SOUTH LAKELAND DISTRICT COUNCIL South Lakeland House, Kendal, Cumbria LA9 4UQ www.southlakeland.gov.uk
You are requested to attend a meeting of the Planning Committee on Thursday, 29 July 2010, at 10.00 a.m. in the District Council Chamber, South Lakeland House, Kendal
Note – Plans will be available for inspection in the Council Chamber from 9.15 a.m. on the morning of the meeting.
Committee Membership Councillors Alan Baverstock Brian Cooper Joss Curwen Colin Davies Philip Dixon Sheila Eccles Sylvia Emmott Clive Graham Brenda Gray (Vice-Chairman) Colin Hodgson Frank Hodson Janette Jenkinson Kevin Lancaster Sonia Lawson Ian McPherson (Chairman) Maureen Nicholson David Williams Mary Wilson
21 July 2010 (date of despatch) Debbie Storr, Corporate Director (Monitoring Officer)
For all enquiries, please contact:- Committee Administrator: Janine Jenkinson Telephone: 01539 733333 Ext.7493 e-mail: [email protected]
1
2 AGENDA Page Nos. PART I 1. APOLOGIES To receive apologies for absence, if any. 2. MINUTES 5 - 12 To authorise the Chairman to sign, as a correct record, the minutes of the meeting of the Committee held on 24 June 2010 (copy attached). 3. DECLARATIONS OF INTEREST To receive declarations by Members of personal and prejudicial interests in respect of items on this Agenda. If a Member requires advice on any item involving a possible declaration of interest which could affect his/her ability to speak and/or vote, he/she is advised to contact the Monitoring Officer at least 24 hours in advance of the meeting. 4. LOCAL GOVERNMENT ACT 1972 – EXCLUDED ITEMS To consider whether the items, if any, in Part II of the Agenda should be considered in the presence of the press and public. 5. PUBLIC PARTICIPATION Any member of the public who wishes to ask a question, make representations or present a deputation or petition at this meeting should apply to do so in writing by noon on the day before the meeting. Information on how to make the application can be obtained by viewing the Council’s Website www.southlakeland.gov.uk or by contacting the Democratic Services Manager on 01539 717440. (1) Planning Applications Planning applications for which requests to speak have been made. (2) Agenda Items Agenda items for which requests to speak have been made. 6. REPORT OF THE CORPORATE DIRECTOR (COMMUNITIES) 13 - 82 To determine planning applications received. 7. A REPORT ON ENFORCEMENT ACTIVITY FROM 3 MAY TO 4 JUNE 2010 83 - 90 To inform Members about enforcement activity between 3 May 2010 and 4 June 2010. 8. APPEALS UPDATE AT 16 JULY 2010 91 - 104 To provide Members with information about the receipt and determination of planning appeals. 9. PLANNING POLICY STATEMENT 5 (PPS 5):PLANNING FOR THE 105 - 112 HISTORIC ENVIRONMENT To inform Members of the introduction of government Planning Policy Statement PPS 5, issued on 23 March 2010.
3 PART II Private Section (exempt reasons under Schedule 12A of the Local Government Act 1972, as amended by the Local Government Act (Access to Information) (Variation) Order 2006, specified by way of paragraph number) There are no items in this part of the agenda.
4 Item 2
9 24.6.2010 Planning
PLANNING COMMITTEE
Minutes of the proceedings at a meeting of the Committee held in the District Council Chamber at South Lakeland House, Kendal, on Thursday, 24 June 2010 at 10.00 a.m.
Present
Councillors
Ian McPherson (Chairman) Brenda Gray (Vice-Chairman)
Joss Curwen Colin Davies Philip Dixon Sylvia Emmott Clive Graham Colin Hodgson Frank Hodson Janette Jenkinson Sonia Lawson David Williams Mary Wilson
Apologies for absence were received from Councillors Alan Baverstock, Brian Cooper, Sheila Eccles and Kevin Lancaster.
Officers
Zaheer Bashir Solicitor Fiona Clark Planning Officer (part) Barry Jackson Planning Officer (part) Janine Jenkinson Assistant Democratic Services Officer Andy Roe Development Management Group Manager Mark Shipman Development Control Team Leader
P/015 MINUTES
RESOLVED – That the Chairman be authorised to sign, as correct records, the minutes of the meetings of the Committee held on 18 and 27 May 2010.
P/016 DECLARATIONS OF INTEREST
RESOLVED – That it be noted that the following declarations of interest were made:-
(1) Councillor Joss Curwen - Minute P/019 (Planning Application No. SL/2010/0082);
(2) Councillor Clive Graham - Minute P/019 (Planning Application No.SL/2010/0347);
(3) Councillor Janette Jenkinson – Minute P/019 (Planning Application No.SL/2010/0082); and
(4) Andy Roe, Development Management Group Manager - Minute P/019 (Planning Application No.SL/2010/0347).
5 10 24.6.2010 Planning
P/017 LOCAL GOVERNMENT ACT 1972 – EXCLUDED ITEMS
RESOLVED – That it be noted that there were no items in Part II of the Agenda.
P/018 PLANNING APPLICATIONS
The Development Management Group Manager submitted a Schedule of Planning Applications and his recommendations thereon.
RESOLVED – That
(1) the applications be determined as indicated below (the numbers denote the Schedule numbers of the application);
(2) except where stated below, the applications be subject to the relevant conditions and advice notes, as outlined in the Schedule; and
(3) except where stated below, the reasons for refusal be those as outlined in the Schedule.
P/019 COMPLEX PLANNING APPLICATIONS
RESOLVED – That the following applications be determined in the manner set out:-
2.SL/2010/0187 MILNTHORPE: Fawcetts Garage, 13-17 Beetham Road, Milnthorpe. Demolition of commercial buildings and three dwellings and erection of petrol filling station and convenience store. (James Hall & Co Ltd)
The Planning Officer reported that a further letter of objection had been received in response to the amended plans and details. The letter reiterated concerns relating to the car parking arrangement and the impact of increased traffic generation.
Members were advised that although the application would result in the loss of existing employment, housing and a retail site, it was considered that the need for additional retail floor space as identified by the South Lakeland Retail Study and the benefits this would bring with regard to customer choice, retention of expenditure and improvements to the appearance of the site, overall outweighed this loss.
In addition, it was reported that the applicant had agreed to incorporate into the scheme limited short term free car parking provision.
Members had undertaken a site visit, and it was generally felt that the scale and design of the building would enhance the appearance of the area and surroundings without harm to the amenities of local residents.
GRANT – subject to the conditions detailed in the Schedule and an additional condition to cover the production of a management agreement for the car parking area to allow short term parking.
6 11 24.6.2010 Planning
3.SL/2010/0225 PRESTON RICHARD: Storth End Farm, Stainton, Kendal. (FPA) & Construction of dwelling. (PK & R Woof) SL/2010/0226 (LBC)
The Development Control Team Leader advised the Committee that whilst there was no functional justification for an agricultural workers dwelling, the specific site and family circumstances meant the proposal could be considered acceptable due to local need.
Members were keen to support housing provision for workers in the agricultural industry, and due to the extenuating circumstances felt the application could be supported.
GRANT – Planning Permission
GRANT – Listed Building Consent
Note – Councillors Janette Jenkinson and Joss Curwen declared personal interests in the following item of business, by virtue of being acquainted with the applicant.
1.SL/2010/0082 MILNTHORPE: OS field 7684, agricultural building, near Highfield, Ackenthwaite. Alterations to agricultural building, hard surface area and access (retrospective). (Mr David Parsons)
Members were advised that Cumbria Highways had no objections to the scheme, but had recommended that an additional condition relating to access arrangements be applied.
The Development Control Team Leader reported that an additional letter of objection had been received. Concern raised related to the domestic appearance of the building, lighting, toilet provision and the position of the gate not being as per approved plans.
A discussion took place and some concern was expressed relating to the retrospective nature of the application. Members were keen to ensure that the building was used for agricultural purposes only.
Overall, the Committee felt that the alterations would not adversely affect the character of the area and the application could be supported.
GRANT – subject to the conditions detailed in the Schedule and an amendment to condition (2) to refer to ‘…otherwise let or occupied separately…’ and an additional condition to set gates back from the road.
4.SL/2010/0292 KIRKBY LONSDALE: Biggins Hall Farm Buildings, High Biggins, Kirkby Lonsdale. Change of use of buildings to Class B8
7 12 24.6.2010 Planning
(Storage/Distribution) (Mr Stephen Ross)
This application had been withdrawn prior to the meeting.
WITHDRAWN
Note – Andy Roe, Development Management Group Manager declared a personal and prejudicial interest in the following item of business, by virtue of being a member of Netherfield Sports Cricket Club and a Director of the County Football Association that had funded the development. He left the Chamber during the discussion and voting thereon.
Councillor Clive Graham declared a personal interest in the following item of business, by virtue of being acquainted with the applicant.
5.SL/2010/0347 KENDAL: Netherfield Cricket Club, Parkside Road, Kendal. Variation of Condition No.2 on Planning Permission SL/2008/0955 (re colour of roof sheeting) (Mr W Thompson)
Members were reminded that enforcement action to secure a more appropriate colour of roof sheeting had previously been authorised by the Committee. The application submitted for consideration sought formal consent to retain the light coloured roofing sheet.
Kendal Town Council had recommended the application be refused due to the detrimental impact on the surrounding Conservation Area and the Green Flag status of the Castle. They had requested that the sheeting be replaced with a suitable colour in keeping with the local vernacular.
The Planning Officer presented photograph images of the building and surrounding landscape. A discussion took place and overall it was felt that the colour of the roof sheeting was acceptable in this location.
GRANT – retrospective Planning Permission
P/020 CORPORATE DIRECTOR (COMMUNITIES) TO DETERMINE
RESOLVED – That the following applications be determined in the manner set out:-
6.SL/2010/0290 URSWICK: Land adjacent to Beckside Farm, Little Urswick, Ulverston. Agricultural building, loose boxes and ménage for Farrier business. (Mr C Milby)
Cumbria Highways had objected to the application on the basis of highway safety. They stated that the additional traffic generated by the application would be unacceptable.
The Environmental Protection Group had no objections to the proposal and reported that no complaints relating to the business had been logged with the department.
Some discussion took place regarding suitable conditions to manage the operation. Due to the agricultural nature of the
8 13 24.6.2010 Planning
business it was felt that a condition to stipulate working hours would be too restrictive. It was proposed that condition (4) detailed in the Schedule be removed.
Members welcomed the creation of employment opportunities and felt that the application was acceptable, subject to suitable restrictions.
The Corporate Director (Communities) be authorised to GRANT subject to conditions drafted but excluding condition (4) hours of operation, and an additional condition to cover external lighting details to be agreed.
7.SL/2010/0360 KENDAL: Recreational area between Vicars Fields and Long Close, Kendal. Recreational facilities and equipment. (Mrs Diane Horner)
The main issue for consideration was the location of the play equipment in relation to nearby residential properties.
Members were advised that six letters of objection had been received, the main issues raised related to loss of privacy, overlooking and general disturbance. Two letters of support had been received.
The Planning Officer updated the Committee on consultation responses received. Kendal Town Council welcomed the proposal and had recommended the scheme be approved. Fields in Trust recommended that play equipment be sited a minimum distance of 25 metres away from residential properties.
Consideration was given to photograph images of the equipment that had been erected. Members felt that a site visit would be beneficial in order to assess the proximity and relationship of the facilities to the nearby dwellings.
DEFER for site visit.
P/021 STRAIGHTFORWARD PLANNING APPLICATIONS
RESOLVED – That the following applications be determined in the manner set out:-
8.SL/2010/0210 KIRKBY LONSDALE: 2 Abbotsgate, Kirkby Lonsdale. Dormer window. (Mr Michael Burchnall)
The application was considered acceptable in terms of its appearance and impact on the amenities of nearby neighbours.
GRANT
9.SL/2010/0337 NEW HUTTON: Hawkrigg Hay, New Hutton, Kendal. Alterations to roof. (Mr & Mrs Andrew Robson)
The application had been brought to the Committee due to one of the applicants being an employee of the Council.
9 14 24.6.2010 Planning
Members felt the revised design of the proposal was acceptable, and unanimously elected to support the application.
GRANT
P/022 A QUARTERLY REPORT ON THE OUTSTANDING ENFORCEMENT CASELOAD BETWEEN 1 JANUARY 2004 AND 30 APRIL 2010
Members were presented with a report on enforcement activity between 1 January 2004 and 30 April 2010. A summary outlining the number of enforcement cases currently unresolved was provided for the Committee.
RESOLVED – That the report be noted.
P/023 A REPORT ON ENFORCEMENT ACTIVITY FROM 5 APRIL TO 30 APRIL 2010
Members were presented with a report on enforcement activity between 5 April to 30 April 2010. Eleven outstanding cases from the enforcement caseload had been resolved. Fourteen new complaints had been recorded and were being investigated, of which four had been resolved.
10.047 Woodland opposite Eggerslack Wood, Hampsfell Road, Grange–over Sands
It had been brought to the attention of the Council that a Yurt had been erected within the above woodland along with a charcoal burner. The owner of the land had been informed that this type of development was unacceptable and a small shed would be more suitable. However the Yurt had not been removed and the owner had informed the Planning Department that it would remain. Therefore, Members were requested to authorise all necessary enforcement powers to remove the Yurt.
10.124 Penny Bridge, Woodbine Cottage
A decking structure had been erected at the rear of Woodbine Cottage. The structure covered 90 % of the rear sloping garden. The middle tier incorporated a Jacuzzi and Sauna. Members were advised that the development was overbearing and unneighbourly due to the users of the decking having a direct line of site into windows of the adjacent property. Authorisation was sought to remove the decking.
10:44 Sunlight Laundry, Shap Road, Kendal
The Committee was advised that the 4 two-storey shipping containers had now been removed from the factory yard, and therefore this item could be removed from the schedule.
06:329 Land adjacent Bell Hall Farm, Head Cragg, Kirkby in Furness
Members requested that an update report be presented to the next Committee regarding the conditions that applied to the site.
10 15 24.6.2010 Planning
RESOLVED – That
(1) in respect of Case Ref 10:047 Woodland opposite Eggerslack Wood, Hampsfell Road, Grange-over-Sands, the Corporate Director (Monitoring Officer) be authorised to use all necessary powers to remove the Yurt;
(2) in respect of Case Ref 10.124 Penny Bridge, Woodbine Cottage, the Corporate Director (Monitoring Officer) be authorised to use all necessary powers to remove the decking;
(3) in respect of Case Ref10:44 Sunlight Laundry, Shap Road, Kendal, the item be removed from the Schedule; and
(4) in respect of Case Ref 06:329 Land adjacent Bell Hall Farm, Head Cragg, Kirkby in Furness an update report be presented to the next Committee meeting regarding conditions relevant to the site.
P/024 KENDAL: NETHERFIELD CRICKET CLUB, PARKSIDE ROAD, KENDAL
Arising out of consideration of planning application No.SL/2010/0347 (Minutes P/019 above), it was
RESOLVED – That enforcement action which had previously been authorised to secure a more appropriate colour of roof sheeting be rescinded (Case No 10.045 Minute P/134 (2009/10) refers)
P/025 APPLICATIONS CONSIDERED PREVIOUSLY BY THE PLANNING COMMITTEE AND DETERMINED BY THE STRATEGIC DIRECTOR (COMMUNITIES) BETWEEN 17 MAY AND 14 JUNE 2010
RESOLVED – That the report be noted.
P/026 APPEALS UPDATE AT 14 JUNE 2010
The Development Management Group Manager provided the Committee with an update regarding the receipt and determination of planning appeals.
Members were advised that Case Ref SL/2009/0831 Beetham: Grounds of Barcaldine Leighton Drive Slack Head had been dismissed.
With regards to Case Ref SL/2009/1034 Grange over Sands: KB’s Bar and Restaurant 76 Kentsford Road, the two dwellings had been allowed.
RESOLVED – That the report be noted.
P/027 CHAIRMAN’S ANNOUNCEMENT
Members were informed that the Development Management Group Manager was leaving the authority to take up a new post at the Lake District National Park. The Committee expressed their appreciation for his commitment and guidance over the years and wished him well for the future.
The meeting ended at 12.30 p.m.
11
12 AGENDA ITEM NO …………6………
SOUTH LAKELAND DISTRICT COUNCIL
From: Corporate Director (Communities) To: Planning Committee – 29 July 2010
REPORT OF CORPORATE DIRECTOR (COMMUNITIES)
PLANNING APPLICATIONS FOR DECISION Page No
Index
Schedule A - Complex planning applications 17 - 69
Schedule B - Planning applications where the Corporate Director None (Communities) is seeking authority to determine
Schedule C - Applications relating to Listed Buildings None
Schedule D - Advertisements None
Schedule E - Development by South Lakeland District Council and None Cumbria County Council
Schedule F - Straightforward planning applications 70 - 82
Schedule G - All other submissions None
Background papers relating to the subject matter of the report For all items the background papers are contained in the files listed in the second column of the schedule index.
Note: The background papers may be inspected at the offices of the Corporate Director (Communities), Lowther Street, Kendal, Cumbria
13
14 SOUTH LAKELAND DISTRICT COUNCIL PLANNING COMMITTEE – 29 JULY 2010
SCHEDULE REFERENCE SECTION SITE ADDRESS NUMBER NUMBER & PAGE No.
BARBON 7 SL/2010/0420 A (40 – 43) Yew Tree Farm 14 SL/2010/0481 A (64 -66) Howriggs, Casterton
EGTON WITH NEWLAND, MANSRIGGS & OSMOTHERLEY 4 SL/2010/0356 A (30 – 33) Moor House Farm, Broughton Beck 17 SL/2010/0361 F (76 – 79) land ID 1015, Plumpton, Newland
GRANGE over SANDS 3 SL/2010/0349 A (27 – 29) 22 Highfield Road 11 SL/2010/0456 A (53 – 56) 4 Sedgwick Court, Cart Lane
KENDAL 1 SL/2010/0333 A (17 – 22) Marvic Yard, Highgate 2 SL/2010/0343 A (23 – 26) 17 Windermere Road (FPA) and SL/2010/0417 (CAC) 9 SL/2010/0435 A (47 – 49) Boundary Bank, Boundary Bank Lane 18 SL/2010/0441 F (80 – 82) Glenside, Oxenholme 5 SL/2010/0360 A (34 – 36) Recreational area between Vicars Fields and Long Close
KIRKBY LONSDALE 8 SL/2010/0429 A (44 – 46) Queen Elizabeth School, Kendal Road
LOWER ALLITHWAITE 15 SL/2010/0489 A (67 – 69) Bankfield, Jack Hill, Allithwaite
MIDDLETON 13 SL/2010/0459 A (60 – 63) land at High Fellside
NEW HUTTON 16 SL/2010/0115 F (70 – 75) Hayclose, Hayclose Lane, New Hutton
PRESTON PATRICK 6 SL/2010/0405 A (37 – 39) The Mill, Millness, Crooklands
SKELSMERGH 12 SL/2010/0458 A (57 – 59) Field to east of Dodding Green, Mealbank
ULVERSTON 10 SL/2010/0447 A (50 – 52) Moor View, 43 Urswick Road
1 15
16 SCHEDULE A
Complex Planning Applications
SCHEDULE No: 1
SL/2010/0333 KENDAL: MARVIC YARD, HIGHGATE, KENDAL
PROPOSAL: ERECTION OF DWELLING
MR & MRS NIC and MONICA TWEDDELLl
29/07/2010 E351369 N492452
SUMMARY: A Planning Committee site visit will have allowed key assessment of the impact of this contemporary design on the special character of the Conservation Area.
KENDAL TOWN COUNCIL: Refuse on grounds of: - inappropriate design; - access problems; - inappropriate fronting onto Garth Heads.
CUMBRIA HIGHWAYS: No objections in principle. A minimum clearance of 2.6m is required between the highway surface and any overhang of the building. The dwelling occupants would need to take bins from the proposed integral store to the end of Garth Heads for collection. The Highway Authority would need to give technical approval to the retaining wall to Garth Heads and a road opening permit.
NATURAL ENGLAND: The proposal is unlikely to affect the River Kent SSSI / SAC. Recommend further bat survey to assess whether there is a need for revised mitigation in relation to the removal of the ivy clad ash tree. Breeding birds should not be disturbed during construction work and replacement nest sites may be needed.
17 OTHER: Two letters of support and one of objection have been received. One letter of support from an adjoining owner considers that the replacement of the unused garden with the proposed design of building would enhance the area and trusts that the applicants have allowed sufficient parking and manoeuvring space in Marvic Yard. A letter from owners of a property on Garth Heads commend the vehicle access from Marvic Yard and the interesting building but suggest that the new structure adjoining Garth Heads should not exceed the adjoining new property. They hope that the bulk of the access for construction works and the water supply will be from Marvic Yard rather than Garth Heads. The objector considers that the additional dwelling would bring congestion and discontent to Marvic Court and that wildlife gardens should be preserved on ecological and amenity grounds.
HISTORICAL CONTEXT: Work is nearing completion on the implementation of a planning permission for residential development on the adjoining site to the north on Garth Heads Lane. There is a more recent permission for a new dwelling on the opposite side of the lane to the south of this site. In both cases key considerations before the grants of planning permission were the impacts of potential traffic on the narrow lane and the impact on its distinctive historic and architectural character. The current residential range in Marvic Yard results from redevelopment in the 1980’s.
DESCRIPTION AND PROPOSAL: The site is in the heart of the town being part of one of the medieval, long plots running back from the frontage property on Highgate to the Garth Heads Lane which separates them from the Castle Howe and provides a pedestrian link between Beast Banks and Captain French Lane. It is only the northernmost group of properties on Garth Heads close to the junction with Beast Banks which have vehicle accesses. The existing attractive residential properties in Marvic Yard are situated on the gently sloping portion of the long plot to the rear of the frontage range and they benefit from a vehicle access from New Inn Yard to the north. At the western end of the plot the land rises very steeply in terraces to Garth Heads Lane and is divided from the latter by a high stone wall with a closed pedestrian door. It is this communal garden area between the wall and the existing Yard parking area which forms the application site. At present there are a crab apple, a hawthorn and a yew tree, which are not visible from outside the Yard, and an ash which can be seen from beyond the boundary wall to the Lane. The ash has been identified in a submitted report as suffering from some decay in its lower stem and base and showing signs of crown die back which do not indicate a long life expectancy. It is proposed to remove the four trees and build a two-bedroomed house split over six levels. Vehicle access to an additional parking space and bike store would be via Marvic Yard rather than Garth Heads Lane as would be the new sewer connections. To minimize disturbance to the Lane it is proposed to keep the existing boundary/retaining wall to the Lane and the
18 retaining wall to the highest terrace level and the new structural walls for the house would be erected around them. At the parking level in the Yard there would only be a pedestrian door in a new high, stone faced retaining wall supporting a new garden area overlooked by a small garden room, with a planted roof, on the northern boundary. To the rear of this garden would rise another two storey stone wall housing underbuild and above that one of the bedrooms, shower-room and utility space. The two levels above this would be stepped back again behind an open terrace enclosed by the top of the retaining wall. These levels would provide the main accommodation with the upper level corresponding to the level of Garth Heads Lane and having three pedestrian doors through the existing stone wall onto the Lane. The eastern walls of the upper levels overlooking the Yard and across the town to Castle Hill would be finished in a light coloured render. The boundary wall to the Lane would be raised to provide internally a small study in a modern form of the traditional garden-end summer houses of Kendal. Overall the design would be contemporary. The roof slopes would be of slate with the gable walls to the Lane and to the east but with split ridges giving an asymmetric, stepped roof which would also feature broad overhangs of the walls, giving a sculptured effect. The scale and massing on the east elevation would be emphasised by large window openings the heads of which would follow the angle of the roof slope. The western wall to the Lane, in addition to the door openings to the house, the garden and a bin store, would have only two narrow windows reminiscent of barn ventilation slits. Three solar panels are proposed on the south roof slope.
POLICY ISSUES: The site is within the Kendal Conservation Area. Saved Policy C16 of the South Lakeland Local Plan reflects the statutory duty of the Local Planning Authority to have special regard to the desirability of preserving or enhancing the character of a Conservation Area. The advice of Planning Policy Statement 5 is also relevant. Saved Policy H4 of the South Lakeland Local Plan supports small-scale residential development in Kendal providing it does not remove important open space. The Core Strategy of the emerging Local Development Framework does not require either local occupancy or affordable occupancy conditions for developments of a single dwelling within Kendal. Pedestrian and vehicle safety are of relevance. Saved Policy L10 of the South Lakeland Local Plan would not allow development which disrupts or adversely affects the character of public rights of way. Saved Policy C10 of the South Lakeland Local Plan guards against adverse impacts on protected species. Saved Policies C6 and C7 of the South Lakeland Local Plan protect nationally and internationally designated sites of natural conservation importance. Neighbourliness in relation to adjoining uses should be considered.
HUMAN RIGHTS ACT: This application has been determined to accord with the rights and limitations of the Act in relation to Article 6 (Right to a fair and public hearing), Article 8 (Right to 19 respect for private and family life, home and correspondence), Article 14 (Prohibition of discrimination) and Article 1 of Protocol 1 (Right to peaceful enjoyment of possessions and protection of property).
ASSESSMENT: The principle of an additional dwelling within the town is acceptable. This small scale development of a garden site is a significant distance from the River Kent SSSI / SAC and thus unlikely to have any impact upon it. Mitigation is possible in relation to bats and nesting birds. The arrangement of vehicle access and drainage from Highgate and retention of the existing boundary wall to Garth Heads Lane should avoid any detriment to pedestrian safety and amenity on that Lane. The Highway Authority has no objection to the additional use of the access from Highgate to serve one dwelling. The development in its massing, bulk and arrangement of windows appears neighbourly. The key assessment of the acceptability or otherwise of the proposal is therefore the impact on the special architectural and historic character of the Conservation Area. With regard to this the impacts on Garth Heads, from Marvic Yard and other properties immediately to the east and in wider views from across the town and Castle Hill need to be considered. The materials of the proposed development are traditional but the form, massing and other detailing are contemporary. From immediately to the east the arrangement of terraces and retaining walls successfully reflects the traditional tiered development and materials. The upper walls correspond to the materials of other buildings in the locality and the overall massing and materials break the bulk of the development. The terracing retains elements of greenery and the loss of the three small trees and poor ash tree would not be detrimental to the character of the area. The contemporary design within the screened yard setting and not directly adjoining the traditional building range would add positive interest and liveliness without detracting from the adjoining buildings. These same features of the proposal would also benefit the impact in the more distant views from the east. The proposed building would sit acceptably in the pattern of historic development viewed from the vantage points to the east. The impact on the character of Garth Heads Lane needs particularly careful consideration because of the very simple, almost rural character of the Lane dominated by the continuous, historic garden wall on the east and the wooded slopes of Castle Howe to the west. Recent developments on the Lane, to the north of this site and at the Brewery Arts Centre have respected this character minimizing the development rising above the level of the garden wall. This development has the study area projecting above the garden wall but it would be a relatively small feature in the context of the overall Lane and could be seen as an interesting, modern addition in the tradition of the eighteenth and nineteenth century summerhouses found in Kendal. Overall the distinctive, contemporary appearance, designed to reflect the key characteristics of its conservation area context, is considered to preserve and enhance the architectural and historic character while presenting a good example of modern architecture of greater value than would be provided by a mere pastiche of a traditional building. A Planning Committee site visit will have assisted Councillors with their key assessments of these aspects.
20 RECOMMENDATION: GRANT subject to:- Condition (1) The development hereby permitted shall be commenced before the expiration of THREE YEARS from the date hereof. Reason (1) To comply with the requirements of Section 91 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 as amended by Section 51 of the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004. Condition (2) The development shall be strictly in accordance with the submitted levels or such other levels as have been previously submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. Reason (2) To avoid an over-prominent development which could be detrimental to the special architectural and historic character of this part of the Kendal Conservation Area and thereby contrary to Saved Policy C16 of the South Lakeland Local Plan. Condition (3) A sample panel of the proposed external facing materials shall be erected on the site for the further written approval by the Local Planning Authority and this approval shall be obtained before any of the superstructure is erected. This panel shall be of sufficient size to indicate the method of jointing and coursing to be used. Reason (3) To ensure that the special architectural and historic character of this part of the Kendal Conservation Area is preserved and enhanced by the external materials and their manner of use and thereby to accord with Saved Policy C16 of the South Lakeland Local Plan. Condition (4) The roof shall be covered with slate being green / blue / grey in colour and of similar texture to those mined within the County of Cumbria a sample of which shall be submitted to and agreed in writing with the Local Planning Authority before any development work commences on site. Reason (4) To ensure that the special architectural and historic character of this part of the Kendal Conservation Area is preserved and enhanced by the roofing material and thereby to accord with Saved Policy C16 of the South Lakeland Local Plan. Condition (5) There shall be no means of vehicular access to the development hereby permitted from Garth Heads Lane. Reason (5) To avoid dangers of vehicle traffic and loss of amenity to pedestrians using the Lane, a Public Right of Way, and thus according with Saved Policy L10 of the South Lakeland Local Plan. Condition (6) This permission shall not be deemed to confer any right to obstruct the Public Right of Way abutting the western boundary of the site. Reason (6) To avoid interference with a Public Right of Way.
21 Condition (7) The development shall take place in accordance with the submitted schemes of mitigation of impacts on bats and birds. Reason (7) To avoid detriment arising from the development to Protected Species and thus to accord with Saved Policy C10 of the South Lakeland Local Plan.
REASON FOR GRANTING PLANNING PERMISSION: The development would preserve and enhance the special character of this part of the Kendal Conservation Area in accord with Saved Policy C16 of the South Lakeland Local Plan and would moreover be in accordance with the Core Strategy of the emerging Local Development Framework and Saved Policies H4, L10, C6, C7 and C10 of the South Lakeland Local Plan.
22 SCHEDULE A
Complex Planning Applications
SCHEDULE No: 2
SL/2010/0343 (FPA) and SL/2010/0417 (CAC) KENDAL: 17 WINDERMERE ROAD, KENDAL
PROPOSAL: ALTERATIONS AND EXTENSION TO FORM 5 DWELLINGS WITH ASSOCIATED CAR PARKING AND ACCESS 29/07/2010 COLIN DOULSON E351209.2 N493263.4
SUMMARY: Infilling the gap site and restoring the existing property will enhance the Conservation Area. A Committee site visit will have assisted assessment of neighbourliness.
KENDAL TOWN COUNCIL: Refuse. Over-intensive and no outside space.
CUMBRIA HIGHWAYS: Broadly acceptable. Recommend conditions in relation to boundary wall to highway not exceeding 600 mm to aid visibility along the steep Windermere Road, provision of visibility splays, access / parking / turning as on submitted plans and to detailed standards.
CIVIC SOCIETY: No objection but suggest a chimney be added to the extension to correspond to the roofline of the existing property. We presume the developer is aware of the current state of the retaining wall above the housing in Strickland Court.
OTHER: Ten objections have been received from owners and occupiers of the adjoining dwellings in Strickland Court. All express fears that the development would have a detrimental effect on the structural safety of the high wall on the common boundary which acts as a retaining wall for the application site lying at a much higher level.
23 Nine of the letters also refer to the oppressive effect and loss of light arising from a two storey building erected at the higher level and three also refer to a loss of privacy from overlooking. Five have concerns about the detrimental impact of the further traffic on Windermere Road and the same number think that there is insufficient on- site parking. Four view the development as over-intensive and two believe that it would not preserve or enhance the special character of the Conservation Area. Three mention past problems with drains on Strickland Court which take drainage from further up Windermere Rd.
DESCRIPTION AND PROPOSAL: The site fronts onto the northern side of Windermere Road on the town centre side of its junction with Queens Road and Green Road. The west of the site is currently occupied by a nineteenth century, once domestic, building and to its rear is a modern, double garage. In a gap resulting from past demolition on the east side of the site is a car park. The development beyond the site on the east, Strickland Court, is at a much lower level and on the boundary a high stone wall retains the higher land of the application site. The main building on the site has been used in recent years as offices served by the car park and garage. That use has re-located. The adjoining property is all residential in use. The application proposes the conversion of the stone frontage building into a pair of semi-detached, two-bedroomed cottages. As part of the conversion timber sash windows would be restored to the existing window openings. In addition a proposed two storey extension to the existing building would be fitted within the open frontage of the current car park eastwards to within 2.3 -2.4 metre of the side boundary with Strickland Court. Immediately adjoining the gable of the existing building a vehicle passageway would give access through the new building to the space at the rear of the site. The extension would accommodate three cottages each with two bedrooms. The roof would be slated and the walls of the new structure rendered but otherwise the arrangement and design of windows and doors would reflect the restored, existing building. At the rear it is proposed to demolish the modern garage so as to provide garden space, bin stores and six open parking spaces. Existing trees are proposed to be retained at the rear of the site. There would be garden on either side of the vehicle access between the building frontage and the front boundary wall which would be lowered to meet the advice of the Highway Authority. On the new east gable wall facing the boundary with Strickland Court would be a kitchen window, entrance door and secondary window to a living room. Above, at first floor level, would be a bathroom window and secondary windows to two bedrooms.
POLICY ISSUES: The site is within Kendal Conservation Area. Saved Policy C16 of the South Lakeland Local Plan reflects the statutory duty of the Local Planning Authority to have special regard to the desirability of preserving or enhancing the character of a Conservation Area. The advice of Planning Policy Statement 5 is relevant. Saved Policy H4 of the South Lakeland Local Plan supports small-scale residential development in Kendal providing it does not remove important open space.
24 The Core Strategy of the emerging Local Development Framework does not require the provision of local or affordable housing on this scale of housing development within Kendal. Saved Policy E6 of the South Lakeland Local Plan allows the change of use of employment premises where the existing or proposed use is unneighbourly or the firm would move to a more viable location. While neighbourliness in terms of invasion of privacy and excessive enclosure can be a material planning issue, the potential impact on the structural integrity of the retaining wall between this and the adjoining property is a private legal matter.
HUMAN RIGHTS ACT: This application has been determined to accord with the rights and limitations of the Act in relation to Article 6 (Right to a fair and public hearing), Article 8 (Right to respect for private and family life, home and correspondence), Article 14 (Prohibition of discrimination) and Article 1 of Protocol 1 (Right to peaceful enjoyment of possessions and protection of property).
ASSESSMENT: The development would accord with Policy H4 and the Core Strategy. The loss of employment premises would not be contrary to Policy E6 as the conversion is facilitating the move to more viable premises. The residential use would harmonize with the residential character of the surrounding area. The Highway Authority does not object to the proposal. The development would preserve and enhance the special architectural and historic character of the Conservation Area by restoring the traditional character of the existing main building and restoring, in sympathetic design, the original terraced frontage to the highway in place of the poor looking car park in a demolition gap. The modern garage which it is proposed to demolish has no special architectural or historic merit and is screened by other buildings from public view. There is thus no objection to its removal. The trees at the rear of the site do not have any great amenity merit and would be largely screened from view by the new building range and would thus not merit a Tree Preservation Order or special conditions. However it is not proposed to remove the trees. It must be assessed whether the proposed development would be unneighbourly in its bulk or overlooking of the Strickland Court property. A high retaining wall already separates the application site from those dwellings and it is considered that the juxtaposition and difference in levels is such that the additional building work on the application site would not be detrimental in its impact. This same relationship would make any overlooking at an exceedingly awkward angle but it has been suggested to the agent that the secondary bedroom windows on the gable wall be omitted. A Committee site visit will have assisted assessment of these aspects. Overall the proposal is considered acceptable.
25 RECOMMENDATION: 1) Planning permission be GRANTED subject to a satisfactory conclusion to negotiations over the secondary windows, subject to conditions relating to the following: (1) standard time limit; (2) materials of walls, roofs and windows; (3) finished levels.
REASON FOR GRANTING PLANNING PERMISSION: The development would preserve and enhance the special architectural and historic character of this part of the Kendal Conservation Area thereby according with Saved Policy C16 of the South Lakeland Local Plan. It would moreover accord with Saved Policies H4 and E6 of the South Lakeland Local Plan and the Core Strategy of the emerging Local Development Framework. Given the difference in existing levels the development is not considered unneighbourly to adjoining development to the east. (2) Listed Building Consent be GRANTED subject to: (1) standard time limit.
REASON FOR GRANTING CONSERVATION AREA CONSENT: The modern garage has no architectural or historic merit and its demolition would preserve and enhance the special character of this part of the Kendal Conservation Area in accord with Saved Policy C16 of the South Lakeland Local Plan and the advice of Planning Policy Statement 5.
26 SCHEDULE A
Complex Planning Applications
SCHEDULE No: 3
SL/2010/0349 GRANGE OVER SANDS: 22 HIGHFIELD ROAD, GRANGE over SANDS
PROPOSAL: RAISING ROOF TO FORM FIRST FLOOR ANCILLARY ACCOMMODATION IN DETACHED OUTBUILDING
MR K DALE and MS C WILDE 29/07/2010 E340355.6 N477684.8
SUMMARY: The proposal would result in a significant amount of accommodation in a position divorced from the main house. This raises concerns with regard to the proposed ancillary use and potential impact on the substandard access and junction. Amendments are being sought to reduce the amount of accommodation and the height of the structure.
GRANGE over SANDS TOWN COUNCIL: The applicant should be asked to re-submit the application as a separate dwelling. If this is not carried out the application should be refused on the grounds that the proposal does not appear to meet a reasonable definition of ancillary accommodation and there are no details of foul drainage.
OTHER: Letters of objection has been received from the occupiers of three of the properties which bound the site. Reasons for objection include: • the size and scale of the proposed structure would be over bearing and dominant in relation to the house at 16 Highfield Road which is at a lower level with various windows looking toward the site; • the scale and design would not be in keeping with the site and nearby conservation area; • the access is unsuitable and it is questioned whether conditions requiring the accommodation to be ancillary could be effectively monitored;
27 • increased noise and disturbance.
HISTORICAL CONTEXT: An application to demolish the garage and erect a house on the site was submitted in 2005. The application was withdrawn following objections from the Highways Authority with regard to the potential increase in traffic using the access from Grange Fell Road and the relationship of the site to the surrounding protected woodland. Planning permission was granted in 2005 for extensions and alterations to the main house and creation of a new access and drive from Highfield Road.
DESCRIPTION AND PROPOSAL: The site is located off Highfield Road, Grange-over-Sands. The main house has been extended and an access drive provided from Highfield Road. The garage subject to this application is located to the rear of the site adjacent to an access drive from Grange Fell Road. The garage is in an elevated position above the access drive and the main house. There are two residential properties to the east of the site both at a lower level. No.16 Highfield Road is set approximately 2m below the level of the garage. The house has a conservatory and various windows facing toward the site. There is another property to the north of the site, this is screened by trees along the boundary. It is proposed to add a pitched roof over the existing flat roof double garage to provide two double bedrooms, a shower room and kitchenette within the roof space. The proposal would increase the height of the garage from 3m to 5.9m. The scheme includes an external staircase.
POLICY ISSUES: Policy S2 of the South Lakeland Local Plan requires that development is of a design and uses materials appropriate to the surroundings.
HUMAN RIGHTS ACT: This application has been determined to accord with the rights and limitations of the Act in relation to Article 6 (Right to a fair and public hearing), Article 8 (Right to respect for private and family life, home and correspondence), Article 14 (Prohibition of discrimination) and Article 1 of Protocol 1 (Right to peaceful enjoyment of possessions and protection of property).
ASSESSMENT: While the main house appears large, the property contains only three bedrooms and the applicants wish to provide additional space for visiting family. As the garage is in need of re-roofing, the applicants are of the opinion that using space created by adding a pitch roof would be most appropriately used to provide the additional space needed. The proposal will create a significant amount of living space above the garage. The main concern relates to the use of this accommodation and the potential impact on the access from Highfield Road. Accommodation of the size proposed could be used as a small separate dwelling, particularly in conjunction with the space in the garage 28 below. The proximity of the access from Grange Fell Road and the divorced position from the main house also result in accommodation which would not be easily linked. As the junction of the access drive with Grange Fell Road is severely restricted in terms of the width and visibility onto the road. Any increase in use of this access would create further hazards at the junction. The proposed roof has been amended during the course of the application. The revised scheme would present a sloping roof away from the facing property at 16 Highfield Road. The resulting building would measure 3 metres to the eaves and 5.9 metres to the ridge at a distance of approximately 18m from the house. A building of this size and at this distance does not seem unreasonable. However, the existing structure does dominate the conservatory at 16 Highfield Road due to its significantly lower level and the proposed roof will exacerbate this impact. The garage is in need of re-roofing and provision of a pitch roof would improve the appearance. Negotiations are taking place with the applicant with regard to providing a roof of a scale which would be appropriate in terms of the impact on 16 Highfield Road and the amount of accommodation proposed. If these issues can be resolved, conditions to ensure that the space may only be used as ancillary accommodation to the main house could be attached to any planning permission.
RECOMMENDATION: The Corporate Director (Communities) to report on the progress of negotiations to reduce the scale of the accommodation to be provided.
29 SCHEDULE A
Complex Planning Applications
SCHEDULE No: 4
SL/2010/0356 OSMOTHERLY: MOOR HOUSE FARM, BROUGHTON BECK, ULVERSTON
PROPOSAL: CONVERSION OF REDUNDANT BARNS TO FORM THREE DWELLINGS AND RENOVATION AND EXTENSION TO EXISTING FARMHOUSE (RESUBMISSION OF SL/2010/0006) 29/07/2010 E326820 N482679 MR AND MRS A R EDMONDSON
SUMMARY: Proposed conversion of redundant farm buildings to form three dwellings and alterations and extensions to former farmhouse. Issue regarding private water supply and securing independent source.
OSMOTHERLEY PARISH COUNCIL: Although the Parish Council has no concerns regarding the design of the scheme, there is grave concerns being expressed by other users of the water supply who are of the opinion that the quantity of the water being supplied by the springs will not be sufficient to cater for the increased households on the site.
CUMBRIA HIGHWAYS: The proposed improvement of the road junction must be implemented as a condition of approval. The proposed new gate across the bridleway requires separate consent from the Rights of Way Officer.
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION GROUP (SLDC): To be reported.
NATURAL ENGLAND: To be reported.
30 OTHER: Two letters of comment have been received from neighbouring residents who have no objection to the development providing it can be demonstrated that the water supply to the three properties at Netherhouses will not suffer as a result. A quantitative assessment of the sources of the supply and the current demand on the Netherhouses line is considered essential.
DESCRIPTION AND PROPOSAL: Moor House farm is located in an isolated position in open elevated countryside approximately 4 km to the north of Ulverston. It is accessed via a private driveway from a minor road to the east of Broughton Beck. The nearest neighbouring properties are a small group of dwellings and farmstead approximately ½ km to the south east at Netherhouses. A bridleway crosses through the site between the farmhouse and barns. The site comprises a farm house which is currently rented and a group of traditional and modern farm buildings. The barns consist of three attached stone built barns in an L formation, a more modern part block, part stone built barn and two modern steel framed buildings. The original roofs of the stone barns have been previously removed and modified to incorporate mono pitched sheeted roofs. Farming operations at the site ceased approximately two years ago and the business was split between neighbouring farms at Hawkswell and Netherhouses. The proposal involves the conversion of the stone barns to form one 4 bedroomed and two 2 bedroomed dwellings. The pitched slated roofs would be reinstated together with some stonework on the upper section of the walls where they have been lowered. Existing openings would be utilised as well as the creation of additional door and window openings and external render removed to expose the original stonework. An attached garage with eaves accommodation above would be constructed on the site of a lean-to store on the larger unit. The remaining modern buildings would be removed and replaced with walled garden areas to serve the units and formal parking areas. The scheme also includes the extension and alteration of the detached former farmhouse, including the construction of a two storey extension to one side of the property and a single storey lean-to extension to the other. A detached double garage would be constructed to the rear and a new walled garden and parking area established to serve the property. Three new sewage treatment plants would be installed on the site to serve the proposed development. A structural report has been submitted which indicates that there is no evidence of settlement or lateral movement of the barns. However there is some displacement at the head of the walls at eaves level. It concludes that there are no major reconstruction works required apart from realigning the roofs back to dual pitch and the removal of modern blockwork, and the buildings are capable of conversion to habitable accommodation. A bat and barn owl survey report has also been submitted which indicated that there is evidence of a bat roost in the farmhouse roof and bat activity in the locality. The report recommends that the re-roofing of the farmhouse should be completed during the October to March period to avoid disturbing the roost, and that conservation
31 roosts be incorporated into the new roof ridge and into the roofs of the barn conversions. The mature trees to the west of the house should also be retained as they provide the only feeding area for bats in this exposed area. No evidence of Barn owls was found on the site. The site is served by a private water supply which also serves three properties at Netherhouses including a working farm. Some details of the private water supply were submitted with the application, however in view of the concerns that have been raised, the Council’s Environmental Protection manager has advised that the applicants establish a new borehole on the site to secure a new independent supply to serve the development. Details of proposed improvements to the junction of the minor road serving Moor House farm and Hawkswell farm with the B5281 Gawthwaite Road have also been submitted in discussion with the Highways Authority.
POLICY ISSUES: Planning Policy Statement 3 (PPS 3) – Housing requires Local Planning Authority’s to demonstrate that appropriate measures are introduced to improve housing land supply. Paragraph 71 of PPS3 states that where Local Planning Authorities cannot demonstrate an up to date 5 year supply of deliverable sites they should consider favourably planning applications for housing of an appropriate scale and in sustainable locations. Policy H12 of the South Lakeland Local Plan relates to the conversion of buildings outside development boundaries and sets out the criteria against which such proposals should be judged. This policy was reinstated in July 2008 on the basis that the dwellings provided should be for local occupancy.
HUMAN RIGHTS ACT: This application has been determined to accord with the rights and limitations of the Act in relation to Article 6 (Right to a fair and public hearing), Article 8 (Right to respect for private and family life, home and correspondence), Article 14 (Prohibition of discrimination) and Article 1 of Protocol 1 (Right to peaceful enjoyment of possessions and protection of property).
ASSESSMENT: The principle of converting the barns to local occupancy dwellings is appropriate for this site and the general form and design of the scheme is acceptable. The main issue in this case relates to the private water supply. The applicants have engaged a specialist consultant to investigate installing a new borehole. A further report has been submitted detailing this proposal and this has been forwarded onto the EPG officer and neighbouring residents. The outcome of this consultation will be reported at the meeting. Subject to the approval of the proposed water supply, the scheme is recommended for approval.
32 RECOMMENDATION: The Corporate Director (Communities) requests delegated authority to approve the application subject to the satisfactory resolution of the water supply and subject to the following conditions: (1) standard time limit; (2) Materials; (3) local occupancy condition; (4) no development before installation of fresh water system; (5) control of foul water; (6) definition of curtilage; (7) car parking provision maintained; (8) withdraw PD rights.
REASON FOR GRANTING PLANNING PERMISSION The proposal is in accordance with material considerations set out in the Planning System : General Principles national and local policies as set out in Planning Policy Statement 3 – Housing, and Saved Policy H12 of the South Lakeland Local Plan. The issues relating to water supply are a material planning consideration and, in reaching the decision to approve the proposal, have been carefully weighed against all relevant policy considerations.
33 SCHEDULE A
Complex Planning Applications
SCHEDULE No: 5
SL/2010/0360 KENDAL: RECREATIONAL AREA BETWEEN, VICARS FIELDS AND LONG CLOSE, KENDAL
PROPOSAL: RECREATIONAL FACILITIES AND EQUIPMENT
MRS DIANE HORNER
29/07/2010 E351101 N491831
SUMMARY: The issue to be resolved is whether a particular item of play equipment has been sited so close to one of the Vicarage Drive properties that its use is causing disturbance and loss of privacy to an unacceptable degree.
KENDAL TOWN COUNCIL: Approve and welcome additional facilities for young people.
PARKS AND LEISURE CLIENT OFFICER: Fields in Trust, formerly the National Playing Fields Association, recommend a minimum distance of 25 metres between play equipment and the nearest habitable rooms of neighbouring residential properties.
OTHER: Six letters of objection have been received. The main grounds of complaint can be summarised as follows: • One particular piece of equipment has been installed in a position where it causes a loss of privacy for a neighbouring resident on Vicarage Drive. • The equipment already installed is massive and obtrusive; it is too close to property boundaries on Vicarage Drive and constitutes a gross intrusion of privacy. • This application removes the right to privacy contained in the Human Rights legislation from a large number of people who do not want the open space
34 made into a play area / place for yobs to congregate. • The installation of play equipment encourages unsocial behaviour.
• Teenagers cause disturbance through their unsocial behaviour and cause upset to neighbouring residents. • The equipment intended for smaller children will be a target for vandals.
• It is a mistake to spend a great deal of money on play equipment that will be vandalized. • The open area between Vicarage Drive and Vicars Fields is a valuable piece of open land and a rare grassed area in the town.
Two letters supporting the installation of play equipment have been received.
HISTORICAL CONTEXT: Planning permission was granted at the January meeting of the Planning Committee for the installation of recreational facilities and play equipment. In granting permission, the Committee instructed that the Council’s Strategic Partnerships and Performance Manager be asked to give consideration to the designation of the area as a public place in relation to the consumption of alcohol under the Criminal Justice and Police Act 2001. The response was that such a designation would not be justified at the present time as the area has not been flagged by community police officers as currently experiencing alcohol-related nuisance. Further consideration can be given, however, once the play equipment has been installed and monitored for a period of six to twelve months. Work has commenced on the installation of the play equipment but some items have not been positioned in the locations approved by the planning permission. The Residents’ Association was advised that a revised planning application should be submitted. Consideration of this application was deferred at last month’s Committee meeting to enable Members to visit the site to see the relationship between the play equipment and the neighbouring Vicarage Drive properties.
DESCRIPTION AND PROPOSAL: This relatively substantial area of open space is bounded by Vicarage Drive to the west, Vicars Fields to the south east and Long Close / Echo Barn Hill to the north. There is a smaller are of open space to the south. Some 24 items of play equipment are to be provided together with picnic tables, benches, a shelter and, in the centre of the site, a cycle track. Particular concern has been expressed by neighbouring residents over the siting of a climbing frame, known as “Crest Urban”, behind Vicarage Drive.
POLICY ISSUES: The site is allocated as important open space in the South Lakeland Local Plan. Saved Policy S4 of the Local Plan protects areas of important open space from development and states that: 35 Development proposals will not be permitted on important open space in the district’s towns and villages. Exceptions to this policy will only be considered where the proposal is for the extension, redevelopment or refurbishment of educational, community or recreational facilities. In addition, Saved Local Plan Policy L1, on the subject of playing fields and recreational facilities states that: All playing fields and other formal and informal recreational land and facilities (public and private) will be protected from development, unless: (a) the development is ancillary to the recreational use of the area; or
(b) a suitable replacement facility is provided in an accessible location within the same area of need or demand; or (c) conclusive evidence indicates that the need for the facility no longer exists, with reference to existing national standards, the level of provision in the catchment area and the needs of local clubs and sporting associations.
HUMAN RIGHTS ACT: This application has been determined to accord with the rights and limitations of the Act in relation to Article 6 (Right to a fair and public hearing), Article 8 (Right to respect for private and family life, home and correspondence), Article 14 (Prohibition of discrimination) and Article 1 of Protocol 1 (Right to peaceful enjoyment of possessions and protection of property).
ASSESSMENT: At the January meeting of the Planning Committee, Members accepted that this area of open space between the Kirkbarrow and Vicarage Park housing developments is suitable for the installation of play equipment and more formal recreational facilities. The major planning issue raised is whether certain items of equipment are, or will be, too close to residential properties on Vicarage Drive and Vicars Field thus leading to a loss of privacy and nuisance by reason of noise and disturbance for the occupiers of those properties. Particular concern has been expressed over the positioning of the climbing frame behind the Vicarage Drive properties.
RECOMMENDATION: The Corporate Director (Communities) will report on the issues raised at the site visit with particular reference to the position of the “Crest Urban” climbing frame in relation to the neighbouring houses.
36 SCHEDULE A
Complex Planning Applications
SCHEDULE No: 6
SL/2010/0405 PRESTON PATRICK: THE MILL, MILLNESS, CROOKLANDS, MILNTHORPE
PROPOSAL: EXTENSION OF TIME CONDITION ON PLANNING PERMISSION SL/2005/0497 (CONVERSION OF OFFICES INTO THREE SELF- CATERING HOLIDAY 29/07/2010 UNITS) E353462 N482899
MR DANIEL TOMLINSON
SUMMARY: A significant change in circumstances since the planning permission was granted leads to a recommendation that consent be refused to extend the time period for the implementation of the planning permission in question. Refuse.
PRESTON PATRICK PARISH COUNCIL: No objection.
CUMBRIA HIGHWAYS: No objection.
ENVIRONMENT AGENCY: To be reported.
OTHER: Three letters of objection have been received. The main grounds of objection can be summarised as follows: • neighbouring householders will suffer from loss of privacy, noise and general disturbance; • increased traffic movements through the hamlet of Millness;
37 • an additional three holiday units in this small rural community would appear excessive and would over-develop the area.
HISTORICAL CONTEXT: Planning permission was granted in July 2005 for the conversion of the building in question into three holiday units. Following a planning permission granted in 1992, the building, a former barn, was in use as offices; a use which continues today. The 2005 planning permission has not been implemented and this current application seeks consent to extend the time limit for implementation.
DESCRIPTION AND PROPOSAL: The site itself is within the hamlet of Millness and comprises a former barn now used by a management training company and a car park. Attached to the offices is a residential property, Mill House. At the time of the 2005 planning permission both the application building and Mill House were under the same ownership. This, however, is no longer the case; Mill House is now under separate ownership to the attached building. The 2005 planning permission allowed the conversion of the offices into three self-contained holiday units. One of the units would contain three bedrooms; the remainder two bedrooms.
POLICY ISSUES: Saved Policy E6 of the South Lakeland Local Plan seeks to prevent the loss of employment premises unless the existing use is unneighbourly or it would enable the company to move to more suitable premises in the vicinity. Saved Policy T4 of the Local Plan states that, outside development boundaries, proposals for the conversion of traditional buildings and barns, to self-catering accommodation will be permitted where the following criteria are satisfied: (a) details of design, layout, parking and access arrangements are satisfactory and appropriate to holiday accommodation; (b) significant architectural or historic features are safeguarded; (c) the proposal will not give rise to the erection of new or replacement buildings which would be detrimental to the landscape and amenity of the area; (d) the applicant enters into a planning obligation or the permission is subject to a condition limiting the accommodation to self-catering holiday use only; and (e) it will not lead to the generation of inappropriate levels of traffic and recreational use in the open countryside.
The protection of residential amenity is a recognised material consideration in the determination of planning applications.
HUMAN RIGHTS ACT: This application has been determined to accord with the rights and limitations of the Act in relation to Article 6 (Right to a fair and public hearing), Article 8 (Right to
38 respect for private and family life, home and correspondence), Article 14 (Prohibition of discrimination) and Article 1 of Protocol 1 (Right to peaceful enjoyment of possessions and protection of property).
ASSESSMENT: The fact that Mill House is no longer under the same ownership as the application building represents a significant and material change in circumstances. The presence of three holiday units so close to a residential property would not be acceptable. They would be likely to be the source of unreasonable nuisance, disturbance and loss of privacy to the occupants of Mill House. As a consequence, the extension of the time limit for the implementation of the 2005 planning permission cannot be supported.
RECOMMENDATION: REFUSE for the reason below: Since the planning permission was granted in 2005 for the conversion of the building into three holiday units there has been a material change in circumstances in that Mill House is now under separate ownership. The change of use is not now acceptable or appropriate for the reason that the holiday units would be likely to be the source of unreasonable nuisance, disturbance and loss of privacy to the occupants of Mill House.
39 SCHEDULE A
Complex Planning Applications
SCHEDULE No: 7
SL/2010/0420 BARBON: YEW TREE FARM, BARBON,
PROPOSAL: ALTERATIONS AND EXTENSION OF DWELLING; ALTERATION AND EXTENSION OF OUTBUILDING TO FORM DWELLING; ERECTION OF TWO STOREY DWELLING WITH DETACHED GARAGE AND INSTALLATION OF 29/07/2010 SEPTIC TANK E362779.8 N482410.6
MR A BURTON
SUMMARY: The extension of the existing house and the erection of the two new houses represents an appropriate form of development for this brownfield site near to the village centre. Grant.
BARBON PARISH COUNCIL: The Council object to the proposals on the grounds that there is no affordable or local occupancy property included.
The development is for 3 properties (though it is acknowledged that only 2 are "new"). The Proposed Submission Core Strategy to the SLDC Local Development Framework published in August 2009 summarises the affordable housing / local occupancy requirements and states that for 3 proposed homes that 1 is required to be affordable and 1 is required to be for local occupancy.
Council would also wish to draw attention to the following extract from its 2005 Parish Plan on the subject of new housing: From the many survey comments, the Parish Council are acutely aware of the range of views in the parish – many of them strongly held. We conclude that a limited number of developments would be acceptable, but generally the designs should be in keeping with the present styles in the village. In addition there should be a presumption in favour of the development of low cost housing which would be available to local people. Generally, building works should be driven by local demand for key local workers. The Council will need
40 to consider carefully all proposals for infill development and, in principle, will be opposed to significant ones.
ENVIRONMENT AND HOUSING MANAGER (SLDC): To be reported.
CUMBRIA HIGHWAYS: To be reported.
NATURAL ENGLAND: Although the survey submitted with the application concludes that there are no protected species affected, the developer should be made aware that should a protected species subsequently be found, all work should stop for further survey work and the development of a mitigation package.
OTHER: One letter of comment has been received from a neighbouring resident in which it is suggested that nesting structures for swallows should be incorporated into the development and trees and shrubs should be planted. Two letters of support have been received which conclude by stating that the development will create new homes in keeping with the village, that the conversion will make ideal use of a redundant building and that the new-build home is preferable to the redundant buildings currently occupying the site. The foul drainage system for the neighbouring Yew Tree Housing development is located near to the southern boundary of the application site. The Management Company of the Yew Tree development seeks reassurance that the proposed development will not damage the drainage system.
HISTORICAL CONTEXT: None.
DESCRIPTION AND PROPOSAL: Yew Tree is a detached former farmhouse in the centre of the village. The house is located at the northern edge of the application site adjacent to the public highway to the east. A single-storey, stone-built barn lies to the west of the house and, to the south, are two detached buildings formerly used in connection with a haulage business. Garden ground, bounded by a high stone wall, lies between these buildings and the public highway. The development proposed by this application comprises: (1) The extension of the existing house, Yew Tree Farmhouse, into the adjoining barn and the construction of extensions to the rear (Unit 1). The former will provide a garage and entrance hall on the ground floor with a bedroom and bathroom above. The rear extensions are of a scale and
41 design in keeping with the property.
(2) The redevelopment of the single-storey outbuilding, which lies to the west of the former farmhouse, to create an L-shaped, three-bedroom dwelling (Unit 2). A first floor is to be added together with a single-storey extension of similar dimensions to the existing building. A survey submitted with the application indicates that the building is structurally sound and capable of conversion and addition without the need for demolition and rebuilding. A bat and barn owl survey found no evidence of the former roosting or the latter nesting.
(3) Unit 3 is a detached, four bedroom house to be built on the southern part of the site in the position currently occupied by the two garages. It is a substantial building that follows a conventional design and, similar to Unit 2, is constructed of a mix of render and stone with a slate roof. Part of the curtilage of Unit 3 is outside the development boundary but as the ground is part of the garden of Yew Tree Farmhouse this encroachment is not a significant drawback of the application. A detached double garage is to be erected alongside the highway boundary wall.
The two new houses and the extended former farmhouse will be served by the current vehicular access from the lane that passes alongside the eastern boundary of the site. The high boundary wall is to be retained.
POLICY ISSUES: Apart from part of the curtilage of Unit 3, the application site is within the development boundary of Barbon as defined by the Local Plan. Saved Policy H5 of the Local Plan indicates that Barbon is one of the settlements identified as being suitable for growth where new dwellings are permitted on suitable small sites that are within the development boundary. Under the draft Core Strategy of the Local Development Framework, Barbon is identified as one of the smaller villages rather than a Local Service Centre (Policy CS1.2). It is anticipated that approximately 11% of new housing and employment development will be in the network of smaller villages and hamlets. In all residential developments of one or two dwellings outside the Key Service Centres of Kendal, Ulverston, Milnthorpe and Grange over Sands the local occupancy restriction is to be applied. The threshold for affordable is three dwellings, in which case no less than 35% of the total number of dwellings are to be affordable (draft Core Strategy Policy CS6.3). Saved Policy S2 of the Local Plan sets out the South Lakeland Design Code and requires development applications to take proper account of its principles.
HUMAN RIGHTS ACT: This application has been determined to accord with the rights and limitations of the Act in relation to Article 6 (Right to a fair and public hearing), Article 8 (Right to respect for private and family life, home and correspondence), Article 14 (Prohibition of discrimination) and Article 1 of Protocol 1 (Right to peaceful enjoyment of
42 possessions and protection of property).
ASSESSMENT: The extensions to the rear of Yew Tree Farmhouse are of an appropriate scale and detailing, as is the extension into the adjoining barn to provide a garage on the ground floor with a bedroom and bathroom above. The redevelopment of the outbuilding (Unit 2) adjacent to the former farmhouse is, in principle and detailing, appropriate. Unit 3 has the appearance of a conventional four-bedroom house and, together with the other two houses, forms a loosely knit group of buildings. All three are constructed of a mix of render and stone and all are roofed with slate. Visibility to the right when leaving the site is somewhat restricted by the high stone boundary wall but it is essential that this feature is retained at its present height in order to protect the character of this part of the village. In summary, the proposal represents an appropriate form of development for this brownfield site close to the village centre.
RECOMMENDATION: Subject to a satisfactory conclusion to negotiations over the details, the application be GRANTED subject to conditions relating to the following:
(1) Standard 3-year time condition. (2) Local occupancy to be applied to Units 2 and 3. (3) The removal of permitted development rights from Units 2 and 3. (4) Approval of the roofing slate. (5) Approval of a sample of stonework.
43 SCHEDULE A
Complex Planning Applications
SCHEDULE No: 8
SL/2010/0429 KIRKBY LONSDALE: QUEEN ELIZABETH SCHOOL, KENDAL ROAD, KIRKBY LONSDALE
PROPOSAL: ERECTION OF CLASSROOM BLOCK
MR STEVEN HOLMES
29/07/2010 E360707 N478609
SUMMARY: The main issue to be resolved is whether the new building will exert a harmful influence on neighbouring residential properties by reason of noise and visual impact.
KIRKBY LONSDALE TOWN COUNCIL: Comments to be received by 20 July 2010.
ENVIRONMENT AND HOUSING MANAGER (SLDC): To be reported.
OTHER: The occupiers of the residential property most affected by this development have stated that they have no objection to the visual appearance of the building but have expressed concerns over potential noise nuisance and the close proximity of the classroom to the shared boundary. The classrooms are to be used for drama and dance and it is essential that the building is adequately sound-proofed to ensure that neighbouring residents do not suffer from unreasonable noise nuisance from amplified music. There are also potential problems of noise or emissions from the plant that is to be housed in the building. The second concern is that the classroom is to be built only one metre from the boundary shared with the nearest residential property, La Viletta. There is a door in the rear of the classroom with the potential for future access, noise and damage in an area that is hidden from view. A condition should be attached requiring the erection
44 of barriers to limit pupil access to the area behind the building. Similar concerns are expressed by the owner of one of the other neighbouring houses.
HISTORICAL CONTEXT: Planning permission for a classroom on this site was granted in March 2008 following a site visit by Members of the Planning Committee (ref SL/2007/1435). There has been significant new building work at the school over the past few years. Unlike this current application, earlier developments have not been built so close to residential properties.
DESCRIPTION AND PROPOSAL: The proposed building will contain two large, inter-linked spaces that can be used for dance and drama studio space. It is to be built close to the north east boundary of the school complex. In this position, it will be within one metre of the boundary shared with the nearby residential property, La Viletta. The boundary is marked by a high fence and hedge. There is a distance of about 10.5 metres between the site boundary and the rear wall of La Viletta. The building will be erected on a site that is partially occupied by a temporary classroom. It will cover a ground area measuring approximately 35 metres by 13.5 metres with a maximum height of 6.5 metres. The walls are to be faced with a mix of limestone and horizontal boarding and the roofs seeded with grass, cedar shingles and photo-voltaic panels. Roof configurations are characterised by shallow pitches and deep overhangs.
POLICY ISSUES: The protection of residential amenity is a well-founded planning principal and a material consideration in the determination of planning applications and appeals. Saved Policy S2 of the Local Plan sets out the South Lakeland Design Code and requires development applications to take proper account of its principles.
HUMAN RIGHTS ACT: This application has been determined to accord with the rights and limitations of the Act in relation to Article 6 (Right to a fair and public hearing), Article 8 (Right to respect for private and family life, home and correspondence), Article 14 (Prohibition of discrimination) and Article 1 of Protocol 1 (Right to peaceful enjoyment of possessions and protection of property).
ASSESSMENT: The site of the new classrooms is within the school building group and is not readily visible from public vantage points. It is, however, within one metre of the boundary shared with the neighbouring residential property; the building previously proposed, and which has the benefit of planning permission, was to be built some two metres from the boundary. Of greater concern is the potential noise nuisance of the proposed use of the building that will function as dance and drama studios. It is essential that the building construction should not permit noise generated within the building to affect the occupants of the nearest noise-sensitive property, La Viletta,
45 which stands approximately 10.5 metres from the shared boundary. Consultation is being undertaken with the Environment and Housing Manager over the adequacy, or otherwise, of the acoustic statement submitted with the planning application.
RECOMMENDATION: The Corporate Director (Communities) will report on the outcome of the consultation with the Environment and Housing Manager and whether the use of the proposed classrooms will cause unacceptable noise nuisance to neighbouring households.
46 SCHEDULE A
Complex Planning Applications
SCHEDULE No: 9
SL/2010/0435 KENDAL: BOUNDARY BANK, BOUNDARY BANK LANE, KENDAL
PROPOSAL: EXTENSION OF PERMISSION TO USE TEMPORARY SITE FOR STORAGE OF CONSTRUCTION EXCAVATION SPOIL AND MACHINERY FOR SCREENING AND SORTING OF EXCAVATED 29/07/2010 MATERIAL FOR RE- E350435 N492447 USE
MR E HOLMES
SUMMARY: The use is acceptable for a limited period of time, but a twelve month extension to the planning permission would not be acceptable. Refuse.
KENDAL TOWN COUNCIL: Approve, provided twelve month period is adhered to with no further extension.
OTHER: One letter of objection has been received on the ground that the site is not being used in accordance with the planning permission. Most of the spoil that is being screened is not from the adjacent site but is being imported from elsewhere.
HISTORICAL CONTEXT: Temporary planning permission was granted at last September’s Planning Committee for the use of the application site for storage, screening and sorting of spoil excavated from the adjacent development site. The planning permission expired at the end of last month, consent is now sought to extend the planning permission until June next year.
47 DESCRIPTION AND PROPOSAL: The application site is a field that adjoins, at a higher level, a development site (known as Plot 4 Boundary Bank) where planning permission was granted last year for a general industrial unit. Members may recall visiting the site. The southern boundary of the site is shared with a residential property, Foxdale, which stands in a substantial garden; a second house, Kilnstones, also has a frontage onto Underbarrow Road. The National Park boundary lies to the north and west of the application site. Considerable excavation is needed on Plot 4 to ensure that the site levels are consistent with the drawings that received planning permission. Because of the restricted space on, and adjacent to, Plot 4. A specialised machine has been stationed on the application site to sort and screen the excavated material. There is a difference in level between the two sites and a ramp has been constructed to transport the material. In support of his proposal to extend the life of the planning permission the applicant has pointed out that the original intention was for Unit 4 to be completed by spring 2010 but negotiations with the prospective tenant broke down. Negotiations continue with other interested parties for taking over the tenancy of Unit 4 and it is hoped that agreement can be reached in the next few months so that construction work can commence. Finally, weather has played a significant part in causing the delay, particularly the poor winter; the excavated ground needs to be fairly dry to pass through the machinery.
POLICY ISSUES: The application site is within the development boundary of the town but is not allocated for any form of development. The protection of residential amenity is a recognised material consideration in deciding whether planning permission should be granted.
HUMAN RIGHTS ACT: This application has been determined to accord with the rights and limitations of the Act in relation to Article 6 (Right to a fair and public hearing), Article 8 (Right to respect for private and family life, home and correspondence), Article 14 (Prohibition of discrimination) and Article 1 of Protocol 1 (Right to peaceful enjoyment of possessions and protection of property).
ASSESSMENT: The applicant has confirmed, through his agent, “that only material originating from the adjacent development of Plot 4 has been taken to the upper site for sorting and grading”. Although this is a greenfield site close to the National Park boundary, Members concluded that a temporary use associated with the construction of Unit 4 would be acceptable. At the time the previous application was being considered, it was stated by the applicant’s agent that the machinery would be needed for between six and nine months. The difficulty with granting permission for a further twelve month period is that there is no certainty that the excavation of Plot 4 will be completed in that period and the Committee might be faced with a request to renew the permission for a second time. As an alternative, Members may consider it expedient to decline to
48 extend the life of the planning permission and to authorise enforcement action, to secure the cessation of the use with a compliance period of six months.
RECOMMENDATION: REFUSE for the reason below: The use of the application site for the storage, screening and sorting of excavated material represents a significant and harmful incursion into the countryside surrounding the town and is potentially harmful to the residential enjoyment of the neighbouring dwelling house. Whilst the use of the land for this purpose is acceptable for a limited period of time it is not appropriate for the longer term.
49 SCHEDULE A
Complex Planning Applications
SCHEDULE No: 10
SL/2010/0447 ULVERSTON: MOOR VIEW, 43 URSWICK ROAD, ULVERSTON
PROPOSAL: LEAN-TO STRUCTURE (RETROSPECTIVE)
MR RAYMOND OAKLEY
29/07/2010 E328258 N476899
SUMMARY: Retrospective application for the construction of a lean-to shed. Neighbour concerns. GRANT.
ULVERSTON TOWN COUNCIL: Refuse. This is a very restricted site with the structure right next to the pathway.
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION GROUP (SLDC): I have no objection to the development, however in light of the complaints from the neighbours to 43 Urswick Road regarding pigeons, I would request that a condition is included on any planning permission granted restricting the use of the shed so that it cannot be used to store or house any animals or birds.
OTHER: Three letters of objection have been received from neighbouring residents. Their concerns are as follows: 1. The retrospective application has contravened Clause 2 placed on the build at this address which prohibits the building of any structure without planning permission. 2. The site is already overdeveloped. The roof is bordering on being over the neighbours boundary which leaves no room for gutters and as the level of the adjacent garden is higher, the water form the lean-to will run onto the garden causing flooding.
50 3. When completed the building will be right outside the neighbours bedroom window. 4. The applicant previously erected a shed on this site which was subsequently removed as it was positioned over the boundary. 5. The lean-to prevents access to maintain the boundary hedge which was a requirement of a court ruling. 6. The building is being used to house pigeons which will increase noise and disturbance and the risk of disease. 7. The Council are aware of the impact of the applicants other pigeon loft which was built without planning permission. What is the applicant doing with all the pigeons he is breeding?
HISTORICAL CONTEXT: Planning permission was granted by in 1999 for the construction of the applicants detached bungalow on garden land adjacent to 45 Urswick Road, Ulverston (now number 43). A condition was attached to the permission removing permitted development rights. The Council has previously received complaints from neighbouring residents regarding the applicant’s pigeons which he keeps in a detached shed within his garden, which has been in place since the dwelling was constructed. Members were informed of complaints which had been received regarding the recent construction of an unauthorised structure on this site at the December meeting. Members resolved to invite the submission of a planning application to enable the development to be properly assessed.
DESCRIPTION AND PROPOSAL: The site comprises a detached bungalow set in its own grounds fronting onto Urswick Road. The size of the property and the plot within which it sits, is similar to the surrounding properties in the locality. The application relates to the construction of a small lean-to shed alongside the detached domestic garage which is positioned close to the northern boundary of the site. A mature beech hedge is located along the boundary between the two properties. The site of the shed borders onto the rear garden boundary of the adjacent property at Number 29 Urswick Road. The applicants garden also borders onto the rear garden boundary of number 36 Meeting House Lane. The structure, which has been partly constructed, measures 6300mm long by 600mm increasing to 1050 mm wide, by 2270mm high. The shed has been formed by roofing over the gap between the garage and a metal fence which has been erected along the boundary of the site, with corrugated pvc sheeting. A bin store enclosure has been created at the front of the site adjacent to the shed which did not require planning permission and a timber door encloses the eastern end of the shed. The applicant states that he does not intend to use the shed for keeping pigeons.
51 POLICY ISSUES: Saved Policy S2 of the south Lakeland Local Plan seeks to ensure that the design of extensions and outbuildings are appropriate.
HUMAN RIGHTS ACT: This application has been determined to accord with the rights and limitations of the Act in relation to Article 6 (Right to a fair and public hearing), Article 8 (Right to respect for private and family life, home and correspondence), Article 14 (Prohibition of discrimination) and Article 1 of Protocol 1 (Right to peaceful enjoyment of possessions and protection of property).
ASSESSMENT: This lean-to domestic store would not normally require planning permission because of its size and location, but for a condition on the planning permission. It is modest in size and is not visible from public vantage points. Given the scale of the structure relative to the size of the dwelling and garden area, it would be difficult to conclude that the shed represents an overdevelopment of the site. The presence of a mature beech hedge between the applicants property and the neighbouring properties also largely screens the structure from view, and as such the impact of the structure itself on the visual amenity of the adjacent properties is considered to be limited. The matter of encroachment onto the neighbours land and problems with surface water run off has previously been the subject of a Court Case regarding a boundary dispute. However this is largely a private legal issue. Whilst the applicant has indicated that he does not intend to keep pigeons in the shed, the neighbours contend that the applicant has kept pigeons in the shed, and although there was no evidence of this when the Planning Officer visited the site, Members may wish to impose a condition as suggested by the Environmental Protection Group manager to prevent the keeping of pigeons within this structure.
RECOMMENDATION: GRANT (Retrospective Planning Permission)
REASON FOR GRANTING PLANNING PERMISSION The proposal is in accordance with material considerations as set out in The Planning System : General Principles and local policies as set out in Saved Policy S2 of the South Lakeland Local Plan. The issues relating to noise and disturbance are material planning considerations and, in reaching the decision to approve the proposal, have been carefully weighed against all relevant policy considerations.
52 SCHEDULE A
Complex Planning Applications
SCHEDULE No: 11
SL/2010/0456 GRANGE OVER SANDS: 4 SEDGWICK COURT, CART LANE, GRANGE over SANDS
PROPOSAL: EXTENSIONS AND ALTERATIONS
MR ALAN CALVERT and MRS MARGARET CALVERT 29/07/2010 E340183.2 N476821.2
SUMMARY: The extensions scale, design and revised window size is appropriate in terms of the relationship with neighbours and the surrounding development. GRANT.
GRANGE over SANDS TOWN COUNCIL: Comments to be received by 13 July 2010.
NATURAL ENGLAND: It is not considered that the proposals are likely to significantly affect the natural environment. The developer should however be made aware that if protected species are found on the site, work must cease and surveys/mitigation by an ecologist should take place.
OTHER: An objection has been received from the occupiers of the property opposite. Reasons for objection include: • The amended plans do not address previous objections relating to the size and scale of the proposed extension. • The proposal would result in the plot being over developed with an enlarged footprint in comparison with the size of the plot and a two storey wall close to the boundary.
53 • The design and scale are not in keeping with the surroundings. Other extensions in the cul-de-sac have stepped the roof line to reduce the bulk. • The scale and design of the extension would conflict with the principles of the conservation area. • A house of the size proposed will increase pressure on the limited parking available.
HISTORICAL CONTEXT: In 2009 an application for two-storey extension was withdrawn after concerns were raised with regard to the size and design of windows on the rear. A revised application was submitted with a slightly smaller window earlier this year. The application was reported to the Planning Committee on 25 February 2010 and Members agreed that the size and design of the extension were acceptable in terms of the impact on the property and surrounding conservation area. However, the first floor window on the rear was still considered to be excessive in size given the relationship with the property to the rear. The application was refused.
DESCRIPTION AND PROPOSAL: The site is within a small development constructed in the 1990’s which consists of two pairs of semi-detached houses and two detached properties set in three rows behind each other. The application site is the north-eastern semi-detached house within the central row. The access drive for both pairs of semis runs along the northern boundary of the site. A detached property to the south-east of the site is at a lower level; it is single storey at the rear adjacent to the site and has a small rear garden. It is proposed to demolish an existing garage at the side of the property and replace it with a two-storey extension. The proposal would extend the full width of the plot up to the adjacent access drive and continue the ridge line across. It is also proposed to demolish the conservatory on the rear and replace this with a sunroom.
POLICY ISSUES: Policy HE7 of Planning Policy Statement 5 – Planning and the Historic Environment requires that Local Planning Authorities should take into account the particular significance of a site within a conservation area and the desirability for new development to make a positive contribution. Saved Policy E38 of the Cumbria and Lake District Joint Structure Plan seeks to ensure that development preserves or enhances the historic environment. Policy C16 of the South Lakeland Local Plan seeks to protect or enhance the character of the Conservation Area and Policy S2 to ensure that the design of new development is appropriate.
54 HUMAN RIGHTS ACT: This application has been determined to accord with the rights and limitations of the Act in relation to Article 6 (Right to a fair and public hearing), Article 8 (Right to respect for private and family life, home and correspondence), Article 14 (Prohibition of discrimination) and Article 1 of Protocol 1 (Right to peaceful enjoyment of possessions and protection of property).
ASSESSMENT: The site is within a group of dwellings erected in the 1990’s. The Character Appraisal for Grange-over-Sands identifies the semi-detached houses at the head of the cul-de-sac as having a detrimental impact on the special interest of the conservation area. The two properties at the front of the site closest to the railway embankment are identified has having a neutral impact on the character. The site is however discretely located and has little significance in terms of the positive attributes of the conservation area. The proposed extension would fill the width of the plot, however a small gap would be retained between the proposed side of the house and the access road into the cul-de-sac. While the ridge would run through at the same height as the existing building, this would create a form which is in keeping with the houses. The proposed extension will not appear overly large or dominant within the context of this small group of houses or the surrounding conservation area. The extension would be 17 metres to the south-east of the other pair of semis within the cul-de-sac. As no new windows are proposed on the front of the extension it is not considered that the proposal would adversely affect sunlight, outlook or privacy. The property behind the site (south-east) is single storey at its rear and is at a lower level. It has a small glazed entrance porch/conservatory on the rear plus kitchen and bedroom windows. The distance between these windows and the rear of the existing pair of semis is approximately 11 metres. However, the window in the proposed extension would look over the side garden of the property rather than directly toward the rear windows. As there are already two windows facing the property at the rear, it is not considered that an additional bedroom window of the same size in the location proposed would adversely affect privacy.
RECOMMENDATION: GRANT subject to:- Condition (1) The development hereby permitted shall be commenced before the expiration of THREE YEARS from the date hereof. Reason (1) To comply with the requirements of Section 91 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 as amended by Section 51 of the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004. Condition (2) The external walls and roof of the extension shall be constructed with materials of the same type, texture and colour as the external walls and roof of the existing building, or as may be agreed in writing with the Local Planning Authority. Reason (2) To ensure that the character of the area is not adversely
55 affected by reason of the appearance of the type and colour of the materials to be used in the proposed development in accordance with Policies C16 and S2 of the South Lakeland Local Plan.
REASON FOR GRANTING PLANNING PERMISSION: The proposed extension is of a scale and design in keeping with the site and surroundings thereby protecting the special character and appearance of the conservation area and the amenities of neighbouring occupiers. The proposal thereby accords with Planning Policy Statement 5 – Planning and the Historic Environment, Saved Policy E38 of the Cumbria and Lake District Joint Structure Plan and Saved Policies C16 and S2 of the South Lakeland Local Plan. There are no material considerations that indicate against the proposal.
56 SCHEDULE A
Complex Planning Applications
SCHEDULE No: 12
SL/2010/0458 SKELSMERGH: FIELD TO EAST OF DODDING GREEN, MEALBANK, KENDAL
PROPOSAL: ERECTION OF TWO POLYTUNNELS
FRIENDS FOR A UK CENACOLO COMMUNITY
29/07/2010 E353394 N495337
SUMMARY: The impact is considered acceptable in relation to the setting of the adjoining listed building, to the rural character and to neighbouring property.
SKELSMERGH PARISH COUNCIL: Skelsmergh and Scalthwaiterigg Parish Council wish to object to the above application:
• The two proposed white polythene structures, each 5.5w x 15l x 3h metres, will visually detract from the rural view from directly adjacent footpaths, from homes at Dodding Holme, from adjacent roadways and from more distant, elevated viewing points such as Benson Knot.
• The proposed structures are inappropriate in the curtilage of a significant Grade II listed residence.
• The proposed structures, in total size equivalent to a substantial white polythene bungalow, are industrial in proportions and shown as such on the literature submitted by the applicant in which they are referred to as commercial structures. They are out of scale with a domestic dwelling such as Dodding Green Presbytery. We would further comment that the hedges surrounding the proposed site are almost wholly deciduous and regularly cut to well below the 2.5 metres shown on the plan. They offer no screening of the proposed commercial polythene structures for most of the year.
57 HISTORICAL CONTEXT: In November 2004 planning permission was granted on appeal for the use of Dodding Green Presbytery and Chapel as a lay religious community (sui generis) for young men who were likely to have past problems of drug abuse. That permission was subject to a number of planning conditions. The use was established in March 2005. In 2006 planning permission and listed building consent were granted for the conversion of the adjoining barn to workshop/conference and visitor facilities. That work of conversion is still in progress. In 2007 planning permission was granted for the use of the adjoining field to the east for amenity use and in 2009 further permissions were granted for a pond and associated stream works in that field and a goat house and store in the adjoining walled garden. In February of this year permission was granted for a variation of one of the original appeal conditions relating to ratio of new members to experienced mentors.
DESCRIPTION AND PROPOSAL: This application site is part of the field to the east of the building range which was granted permission for amenity use. The two poly tunnels proposed would be to the north-east of the pond area referred to and to the north of the boundary hedge to the field. Each tunnel would be 5.5 metres (18ft) wide, 15 metres (approx 50ft) long and just under 3 metres (10ft) high. They would be used by the residents of the community to grow their own fruit and vegetables. The hoops of the tunnels would be set into small concrete bases just below ground level and covered with translucent polythene sheeting.
POLICY ISSUES: The site is not within the curtilage of the presbytery and chapel which are a listed building but the impact on the setting of the listed building and the attractive rural character should be considered. Saved Policy C15 of the South Lakeland Local Plan and the advice of Planning Policy Statement 5 “Planning for the Historic Environment” are relevant in relation to considerations relating to the setting of the Listed Builing. The impact on adjoining residential property is relevant. Saved Policy L10 of the South Lakeland Local Plan protects Public Rights of Way from adverse impacts on their character.
HUMAN RIGHTS ACT: This application has been determined to accord with the rights and limitations of the Act in relation to Article 6 (Right to a fair and public hearing), Article 8 (Right to respect for private and family life, home and correspondence), Article 14 (Prohibition of discrimination) and Article 1 of Protocol 1 (Right to peaceful enjoyment of possessions and protection of property).
ASSESSMENT: There is an intervening field between the application site and the nearest dwellings and at the scale proposed the tunnels would not be unneighbourly to the domestic property. The tunnels while in the adjoining field would not directly abut the listed building range or obtrude in main views of the property. There is an intervening field between the proposed position and the public road. The hedgerows and trees in the
58 vicinity would not provide a complete screen from these viewpoints but would soften the impact. There would be near views of the proposed development from the public footpaths through the field but at the scale proposed the development should not have an adverse impact on the pleasant character of those routes.
RECOMMENDATION: GRANT subject to: Condition (1) The development hereby permitted shall be commenced before the expiration of THREE YEARS from the date hereof. Reason (1) To comply with the requirements of Section 91 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 as amended by Section 51 of the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004.
REASON FOR GRANTING PLANNING PERMISSION: The development would not detract from the attractive character of this rural area and the public rights of way in the vicinity or from the setting of the adjoining listed building and would thus accord with Saved Policies C15 and L10 of the South Lakeland Local Plan. Moreover the development would not be unneighbourly to residential property in the locality.
59 SCHEDULE A
Complex Planning Applications
SCHEDULE No: 13
SL/2010/0459 MIDDLETON: LAND AT HIGH FELLSIDE, MIDDLETON
PROPOSAL: AGRICULTURAL STORAGE BUILDING
MRS LINDA BOOTH
29/07/2010 E363615.4 N488877.4
SUMMARY: The application site is elevated and isolated from any group of farm buildings. Because of its bulk and materials of construction the building will be both conspicuous and intrusive in the landscape. Refuse.
MIDDLETON PARISH MEETING: I am writing to support the application to erect an agricultural storage building at High Fellside Middleton. The choice of site is a good one that allows the building to merge into the hillside behind it. I like the choice of timber boarding for the walls and the use of grey for the roof and doors. I particularly agree with the proposed tree planting to the west of the building to shield the building from the Lune Valley to the west and south. However, I would like to see this tree planting extended to the NNE along the same boundary wall to the point where it meets the east-west dry stone wall as this will reduce the building's visibility when viewed from the north of the Lune Valley.
HISTORICAL CONTEXT: An application for an agricultural building on this site was submitted in September 2008 but was withdrawn before a decision was made. The nearby house at Fellside has been demolished and a much larger, and more substantial replacement, has been built. A barn close to the house has the benefit of planning permission for conversion into both a holiday unit and a dwelling. A field barn, located to the south west of Fellside was refused permission earlier this year
60 for conversion into a dwelling.
DESCRIPTION AND PROPOSAL: The proposed agricultural building is to be used to house stock and will occupy an isolated, elevated position on the eastern flank of the Lune Valley, two miles to the south of Sedbergh. The rebuilt, and substantially extended, house at High Fellside together with the adjacent traditional barn lie at a higher level to the east and are both physically and visually divorced from the site of the proposed building. Apart from sheep pens there is no development in the immediate vicinity of the application site. The building will cover a ground area measuring 24 metres and, because of the sloping ground, is between 3.5 x 5.0 metres high to the ridge (2.0 – 3.5 metres to the eaves). The building is to be constructed of timber boarding over concrete panels and the roof is to be covered with dark grey fibre-cement sheeting. The roof configuration comprises two double pitches separated by a valley. The applicant rents 190 acres of land surrounding the application site on an 8-year farm business tenancy. Until the retirement of the applicant’s parents in 2002, the land was farmed from High Fellside but the former farmhouse has been demolished and its replacement has been retained by the landlord for her own occupation. The traditional, stone-built barn in the vicinity of High Fellside does not provide for adequate stock accommodation in terms of animal welfare and husbandry. In addition, bulk feed deliveries are unable to gain direct access to the barn because of roadway restrictions. Modern stock accommodation, in the form of the proposed building, will ensure the viability of the farm. The applicant and her husband live at Marthwaite, near Sedbergh, some 1.5 miles from the land they farm at High Fellside. They currently have a stock of 16 cows and calves and 450 lambing sheep. All the stock is farmed on the land at High Fellside.
POLICY ISSUES: Saved Policy S23 of the Local Plan states that new agricultural buildings requiring planning permission will only be acceptable where the proposal has no significant adverse impact on: (a) the visual amenity of the local area, in terms of siting, profile, roof-pitch, and colour; taking into account the need for additional landscaping; (b) the amenity of any nearby residential properties;
(c) local nature conservation interests.
In considering proposals, the District Council will also have full regard to the operational needs of agricultural businesses. Annex E of Planning Policy Guidance 7 (“The Countryside – Environmental Quality and Economic and Social Development”), which remains extant, states that “The siting of a new agricultural building ….. can have a considerable impact on the site and the surrounding landscape. Developments should be assimilated into the landscape without compromising the functions they are intended to serve. New buildings should normally form part of a group rather than stand in isolation, and relate to existing buildings in size and colour … Sites on skylines should be avoided
61 if possible. To reduce their visual impact buildings should be blended into the landscape or, on sloping sites, set into the slope if that can be achieved without disproportionate cost.”
HUMAN RIGHTS ACT: This application has been determined to accord with the rights and limitations of the Act in relation to Article 6 (Right to a fair and public hearing), Article 8 (Right to respect for private and family life, home and correspondence), Article 14 (Prohibition of discrimination) and Article 1 of Protocol 1 (Right to peaceful enjoyment of possessions and protection of property).
ASSESSMENT: The application site occupies an elevated site overlooking the Lune Valley. It is a landscape in which buildings play a subsidiary role and they are largely of small scale and of traditional style with natural stone or rendered walls and slate roofs. The site is clearly visible from the narrow lane that climbs from the A683 and terminates at High Fellside; the lane is also the route of a bridleway that continues eastwards to descend into Barbondale. The building is to be located adjacent to a range of sheep pens in an otherwise open field. The general slope of the land and the elevated nature of the site means that the building would be readily visible from the nearby lane and bridleway and from further afield. There are no other buildings of similar style and size in the vicinity of High Fellside. Local Plan Policy S23 also requires that full regard be had to the operational needs of agricultural businesses. It is noted from the application that the building is required for the sheep and cattle that are grazed on the land and that the applicant and her family “are fully committed to sustaining the viability of the farm and therefore require modern stock accommodation to achieve this.” It is not clear, however, why the building is required now when it would seem that the land centred on High Fellside has been, and is being, successfully farmed without the need for a substantial building. From the information available, it has not been satisfactorily established that the building would meet the operational needs requirement of Local Plan Policy S23. There is no substantial material needs argument to weigh against the detrimental impact of this utilitarian building on the landscape. Because of its bulk, isolated position and materials of construction, the building will not only be conspicuous in this outstandingly attractive landscape but severely intrusive. It is an entirely utilitarian structure and, if permitted, will be materially harmful to the character and appearance of the area. In the absence of any clear and overriding operation need, the building contradicts the objectives of Local Plan Policy S23. Policy S23 requires the Council to have full regard to the operation needs of agricultural businesses and, in this context, it has been suggested to the applicant that more detail concerning the agricultural need for the building be provided. Members will be advised verbally of the response. In the meantime, based on the information currently available, refusal is recommended.
62 RECOMMENDATION: REFUSE for the reason below: The proposed building will occupy an exposed, elevated site where, because of its prominence, size and utilitarian nature, it will detract from the character of the surrounding countryside and intrude into its open appearance. The development would thus harm both the character and appearance of the landscape and, in the absence of an overriding operational need, would conflict with the aims and objectives of Saved Policy S23 of the South Lakeland Local Plan.
63 SCHEDULE A
Complex Planning Applications
SCHEDULE No: 14
SL/2010/0481 BARBON: HOWRIGGS, CASTERTON, KIRKBY LONSDALE
PROPOSAL: ERECTION OF 12,000 BIRD FREE- RANGE EGG PRODUCTION UNIT
MR HAROLD and MRS KAREN HODGSON
29/07/2010 E362395 N481543
SUMMARY: Although the egg production unit will be housed in a building of a substantial size, its siting is such that it will not be materially detrimental to the character or appearance of the surrounding countryside. GRANT.
BARBON PARISH COUNCIL: No objections.
CASTERTON PARISH COUNCIL: The Parish Council would like to ensure that due consideration is given to the size and frequency of vehicles used to service the unit as the road is single lane in most parts.
CUMBRIA HIGHWAYS: The proposal is acceptable.
ENVIRONMENT AGENCY: No objections.
FRIENDS OF THE LAKE DISTRICT: To be reported.
64 DESCRIPTION AND PROPOSAL: Howriggs is a working farm which lies in the Lune Valley between Barbon and Casterton. The proposed egg production unit is a substantial building covering a ground area measuring 85 metres by 18 metres and standing 5.4 metres high to the ridge of the roof (2.5 metres to the eaves). It is to be constructed of horizontal timber boarding and roofed with dark grey coloured sheeting. Two 7-metre high feed bins, constructed of galvanised steel, will stand alongside the east-facing wall of the building. The poultry unit will house 12,000 free-range laying chickens and will be built adjacent to, and to the south of the farmyard complex of buildings. The site is relatively low-lying in relation to the public highway to the east of the farm and the nature of the topography, together with the presence of the farm building group, are such that the egg production unit will not be prominent in public views of the farm. According to the information provided with the application the traffic generated by the development will comprise two egg collection lorries every week, one feed delivery lorry every two weeks and two lorries every 14 months to deliver the birds at the beginning of the flock cycle.
PLANNING POLICIES: Saved Policy S23 of the Local Plan states that new agricultural buildings requiring planning permission will only be acceptable where the proposal has no significant adverse impact on: (a) the visual amenity of the local area, in terms of siting, profile, roof-pitch, and colour; taking into account the need for additional landscaping; (b) the amenity of any nearby residential properties;
(c) local nature conservation interests.
In considering proposals, the District Council will also have full regard to the operational needs of agricultural businesses. Annex E of Planning Policy Guidance 7 (“The Countryside – Environmental Quality and Economic and Social Development”), which remains extant, states that “The siting of a new agricultural building ….. can have a considerable impact on the site and the surrounding landscape. Developments should be assimilated into the landscape without compromising the functions they are intended to serve. New buildings should normally form part of a group rather than stand in isolation, and relate to existing buildings in size and colour … Sites on skylines should be avoided if possible. To reduce their visual impact buildings should be blended into the landscape or, on sloping sites, set into the slope if that can be achieved without disproportionate cost.”
HUMAN RIGHTS ACT: This application has been determined to accord with the rights and limitations of the Act in relation to Article 6 (Right to a fair and public hearing), Article 8 (Right to respect for private and family life, home and correspondence), Article 14 (Prohibition of discrimination) and Article 1 of Protocol 1 (Right to peaceful enjoyment of
65 possessions and protection of property).
ASSESSMENT: The main planning issue raised by this application is the effect of a building of the scale proposed on the character of the surrounding countryside which is of a high quality. The application site is relatively low-lying in relation to the public highway and the intervening landforms should ensure that the building is not unduly prominent in the local scene. It should also be noted that there are no public rights-of-way passing through or close to Howriggs. The siting, adjacent to the farm building group, is appropriate and will minimize the potential visual impact of the egg production unit. The building, despite its size, would not have a materially detrimental impact on the character or appearance of the surrounding countryside and that it would accord with Local Plan Policy S23 which seeks to avoid significant adverse impact on the visual character of the local area whilst at the same time having full regard to agricultural need.
RECOMMENDATION: GRANT subject to: Condition (1) The development hereby permitted shall be commenced before the expiration of THREE YEARS from the date hereof. Reason (1) To comply with the requirements of Section 91 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 as amended by Section 51 of the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004. Condition (2) No development shall take place until details of the finished floor level of the building herby permitted related to a readily identifiable datum have been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. Reason (2) For the avoidance of doubt. Condition (3) The roof of the building hereby permitted shall be dark grey conforming to British Standard colour 18 B 29 or such other dark colour as may be agreed in writing by the Local Planning Authority. Reason (3) To ensure that the roof is covered by sheeting of an appropriate dark colour.
REASON FOR GRANTING PLANNING PERMISSION: The building is compatible with the aims and objectives of Saved Policy S23 of the South Lakeland Local Plan.
66 SCHEDULE A
Complex Planning Applications
SCHEDULE No: 15
SL/2010/0489 LOWER ALLITHWAITE: BANKFIELD, JACK HILL, ALLITHWAITE, GRANGE over SANDS
PROPOSAL: REMOVAL OF CONDITION 3 (LOCAL OCCUPANCY) ON PLANNING PERMISSION SL/2007/1204 29/07/2010 DR EDWARDS E338931 N476061
SUMMARY: The removal of the condition would result in the loss of a dwelling for local people where there is an evidenced shortfall. The use of local occupancy conditions is supported by Policy CS6.3 of the Core Strategy which is at an advanced stage and is therefore a strong material consideration. REFUSE.
LOWER ALLITHWAITE PARISH COUNCIL: Comments to be received by 19 July 2010.
HISTORICAL CONTEXT: Outline planning permission was granted for a dwelling in the garden of Bankfield in December 2007. The permission is subject to a condition restricting occupancy to local people.
DESCRIPTION AND PROPOSAL: The application site is located at the top of Jack Hill, Allithwaite close to the junction between Kirkhead Road and Allithwaite Road. The site is within the garden of a large house known as Bankfield which is situated behind other properties on Jack Hill and Kirkhead Road. The application seeks the removal of the local occupancy condition from the outline planning permission.
67 POLICY ISSUES: Planning Policy Statement 3 – Housing has recently been amended to remove gardens from the definition of brownfield land. Saved Policy H5 of the South Lakeland Local Plan allows for the development of small sites within the development boundary of Allithwaite subject to satisfactory density, design, layout landscaping and access. Policy CS6.3 of the emerging Core Strategy seeks to ensure that new housing development meets local need. The policy requires that the occupancy of new housing in locations such as Allithwaite is restricted to local people.
HUMAN RIGHTS ACT: This application has been determined to accord with the rights and limitations of the Act in relation to Article 6 (Right to a fair and public hearing), Article 8 (Right to respect for private and family life, home and correspondence), Article 14 (Prohibition of discrimination) and Article 1 of Protocol 1 (Right to peaceful enjoyment of possessions and protection of property).
ASSESSMENT: Outline planning permission was granted for the erection of one dwelling on site in December 2007. A local occupancy condition was attached to the planning permission to ensure that the new housing met the needs of local people in accordance with Policy ST11 of the Cumbria and Lake District Joint Structure Plan. When the Structure Plan was replaced by the Regional Spatial Strategy (RSS), Policy ST11 of the Structure Plan was not saved. However, Policy L4 of the RSS did state that Local Authorities should address housing requirements including local needs in order to sustain local communities. Neither the Structure Plan nor the RSS Policies remain, however the Core Strategy carried through the requirement for local occupancy housing based on evidence of need. Local housing needs remain acute throughout the District and without requirements for local occupancy the ability of the Council to meet local needs would be significantly weakened. The current status of the policy is supported by the Council, it forms part of a Development Plan Document which is at a very advanced stage in the process and there is every prospect that the Core Strategy will be formally adopted in the autumn. In terms of the weight to be attached, the Policy is a strong material consideration.
The site subject to this application is within the garden of a large dwelling at Allithwaite. When the outline planning permission was granted for a dwelling on the site, gardens were classified as brownfield land and as such considered a priority for fulfilling the need for housing provision. The government has now amended PPS3 by removing gardens from the definition of brownfield land. Use of such land therefore no longer has the same priority for development. Where development is permitted on greenfield land, even within a settlement, it should be to meet the housing need and in this instance the use of local occupancy restrictions are considered to fulfil this requirement.
The agent argues that there is a degree of uncertainty over whether the Core Strategy Policy will be adopted therefore it has limited weight. It is also argued that the evidence base is weak and Circular 11/95 states that occupancy conditions
68 should not be used. In support of the argument, the agent quotes an appeal against the refusal to remove local occupancy conditions at a development in Sandside. In that case the Inspector agreed with the appellant. However, a different Inspector determined an appeal at Cark-in-Cartmel and upheld the use of the condition. She acknowledged the need for the condition and that its use accorded with Circular 11/95.
No evidence has been submitted to demonstrate that the proposal could not go ahead or would be unviable with the condition in place. While the proposal is only for one dwelling, the majority of sites within the Cartmel Peninsula are for small scale development and to remove the condition would further restrict the supply of dwellings for local people.
Given the evidence base which identifies a significant shortage of dwellings for local people and the advanced stage of the Core Strategy, the retention of the condition is justified and appropriately supported by policy.
RECOMMENDATION: REFUSE for the reason below: The removal of the occupancy condition would result in the loss of a dwelling unit to the local housing market which would be contrary to the principles and objectives of Policy CS6.3 of the South Lakeland Submission Core Strategy as supported by the evidence in the Strategic Housing Market Assessment which identifies a significant shortage in supply.
69 SCHEDULE F
Straightforward Planning Applications
SCHEDULE No: 16
SL/2010/0115 NEW HUTTON: HAYCLOSE, HAYCLOSE LANE, NEW HUTTON, KENDAL
PROPOSAL: CONVERSION OF PART OF BARN TO DWELLING
MR & MRS ALAN & SONYA ROBINSON
29/07/2010 E353849 N490531
SUMMARY: The development would be in accordance with the barn conversion and other relevant policies of the South Lakeland Local Plan.
NEW HUTTON PARISH COUNCIL: Fully support application as it will improve the character of the area and make good use of a redundant building. The siting of the septic tank under the parking area was questioned. The proposed first floor balcony would overlook the adjoining, separately owned barn if that were to be converted to a dwelling with windows in its gable.
CUMBRIA HIGHWAYS: No objections provided that the parking is permanently assigned to the dwelling.
CUMBRIA RIGHTS OF WAY OFFICER: Public Bridleway 559002 runs adjacent to the site and should not be damaged or obstructed and user safety should be ensured at all times.
RAMBLERS: The site lies close to a public bridleway which is said to be unaffected by the development. No objection to the principle of the development.
70 NATURAL ENGLAND: Recommend further Bat and Barn Owl survey work prior to permission to ensure full addressing of the issues.
ENVIRONMENT AND HOUSING OFFICER: Recommend a condition requiring that the dwelling is not occupied until the new foul drainage is installed in accordance with approved details.
OTHER: It is said on behalf of the adjoining owner that a proposed new boundary wall will obstruct a private right of way.
HISTORICAL CONTEXT: In 1987 planning permission was granted for the use of the barn for winter storage of boats and caravans. In 1992 permission was granted for the use of an attached shippon as an office. Both uses were instituted and have continued but it is said that the commercial storage use is becoming financially unviable.
DESCRIPTION AND PROPOSAL: The barn range is part of a building group just to the east of Hayclose Lane. The eighteenth century farmhouse to the north is a listed building, and an eighteenth century barn to the south under separate ownership is also listed. The barn which is the subject of this application was erected in the late nineteenth century by the Underley Estate in traditional stone and slate and is not a listed building. It is proposed to convert the southern end of the range to a four-bedroomed house retaining the commercial use in the remainder. The conversion would take place within the existing shell of the building with only the addition of a small lean-to porch. A structural survey has been submitted demonstrating that the building is capable of conversion with no significant re-building. The conversion would utilize existing openings with a limited number of new openings. There would be no obstruction of the public right of way to the south of the site by the proposed development. Percolation tests and other details of septic tank drainage have been provided. A Bat and Bird Survey with associated Mitigation have been submitted. The survey work was carried out in October and found evidence of some bat use and use by birds which did not include owls.
POLICY ISSUES: Saved Policy H12 of the South Lakeland Local Plan specifies the criteria which must be satisfied for the residential conversion of redundant buildings in the open countryside. The Core Strategy of the emerging Local Development Framework does not require a single converted unit to be affordable but would require a local occupancy condition in this rural location.
71 In addition to the criteria of H12 Saved Policy C10 of the South Lakeland Local Plan only permits development where harm to protected species can be avoided. Saved Policy L10 of the South Lakeland Local Plan protects public rights of way from adverse impacts. The protection of private rights of way is a private legal matter rather than a material planning consideration.
HUMAN RIGHTS ACT: This application has been determined to accord with the rights and limitations of the Act in relation to Article 6 (Right to a fair and public hearing), Article 8 (Right to respect for private and family life, home and correspondence), Article 14 (Prohibition of discrimination) and Article 1 of Protocol 1 (Right to peaceful enjoyment of possessions and protection of property).
ASSESSMENT: The development would accord with the conversion policy and would not affect the right of way to the south. The submitted Survey produced evidence of the use of the barn range by bats and birds other than owls and produced a mitigation strategy. The period May - July is the optimal time for bat surveys hence the Natural England recommendation for additional investigation with any necessary modification of the Mitigation measures. Such additional survey work is about to be undertaken and the mitigation measures will be adapted if necessary before the date of the Committee.
RECOMMENDATION: GRANT subject to:- Condition (1) The development hereby permitted shall be commenced before the expiration of THREE YEARS from the date hereof. Reason (1) To comply with the requirements of Section 91 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 as amended by Section 51 of the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004. Condition (2) This permission authorises no greater extent of reconstruction and new work than shown on the submitted plans and described in the submitted Structural Survey and moreover the conversion shall be undertaken in accordance with that Survey. Reason (2) To ensure that in an area where planning permission would not normally be granted for the erection of a new dwelling the proposed dwelling is formed by the conversion and conservation of the existing building in accordance with Saved Policy H12 of the South Lakeland Local Plan. Condition (3) The dwelling hereby permitted shall be occupied as the sole or main residence by an Approved Person. In this condition an "Approved Person" shall be deemed to be a person who has immediately prior to such occupation: (i) been continuously resident in the Locality for three
72 years; or (ii) been permanently employed or has a firm permanent job offer in the Locality; or (iii) been employed in the Locality on a fixed term contract of no less then one year in duration or has a firm job offer in the Locality on a fixed term contract of no less then one year in duration; or (iv) is self employed in a viable business based in the Locality; or (v) has completed a post secondary education course within the past 3 years outside the administrative area of the Council (hereinafter referred to as "the District") and prior to attending such course lived in the District for a period in excess of 3 years; or (vi) is currently in the Armed Forces, in prison, in hospital or similar accommodation outside the District and for whom such location is beyond their control, and immediately before moving to such accommodation lived in the District for a continuous period of at least 3 years; or (vii) needs to live in the District because he/she is ill and in need of support from a relative who lives within the District; or (viii) needs to live in the District in order to give support to a relative who is ill and needs support and lives in the District; or (ix) has spent most of his/her life living in the District and left the District less than 10 years prior to his/her intended first occupation of the dwelling (for this purpose "most of his/her life" shall mean over half of his/her life up to the point that he/she left the District, or a continuous period of 20 years up to the point that he/she left the District); or (x) has spent at least 10 years of his/her school education living in the District but has left the District in excess of 10 years prior to his/her intended first occupation of the dwelling; or (xi) is the widow or widower of the previously Approved Person resident in the dwelling; or (xii) in the case of a civil partnership is the survivor of the previously Approved Person resident in the dwelling together with any person living in the dwelling as a member of his/her household. In this condition, of "Locality" shall be deemed to comprise the following: (i) the District; and (ii) the administrative area of the Barrow in Furness
73 Borough Council; and (iii) the administrative area of Shap Parish Council; and (iv) the administrative area of Shap Rural Parish Council; and (v) the administrative area of Orton and Tebay Parish Council; and (vi) the administrative area of Thornton-in-Lonsdale Parish Council; and (vii) the administrative area of Burton-in-Lonsdale Parish Council; and (viii) the administrative area of Ingleton Parish Council; and (ix) the administrative areas of Lancaster City Council excluding the areas of the parishes of Overton, Cockerham, Thurnham, Ellel and Over Wyresdale. Reason (3) To accord with the objectives of the Core Strategy of the emerging Local Development Framework Condition (4) Notwithstanding the provisions of the Town and Country Planning General Permitted Development Order 1995 as amended, (or any Order revoking and re-enacting that Order) express planning permission shall be obtained for any development falling within Classes A, B, C and E. Reason (4) To protect the character of this traditional building range from inappropriate alterations. Condition (5) The external door and window frames shall be of timber and set into their respective openings by amounts equal to the recess of the existing window and door frames. Reason (5) To protect the character of this traditional building range from inappropriate alterations. Condition (6) This permission shall not be deemed to confer any right to obstruct the public bridleway to the south of the site, which shall be kept open and unobstructed unless legally stopped up or diverted. Reason (6) To accord with Saved Policy L10 of the South Lakeland Local Plan. Condition (7) The development shall be carried out strictly in accordance with the submitted Mitigation Strategy with regard to Bats and Birds. Reason (7) To accord with Saved Policy C10 of the South Lakeland Local Plan.
74 REASON FOR GRANTING PLANNING PERMISSION: The development would accord with Saved Policies H12, C10 and L10 of the South Lakeland Local Plan, and with the objectives of the Core Strategy of the emerging Local Development Framework. There are no material considerations to indicate against this proposal.
75 SCHEDULE F
Straightforward Planning Applications
SCHEDULE No: 17
SL/2010/0361 EGTON WITH NEWLAND: LAND REGISTER PARCEL ID 1015, PLUMPTON, NEWLAND, NR ULVERSTON
PROPOSAL: ERECTION OF AGRICULTURAL LIVESTOCK BUILDING
MR THOR ATKINSON 29/07/2010 E331100 N480100
SUMMARY: Proposed agricultural livestock building. Concerns over scale and impact on the locality. Further information requested regarding size and nature of farm holding. Outstanding consultation response awaited from the Environment Agency.
EGTON WITH NEWLAND PARISH COUNCIL: 1) The submitted plans do not accurately show the existing buildings on the site or the extensions. 2) There is no fresh water supply to the site.
3) Drainage is a concern.
4) The site has flooded.
5) Neighbours have expressed concerns over the creep of the site and possible future conversion of buildings. 6) Mr Atkinson already has a number of other agricultural buildings in the area so the Parish Council would like to know why another one is required.
CUMBRIA HIGHWAYS: No objections.
76 ENVIRONMENT AGENCY: To be reported.
OTHER: Five letters of objection to the proposal have been received from neighbouring residents who are concerned about the following issues: 1. The size of the building is excessive for a small field and will have a detrimental impact on the appearance of the area. The scale of the development will have a huge impact on this once unspoilt farmland. There are already two large sheds close to this application site owned by the same family. 2. Given the small area of land in the applicants ownership, there is no justification for another livestock building. 3. The number of cattle housed in such a large building would require frequent movement of heavy traffic in the lane. The building would house over 100 cattle which would require over 1200 tonnes of forage, 150 tonnes of feed concentrate and 500 tonnes of straw. The cattle would also produce 1200 tonnes of manure, all requiring transport down this single track lane. 4. The keeping of cattle in such an intensive way near a watercourse could lead to pollution. 5. The site is liable to flooding and there is no water supply to the site. 6. In the past the applicant has converted a livestock building into a steel fabrication workshop and it is likely that a similar application would be made if the proposed building is permitted.
HISTORICAL CONTEXT: Consents under the Notice of Intention procedure was granted for the construction of an agricultural storage building and access to this site in 1990, and for an extension to the building in 1991.
DESCRIPTION AND PROPOSAL: The site is located on a low lying area of open countryside located to the east of the A590 at Plumpton. It is accessed via a narrow lane leading from the A590 which also serves a small number of residential properties and a working farm. The site comprises of two fields amounting to approx 2.5 ha in area divided by a water course. There is an existing agricultural storage building and lean-to extension located in the eastern field, adjacent to the highway. This measures approximately 14.5 metres by 23.5 metres by 4.5 metres high. The applicant also operates a steel fabrication business based on the western side of the field which is the subject of this application. The applicant owns a small parcel of land at Arrad Foot and has recently gained permission for the construction of an agricultural building on this site which is currently under construction approximately ½ km to the north west of the site.
77 The application relates to the construction of an agricultural livestock building adjacent to the existing building alongside the highway. The proposal also includes the extension of the yard area, retaining the water course which crosses the site between the two buildings. The proposed building would measure 23 metres by 23.5 metres by 5.79 metres high and be constructed of blockwork plinth walls with Yorkshire Boarding on the south and east elevations and juniper green box sheeting on the north and west elevations. The applicant states that the building will be used to house cattle which are currently kept in rented buildings. The application includes a flood risk assessment which indicates that an earth bund would be constructed to the south and west of the building to mitigate flood risk.
POLICY ISSUES: Planning Policy Statement 7: Sustainable Development in Rural Areas sets out government objectives with regard to the consideration of agricultural developments, promoting high environmental standards, minimising impact on natural resources and managing valued landscapes and biodiversity. Policy S23 of the South Lakeland Local Plan states that new agricultural buildings will only be acceptable where there is no significant adverse impact on the visual amenity of the local area, the amenity of nearby residential properties and local nature conservation interests. The District Council will also have full regard to the operational needs of the agricultural businesses.
HUMAN RIGHTS ACT: This application has been determined to accord with the rights and limitations of the Act in relation to Article 6 (Right to a fair and public hearing), Article 8 (Right to respect for private and family life, home and correspondence), Article 14 (Prohibition of discrimination) and Article 1 of Protocol 1 (Right to peaceful enjoyment of possessions and protection of property).
ASSESSMENT: The main issues in this case relate to the visual and environmental impact of the proposed building and the justification for constructing a substantial building isolated from an established farm base. The proposed building would be located on a low lying open field and whilst its visual impact would be mitigated to some extent by established hedgerow boundaries in the summer, it would nevertheless be widely visible from the surrounding area because of its bulk and height. The existing building is relatively modest and its use is low key storage. There is also concern that the introduction of an intensive livestock rearing building in this location where currently no farm base exists would inevitably lead to the need to provide additional facilities on the site to deal with waste, storage of straw and hay etc. The applicant has been asked to provide further details of his agricultural business including the location and extent of land ownership. There is concern that the current land holding is relatively small and fragmented and the justification for allowing such a large building in this location is not clear.
78 Consultation responses are awaited from the Environment Agency in respect of the drainage and Flood Risk.
RECOMMENDATION: On the basis of information received, the Corporate Director (Communities) requests delegated authority to refuse the application, for the following reasons: (1) The building by reason of its form and mass, would create an intrusion having an adverse impact on the visual character of the area. This is contrary to the advice contained in PPS7: Sustainable Development in Rural Areas and is in conflict with the objectives of Saved Policy S23 of the South Lakeland Local Plan. (2) Insufficient evidence has been submitted to justify the agricultural need for a building of this size, the number of stock to be housed, the supply of water, the disposal of waste the traffic generated by this development and an evacuation plan for the livestock in case of flooding. Lack of this information precludes a proper assessment of the application in accordance with the advice contained in “The Planning System : General Principles”.
79 SCHEDULE F
Straightforward Planning Applications
SCHEDULE No: 18
SL/2010/0441 KENDAL: GLENSIDE, OXENHOLME, KENDAL
PROPOSAL: EXTENSION TO GARAGE TO FORM LOG STORE AND ALTERATION TO ROOF OF DORMER
MR NEIL BROOKS
29/07/2010 E353334.4 N490007.6
SUMMARY: GRANT. The application is being reported to the Planning Committee because the applicant is an employee of the Council.
KENDAL TOWN COUNCIL: No comments received. The consultation period for comments expired on 7 July 2010.
HISTORICAL CONTEXT: In 2009 planning permission was granted unconditionally for extensions and alterations to the property including carers’ annexed accommodation, a detached garage, hardstanding and LPG tank. Works are at an advanced stage. This proposal involves an extension and alterations to the garage and the alteration to the roof of an existing dormer.
DESCRIPTION AND PROPOSAL: Glenside is a detached dwelling set in a good sized garden at the head of a private road. The property has a large footprint and consists of single storey and two storey elements, having been substantially altered in the past, prior to the ongoing building works. This application is for alterations to an existing flat-roofed half dormer in the principal south east elevation of the dwelling, and the addition of a window and door to the garage.
80 A pitched roof will be erected over the flat-roofed dormer so that it will match the new dormer erected in the north western roof elevation as part of the 2009 approval. The roof will be tiled to match the roof of the dwelling. The log store is to be added to the northern side elevation of the garage, formed by the continuation of the garage roof to form a canopy area. A window is also to be installed in the south elevation of the garage.
POLICY ISSUES: The Authority has adopted guidelines on extensions. Policy S2 of the South Lakeland Local Plan sets out the South Lakeland Design Code and requires development applications to take proper account of its principles. It is relevant to consider the effect of the extensions on the residential enjoyment of neighbouring properties. The protection of residential amenity is a recognised material consideration in deciding whether planning permission should be granted.
HUMAN RIGHTS ACT: This application has been determined to accord with the rights and limitations of the Act in relation to Article 6 (Right to a fair and public hearing), Article 8 (Right to respect for private and family life, home and correspondence), Article 14 (Prohibition of discrimination) and Article 1 of Protocol 1 (Right to peaceful enjoyment of possessions and protection of property).
ASSESSMENT: The dormer window directly faces the rear of the closest neighbouring property, The Glen. The alterations proposed will not however result in any additional overlooking of this property, nor affect the occupiers of this property by reason of overshadowing or being overbearing. The revised design improves the appearance of the property. The proposed window in the garage faces the dwelling, and although the garage is sited close to the shared boundary with ‘The Glen’, the log store will have no impact on this property. The alterations proposed will not be visible to a wider public view, and are acceptable in terms of scale and design.
RECOMMENDATION: GRANT subject to: Condition (1) The development hereby permitted shall be commenced before the expiration of THREE YEARS from the date hereof. Reason (1) To comply with the requirements of Section 91 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 as amended by Section 51 of the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004.
81 REASON FOR GRANTING PLANNING PERMISSION: The extension is of a scale and design consistent with the dwelling and will not adversely affect the amenities of the neighbouring properties. As such, the proposal is in accordance with material considerations set out in the Planning System : General Principles and local policies as set out in Saved Policy S2 of the South Lakeland Local Plan. There are no material considerations that indicate against the proposal.
82 PART I
Agenda Item No:7
South Lakeland District Council
PLANNING COMMITTEE
Meeting Date: 29 July 2010 Report Author: Mark Balderson, Planning Enforcement Officer Portfolio: Brenda Gray (Community Investment and Development) Report from: Lawrence Conway Wards affected: All Key Decision: Not applicable Forward Plan: Not applicable
A REPORT ON ENFORCEMENT ACTIVITY FROM 3 MAY TO 04 JUNE 2010 1.0 PURPOSE OF REPORT
1.1 To inform Members about enforcement activity between 3 May 2010 and 04 June 2010. This report aims to provide a brief and informative insight into current enforcement cases. If there are any specific enforcement cases that Members would like to be updated on at the next Planning Committee meeting, please contact Mark Balderson, Planning Enforcement Officer. 2.0 RECOMMENDATIONS
It is recommended that Members note this report and authorise enforcement action as recommended on the individual cases referred to. 3.0 BACKGROUND
3.1 Enforcement cases which have been resolved:
15 outstanding cases from the enforcement caseload have been resolved between 03 May and 04 June 2010. 3.2 New Enforcement cases:
Between 03 May 2010 and 04 June 2010, 34 complaints have been recorded and are presently being investigated. 8 of these cases have been resolved.
83 3.3 An update on Enforcement Cases involving formal action:
06.329 Land Adjacent to Bell Hall Farm, Head Cragg. Members may recall authorising enforcement action against the unauthorised use of an agricultural land/building at Bell Hall Farm, Kirkby in Furness. An enforcement notice was served requesting they cease use of the land/building for change of use of agricultural land for the storage and hiring out of agricultural equipment. The owners appealed the Notice and the inspector quashed the Enforcement Notice on appeal and Planning Permission was granted subject to conditions. Briefly the conditions were; the building of a screen bund with planting which has been done. The demarcating of an area to the Eastern boundary to restrict only vehicles used in connection with the agricultural business, this is being adhered to. The Council has no evidence that the hours of business operation are being breached. The setting out of the access on to the A595, this has been done in accordance with the drawing submitted. The only issues we may have relating to this site and its operation is the compliance with hours of operating. If a breach of the hours of operation is detected then further action can be instigated if it creates public harm. 10.044 Sunlight Laundry, Shap Road, Kendal
Members may recall granting all necessary enforcement powers to secure the removal of 4 temporary cabins stacked in a two storey formation in the rear yard of the Sunlight factory on Shap Road Kendal. An Enforcement Notice was served on the 23rd of June 2010 which comes into effect on the 11th August 2010. To date we have not received an appeal against the notice, nor have the cabins been removed. The compliance date is 12 October 2010. This case was brought to our attention in July 2008. The explanation from the company was that the porta cabins are being used as a temporary measure while they carry works to a building. Months went by and no work had been carried to refurbish the building. A temporary Planning Permission was granted with an agreed period of 12 months. Twelve months elapsed and still no progress with the refurbishment works. The planning department received a second application requesting an additional temporary period. This application was refused and it was considered expedient to commence enforcement action. An enforcement notice has been served, see table below for details. An update on those cases involving formal enforcement action is attached as Appendix 1 for Members information.
4.0 RESEARCH AND CONSULTATION Not applicable.
5.0 PROPOSAL Not applicable.
84 6.0 ALTERNATIVE OPTIONS Not applicable.
7.0 NEXT STEPS Not applicable.
8.0 IMPLICATIONS 8.1 Financial and Resources The recommendations in this report do not have any cost implications. 8.2 Human Resources The recommendations in this report do not have any staffing implications. 8.3 Legal Not applicable. 8.4 Social, Economic and Environmental Impact This report does not have any registered significant environmental effects. 9.0 RISK ASSESSMENT
Risk Consequence Controls required The failure to have an Result in inappropriate To maintain sufficient effective planning forms of development resources in planning enforcement system. which would have an enforcement and prioritise adverse impact on the and co-ordinate the character and investigation of breaches appearance of the of planning control. District’s rural landscape. 10.0 EQUALITY AND DIVERSITY The Draft Statement of Community Involvement takes account of the equalities issues in seeking to define South Lakeland’s community and interests relevant to the Local Development Framework which will influence the determination of individual planning applications.
11.0 LINKS TO THE CORPORATE PLAN AND PERFORMANCE INDICATORS This report links to the aim of providing a “High Quality Environment” under Section 3.4 of the Corporate Plan.
12.0 CONCLUSION AND EXPECTED OUTCOMES 12.1 Conclusion is set out in para 3.0
85 APPENDICES ATTACHED TO THIS REPORT Appendix No. 1 A report on enforcement activity from 3rd May 2010 to 4th June 2010.
CONTACT OFFICERS Mark Balderson, Planning Enforcement Officer (797566) [email protected]
BACKGROUND DOCUMENTS AVAILABLE Various planning files.
TRACKING Not applicable.
86 A REPORT ON ENFORCEMENT ACTIVITY FROM 3rd MAY TO 4th JUNE 2010 – APPENDIX 1
PURPOSE OF APPENDIX 1 The purpose of this Appendix is to provide a summary of the main formal enforcement cases in which action is currently being undertaken. REF NO. PARISH SITE ADDRESS BREACH/CONTRAVENTION PROGRESS 06/068 ALDINGHAM Low Sunbrick Farm, Installation of uPVC windows Members recently reconfirmed Aldingham in Listed Building enforcement action. Advice being sought from Conservation Officer. 10/022 ALDINGHAM Lime Kiln, Low Sunbrick Lane, Erection of unauthorised Retrospective Planning Baycliff agricultural building application refused. Considering enforcement action. 09/269 ARNSIDE Far Hollins Farm, Arnside Change of Use to campsite Enforcement Notice served 20/11/09 effective 4/1/10 compliance date 4/2/10. An appeal against the Notice has been received. Public Inquiry 5/10/2010. 10/124 EGTON WITH Woodbine Cottage, Penny Erection of extensive timber Enforcement Notice instructions NEWLAND Bridge decking with sauna and sent to legal services for formal jacuzzi. service. 05/060 GRANGE OVER Blawith Lodge, Windermere Replacement windows An application for the retention of SANDS Road, the windows subject to alterations Grange over Sands to the frames and painting has been received and approved.
87
REF NO. PARISH SITE ADDRESS BREACH/CONTRAVENTION PROGRESS 06/232 GRANGE OVER Underwood, Fernhill Road, Erection of large decking Enforcement Notice served SANDS Grange over Sands structure requesting they remove the
remaining substructure. Served 24/6/2010 takes effect 12/8/2010 with 2 month compliance period. 07/283 GRANGE OVER 2 Methven Terrace, Grange Extension not built as per plan Enforcement Notice at draft SANDS over Sands and breach of conditions stage. Planning application has been received for additional building. Enforcement action to continue for unauthorised works to front of property. 10/047 GRANGE OVER Eggerslack Wood Unauthorised use of woodland Section 330 notice served, SANDS for the siting of a yurt. waiting its return. 05/232 HELSINGTON Low Chambers Tenement, Siting of static caravan Enforcement Notice served on Brigsteer the 25 Jun 2010, effective 12 Aug 2010 and compliance date 11 Sep 2010. 07/156 KENDAL Bridge View, Burton Road, Creation of extra dwelling unit Planning Contravention Notice Kendal response received. Considering enforcement notice. 08/144 KENDAL Beech Hill Hotel, 40 Unauthorised uPVC windows Enforcement Notice served. An Greenside, Kendal in Conservation Area extension of 12 months to the Notice compliance period has been granted until 3 August 2010.
88
REF NO. PARISH SITE ADDRESS BREACH/CONTRAVENTION PROGRESS
08/210 KENDAL Cash in a Dash, 177 Highgate, Advertisement harmful to Appeal now lodged to Kendal Conservation Area Discontinuance Notice. Awaiting Inspector’s decision. 10/044 KENDAL Sunlight Laundry, Shap Rd, Siting of 4 two-storey shipping Enforcement Notice served 23 Kendal containers in factory yard. June 2010 date effective 11 Aug 2010 and compliance date 12 Oct 2010. 09/293 KENDAL 26 Sedbergh Drive, Kendal Erection of fence adjacent Planning Application has been highway over 2 metre refused 29 Jun 2010. Considering enforcement action. 09/232 LEVENS The Beeches, A591, Levens Material changes of use, Enforcement Notice served dividing of one dwelling to two. 29/1/10, compliance date 12/9/10. 09/388 LEVENS Sampool Caravan Park Erection of illegal Sign removed before further legal advertisement sign proceedings commenced. 07/025 LOWER Priory Close, Cartmel Internal alteration to Listed No progress; owners not in ALLITHWAITE Building. contact with department. Property has been referred to Empty Homes Officer. 09/211 MILNTHORPE Land to rear of 23 Church Material change of use. Site visit required to ascertain if Street, Milnthorpe Creation of access route. the requirements of the notice varied at appeal have been completed.
89
REF NO. PARISH SITE ADDRESS BREACH/CONTRAVENTION PROGRESS
10/100 MILNTHORPE Dallam School, Milnthorpe Breach of condition, planting A scheme for the latest scheme application has been approved. Replanting to the previous scheme is underway. 04/263 PENNINGTON Whinfield works, Whinfield Use of site for the storing of Site visit to be made to ascertain Ground, Lindal in Furness scrap cars. if breach has ceased. 09/344 PRESTON PATRICK Moss End Farm, Crooklands Unauthorised residential Enforcement Notice served 24 caravan in agricultural field. June 2010 date effective 12 Aug 2010 and compliance date 11 Sep 2010. 08/345 SKELSMERGH Holme Houses, Garth Row Unauthorised development Appeal against enforcement Lane, Kendal involving the construction of notice made, 3 day Public Inquiry caravan/chalet structures and commenced 9 June 2010. Inquiry business uses. adjourned to 9 Sept 2010 for further 3days. 09/377 ULVERSTON 22 Hallfield, Ulverston Use of dwelling unit for the Enforcement Notice served 23 running of Taxi business June 2010 date effective 12 Aug 2010 and compliance date 12 Oct 2010. 08/090 URSWICK Beckside Holdings, Unauthorised use of land - Planning application approved for between Scales and Stainton storage of equipment not an agricultural building and ancillary. manege. Further correspondence required to ascertain mutually acceptable timetable to remedy the outstanding matters.
90 PART I
Agenda Item No:8
South Lakeland District Council PLANNING COMMITTEE
Meeting Date: 29 July 2010 Report Author: Andrew Roe Development Management Group Manager Portfolio: Peter Thornton (Housing and Development) Report from: Corporate Director (Communities) Wards affected: All Key Decision: Not applicable Forward Plan: Not applicable
APPEALS UPDATE AT 16 July 2010
1.0 PURPOSE OF REPORT
1.1 To provide Members with information about the receipt and determination of planning appeals. • Appendix 1 – New appeals and appeal decisions between 14 June and16 July. • Appendix 2 – Current appeals still outstanding. • Appendix 3 – Appeals determined during 2010. 2.0 RECOMMENDATIONS
Note the report.
3.0 BACKGROUND
Appeals as set out in Appendices 1, 2 and 3.
4.0 RESEARCH AND CONSULTATION Not applicable.
5.0 PROPOSAL Not applicable.
91 6.0 ALTERNATIVE OPTIONS Not applicable.
7.0 NEXT STEPS Not applicable.
8.0 IMPLICATIONS 8.1 Financial and Resources The recommendations in this report do not have any cost implications. 8.2 Human Resources The recommendations in this report do not have any staffing implications. 8.3 Legal Not applicable. 8.4 Social, Economic and Environmental Impact This report does not have any registered significant environmental effects.
9.0 RISK ASSESSMENT
Not applicable.
10.0 EQUALITY AND DIVERSITY The Draft Statement of Community Involvement takes account of the equalities issues in seeking to define South Lakeland’s community and interests relevant to the Local Development Framework which will influence the determination of individual planning applications.
11.0 LINKS TO THE CORPORATE PLAN AND PERFORMANCE INDICATORS This report links to the aim of providing a “High Quality Environment” under Section 3.4 of the Corporate Plan.
12.0 CONCLUSION AND EXPECTED OUTCOMES 12.1 Not applicable.
APPENDICES ATTACHED TO THIS REPORT Appendix No. 1 New appeals and appeal decisions between 14 June and 16 July. 2 Current appeals still outstanding. 3 Appeals determined during 2010.
CONTACT OFFICERS Andrew Roe, Development Management Group Manager Ph. 797564
92
BACKGROUND DOCUMENTS AVAILABLE Various planning files.
TRACKING Not applicable.
93 94 APPEALS UPDATE AT 16 JULY – APPENDIX 1
PURPOSE OF APPENDIX 1 The purpose of this appendix is to inform Members of new appeals and appeal decisions between 14 June and 16 July 2010.
NUMBER LOCATION PROPOSAL
Lodged
SL/2010/0175 OLD HUTTON: land at Greenacre Siting of timber lodge to house Barn, Popplemire Lane dependant relatives, together with installation of septic tank Officer’s recommendation: Refuse
Committee: Refuse
Dismissed SL/2009/0831 BEETHAM: Grounds of Barcaldine, Dwelling Leighton Drive, Slack Head Delegated: Refuse
Allowed SL/2009/1034 GRANGE OVER SANDS: Change of use of Bar / Restaurant to 2 KB’s Bar and Restaurant apartments.
Officer’s recommendation: Refuse
Committee: Refuse
95 96 CURRENT APPEALS STILL OUTSTANDING – Updated 16 July 2010
Planning Local Planning Planning Inspectorate Start Reference Site Description Authority decision Reference date and date Appellant Type of Appeal SL/2009/0558 ARNSIDE: Siting of 10 timber clad twin unit Refused 28/8/09 - APP/M0933/A/10/2122806/WF 19/2/10 caravans with associated access Committee 27/8/09 (Full Planning Middlebarrow Plain (Written Representation) and private sewage plant Application) Cove Road Officer Silverdale Recommendation: Refuse Holgates Caravan Parks
SL/2009/0681 SKELSMERGH: Enforcement appeal re Enforcement APP/M0933/C/09/2108315 21/7/09 Enforcement Notice issued re (Enforcement) Holme House Farm (Public Inquiry - change of use of land to a mixed 9 – 11 June 2010) Edward Steele use; commercial business, tipping of waste, conversion of farmhouse to two dwellings, siting of residential caravans/chalet-cabins, erection of agricultural buildings and erection and siting of storage units
97 SL/2009/0949 ARNSIDE: Removal of Condition 3 (parking Refused 1/12/09 APP/M0933/A/10/2127497/NWF 30/4/10 provision) on Planning Permission (Full Planning 1 and 2 Station Delegated SL/2007/0678 Application) Road
Mr David Palfreyman
SL/2009/1049 KENDAL: Appeal against Discontinuance Enforcement APP/M0933/H/09/2112641 20/11/09 Notice (Enforcement) 177 Highgate
Mr Zubeir Mister
SL/2009/1097 GRANGE over Two-storey rear extension Refused 27/1/10 APP/M0933/H/10/2127427/WF 4/5/10 SANDS: Delegated (Full Planning Application) Site: 14 Graigella, 12 Grange Fell Rd
Mr Paul Walmsley
SL/2009/1135 ARNSIDE: Extension to caravan and camping Refused 25/3/10 - APP/M0933/C/09/2128264/NWF 13/5/10 site with replacement facility Committee 25/3/10 (Full Planning Hollins Farm building and new sewage Application) Far Arnside Officer treatment plant, and associated Recommendation: Holgate Caravan landscape works Refuse Parks Ltd
SL/2009/1139 BARBON: Extensions and alterations Refused 25/2/10 - APP/M0933/A/10/2128951/NWF 26/5/10 Committee 25/2/10 (Full Planning Parsons Hill (Hearing) Application) Officer Mr & Mrs Maloney Recommendation: Refuse
98 SL/2010/0018 ARNSIDE: Appeal against Enforcement APP/M0933/C/09/2119371 30/12/09 Enforcement Notice (Enforcement) Hollins Farm Now linked to appeal: Far Arnside (Use of field for camping in excess APP/M0933/C/09/2128264/NWF of 28 days) Michael William Holgate
SL/2010/0175 OLD HUTTON Siting of timber lodge to house Refused 29/4/10 - APP/M0933/A/10/2130672WF 22/6/10 AND dependant relatives, together with Committee 29/4/10 (Full Planning HOMESCALES: installation of septic tank Application) Officer Greenacre Barn, Recommendation: Popplemire Lane Refuse Mr & Mrs Launder
99 100 APPEALS UPDATE AT 16 July – APPENDIX 3
PURPOSE OF APPENDIX 1 The purpose of this appendix is to inform Members of appeals determined during 2010.
Index Planning Inspectorate Site Officers Decision of Appeal Reference and Description Recommendation Planning No. (Decision made by Inspectorate Local Planning Authority Committee or under Reference Delegated Powers) 10/01 APP/M0933/A/09/2113802/WF MILNTHORPE: Detached double Refused 12/6/09 - ALLOWED garage with log/coal Committee 11/6/09 CONDITIONALLY Highfield Ackenthwaite store 11 January 2010 SL/2009/0080 Milnthorpe Officer Recommendation: Refuse 10/02 APP/M0933/C/09/2109463 ALDINGHAM: Appeal against Enforcement DISMISSED Enforcement Notice Goadsbarrow Farm 13 January 2010 Cottage served re the use of SL/2009/0684 Meadow View the dwelling as a (Enforcement) Goadsbarrow yoga and meditation centre 10/03 APP/M0933/A/09/2099304/NWF PRESTON PATRICK: Erection of 3 wind Non-Determination DISMISSED turbines and Committee 26/03/09 (Public Inquiry – Land at Sillfield 29 January 2010 associated 13 to 22 October 2009) Gatebeck infrastructure
SL/2008/0900
101 10/04 APP/M0933/A/09/2116706/WF KENDAL: Erection of garden Refused 11/05/09 DISMISSED wall (Retrospective) 57 Burton Road Delegated 9 February 2010 Kendal SL/2009/0255 10/05 APP/M0933/A/09/2114874/NWF BEETHAM: Erection of floodlights Refused 3/06/09 ALLOWED for horse exercise CONDITIONALLY Ellers Farm, Farleton Delegated area (Retrospective) 11 February 2010 SL/2009/0360
10/06 APP/M0933/D/09/2117075 KENDAL: Two-storey and Refused 28/09/09 ALLOWED 31 Silver Howe Close single-storey Delegated CONDITIONALLY
Kendal extension with 15 February 2010 SL/2009/0658 balcony over
10/07 APP/M0933/A/09/2117555/WF GRANGE over Dwelling Refused 28/09/09 ALLOWED SANDS: Delegated CONDITIONALLY
Land on The 18 February 2010 SL/2009/0637 Esplanade Grange over Sands
10/08 APP/MO933/A/09/2117294/NWF LOWER Change of Use from Refused 28/8/09 - DISMISSED ALLITHWAITE: Class A1 (Retail) to Committee 27/8/09
Anthemion Gallery Class A3 (Restaurant SL/2009/0503 (Formerly Cadeaux) and Cafes) Officer The Square Recommendation: Cartmel Refuse
102 10/09 APP/M0933/A/09/2101381/NWF KENDAL: Redevelopment of Refused 26/03/09 - DISMISSED site to form retail Committee:26/3/09 (Public Inquiry – Kendal Rugby 3 March 2010 development with 16 to 18 September 2009) Union Football Club Shap Road associated car Officer Kendal parking and servicing Recommendation: SL/2008/1219 facilities Refuse 10/10 APP/M0933/C/09/2119636 MILNTHORPE: Appeal against Enforcement ALLOWED – Land to rear of and Enforcement Notice Variation of
adjacent to: Enforcement Notice SL/2010/0011 (Change of Use of 23 Church Street Domestic Garden to 26 March 2010 Milnthorpe Access Route)
10/11 APP/M0933/A/09/2118705/WF KENDAL: Erection of two Refused 12/6/09 - DISMISSED dwellings Committee: 11/6/09 Rear of 14 & 16 Lound 28 April 2010 SL/2008/0905 Road, Kendal Officer Recommendation: Refuse
10/12 APP/M0933/A/09/2116019/NWF BEETHAM: Removal of Condition Refused 27/10/09 2 (local occupancy) Delegated ALLOWED Kingfisher House Sandside on Planning 4 May 2010 SL/2009/0826 Milnthorpe Permission SL/2008/1007
103 10/13 APP/M0933/A/09/2118756/WF GRANGE over Removal of Condition Refused 24/09/09 – SANDS: 3 (local occupancy) DISMISSED Committee: from Planning SL/2009/0675 Site at Methodist (24/09/09) Church Permission Officer 6 May 2010 Station Road SL/2009/0137 Recommendation: Cark in Cartmel Refuse
10/14 APP/M0933/A/10/2121932/NWF KENDAL: Erection of Two Self Refused 19/10/09 30 Whinfell Drive Contained Flats Delegated DISMISSED
Kendal SL/2009/0722 24 May 2010 10/15 APP/M0933/A/10/2122277/WF BEETHAM: Dwelling Refused 3/02/10 DISMISSED Grounds of Barcaldine, Delegated 18 JUNE 2010 SL/2009/0831 Leighton Drive Slack Head Milnthorpe
10/16 APP/M0933/A/10/2123013/NWF GRANGE over Change of use of Bar Refused 28/01/10 ALLOWED SANDS: / Restaurant to 2 Committee: 28/01/10 CONDITIONALLY
apartments SL/2009/1034 KB’s Bar and Officer 18 JUNE 2010 Restaurant Recommendation: 76 Kentsford Road Refuse Grange over Sands
104 NOT FOR PUBLICATION PART I Part I Report Agenda Item No:9
South Lakeland District Council Planning Committee Meeting Date: 29 July 2010 Report Author: Graham Darlington, Conservation Officer Portfolio: Housing and Development Portfolio – Peter Thornton Report from: Corporate Director Communities Wards affected: All wards Key Decision: Not applicable Forward Plan: Not applicable
PLANNING POLICY STATEMENT 5 (PPS 5): PLANNING FOR THE HISTORIC ENVIRONMENT
1.0 PURPOSE OF REPORT 1.1 To inform planning committee of the introduction of government Planning Policy Statement PPS 5, issued on 23 March 2010, and to raise Member awareness of the new planning situation that the PPS 5 introduces in the management of heritage assets within the historic environment.
2.0 RECOMMENDATIONS 1 To acknowledge the issuing of Planning Policy Statement (PPS) 5: Planning for the Historic Environment, by central government in March 2010; and 2 to note the implications contained within the PPS 5 for the new approach to development management and the historic environment with regard to the treatment of applications involving heritage assets.
3.0 BACKGROUND 3.1 Planning Policy Statement (PPS) 5 Planning for the Historic Environment was issued by the Department for Communities and Local Government on 23 March 2010. A Historic Environment Planning Practice Guide was also published concurrently by English Heritage, and acts as a more detailed guide to interpreting the policy within the PPS. The PPS is a material planning
105 consideration in the determination of planning applications while the Practice Guide also carries governmental weight and can be a material consideration in planning terms. The new PPS and accompanying Practice Guidance can be accessed via the Department of Communities and Local Government web site www.communities.gov.uk/publications/planningandbuilding/pps5
3.2 The new PPS immediately replaces PPG 15 (historic environment) and PPG 16 (archaeology) in a single unified policy statement but does not alter the existing statutory framework for the designation of scheduled monuments, listed buildings, conservation areas or registered parks and gardens.
4.0 RESEARCH AND CONSULTATION Not applicable 5.0 PROPOSAL
3.3 The PPS stresses the Government’s positive commitment to the historic environment by noting its critical role in relation to regeneration, economic development, social enhancement and place making, and a particular emphasis is placed on the contribution that heritage assets can make to sustainable development.
3.4 In summary, the guiding principles contained within the PPS and its Practice Guide are that the historic environment should be conserved and managed for the quality of life it brings to this and future generations. The PPS gives recognition to the fact that the country’s heritage assets (see 3.4 below) are an irreplaceable resource and it makes clear that development decisions affecting such assets must be based on clear but proportionate evidence. Development proposals should take account of the wider social, economic and cultural benefits of heritage conservation and, for the first time, significant emphasis is placed on the contribution that heritage assets can make to sustainable development. The rich contribution that such assets make to local character and place making needs to be clearly recognised and promoted through the Local Development Framework. PPS policies require Local Planning Authorities (LPAs) to mange heritage assets intelligently by using skilled advisors to inform their decision-making where the need to understand the particular significance of a heritage asset and any proposed impact demands it. This advice may be complemented by advice from heritage amenity societies, including the National Amenity Societies.
3.4 The PPS 5 presents a holistic approach to the historic environment and key features of the new policy are two new concepts. The first is the term ‘Heritage Assets’ which is defined as including both designated elements, such as listed buildings, conservation areas, scheduled ancient monuments and historic parks and gardens; with other elements that are not designated such as non- scheduled archaeological sites or buildings of local importance, which may have been identified by the LPA during the plan making stage or during pre- application development management discussions. PPS 5 is thus identified as a material planning consideration in development affecting all of these aspects.
106 Secondly, the PPS introduces the term ‘significance’, meaning the value of a heritage asset to this and future generations because of its heritage interest. Such significance relates to heritage assets that have some degree of historic, archaeological, architectural or artistic merit.
3.5 The PPS is divided into three Policy Areas, which are material considerations in development management decisions:
1 Heritage assets and climate change; 2 Plan-making policies, which should be taken into account by local planning authorities in the preparation of local development documents including Core Strategies; and 3 Development management.
3.6 The twelve Policies and their meanings and implications are set out below:
• Policy HE 1 – Heritage assets and climate change. PPS 5 recognises that the historic environment needs to play a part in delivering government objectives to reduce greenhouse gas emissions and secure sustainable development. However, it also acknowledges that many built heritage assets often embody stored energy from the past and so the retention of historic buildings is an inherently sustainable approach. However, consideration should also be given to how they might improve their energy performance and Local Planning Authorities are required to assist in identifying opportunities to mitigate, and adapt to, the effects of climate change when devising policies and making development management decisions affecting heritage assets. In so doing they should seek solutions that ‘minimise any harm’ to the significance of heritage assets. It is also noted that keeping heritage assets can be a more sustainable option than the redevelopment of a site.
• Policy HE 2 – Evidence base for plan making. Outlines the importance of having a reliable and well-documented evidence base to support the plan-making process and development management activities through a requirement that LPAs should maintain or have access to a Historic Environment Record (HER). This is identified as an important tool with which to understand the significance of heritage assets while also helping to identify where potential new assets might be discovered through the planning process. Applicants should be encouraged to discuss the amount of the supporting information that will be required with the LPAs specialist advisor.
• Policy HE 3 – Regional and local planning approaches. LDFs should set out a positive and proactive strategy for the conservation and enjoyment of the historic environment and should reflect the contribution
107 that it can make to an area’s sense of place, economic regeneration and sustainability.
• Policy HE 4 – Permitted development and Article 4 Directions. LPAs are encouraged to consider the use of Article 4 Directions to bring under control development that may be harmful to the historic environment.
• Policy HE 5 - Monitoring indicators. Local Planning Authorities should monitor the impact of their Policies and decisions on the historic environment (HE 5) and develop strategies for the retention of heritage assets that are at risk through decay or loss.
• Policy HE 6 – Information requirements for applications for consent affecting heritage assets. This Policy requires that, when validating applications affecting heritage assets and their settings, LPAs should ensure that sufficient and proportionate information is submitted in support of all applications, detailing both the significance of the heritage asset and on the impact of the proposals upon that significance. This will mean that many applications affecting a range of assets will need to be assessed by an appropriately skilled person, and, in some cases, when they are insufficiently detailed applications may remain invalid until suitable information is submitted. Validation assessment might also reveal the need for further assessment or field evaluation prior to the determination of the planning application. Where the loss of significance to a heritage asset can be justified, then planning conditions should be used to record the heritage asset before its significance is lost.
• Policy HE 7 – Policy principles guiding the determination of applications for consent relating to all heritage assets. When determining applications the LPA must take into account the ‘desirability of sustaining and enhancing the significance of heritage assets and of utilising their positive role in place shaping’; ‘the desirability of new development making a positive contribution to the character and local distinctiveness of the historic environment’; and ‘the positive contribution that the conservation of heritage assets can make to the establishment and maintenance of sustainable communities and economic vitality’. In addition, where a heritage asset may have special significance for the community the LPA must take reasonable steps to seek the views of that community.
• Policy HE 8 - Additional Policy principle guiding the consideration of applications for consent relating to heritage assets that are not covered by policy HE 9.
108 This Policy makes the presumption that the identification of previously unidentified heritage assets will take place during the pre-application stage of discussions and negotiations. When so identified by specialist staff or advisors PPS 5 recognises that there may be a requirement for more detailed reports, such archaeological desk-based assessments or building appraisals, being required.
• Policy HE 9 – Additional Policy principles guiding the consideration of applications for consent relating to heritage assets. This Policy demonstrates an unambiguous presumption in favour of the conservation of designated heritage assets, for once lost they cannot be replaced and their loss has a cultural, environmental, economic and social impact, unless the proposals would bring about substantial public benefits that outweigh that harm or loss. The approving of proposals that would lead to the loss or substantial harm of any designated heritage asset (for example the demolition of a listed building) should be ‘exceptional’ and LPAs should refuse consent unless there is a very persuasive justification not to do so.
• Policy HE 10 – Additional Policy principles guiding the consideration of applications for development affecting the setting of a designated heritage asset Proposals that would affect the setting of a heritage asset should only be supported where the application would ‘preserve or better reveal’ the significance of the asset. When applications do not achieve this, LPAs should weigh the potential harm against any broader public or heritage benefits of the scheme. On such occasions the policy advises that the greater the harmful impact on the significance of the asset, the greater the benefits that will be needed to justify approval.
• Policy HE 11 - Enabling development LPAs should assess whether the benefits of supporting an application for enabling development which would secure the future conservation of a heritage asset outweighs any disbenefits of departing from the development plan. In forming a decision the LPA must consider whether the proposals would materially harm the significance of the heritage asset or its setting, secure the long term future for the heritage asset and, where applicable, ensure its continued use for a purpose sympathetic to its conservation.
• Policy HE 12 – Policy principles guiding the recording of information related to heritage assets As a last resort and in mitigation of any loss to a heritage asset LPAs should use planning conditions and obligations to ensure that applicants record the asset and make the resulting information publicly available.
109 6.0 ALTERNATIVE OPTIONS 6.1 There are no alternative options. The PPS is a material planning consideration in the determination of planning applications, while the Practice Guide also carries governmental weight and can be a material consideration in planning terms.
7.0 NEXT STEPS Utilise the PPS 5 and its Practice Guide in development management casework. A guidance note advising applicants of the requirements for supporting information on significance and impact assessments for applications affecting heritage assets is in preparation. It is proposed to organise a training session for Planning Committee members on the implications of the new PPS 5 and its use in development management casework.
8.0 IMPLICATIONS 8.1 Financial and Resources 8.1.1 There may be resource implications arising from the new PPS 5, for example, the Council will need to ensure that it has access to a Historic Environment Record, currently made available through liaison with staff at Cumbria County Council’s Heritage Unit; and that it takes appropriate advice from a specialist advisor on proposals affecting the historic environment.
8.2 Human Resources 8.2.1 This area work will be undertaken by the Council’s Conservation Officer as the authority’s special advisor, working in collaboration with the Development Management team, and there are no human resources implications associated with the report. 8.3 Legal 8.3.1 Paragraphs 2, 3, 4 and 5 of PPS 5 set out the weight that should be attached to PPS 5 in formulating plan making policies and in undertaking development management decisions. Paragraph 3 is particularly clear in that it states the policies in PPS 5 must be taken into account in development management decisions.
8.4 Social, Economic and Environmental Impact 8.4.1 PPS 5 requires LPAs to take account of the wider social, cultural, economic and environmental benefits of heritage conservation. Development management has a central role to play in conserving heritage assets and utilising the historic environment to create sustainable places that will be enjoyed by this and future generations. The PPS requires specific consideration of the need to consider the implications of climate change and the need to resolve conflicts between climate change objectives and conservation of heritage assets. In particular the re-use of heritage assets / listed buildings avoids the consumption of buildings materials and energy and the generation of waste from the construction of
110 replacement buildings. For these reasons the PPS is considered to have a very positive affect on sustainability.
9.0 RISK ASSESSMENT Risk Consequence Controls required Failure to use This would expose the Ensure that the Policies the Policies Council to serious contained within the PPS are within the PPS difficulties and reputational embedded in day to day 5 in risk at planning appeals development management and development and inquiries. plan making activities and that management appropriate staff and Members casework. of planning committee are given sufficient training to familiarise themselves with the new guidance.
Failure to This would affect the The Council maintains an maintain or Council’s ability to existing record of listed have access to determine applications with buildings, scheduled a HER due regard to the evidence monuments and designated based decision making conservation areas, but this is a policies in HE6 and relatively small dataset that has particularly HE 7-10, and to be supplemented by would open the Council up maintaining access to the to charges of failing to services of Cumbria County discharge its Council’s (CCC) Historic responsibilities as a LPA. Environment Record, currently through consultations with staff at CCC. At some stage, the Authority might wish to resource its own, more comprehensive HER, but until such time it seems prudent to maintain access to the Information held in the HER supplied by CCC. The Council’s conservation officer is currently compiling a list of buildings of local architectural or historic importance, which should be available for public consultation in 2011.
10.0 EQUALITY AND DIVERSITY 10.1 The historic environment plays a very central role in establishing local identity in the district’s settlements and historic landscapes. The conservation and
111 enhancement of heritage assets though effective development management helps to sustain distinctive local buildings, areas and historic sites and create a tangible and evocative link with the past that reinforces civic pride and offers valuable opportunities for learning and recreation. Local environments that offer a range of attractive and accessible public spaces, including local and nationally important heritage assets, also encourage people of all backgrounds to enjoy them, creating places where people come together and mix. Encouraging local people to take part in the care and management of the historic environment creates a strong a sense of shared ownership in the locality, which is beneficial in strengthening local communities.
11.0 LINKS TO THE CORPORATE PLAN AND PERFORMANCE INDICATORS 11.1 The activities described in this report are linked to the following objectives of the Corporate Plan: • 1.7 South Lakeland’s development is balanced against protecting the area’s natural and built environment (D/C/E) • 3.1 The public realm in South Lakeland is upgraded, protecting and enhancing its special character (D/E) Develop and Deliver the Local Development Framework Protect the built environment through the Development Control Service (1.7)
12.0 CONCLUSION AND EXPECTED OUTCOMES 12.1 Members to note the implementation of the new PPS 5 and its Practice Guide. Officers and Planning Committee to consider the Policies within the PPS when determining applications affecting heritage assets.
CONTACT OFFICERS Graham Darlington, Conservation Officer. 01539 717338. [email protected]
BACKGROUND DOCUMENTS AVAILABLE Copies of PPS 5 and the Practice Guide are available from: www.communities.gov.uk/publications/planningandbuilding/pps5
112