r g o l r U l ta a t C H o C e g a l t il t H o

C y e s g i e a a t d 35.8m T t l a D o O k n rn C H e a o Y b u r se e C o w Daisy Hill tt o B House

Daisy Hill

Tarnside Cott

0 e

1 9 e g

g a 8 t a t

t

t 7 o 4 o C 0 C l . e 0 e g Tarn m e r s d u E o s House a r R L te a t f W o r c n Willow Grove e r r a

W Hagg End

Low Barn "

3 8 . SL/2017/0335 The material contained in this plot has been reproduced from an Ordnance Survey map with permission of the Controller of Her Majesty's Stationery Office. Land adjacent to Licence No. 100024277 © Crown Copyright Unauthorised reproduction infringes Crown Copyright Daisy Hill Cottage and may lead to prosecution or civil proceedings Great Urswick LA12 0ST

Scale 1:1250 SUMMARY 1. The application seeks full planning permission for the erection of a single detached self-build dwelling on agricultural land between Daisy Hill Cottage and Urswick Hall Cottage, to the east of the village of Great Urswick. The application is a resubmission of the previously refused application reference SL/2016/1023. The changes include the slight repositioning of the property 1 metre further to the side (north west) and 1 metre further back within the site; the repositioning of the parking area to provide three spaces and a ramp to the paddock; and the removal of the Juliet balcony to the front elevation. 2. The principal issue is the location of the application site outwith the development boundary of Great and Little Urswick as defined in Policy LA1.1 of the South Lakeland Land Allocations Development Plan Document (LADPD), along with detailed considerations relating to; the impact of the development upon the character of the settlement of Great Urswick, the implications on the protected trees on site and the impact on highway safety. 3. The application has been called in for consideration by Planning Committee by Cllr James Airey due to the high level of local interest.

RECOMMENDATION 4. Refuse planning permission.

DESCRIPTION AND PROPOSAL Site description 5. The settlement of Great Urswick takes the form of a ribbon of development which curves around Urswick Tarn. The application site is an area of open land on the northern side of the eastern arm of the settlement. The site fronts on to Church View. It has a highway frontage of 28 metres set between two dwellings; Daisy Hill Cottage to the east and Urswick Hall Cottage to the west. The site boundary extends to 520m² hectares and rises away relatively steeply from the highway. The land then rises away to pasture land to the north east. A small group of cottages are located opposite the site frontage to the south. This part of the village is characterised by traditional cottages directly adjoining the highway interspersed by open spaces. 6. A stone wall forms the boundary with the highway, which has a 3 metre gap to allow for vehicular access, as permitted by application SL/2013/0704. There are three young sycamore trees located along the frontage, between 5 - 7 metres into the site, which are protected by Tree Preservation Order (TPO No 240 0212). The application site and the adjoining land in the ownership of the applicant are laid to grass and the lawful use of the site is agricultural. At the time of writing the land appears to be being used for the storage of non- agricultural paraphernalia and there appears to be very little in the way of agricultural practices being conducted. Proposal 7. Full planning permission is sought for the erection of a detached two storey dwelling within the site. The dwelling is proposed to front on to the highway and be set back from the stone boundary wall by 3.45 metres (not including porch). It is located slightly to the west of the site and is to be built into the hillside at the rear. The overall height of the dwelling is 5.5m to the eaves and 7.5m to the ridge, with a footprint of 90m². 8. There are three parking spaces proposed to the east of the dwelling; access to which will be gained directly from the highway by relocating the existing vehicular access. A vehicular access to the adjoining paddock will be retained via a ramp from the parking area. 9. The proposed dwelling is of a relatively simple design with a dual pitched roof and a small traditional porch to the front elevation. The property is to be finished in a mixture of stone and render to the facades under a slate roof. The residential curtilage to the rear is to be defined by a stone wall and the remaining pasture land is to be left undeveloped. 10. The proposal includes the removal of the three sycamore trees protected by Tree Preservation order No 240 0212. The applicant has indicated that they are willing to provide a full landscaping scheme in accordance with the requirements of the Local Planning Authority, and that the replacement trees planted can be subject to a Tree Preservation Order. 11. Surface water is to drain to a soakaway within the proposed parking area, whilst foul water is to drain to the existing sewer network.

HISTORICAL CONTEXT 12. The site has been subject to the following planning history, as detailed in chronological order. 13. 1994 - Outline planning permission refused for the construction of a bungalow within the site, for the following reasons:- 1. The Local Planning Authority do not consider this development to constitute either "infilling" or "rounding off". As such, this proposal is considered to be contrary to the provisions of Policy A3 of the Cartmel and Furness Local Plan. 2. Due to the elevated nature of the site, the proposed development would be obtrusive in the locality. 3. The proposed development would have a harmful effect on the mature trees which flank the road frontage of the site and are subject of a Tree Preservation Order. 4. The likely increase in traffic which would be generated as a result of the proposed access would be detrimental to the amenities of the occupiers of the existing residential property which flanks the access. 14. 2011 - Consent granted for the removal of the three mature sycamore trees to the frontage of the site, and which were the subject of a Tree Preservation Order. There was evidence that they were not sound and were affecting the structure of the retaining stone wall. The consent was granted subject to a condition that replacement trees were planted within 5m of the original trees by March 2012. 15. SL/2011/0741 - Planning permission refused for the construction of a detached dwelling and separate garage / workshop within the site, for the following reasons:- 1. The proposed dwelling would be located outside the development boundary of Great Urswick and in the absence of any justification for the development under the affordable housing exceptions policy; it is contrary to Policy CS6.4 of the adopted South Lakeland Core Strategy. 2. The development of this elevated site would result in an overbearing form of development, which would have a harmful impact on the character and appearance of Great Urswick. The acceptance of development on this site could lead to pressure for further development on adjacent sites to the detriment of the locality. Consequently, the proposal is in conflict with the aims and objectives of Policy CS8.10 of the adopted South Lakeland Core Strategy. The decision was subsequently appealed and dismissed by the Planning inspectorate. 16. SL/2013/0704 - Planning permission approved for the re-grading of the field and the creation of a vehicular access. A subsequent application ref SL/2014/0129 was approved to discharge the conditions relating to this permission. 17. SL/2016/1023- Planning permission refused for the erection of a detached dwelling on the same site, for the following reasons:- 1. The application site is located outwith the development boundary of Great and Little Urswick as defined in Policy LA1.1 of the South Lakeland Land Allocations Development Plan Document, and is therefore categorised as being in an area of open countryside. The applicant has failed to demonstrate that the proposed development has an essential need for an open countryside location; therefore, the principle of the development is not supported by Policy CS1.2 of the South Lakeland Core Strategy and para 55 of National Planning Policy Framework. 2. The proposed development would result in the loss of a valued open space that provides significant amenity to the streetscape and wider landscape. The development would therefore adversely affect the character of the settlement of Great Urswick and potentially open up further land to development pressure contrary to Policies CS1.1, CS1.2 and CS8.2 of the South Lakeland Core Strategy, and the sustainability aims of the National Planning Policy Framework. 3. The proposed development would result in the loss of three protected sycamore trees; there is no need for their removal that outweighs the harm caused and the proposal does not provide adequate mitigation in terms of replacement planting. The proposal is therefore contrary to saved Policy C9 of the South Lakeland Local Plan and Policy CS8.2 of the South Lakeland Core Strategy. 4. The development would have a significant adverse effect on the road network in the area as the parking and turning are considered unsuitable to serve the development; it would thereby be detrimental to highway safety and adversely affect residential amenity contrary to South Lakeland Core Strategy Policies CS7.6 and CS10.2, saved Local Plan Policies T6 and T8, and National Planning Policy Framework paragraphs 17 and 32.

CONSULTATIONS Parish / Town Council: 18. Urswick, Bardsea and Stainton Parish Council recommend refusal for the following reasons:- · Location of development - outside the development boundary and part of a wildlife corridor between farm and the tarn. · Parking facilities and highway safety - inadequate parking facilities on site, access would cause highway safety issues. · Design of proposed development - the proposed style of the balcony is outside the historic character of the village and existing properties. · Protected trees - not supportive of felling and re-siting trees that are protected by TPO. Immature trees at present that will in time contribute to the street scene as the original trees did. · Archaeological significance - request that an archaeological evaluation be carried out before any development commencing. · Previous planning applications - grounds for refusal remain relevant to current application. Cumbria County Council: Highways 19. It is considered that adequate visibility splays cannot be achieved along the public highway in both directions - Cumbria Highways would not accept a visibility splay below the stipulated standard unless a speed survey can demonstrate that such would be safe and acceptable. No turning provision to enable vehicles to enter and leave the C class highway in a forward gear.

Lead Local Flood Authority 20. No provision has made within the site for the disposal of surface water and it is therefore likely to discharge to the highway, which would be prejudicial to public safety and result in damage to the highway. Historic Environment Officer 21. Records show that the site lies in an area of archaeological potential as historic maps indicate that the medieval Urswick Hall was located on the site. Any surviving assets would be disturbed by the construction of the proposed development. Recommend that, in the event of planning being granted, an archaeological evaluation and, where assets are revealed, a scheme of archaeological recording be undertaken in advance of development. Condition suggested. United Utilities: 22. No objection subject to condition. South Lakeland District Council: Arboricultural Officer 23. Recommend refusal for the following reasons:- As previously stated in my response to the scheme submitted under reference number SL/2016/1023, the site previously contained three mature Sycamore trees which were protected by a Tree Preservation Order (TPO). An application was determined by the SLDC Planning Committee in early 2011 which granted the owner of the site permission to fell the three trees, subject to a condition requiring three replacement Sycamore trees to be planted on the site. The planning committee decided in 2011 that the trees should be replaced. The replacement trees were protected by a new TPO to ensure their protection and so they could achieve the objective of the replacement planting condition, to grow into prominent features in the local landscape. The current application is proposed in the same location as the three trees protected by SLDC TPO No 240 2012. Therefore the proposal is contrary to policy C11. The applicant’s proposal to transplant or replace the trees in locations further from the road, and behind the proposed dwelling. The trees could be successfully transplanted if done carefully, with suitable aftercare and at the right time of year. The trees will not provide an amenity value to the street- scene of the village for a significant number of years. Larger specimen size trees would be visible from the road and could be required by condition. The proposed development is contrary to policy therefore I recommend refusal of the proposal. Neighbours / Others: 24. 27 responses have been received; 18 in objection and 9 in support. The reasons are summarised below. Reasons for objection 25. Principle · The site is outside the Development Boundary and therefore contrary to policy. · Site has been degraded and is currently in a poor condition - not being used for lawful agricultural use/ permitted vehicular access is not being used for approved agricultural use. · Question whether the development falls within the definition of self-build. · Concern over the spread of further development and the precedent the development sets. · Sufficient housing sites to meet requirement in Local Plan. · Previous reasons for refusal not changed materially. · Dispute claim by the applicant that the land is not good agricultural land. · Inaccuracies in the planning statement. · Strong objections from immediate neighbours. 26. Landscape and visual amenity · Valued open space, as confirmed by the Inspector in previous appeal. · Greenfield site. · Design not in keeping with local vernacular and would detract from character of locality. · Impact on the character and appearance of one of the two public access areas to the Tarn (the croft). Development Boundary makes sense in this location as it adds to the open countryside character of access via the croft to the tarn. 27. Trees · TPO - protected trees should be retained and enhanced. Replanting elsewhere would cause landscape harm/ harm to the trees. Saplings are not unhealthy. · The suggested alternative species; Oak, is slow growing and would take years to reach a size that would be visible from the road. 28. Ecological / Geological · Proposal involves the excavation of the buttress end of the limestone escarpment known as Daisy Hill and over a fault line in Urswick Limestone Table - the outlet spring feed for the Tarn from this fault is in front of the site. Flash flooding has occurred previously and any disturbance to this may increase flooding events. 29. Archaeological · On a site of archaeological interest. 30. Highway Safety · Highway issues at Daisy Hill - narrow with parked cars and no pedestrian facilities. Poor visibility. Increase in traffic will worsen situation. · Inadequate parking provision for 4 bedroom house - would result in parking on the road. · Elevated drive - potential for surface water to drain to highway. · Access will be dangerous due to parked cars on a busy, narrow highway. Moved closer to the brow of the hill. · Existing access is for agricultural purposes. · Any new development should be discouraged until the road system is improved. · Potential surface water un off issues · Pedestrian access to tarn directly opposite access- risk to pedestrian safety 31. Residential Amenity · Overlooking from proposed windows. Higher than properties opposite - loss of privacy. · Reduce availability of on street parking for neighbouring properties. Reasons for support 32. Principle · Other half of field developed previously for residential use · Similar developments in other villages have been approved · Infill site- Development would fill a gap in the street scene · Not good value agricultural land · Need for family homes in village 33. Appearance · No detriment to character of locality · Improve appearance of site

34. Residential Amenity · No detriment to neighbouring properties- plot of an adequate size for property with adequate separation distance. 35. Highways · Good access from a quiet stretch of road · Parking on site · No surface water run off problems 36. Trees · Other sycamore trees in the village have been removed · More appropriate trees could be planted in the site

APPLICANT REPRESENTATIONS 37. A supporting statement, arboriculturalist report and petition have been submitted alongside the application. 38. The arboriculturalist report concludes that the most easterly protected tree within the site has grown well whilst the other two have grown less well, and that the public visual amenity currently provided by them is virtually non- existent. The report details that the existing trees could be moved or that new trees could be planted and establish successfully elsewhere in the site. 39. The planning statement concludes that the site is in a sustainable location in the middle of a Local Service Centre; it is an infill plot; the design sits well with the surroundings; and the replacement planting would represent an improvement. It’s concluded that these material considerations outweigh the development plan (and associated development boundary) and earlier appeal decision. 40. The petition includes 41 signatories in support of the application.

POLICY ISSUES South Lakeland Core Strategy (CS): 41. Policy CS1.1 Sustainable Development Principles notes that development should accord with a sequential approach, first using existing buildings and previously developed land within settlements ahead of other suitable infill opportunities within settlements and only then development of other land that is well located in relation to housing, jobs, other services and infrastructure. It also notes that development should minimise the need to travel and provide a choice of sustainable transport modes. 42. Policy CS1.2 The Development Strategy states outside of the development boundary of Key / Local Service Centres new development will only be permitted where it has an essential requirement for a rural location, is needed to sustain an existing business, provides affordable housing, is an appropriate extension of an existing building or involves the appropriate change in use of an existing building. 43. Policy CS6.1 Meeting the Housing Requirement states that the supply will be met by allocations within a DPD and within settlements. 44. Policy CS6.4 Rural exceptions policy states that housing development where it does not constitute infilling and rounding off in the smaller villages and hamlets will only be considered where they are to provide 100% affordable housing under the exception site criteria. 45. Policy CS8.1 Green Infrastructure seeks to protect important open spaces within settlements to contribute towards an important network of green corridors of value for wildlife. 46. Policy CS8.2 Protection and Enhancement of Landscape and Settlement Character states that development proposals should be informed by, and be sympathetic to, the distinctive character landscapes identified in the Cumbria Landscape Character Guidance and Toolkit. Proposals should demonstrate that their location, scale, design and materials will protect and conserve and where possible enhance the special qualities and local distinctiveness of the area. 47. Policy CS8.2 Landscape and Settlement Character also states that development proposals should demonstrate that their location, scale, design and materials will protect, conserve and, where possible, enhance:- · the special qualities and local distinctiveness of the area · the distinctive settlement character, and · the pattern of distinctive features such as hedges, walls, traditional buildings, woodlands, hay meadows, wetlands, valleys, fells and rivers, and their function as ecological corridors for wildlife. 48. Policy CS8.10 Design states that the design, scale and materials of all development should be of a character which maintains or enhances the quality of the landscape or townscape and, where appropriate, should be in keeping with local vernacular tradition. 49. Policy CS10.2 Transport Impact of New Development requires that development be designed to reduce the need to travel and to maximise the use of sustainable forms of transport. Development proposals should provide for safe and convenient access and foot, cycle, public and private transport, be served by safe access to the highway network without detriment to the amenity or character of the locality, the expected nature and volume of traffic generated by the proposal can be accommodated by the existing road network without detriment to the amenity or character of the surrounding area, local air quality or highway safety. Local Plan Land Allocations: Development Plan Document (DPD): 50. Saved Policy S2 sets out the South Lakeland Design Code and requires development to take proper account of its principles. 51. Saved Policy C11 sets out that development proposals which may cause significant damage or destruction to a tree or woodland protected by a Tree Preservation Order will only be permitted where no alternative site is available and there is an overriding need for the proposal which outweighs the need to preserve the tree or woodland; and mitigating measures are available to minimise damage and secure worthwhile replacement planting.

Saved Policies of the South Lakeland Local Plan (LP): 52. Policy LA1.1 Development Boundaries allocates a development boundary for settlements, including Great and Little Urswick. The policy states that the development needs of settlements will be met within the development boundaries defined on the policies map. National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF): 53. Paragraph 49: Housing applications should be considered in the context of the presumption in favour of sustainable development. 54. Paragraph 55: Local planning authorities should avoid isolated homes in the countryside unless there are special circumstances, and to promote sustainable development in rural areas; housing should be located where it will enhance or maintain the vitality of rural communities. For example, where there are groups of smaller settlements, development in one village may support services in a village nearby. 55. Paragraph 109 - The planning system should contribute to and enhance the natural and local environment by protecting and enhancing valued landscapes and minimise the impacts on biodiversity and providing net gains where possible. 56. Residential Amenity - The protection of residential amenity in one or more of its various aspects is a material consideration in the determination of planning applications. The protection of the residential amenity of neighbouring residents is one of the Core Planning Principles of the NPPF (paragraph 17) Council Plan 2014 – 2019: 57. The broad aims of the five year Council Plan are to:- · Enable and deliver opportunities for economic growth. · Provide homes to meet need. · Improve residents’ health and well -being. · Protect the environment. It is stated “We will develop our Housing Strategy, working with our partners to help deliver housing to meet needs, working to help support the opportunities available to develop and expand self-build”. Under the heading ‘measures of success’, it is stated that “By 2025, we will have enabled the development of 500 self-build homes”. Self-build and Custom Housebuilding Act 2015; and, Self-build and Custom Housebuilding (Register) Regulations 2016 58. The Regulations place a duty on relevant local planning authorities to keep a register of individuals and associations of individuals who are seeking to acquire serviced plots of land in the authority’s area in order to build houses for those individuals to occupy as homes. It is required that local planning authorities have regard to each self-build and custom housebuilding register that relates to their area when carrying out their planning, housing, land disposal and regeneration functions. Housing and Planning Act 2016 59. The Housing and Planning Act 2016 came into law on the 12 May 2016. Section 10 of the Act places duty on a relevant local planning authority to grant permissions for enough serviced plots of land to meet the demand for self-build and custom housebuilding in the authority’s area arising in each defined base period. It is confirmed that the demand for self-build and custom housebuilding arising in an authority’s area in a bas e period is the demand as evidenced by the number of entries added during that period to the Self-build Register of the relevant local planning authority. The regulations enacting the provisions of the Act are yet to be prepared; therefore, limited weight is to be given to the relevant duties.

ASSESSMENT 60. The key issues to consider in determining this application are: · The principle of the development. · The impact on landscape / settlement character. · Other considerations. Principle 61. Policy CS1.2 identifies a hierarchy of settlements; with development to be concentrated within Kendal and Ulverston, then the Key Service Centres, followed by a number of Local Service Centres, smaller villages and hamlets and finally the open countryside. Development boundaries have been identified for all but the smaller villages, hamlets and open countryside. 62. Great and Little Urswick is designated as a Local Service Centre by Core Strategy Policy 1.2, where approximately 21% of new housing and employm ent development will be located. It is confirmed that the “The exact scale and level of development supported will be dependent on individual character, the impact on environmental capacity and infrastructure provision, and the desire to meet the need for affordable housing as locally as possible”, and that; “Revised town and village boundaries for the Principle Key and Local Service Centres will be identified as part of the Allocation of Land DPD”. 63. The application site is located out with, but directly adjacent to, the development boundary of Great Urswick as defined in the South Lakeland Land Allocations Development Plan Document (LADPD). LADPD Policy LA1.1 is clear that “Between 2010 and 2025 the development needs of these settlements will be met within the development boundaries defined on the policies map”. Paragraph 2.2 of the LADPD confirms that development boundaries outside the AONB have been reviewed not exclusively with regard to: existing housing, shopping and other urban uses; small ‘infill’ and ‘rounding off’ sites; areas with scope to improve an unsatisfactory settlement edge; and, land proposed for allocation for housing, employment or other urban or villages uses. 64. The application site comprises an area of open countryside for the purposes of Policy CS1.2 of the Core Strategy. Policy CS1.2 is clear that “Exceptionally, new development will be permitted in the open countryside where it has an essential requirement for a rural location, is needed to sustain existing businesses, provides for exceptional needs for affordable housing, is an appropriate extension of an existing building or involves the appropriate change of use of an existing building”. 65. The erection of a new build market dwelling in an area of countryside does not meet with the cited requirements of Policy CS1.2 of the Core Strategy. 66. Whether or not the site can be classed as infilling, as referenced in the planning statement, is irrelevant in this situation as the infilling and rounding off element of Policy CS1.2 relates to settlements without development boundaries. 67. The Authority currently has 27 people on their Self Build Register. There is no one registered as showing an interest in the Great Urswick area. The Authority has reasonably approved sufficient development to meet the identified demand for self-build dwellings. Sites for dwellings exist within the development boundary of Great and Little Urswick as defined in the Policy LA1.1 and accord with the development plan, which could reasonably meet the identified demand for market self-build dwellings without the requirement to develop outwith the development boundary. Impact on visual amenity and landscape/ settlement character 68. Whilst the site is categorised as Open Countryside for the purpose of planning policy, it is accepted that it is well related to the settlement and as a result does not have the sustainability issues associated with isolated developments in the open countryside. 69. The site was purposely omitted when the local planning authority established the development boundary for Great Urswick, due to the positive contribution that the open nature of the site and the trees along the street frontage made to the character and appearance of the surroundings and settlement character. Despite the recent planning history on the site, the open street frontage continues to contribute positively to the character of the area and is strongly connected to the open countryside to the north, and it is considered that the infilling of this open space would have a negative impact on the street scene and settlement character. 70. It is accepted that the trees do not provide the same amenity that the original counterparts provided before being felled, however it is appreciated that they are immature and have the potential to, in time. This issue is discussed in detail below. 71. The proposed dwelling is sited close to, and fronting, the highway. It’s positioning and scale are in keeping with the pattern of development in this part of Great Urswick, and the house would be viewed as part of the street scene. The design and materials are largely in keeping with the local vernacular. 72. In conclusion, although the siting and design of the proposed dwelling is largely in keeping with the character of the village, it is considered that the development of the site would result in the loss of an area of important open space within the streetscape. It would further degrade the amenity that the site provides within this part of the settlement and eliminate the opportunity for the protected trees that flank the site to mature. It would therefore be detrimental to the settlement character of Great Urswick, contrary to Policy CS8.2 of the Core Strategy. Other considerations Trees 73. The proposal involves the removal of three sycamore trees along the frontage of the site, which are protected by a Tree Preservation Order. The applicant is of the opinion that one of the trees in particular is suffering, and that overall they are very small and add nothing to the street scene. 74. The trees were planted to replace three mature trees that were felled with consent in 2011. The replacement trees were required as part of this permission, and they were protected to ensure that they could grow into prominent features in the local landscape to replace the amenity value previously provided by the felled trees. The arboriculturist is of the opinion that the trees have grown and are doing well, and that the development would be contrary to the requirements of saved Policy C11. The application makes reference to the planting of replacement trees as part of a full landscaping scheme to the rear of the proposed property. It is considered that this would by no means provide an adequate replacement to meet the mitigation requirements of saved Policy C11, as the trees would be located at least 19 metres back from the highway and be largely screened from public view by the property itself. The loss or replacement of these trees would further compromise the character of the settlement and the visual amenities of the area. Residential Amenity 75. The dwelling is positioned within the site close to the boundary with the neighbouring property to the west; Urswick Hall Cottage. However, there is a separation distance of 16.5 metres between the house itself and the proposed dwelling. There are two ground floor and one first floor windows in the side (west) elevation; it is considered that the topography, screening and separation distance is adequate to ensure no detrimental impact from overlooking. 76. The proposed dwelling is located approximately 10 metres from the neighbouring property to the east; Daisy Hill Cottage, with the proposed parking area between the two. There is one ground floor and two first floor windows proposed in the side (east) elevation. Stone walls will be used to form the boundary of the parking area which will provide some screening from overlooking from the ground floor window. The first floor windows are to serve a utility and a shower room, and so obscure glazing could be secured via condition to ensure no impact from overlooking. Given that these are not primary rooms and there is an adequate separation distance, it is considered that there would be no detrimental harm from overlooking. 77. At the closest point, the proposed dwelling is approx. 11 metres from the rear of the properties opposite to the south. The highway intersects the two sites and so it is considered that the windows within these properties are subject to public vantage, and that the proposed dwelling would not cause further harm from overlooking. 78. The positioning and orientation of the proposed dwelling ensures that there is an adequate separation between the dwelling and the neighbouring properties to ensure that no detrimental harm is caused to the residential amenity of the neighbouring properties as a result of overshadowing or overbearing, or the amount of light infiltration. 79. Concern has been raised over the loss of on street parking as a result of the proposal. As there would be no loss of formal designated parking spaces as a result of the proposal, it is not considered material to the consideration of the proposal. Highway Safety 80. The proposal includes the relocation and enlargement of the existing vehicular access, and the provision of three parking spaces directly adjacent to the property. The amount of parking is considered acceptable to serve the property. 81. The current access is to serve the agricultural field and is therefore, in theory, used on an ad-hoc basis when vehicular access is required to the field. The new access is relocated further to the east and closer to the brow of the hill, and would result in an intensification of its use. The Highways Authority are of the opinion that adequate visibility splays cannot be achieved, and that a speed survey would be required to justify whether the reduced visibility splays would be safe. 82. Furthermore, the parking spaces provided can only be accessed or egressed in a reverse gear as there is no turning space available within the site. The stretch of road in question has anecdotal problems with parked cars which reduce visibility somewhat, and so there is concern that this manoeuvre would cause harm to highway safety. 83. Overall, it is considered that the proposed access and parking arrangements are inadequate and would cause detriment to the road network and highway safety in the area. Archaeological interest 84. The potential for archaeological interest on the site could be adequately dealt with by a planning condition on the event of a planning application being approved. Comparison with other planning approvals 85. The local planning authority has consistently refused permission for residential development on this land on 3 separate occasions in 1994, 2011 and 2016 with the 2011 application being the subject of an appeal which was dismissed by the Planning Inspectorate 86. The applicants’ agent draws comparison with two planning applications; ref: SL/2015/1146 and SL/2016/0468, in seeking to provide justification for the proposed development. 87. The agent correctly identifies that the respective applications relate to development located outwith but adjacent to the defined settlement boundary. On this basis the agent affirms that the principle of the proposed development should be considered favourably. It is affirmed that each planning application must be treated on its merits and that the approval of an application does not set a precedent. The circumstances of the applications referred to are different and not directly comparable to the application being assessed. It is accepted that the sites referenced are located outwith the defined development boundaries, however both formed part of a domestic curtilage and were considered to be read as part of the developed extent of their respective settlements. Furthermore, there were no other material considerations against the proposals in those circumstances and so the planning balance was in favour of approval. Financial benefits to Local Authorities from the development 88. In accordance with the requirements introduced by Section 115 of the Housing and Planning Act 2016. The financial benefits of the proposed development are estimated below. Source Benefit Community Infrastructure Levy Nil - likely that self-build exemption would apply. Business Rates Nil. New Homes Bonus Nil.

89. It is considered limited weight should be attached to the financial benefits arising from the proposed development. 90. Council Tax is an ongoing annual income, new home bonus for four years (currently). 91. Any financial considerations would add to the overall benefits in delivering the five year housing land supply and identified housing need on this allocated site.

CONCLUSION

92. The local planning authority has consistently refused permission for residential development on this land on 3 occasions in 1994, 2011 and 2016 with the 2011 application being the subject of an appeal which was dismissed by the Planning Inspectorate

93. The application site is located outwith the development boundary of Great and Little Urswick as defined in Policy LA1.1 of the LADPD in an area of open countryside. The applicant has failed to demonstrate that the proposed development has an essential need for a rural location; therefore, the principle of the development is not supported by Policy CS1.2 of the Core Strategy. The proposal is therefore contrary to policy and not acceptable in principle. 94. It also considered that there are a number of detailed considerations relevant to the proposal that further reduce the acceptability of the development. 95. The application site has been long considered as an important area of open space within the village, hence the reason for it not being contained within the development boundary. Development of the site would permanently remove this open element from the streetscape and the amenity it provides, as well as eliminating the opportunity for the site and amenity value to be enhanced as the protected trees mature in time. The application would therefore be detrimental to the settlement character of Great Urswick contrary to Policy CS8.2 of the Core Strategy. 96. The proposal involves the removal of three protected sycamore trees without justification and does not provide adequate mitigation in terms of replacement planting. The proposal is therefore contrary to saved Policy C9 of the South Lakeland Local Plan. The proposal does not provide adequate turning facilities within the site and it is not evidenced that the access is safe; therefore it has the potential to cause detriment to the road network and highway safety in the area. The proposal is therefore contrary to Policy CS10.2 of the Core Strategy. 97. Whilst weight must be afforded to the statutory duties of the Self-build and Custom Housebuilding Act 2015; Self-build and Custom Housebuilding (Register) Regulations 2016; and, the Housing and Planning Act 2016, it is considered that this does not override the fundamental conflicts that exist with Policies CS1.2, CS8.2 and CS10.2 of the Core Strategy and saved Policy C9 of the Local Plan. 98. The reasons for refusal attached to the previous planning application (ref SL/2016/1023) have not been overcome by the minor amendments to the proposal. RECOMMENDATION: REFUSE for the reason(s) below:- Reason (1) The application site is located outwith the development boundary of Great and Little Urswick as defined in Policy LA1.1 of the South Lakeland Land Allocations Development Plan Document, and is therefore categorised as being in an area of open countryside. The applicant has failed to demonstrate that the proposed development has an essential need for an open co untryside location; therefore, the principle of the development is not supported by Policy CS1.2 of the South Lakeland Core Strategy and para 55 of National Planning Policy

Framework. (2) The proposed development would result in the loss of a valued open space that provides significant amenity to the streetscape and wider landscape. The development would therefore adversely affect the character of the settlement of Great Urswick and potent ially open up further land to development pressure contrary to Policies CS1.1, CS1.2 and CS8.2 of the South Lakeland Core Strategy, and the sustainability

aims of the Nati onal Planning Policy Framework. (3) The proposed development would result in the loss of three protected sycamore trees; there is no need for their removal that outweighs the harm caused and the proposal does not provide adequate mitigation in terms of replacement planting. The proposal is therefore contrary to saved Policy C9 of the South Lakeland Local Plan and Policy CS8.2 of

the South Lakeland Core Strategy. (4) The deve lopment would have an adverse effect on the road network in the area as the access and turning are considered unsuitable to serve the development; it would thereby be detrimental to highway safety and adversely affect residential amenity contrary to South Lakeland Core Strategy Policies CS7.6 and CS10.2, saved Local Plan Policies T6 and T8, and National Planning Policy Framework paragraphs 17 and 32.

P & P The Local Planning Authority has acted positively and proactively in Statemen t determining this application by identifying matters of concern with the proposal and discussing those with the applicant. However, the issues are so fundamental to the proposal that it has not been possible to negotiate a satisfactory way forward and due to the harm which has been clearly identified within the reason for the refusal, approval has not been possible.