Date: 9 December 2020
Town Hall, Penrith, Cumbria CA11 7QF Tel: 01768 817817 Email: [email protected]
Dear Sir/Madam
Planning Committee Agenda - 17 December 2020
Notice is hereby given that a meeting of the Planning Committee will be held at 9.30 am on Thursday, 17 December 2020.
This meeting will be a virtual meeting and therefore will not take place in a physical location following guidelines set out in Section 78 of the Coronavirus Act 2020.
This Council meeting will be held virtually on Microsoft Teams
1 Apologies for Absence
2 Minutes
To sign the minutes Pla/73/11/20 to Pla/86/11/20 of the meeting of this Committee held on 19 November 2020 as a correct record of those proceedings (copies previously circulated).
3 Declarations of Interest
To receive any declarations of the existence and nature of any private interests, both disclosable pecuniary and any other registrable interests, in any matter to be considered or being considered.
4 Planning Issues (Pages 5 - 20)
To note the attached lists of the Assistant Director Planning and Economic Development. a) Applications determined under office delegated powers for the month of November 2020 b) Reasons for refusal on delegated decisions for the month of November 2020
5 Planning Issues - Applications for Debate (Green Papers) (Pages 21 - 78)
To consider the reports of the Assistant Director Planning and Economic Development on the following applications:
Paul Sutton Interim Director of Corporate www.eden.gov.uk Services Item Officer Page Application Details No Recommendation Number
1 Planning Application No: 20/0589 Recommended to:
Outline application for a dwelling with all APPROVE matters reserved Subject to Conditions 23 Car park at Lowther Castle Inn, Hackthorpe, Penrith
D Brennand
2 Planning Application No: 20/0429 Recommended to:
Erection of Detached Dwelling and REFUSE Detached Shed/Kennels (as amended) With Reasons 36 Land at/to the rear of Cross House, Newby
Messrs A & T Howe
3 Planning Application No: 20/0484 Recommended to:
Outline application for erection of 2no. REFUSE local occupancy dwellings with all With Reasons matters reserved 52 Land at Southwaite, Southwaite, CA4 0LL
Mr Fisher
4 Planning Application No: 20/0669 Recommended to:
Demolition of existing shed and erection REFUSE of a replacement shed. Re-submission With Reasons of 20/0223 66 Banks Gate, North Stainmore, Kirkby Stephen, CA17 4EX
Mr F Allison
6 Confirmation of Site Visits (if any)
To confirm the date and location of any site visits that may have been agreed.
7 Any Other Items which the Chairman decides are urgent www.eden.gov.uk 2
8 Date of Next Meeting
The date of the next scheduled meeting be confirmed as 21 January 2021.
Yours faithfully
P Sutton Interim Director of Corporate Services
Democratic Services Contact: Vivien Little
Encs
For Attention All members of the Council
Chairman – Councillor W Patterson (Independent Group) Vice Chairman – Councillor M Eyles (Liberal Democrat Group)
Councillors I Chambers, Conservative Group H Sawrey-Cookson, Independent Group M Clark, Independent Group G Simpkins, Liberal Democrat Group D Holden, Liberal Democrat Group J G Thompson, Conservative Group J C Lynch, Conservative Group D Wicks, Conservative Group A Ross, Green Group
Standing Deputies A Armstrong, Conservative Group E Martin, Conservative Group P G Baker, Liberal Democrat Group A Meadowcroft, Conservative Group D Banks, Independent Group G Nicolson OBE, Conservative Group L Harker, Liberal Democrat Group D Ryland, Independent Group S Lancaster, Independent Group D Smith, Liberal Democrat Group D Lawson, Green Group
Please Note: 1. Section 78 of the Coronavirus Act 2020 and the Local Authorities and Police and Crime Panels (Coronavirus)(Flexibility of Local Authority and Police and Crime Panel Meetings)(England and Wales) Regulations 2020 mean that this meeting of Eden District Council is classed as a virtual meeting. 2. Under the Openness of Local Government Bodies Regulations 2014 this meeting has been advertised as a public meeting (unless stated otherwise) www.eden.gov.uk 3 and as such could be filmed or recorded by the media or members of the public
www.eden.gov.uk 4 PLANNING COMMITTEE Agenda Item No. APPLICATIONS DETERMINED UNDER OFFICER DELEGATED POWERS FOR THE MONTH OF NOVEMBER 2020
App No App Type Parish Description Location Applicant Decision
20/0100 Reserved by Sockbridge & Discharge of conditions 3 (construction method LAND WEST OF SOCKBRIDGE, Stoneswood APPROVED Cond Tirril statement), 4 (carriageway, footways, footpaths, THORPE FIELD, SOCKBRIDGE, Devleopment Ltd cycle ways etc.), 8 (surface water discharge), 9 PENRITH, (surface water drainage), 11 (parking, turning, loading and unloading of vehicles), 12 (surface water drainage - national planning practice guidance), 13 (hard and soft landscaping) and 14 (tree protection measures) attached to approval 17/0080.
20/0226 Full Application Bolton Extension to Memorial Hall, change of use of annexe BOLTON MEMORIAL HALL, CHAPEL Ms S Leyland APPROVED to domestic dwelling and change of use of part STREET, BOLTON, APPLEBY-IN- playing field to car park. WESTMORLAND, CA16 6AR
20/0290 Full Application Bolton Variation of Condition 2 (plans compliance) for the EDEN GROVE, BOLTON, APPLEBY- Eden Grove APPROVED replacement of blocks C,D,E and F with 10 detached IN-WESTMORLAND, CA16 6AJ Investments dwellings, attached to approval 15/0728.
20/0442 Full Application Penrith Variation of Condition 2 (Plans Compliance) to erect 42 MAYBURGH AVENUE, PENRITH, Mr R Lamb APPROVED porch to front elevation attached to approval 19/0301. CA11 8PA
20/0459 Full Application Ainstable Retrospective installation of biomass wood pellet ARMATHWAITE PLACE, Mr G MacLellan APPROVED boiler to replace old oil boiler. ARMATHWAITE, CA4 9PY
20/0468 Non-Material Penrith Non material amendment to substitute 23No. plots, LAND AT CARLETON HILL ROAD, Persimmon Homes - APPROVED Amend reposition 5No. plots and reposition garages on 2No. PENRITH, Ms K Pearson plots attached to approval 16/0811.
20/0479 Listed Building Lazonby Listed Building Consent for repairs to external and LAZONBY C OF E SCHOOL, The Governors APPROVED internal walls and removal of redundant oil tanks. LAZONBY, CA10 1BL
20/0481 Full Application Penrith Two storey side extension to provide annex. 1 SALKELD ROAD, PENRITH, CA11 Mr S Murray APPROVED 8QL Agenda Item 4 20/0506 Full Application Penrith Change of use of part of building from office use to SATU INTERIORS LTD, OFFICE 1 SATU INTERIORS APPROVED beauty salon. THE WHITE OX, INGLEWOOD LTD - Mrs J Shead ROAD, PENRITH, CA11 8QN
20/0514 Full Application Penrith Variation of condition 2 (Plans Compliance) to LAND OFF CARLETON ROAD, Story Homes - Mrs J APPROVED amend the roof materials, attached to approval PENRITH, Taylor 20/0179.
Page 5 Page 20/0515 Full Application Newby Change of use of part field for siting of timber garage CORNER HOUSE, NEWBY, Mrs S Alderton APPROVED and creation of new access. PENRITH, CA10 3EX
04 December 2020 Page 1 of 9 App No App Type Parish Description Location Applicant Decision Page 6 Page 20/0554 Listed Building Temple Sowerby Listed Building Consent for the installation of two CEDARS, TEMPLE SOWERBY, Miss K Moberly APPROVED slate vents in the roof to allow ventilation from PENRITH, CA10 1RZ bathroom extractor fans.
20/0560 Full Application Soulby Erection of detached dwelling with ancillary DENMARK HALL, SOULBY, KIRKBY Mr & Mrs J Western APPROVED outbuilding STEPHEN, CA17 4PL
20/0568 Full Application Bolton Proposed conversion of adjoining barn/outbuildings PENNINE VIEW, SOUTH END, Mr & Mrs Hudson APPROVED for residential use. BOLTON, CA16 6AW
20/0570 Listed Building Alston Listed Building Consent for the retention of 2no THE HIVE, NENTHEAD, ALSTON, Nenthead Chapel APPROVED advertisement signs on south elevation and 1no CA9 3PF Enterprises Ltd - Ms S noticeboard on East elevation. Griffith-Jones
20/0573 Full Application Bandleyside Proposed agricultural building and slurry holding HELM FARM, ORMSIDE, APPLEBY- M & S Barrow APPROVED store. IN-WESTMORLAND, CA16 6QA
20/0576 Full Application Penrith Change of use of Stoneybeck Inn to offices and the STONEYBECK INN, BOWSCAR, A Wilderness Way APPROVED change of use of Beck Cottage to a residential care PENRITH, CA11 8RP home
20/0577 Listed Building Penrith Listed Building Consent for the installation of a STONEYBECK INN, BOWSCAR, A Wilderness Way APPROVED number of partition walls to Stoneybeck Inn and the PENRITH, CA11 8RP removal of a partition wall in Beck Cottage.
20/0594 Reserved by Penrith Discharge of Conditions 3 (Lighting) and 4 (Surface LAND AT EDEN BUSINESS PARK, Venture Business APPROVED Cond water drainage) attached to approval 20/0238. COWPER ROAD, PENRITH, CA11 Space Limited - Mr A 9FD Hayton
20/0598 Tree Works Brougham Fell 2 x Spruce trees and crown reduce 2 x Hawthorn 17 BROUGHAM HALL GARDENS, Mr R Wood APPROVED (TPO) trees. BROUGHAM, PENRITH, CA10 2DB
20/0605 Tree Works Penrith Beech tree (T1) reduction of no more that 30% of the 3 SANDATH GARDENS, FELL LANE, Mr S Knafler APPROVED (TPO) leaf area to be thinned by a mix Crown Reduction PENRITH, CA11 8BG and Crown thinning.
20/0621 Notice of Intention Murton Proposed installation of solar panels. HEATHER BANK, BRACKENBER, G A & D E Slack - Mr G APPROVED APPLEBY-IN-WESTMORLAND, Slack CA16 6LP
20/0624 Full Application Dacre Cover over existing muck store. PALLET HILL FARM, PALLET HILL, Mr K Preston APPROVED PENRITH, CA11 0BY
20/0632 Full Application Ousby Extension to existing hay shed/stables and storage CROFT HOUSE, OUSBY, PENRITH, Mr A Hunter APPROVED of agricultural vehicles and livestock. CA10 1QB
20/0639 Listed Building Kirkby Stephen Listed Building Consent for interior re-modelling of 25 MARKET SQUARE, KIRKBY Cumbria Smiles - Dr A APPROVED ground floor treatment rooms, reception and waiting STEPHEN, CA17 4QT Hamid area and lower ground floor staff areas.
04 December 2020 Page 2 of 9 App No App Type Parish Description Location Applicant Decision
20/0640 Full Application Penrith Replacement of white UPVC sliding door and window 3 HUTTON COURT, BENSON ROW, Mr R Lyon APPROVED panel with white opening door and window panel. PENRITH, CA11 7YJ
20/0641 Full Application Glassonby Proposed conservatory. OCTOBER COTTAGE, GAMBLESBY, Mr Sawyer APPROVED PENRITH, CA10 1JA
20/0642 Full Application Penrith Change of use to compound/parking/storage area PLOTS 3, 4 AND 5, EDEN Cumbria Quarrying APPROVED and the installation of services and infrastructure BUSINESS PARK, PENRITH, Services Limited including the erection of a perimeter fence to plot five Eden Business Park and the erection of No.11 aggregate bays along the western boundary of plots three and four (part retrospective).
20/0645 Full Application Stainmore Erection of new timber agricultural store / workshop. THE OLD DAIRY, NORTH Mr John Birch APPROVED STAINMORE, KIRKBY STEPHEN, CA17 4EU
20/0651 Full Application Penrith Proposed alterations to existing driveway. 10 PARK CLOSE, PENRITH, CA11 Mr M Jameson APPROVED 8ND
20/0652 Full Application Kirkoswald Retrospective subdivision of Garden House and GARDEN HOUSE / COURTYARD Mr M Vollans APPROVED Courtyard Cottage to form two dwellings. COTTAGE, STAFFIELD HALL, STAFFIELD, PENRITH, CA10 1EU
20/0654 Full Application Penrith Demolition and rebuild of existing garage and new 31 OAK ROAD, PENRITH, CA11 8TS Mr & Mrs R & A Lowis APPROVED garden boundary wall with garden landscaping.
20/0656 Reserved Matters Crackenthorpe Reserved Matters application for access, GARTH HOUSE, Mr G Knowles APPROVED appearance, landscaping, layout and scale, attached CRACKENTHORPE, APPLEBY-IN- to approval 17/0299. Re-submission of 19/0830. WESTMORLAND, CA16 6AH
20/0668 Full Application Kirkoswald Erection of a two storey extension to the front 11 ROODS PLACE, KIRKOSWALD, Mr & Mrs Reay APPROVED elevation. PENRITH, CA10 1EF
20/0674 Full Application Dacre Rebuilding of existing single storey dwelling to STONECREST, GREYSTOKE GILL, Mr & Mrs S & T APPROVED provide additional living space. GREYSTOKE, PENRITH, CA11 0UQ Hawkyard
20/0680 Full Application Lazonby Retrospective application for the change of use of LAND WEST OF CLEAR VIEW, Mr G Dickinson APPROVED land to Sui Generis Use (storage of timber, tools, LAZONBY, CA10 1AU and machinery, agricultural items), formation of new track, parking area and associated engineering works; erection of general purpose building; and temporary placement of shipping container for tools/machinery for three years.
20/0681 Full Application Hesket Erection of two-storey side extension, single-storey SOUTHWAITE HILL COTTAGE, Mr & Mrs R & M APPROVED
Page 7 Page rear extension, replacement porch and erection of SOUTHWAITE, CA4 0EW Ibbotson detached garage.
04 December 2020 Page 3 of 9 App No App Type Parish Description Location Applicant Decision Page 8 Page 20/0682 Listed Building Hesket Listed Building Consent for the erection of two-storey SOUTHWAITE HILL COTTAGE, Mr & Mrs R & M APPROVED side extension, single-storey rear extension and SOUTHWAITE, CA4 0EW Ibbotson replacement porch. Removal of render to external walls and re-point and/or white wash existing stone. Re-roof existing dwelling.
20/0683 Full Application Culgaith Change of use of buildings and land from agriculture BLACKHILL LODGE STUD, Mr M Vickers APPROVED to equestrian - retrospective. BLENCARN, PENRITH, CA10 1TX
20/0684 Full Application Alston Replacement single storey side extension. WHITEHALL HOUSE, NENTHEAD, Mr J Edgar APPROVED CA9 3PS
20/0685 Full Application Culgaith Variation of condition 2, 3, 4 and 6 (occupancy BLACKHILL LODGE STUD, Mr M Vickers APPROVED restriction, vehicle parking and turning, and chalet BLENCARN, PENRITH, CA10 1TX retention and use) of planning permission 11/0945
20/0689 Cert. of Lawful Greystoke Certificate of Lawfulness for the development of a BRAETHEN, THE THORPE, Mr & Mrs Mole REFUSED building for residential use. GREYSTOKE, PENRITH, CA11 0TJ
20/0693 Full Application Penrith Change of use of the first and second floors from 1 ROWCLIFFE LANE, PENRITH, Rowcliffe House Vets APPROVED residential use to veterinary practice use (Use Class CA11 7BH Ltd - Mrs S Boye E).
20/0697 Full Application Glassonby Extension of agricultural building to roof over existing CHURCH FARM, GAMBLESBY, Mr G Morton APPROVED yard. PENRITH, CA10 1HR
20/0698 Full Application Cliburn Access track for farm buildings. HOWGATE HOUSE, CLIBURN, SB & MA Threlkeld - Mr APPROVED PENRITH, CA10 3AL & Mrs Threlkeld
20/0701 Full Application Hunsonby Erection of agricultural building for livestock. TOWN END FARM, LITTLE Mr Hebson APPROVED SALKELD, PENRITH, CA10 1NN
20/0707 Tree Works (CA) Brough Crown lifting work on 4 cherry trees and 1 sycamore BROUGH PRIMARY SCHOOL, Mr P Cooper APPROVED tree within Conservation area. CHURCH BROUGH, KIRKBY STEPHEN, CA17 4EW
20/0708 Listed Building Penrith Listed Building Consent for retention of alterations FIGARO BARBER SHOP, 5 MARKET Figaro Barber Ltd REFUSED and replacement of shop front and access door. SQUARE, PENRITH, CA11 7AU
20/0710 Full Application Penrith Retrospective alterations and replacement of shop FIGARO BARBER SHOP, 5 MARKET Figaro Barber Ltd REFUSED front and access door. SQUARE, PENRITH, CA11 7AU
20/0714 Tree Works Yanwath & TPO807 Beech, end weight reduction 30% GLADE HOUSE, YANWATH, Mr J Ismay REFUSED (TPO) Eamont Bridge PENRITH, CA10 2LF
20/0715 Full Application Hesket Proposed agricultural building. LOW STREET COTTAGE, Mr M Cranston APPROVED PLUMPTON, PENRITH, CA11 0JD
04 December 2020 Page 4 of 9 App No App Type Parish Description Location Applicant Decision
20/0718 Tree Works (CA) Penrith Fell T1 Cypress, Fell T2 Golden Cypress and replace THE GARTH, BEACON STREET, Mr M Robinson APPROVED with smaller more ornamental version, Fell T3-T7 PENRITH, CA11 7TY Cypress to be replaced by smaller more ornamental version. Reduce crown of T8 by approx 2-3 meters to maintain shape and current aesthetics.
20/0719 Tree Works (CA) Appleby T1 - Sycamore prune to clear property by 3 meters 2 DRAWBRIGGS MOUNT, APPLEBY- Mr Wilson APPROVED and balance remaining crown. IN-WESTMORLAND, CA16 6HL
20/0720 Tree Works (CA) Penrith T1 - Cypress Fir - Crown raise over drive. G1 - BEACONSFIELD, BEACON EDGE, Mr B Hargreaves APPROVED Crown raise line of Beech trees to approx 4 meters PENRITH, CA11 7SF and 2.5 meters away from house. G2 - Fell 2x Beech trees. T2 - Crown raise 1 Beech tree. T3 - crown raise 1x Beech tree over neighbours shed. T4 - Crown raise 1x Maple tree slightly over Acer. T5 - Crown raise 1x Yew tree to approx 2.5 meters over footpath. T6 - Crown raise 1x Beech tree to approx 2.5 meters over footpath.
20/0721 Tree Works (CA) Penrith T1 - Fell 1x multi stemmed ash tree showing minor OAKVILLE, BEACON EDGE, Mr T Brough APPROVED signs of Ash die back - with predominant lean into PENRITH, CA11 7SF neighbours property. T2 - Fell 1x dead Fir tree. G1 - Fell group of small trees - mix of Fir and Silver Birch.
20/0722 Full Application Ainstable Replacement agricultural building and associated LAND AT AINSTABLE, AINSTABLE, Mr C Bainbridge APPROVED hardstanding. CARLISLE,
20/0723 Advertisement Alston Advertisement consent for the retention of 2no THE HIVE, NENTHEAD, ALSTON, Nenthead Chapel APPROVED advertisement signs on South elevation and 1no CA9 3PF Enterprises - Ms S noticeboard on East elevation. Griffith-Jones
20/0724 Full Application Glassonby Replacement side extension and alterations. HILL CREST, GAMBLESBY, Mrs H Teasdale APPROVED PENRITH, CA10 1HR
20/0725 Listed Building Glassonby Listed Building Consent for replacement side HILL CREST, GAMBLESBY, Mrs H Teasdale APPROVED extension and alterations. PENRITH, CA10 1HR
20/0726 Full Application Kaber Variation of condition 2 (plans compliance) to BROXTY FARM, KABER, KIRKBY Mr & Mrs K Buckle APPROVED increase the number of ground source heat pump STEPHEN, CA17 4ER units and containers, attached to approval 20/0266.
20/0727 Full Application Kirkby Stephen Proposed roof over dry midden store. SANDWATH FARM, KIRKBY MR R OWEN APPROVED STEPHEN, CA17 4HE
20/0728 Tree Works (CA) Penrith Fell tree in garden of property. 9 JUBILEE LODGE, BEACON EDGE, Mr J Fletcher APPROVED PENRITH, CA11 7SQ Page 9 Page 20/0729 Full Application Penrith Single storey orangery extension to rear. 15 RIMINGTON WAY, PENRITH, Mr B Carruthers APPROVED CA11 8TG
04 December 2020 Page 5 of 9 Page 10 Page App No App Type Parish Description Location Applicant Decision
20/0730 Tree Works Appleby T27 - Sycamore tree, crown reduction and up to 30% 7 HOTHFIELD DRIVE, APPLEBY-IN- Mrs J Johnston APPROVED (TPO) thin to allow light into garden of 8 Drawbriggs Close WESTMORLAND, CA16 6HJ and to reduce back from the roof of the bungalow, with the removal of damaged branches.
20/0731 Tree Works Appleby T28 Sycamore in the garden of 5 Hothfield Drive, 5 HOTHFIELD DRIVE, APPLEBY-IN- Mrs J Johnston APPROVED (TPO) reduce back from 10 Drawbriggs Court, crown WESTMORLAND, CA16 6HJ reduction and up to 25% thin, removal of any damaged branches.
20/0734 Listed Building Hesket Listed Building Consent for replacement windows 1 WAYSIDE TERRACE, Dr S Long APPROVED and doors. CALTHWAITE, PENRITH, CA11 9QL
20/0739 Listed Building Bolton Listed Building Consent for internal alterations. WHITE HOUSE, BOLTON, CA16 6AL Mr H Johnson APPROVED
20/0741 Full Application Alston Replacement of windows to front elevation. ALDENSTONE, TOWNHEAD, Mr I Sorrell APPROVED ALSTON, CA9 3SL
20/0742 Tree Works (CA) Penrith 1 Cedar - crown reduce in height and spread to RAWCROFT, 46 ARTHUR STREET, Mr Roddis APPROVED reduce loading on failed stem union. Overall PENRITH, CA11 7TU reduction of 1-2 meters. Finished height / spread 6-7 meters. 2&3 Birch - reduce height by 2-3 meters / 3- 4 meters respectivley, primarily to reduce loading of codominant stem in tree no2. Finished height 8-10 meters. 4&5 Birch - reduce height by 3-4 meters with a targeted reduction of 1-2 meters. Finished height 8- 10 meters.
20/0746 Full Application Hesket Erection of a front extension, alterations to vehicular COLONSAY HOUSE, Mr S Walker APPROVED hardsurfacing MIDDLESCEUGH, IVEGILL, CA4 0NR
20/0748 Tree Works (CA) Penrith 1. Remove Willow tree; 2. Remove tree on boundary 132 GRAHAM STREET, PENRITH, Miss S Dent APPROVED between gardens of No 132 and No 133; CA11 9LG Reasons:trees grown out of control; roots are raising garden flags; Penrith New Streets Conservation Area.
20/0750 Tree Works Skelton Crown lift Oak 3 trees; Trees 1 and 2 up to 12ft ORCHARD HOUSE, SKELTON, Mrs C Irving APPROVED (TPO) approx; Tree 3 up to 10ft approx; Reasons: To let PENRITH, CA11 9SQ more light through, make working underneath them easier and remove low spindley branches; Tree Preservation Order No 180, 2016, Orchard House, Skelton.
20/0752 Tree Works (CA) Kirkoswald G1 - 2 small Lawson Cypress trees/shrubs to fell; MANOR HOUSE, KIRKOSWALD, Mrs R Shead APPROVED Reason: too large for space and blocking light; PENRITH, CA10 1DQ Kirkoswald Conservation Area.
20/0753 Tree Works (CA) Penrith Reduce crowns of Norwegian Maple (T2) and Horse CORNERWAYS, 5 SANDATH Mrs R Exton APPROVED Chestnut (T3) by approx 1.5 meters to reduce shade GARDENS, FELL LANE, PENRITH, and overhang. CA11 8BG
04 December 2020 Page 6 of 9 App No App Type Parish Description Location Applicant Decision
20/0754 Full Application Sockbridge & Proposed day room and other minor amendments to LAND ADJACENT TO WALMAR, JIW Properties Ltd - Mr APPROVED Tirril unit 5. CROFT HEAD, SOCKBRIDGE, Wilkinson PENRITH,
20/0755 Notice of Intention Yanwath & Proposed roof over existing silage pit. YANWATH WOODHOUSE, EAMONT Messrs Fisher - Mr R APPROVED Eamont Bridge BRIDGE, PENRITH, CA10 2JB Fisher
20/0765 Reserved by Kirkby Stephen Discharge of condition 13 (archaeological written LAND OFF CHRISTIAN HEAD, Mandale Homes APPROVED Cond scheme of investigation) attached to approval KIRKBY STEPHEN, 17/0073.
20/0768 Tree Works Appleby Felling of Horse Chestnut LAND ADJACENT TO CROSS Dean Little Tree APPROVED (TPO) CROFT, OPPOSITE CHERRY Surgery - Mr D Little CROFT, APPLEBY-IN- WESTMORLAND, CA16 6HR
20/0770 Full Application Kirkby Thore Roof over existing silage pit. SPITTALS FARM, KIRKBY THORE, Mr A Addison APPROVED PENRITH, CA10 1XQ
20/0776 Reserved by Penrith Discharge of condition 3 (surface water management FORMER CARE HOME, BEACON Atkinson Building APPROVED Cond plan), attached to approval 20/0251. EDGE, PENRITH, CA11 8BN Contractors Mr Cowperthwaite
20/0782 Tree Works (CA) Hesket T1 Fir tree - Remove to ground level due to PENNINE HOUSE, PENNINE VIEW, Mr J Woodward APPROVED excessive shading and proximity to house; Settle- ARMATHWAITE, CARLISLE, CA4 Carlisle Railway Conservation Area. 9PN
20/0792 Tree Works (CA) Penrith Trim Golden Cypress to achieve clearance of 21 WORDSWORTH STREET, Mrs K Crump APPROVED footpath, reducing height by 1/3 (1 meter). Reduce in PENRITH, CA11 7QY height by 11/3 3x small multi-stemmed Cypress at side of house. Re-shape variegated Holly, reducing spread by approx. 1 Meter and height by 1-1.5 meters (finished spread 4 meters / height 4 meters) Page 11 Page
04 December 2020 Page 7 of 9 Page 12 Page App No App Type Parish Description Location Applicant Decision
20/0793 Tree Works (CA) Penrith 1 Sycamore - crown raise to a height of 4 meters MOUNT PLEASANT, BEACON Mrs R Gall APPROVED over drive. Reduce loading in limb over camper van. EDGE, PENRITH, CA11 7SD 2 Reduce privet on gable by approx. 1meter. 3 Remove competitive Elder x2 and Sycamore x1 in Beech Hedge. Consider plugging to prevent regrowth. 4 Maintenance trim of Beech Hedge on internal edge. Maintenance tri Beech Hedge separating upper and lower garden to all sides. 5 Level stump. 6 Reduce mixed hedge (Leylandii / Elm etc) by approx.. 1/3 circa 1 meter in height, from the Silver Birch to the Copper Beech (No.9). Trimming the internal side and the top to be level. 7 Level stump. 8 Remove declining Silver Birch. 9 Lift Copper Beech reducing approx.. 3 low lateral branches and lifting to a height of approx. 4 meters. 10 Trim top off Yew 11 Target prune approx.. 4 lateral branches from Yew. 12 Remove Apple Tree in corner. 13 / 14 Level stumps x2. 15 Tidy Holly tree in rear corner. 16 Step and trim Holly hedge. 17 Prune overhanging Damson. 18 Remove dead tree to low stump.
20/0794 Tree Works Brougham Fell to ground level 4x Sitka Spruce. 16 BROUGHAM HALL GARDENS, Mr J Riley APPROVED (TPO) BROUGHAM, PENRITH, CA10 2DB
20/0807 Tree Works (CA) Appleby T1 - Crown lift to 5.5m for highway clearance on all 6 FRIARY FIELDS, APPLEBY-IN- Mr M Saint APPROVED sides. WESTMORLAND, CA16 6UT T2 - Reduce end loading on lower limbs by reducing length by 4m to 6m. T3 - Reduce north west side by up to 3m Reduce roadside by up to 3m for 5m highway clearance. T4 - Crown life to 5.5m. T5 - Crown reduce by 30% and crown lift to 3.5m. 6 - Fell.
20/0820 Tree Works (CA) Penrith Fell Fir tree. IVY BANK, 59 LOWTHER STREET, Mr Davis APPROVED PENRITH, CA11 7UQ
20/0863 Tree Works (CA) Penrith 1 - Birch propose to fell 26 LOWTHER STREET, PENRITH, Mr P Clement APPROVED 2 - Fell, possible Copper Beech CA11 7UW Both to be replaced with a different tree within the garden
20/0872 Tree Works (CA) Penrith 2 x Conifers and Laburnum - remove as in BISHOPS YARD HOUSE, BISHOP Mr J Evans APPROVED dangerous position next to Listed building. YARDS, PENRITH, CA11 7XU
04 December 2020 Page 8 of 9 App No App Type Parish Description Location Applicant Decision
In relation to each application it was considered whether the proposal was appropriate having regard to the Development Plan, the representations which were received including those from consultees and all other material considerations. In cases where the application was approved the proposal was considered to be acceptable in planning terms having regard to the material considerations. In cases where the application was refused the proposal was not considered to be acceptable having regard to the material and relevant considerations. In all cases it was considered whether the application should be approved or refused and what conditions, if any, should be imposed to secure an acceptable form of development. Page 13 Page
04 December 2020 Page 9 of 9 This page is intentionally left blank
Eden District Council
TOWN AND COUNTRY PLANNING ACT 1990
TOWN AND COUNTRY PLANNING (DEVELOPMENT MANAGEMENT PROCEDURE) ORDER 2015
DECISION NOTICE
APPLICATION FOR CERTIFICATE OF LAWFUL USE OR DEVELOPMENT
Reference No 20/0689
Date: 16 November 2020
First Schedule
Certificate of Lawfulness for the development of a building for residential use.
Second Schedule
Address of site: BRAETHEN THE THORPE GREYSTOKE PENRITH CA11 0TJ
Eden District Council hereby certify that on 16 November 2020 the development described in the First Schedule hereto in respect of the land specified in the Second Schedule hereto and edged red on the plan attached to this Certificate is UNLAWFUL within the meaning of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990, for the following reason(s):
From the documentation and evidence provided, the Local Planning Authority is not satisfied that, on the balance of probabilities, the outbuilding premises at Braethen, The Thorpe, Greystoke, Penrith, CA11 0TJ, has been used as a single dwelling house (Use Class C3) for a continuous period of four years before the date of this application. Therefore, the sought use is considered to be unlawful.
Signed:
Oliver Shimell LLB Assistant Director Planning and Economic Development
www.eden.gov.uk Oliver Shimell LLB Assistant Director Planning and Economic Development Page 15
Notice of Decision
Carriage Return
To: Manning Elliott Architects - Mr M Elliott Mansion House, Penrith, Cumbria CA11 7YG Suite 1 Tel: 01768 817817 4 Cowper Road Manelli House PENRITH CA11 9BN
Town and Country Planning Act 1990
Application No: 20/0708 On Behalf Of: Figaro Barber Ltd
In pursuance of their powers under the above Act and Order, Eden District Council, as local planning authority, hereby REFUSE listed building consent for the works described in your application and on the plans and drawings attached thereto, viz:
Application Type: Listed Building Proposal: Listed Building Consent for retention of alterations and replacement of shop front and access door. Location: FIGARO BARBER SHOP 5 MARKET SQUARE PENRITH CA11 7AU
The reason(s) for this decision are:
The shopfront (installed) by reason of its design and use of materials fails to conserve or enhance the significance of the designated heritage asset and there are no public benefits which outweigh the harm caused to the significance of the listed building. Therefore, the development fails to meet the aims of Policy ENV10 of the Eden Local Plan, the Shopfront and Advertisement Design SPD, the National Planning Policy Framework and the Planning Act (Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas) 1990.
Where necessary the local planning authority has worked with the applicant in a positive and proactive manner seeking solutions to problems arising in relation to dealing with the planning application and to implement the requirements of the NPPF and the adopted development plan.
Date of Decision: 23 November 2020
Signed:
www.eden.gov.uk Oliver Shimell LLB Page 16 Assistant Director Planning and Economic Development
Oliver Shimell LLB Assistant Director Planning and Economic Development
www.eden.gov.uk 2 Page 17 Notice of Decision
Carriage Return
To: Manning Elliott Architects - Mr M Elliott Mansion House, Penrith, Cumbria CA11 7YG Suite 1 Tel: 01768 817817 4 Cowper Road Manelli House PENRITH CA11 9BN
Town and Country Planning Act 1990 Town and Country Planning (Development Management Procedure) Order 2015
Application No: 20/0710 On Behalf Of: Figaro Barber Ltd
In pursuance of their powers under the above Act and Order, Eden District Council, as local planning authority, hereby REFUSE full planning permission for the development described in your application and on the plans and drawings attached thereto, viz:
Application Type: Full Application Proposal: Retrospective alterations and replacement of shop front and access door. Location: FIGARO BARBER SHOPFIGARO BARBER SHOP 5 MARKET SQUARE PENRITH CA11 7AU
The reason(s) for this decision are:
The shopfront (installed) by reason of its design and use of materials has an adverse impact on the designated heritage asset and fails to conserve or enhance the special character and appearance of the conservation area, contrary to Policies DEV5 and ENV10 of the Eden Local Plan and to the aims of the Shopfront and Advertisement Design SPD.
Where necessary the local planning authority has worked with the applicant in a positive and proactive manner seeking solutions to problems arising in relation to dealing with the planning application and to implement the requirements of the NPPF and the adopted development plan.
Date of Decision: 23 November 2020
Signed:
Oliver Shimell LLB Assistant Director Planning and Economic Development
www.eden.gov.uk Oliver Shimell LLB Page 18 Assistant Director Planning and Economic Development
Tree Preservation Order Notice of Decision
To: Mr J Ismay Town Hall, Penrith, Cumbria CA11 7QF Tel: 01768 817817 GLADE HOUSE YANWATH Email: [email protected] PENRITH Direct dial: (01768) 212159 CA10 2LF
Application Ref: 20/0714 Town and Country Planning Act 1990 Town and Country Planning (Trees) Regulations 1999, 2008 and 2012 Tree Preservation Order Application To Carry Out Works To Protected Trees I refer to your application dated 24 September 2020 to carry out work to a tree(s) protected within the above Order at Glade House Yanwath Penrith: TPO807 Beech, end weight reduction 30% DECISION: In pursuance of their powers under the above Act and Regulations, Eden District Council, as local planning authority, hereby REFUSE permission for the tree work proposal described in your application and on the plans and drawings attached thereto. The reason(s) for this decision are: The proposed pruning of the tree will have a substantial detrimental impact on the character of the location. The proposed work is not specified in accordance with section 7.7.2 British Standard BS3998:2010 Tree work – Recommendations (BS3998) however, it is for a significant crown reduction. A crown reduction of this extent would considerably reduce the amenity the tree provides, by reducing its overall size and resulting in a tree with an unnatural ‘truncated’ form. Furthermore, there will be numerous large wounds created which could form the entry points for decay, and a significant loss in leaf area reducing the trees ability to photosynthesize which could lead to a decline in the trees physiological condition. As such it is contrary to the recommendations set out at Table 1 and section 7.2.4 BS 3998. No evidence has been provided to demonstrate that the works are necessary to reduce the risk from the identified defects, or that the previous crown reduction works has not reduced the risk from the identified defects.
Your Right of Appeal If you disagree with the decision of the Council or the attachment of any conditions you can appeal to the Secretary of State for the Environment via the Planning Inspectorate. All appeals must be made in writing within 28 days from the date you receive the Councils decision. The Secretary of State has the discretion to allow a longer period.
Appeals are handled by the Planning Inspectorate (PINS). The1999 Regulations have been amended so that as from 1 October 2008 a fasttrack appeal procedure replaces the previous handling of appeals through the submission of written representations. In www.eden.gov.uk Oliver Shimell LLB Assistant Director Planning and Economic Development Page 19
practice most cases will therefore be dealt with on the basis of the original application and its supporting information, the decision of the LPA and the reasons they gave when making that decision. The inspector may, however, ask for further information. Either party may if they wish have the appeal dealt with at a hearing or public local inquiry.
When giving notice of appeal to PINS, the appellant must at the same time send a copy of that notice to the Council that made the original decision.
Appeals should be sent in writing to: The Planning Inspectorate, The Environment Appeals Team, Trees and Hedges, Room 3/25 Hawk Wing, Temple Quay House, 2 The Square, Temple Quay, Bristol BS1 6PN Tel: 0303 444 5000 e-mail: [email protected] Web: www.planning-inspectorate.gov.uk/pins/appeals/tree_preservation/index.htm
Compensation If you suffer any loss or damage as a direct consequence of the decision made by the Council, or by the attachment of any conditions, you may be entitled to recover from the Council compensation in respect of such loss or damage. If you wish to make a claim you must do so within 12 months from the date of this decision. Claims should be submitted in writing to: Head of Planning Services, Eden District Council, Mansion House, Penrith CA11 7YG.
Oliver Shimell LLB Assistant Director Planning and Economic Development Date of Decision: 24 November 2020
www.eden.gov.uk Page 20 2 Agenda Item 5 Agenda Index REPORTS FOR DEBATE
Eden District Council Planning Committee Agenda Committee Date: 17 December 2020 INDEX
Item Officer Application Details No Recommendation
1 Planning Application No: 20/0589 Recommended to: Outline application for a dwelling with all matters reserved APPROVE Car park at Lowther Castle Inn, Hackthorpe, Penrith Subject to Conditions D Brennand
2 Planning Application No: 20/0429 Recommended to: Erection of Detached Dwelling and Detached Shed/Kennels (as amended) REFUSE With Reasons Land at/to the rear of Cross House, Newby Messrs A & T Howe
3 Planning Application No: 20/0484 Recommended to: Outline application for erection of 2no. local occupancy REFUSE dwellings with all matters reserved With Reasons Land at Southwaite, Southwaite, CA4 0LL Mr Fisher
4 Planning Application No: 20/0669 Recommended to: Demolition of existing shed and erection of a replacement shed. Re-submission of 20/0223 REFUSE With Reasons Banks Gate, North Stainmore, Kirkby Stephen, CA17 4EX Mr F Allison
Page 21 Agenda Index REPORTS FOR DEBATE
Page 22 Agenda Item 1 REPORTS FOR DEBATE Date of Committee: 17 December 2020
Planning Application No: 20/0589 Date Received: 21 August 2020
OS Grid Ref: NY 354299, Expiry Date: 16 October 2020 523148 (time extension to 18 December 2020)
Parish: Lowther Ward: Askham
Application Type: Outline
Proposal: Outline application for a dwelling with all matters reserved
Location: Car park at Lowther Castle Inn, Hackthorpe, Penrith
Applicant: D Brennand
Agent: Graham K Norman (Architect) Ltd
Case Officer: Caroline Brier
Reason for Referral: Proposal has been called in on material planning grounds by the Parish Council
Page 23 Agenda Item 1 REPORTS FOR DEBATE
Page 24 Agenda Item 1 REPORTS FOR DEBATE 1. Recommendation
It is recommended that planning permission be granted subject to the following conditions: Time limit for commencement 1. The development permitted shall be begun before the expiration of three years from the date of this permission or before the expiration of two years from the date of the approval of the last reserved matters to be approved, whichever is the latter. Reason: In order to comply with the provisions of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 as amended by Section 51 of the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004. 2. Application for approval of all reserved matters shall be made to the Local Planning Authority before the expiration of three years from the date of this permission. Reason: In order to comply with the provisions of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990. 3. Approval of the details of the scale, layout, and external appearance of the building, means of access thereto and the landscaping of the site (called "the reserved matters") shall be obtained from Local Planning Authority in writing before any development is commenced. Reason: The application is in outline form only and is not accompanied by full detailed plans. Approved Plans 4. The development hereby granted shall be carried out in accordance with the drawings hereby approved: i. Application Form received 21 August 2020 ii. Location Plan (120-139A-01) received 21 August 2020 iii. Design and Access Statements received 21 August 2020 Reason: To ensure a satisfactory development and to avoid any ambiguity as to what constitutes the permission. Before the development is commenced 5. Full details of the surface water drainage system (incorporating SUDs features as far as practicable) and a maintenance schedule (identifying the responsible parties) shall be submitted to the Local Planning Authority for approval prior to development being commenced. Any approved works shall be implemented prior to the development being completed and shall be maintained thereafter in accordance with the schedule. Reason: To promote sustainable development, secure proper drainage and to manage the risk of flooding and pollution. To ensure the surface water system continues to function as designed and that flood risk is not increased within the site or elsewhere. It is necessary for the condition to be on the basis that “No development shall commence until” as compliance with the requirements of the
Page 25 Agenda Item 1 REPORTS FOR DEBATE condition at a later time could result in unacceptable harm contrary to the policies of the Development Plan. Pre-occupancy or other stage conditions 6. Details showing the provision of a vehicle turning space within the site, which allows vehicles visiting the site to enter and leave the highway in a forward gear, shall be submitted to the Local Planning Authority for approval. The development shall not be brought into use until any such details have been approved and the turning space constructed. The turning space shall not thereafter be used for any other purpose. Reason: To ensure that provision is made for vehicle turning within the site and in the interests of highway safety. 7. The vehicular crossing over the footway, including the lowering of kerbs, shall be carried out in accordance with details that shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. Reason: To ensure a suitable standard of crossing for pedestrian safety. 8. The whole of the access area bounded by the carriageway edge, entrance gates and the splays shall be constructed and drained in accordance with details that shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. Reason: In the interests of road safety. Ongoing Conditions 9. Foul and surface water shall be drained on separate systems. Reason: To secure proper drainage and to manage the risk of flooding and pollution. 10. Construction works shall be carried out only between 0800 – 1800 hours Mondays – Fridays; 0900 – 1300 hours on Saturdays and there shall be no activity on Sundays and Bank Holidays. Reason: To safeguard the amenity of residents living nearby.
Informative: If the application is approved the applicant must not commence works, or allow any person to perform works, on any part of the highway until in receipt of an appropriate permit allowing such works. They will need to contact Streetworks East [email protected] for the appropriate permit.
2. Proposal and Site Description 2.1 Proposal 2.1.1 This proposal seeks outline planning approval for one dwelling with all matters reserved. The submitted indicative layout and elevational plans indicates the development of either a 1.5 storey dwelling or 2 storey dwelling with integral garage. However, the matters of access, appearance, landscaping, layout and scale would be considered at the Reserved Matters stage. As such, this application solely considers the principle of the residential development of the site.
Page 26 Agenda Item 1 REPORTS FOR DEBATE 2.2 Site Description 2.2.1 The site is located to the southern end of Hackthorpe at the entrance of Hackthorpe Gardens, with the Lowther Castle Inn to the north, the A6 to the east and dwellings to the south and west. 2.2.2 The site is the overspill car park for the Lowther Castle Inn and is approximately 0.037 ha in size. Given this use, it is considered to be a brownfield site in accordance with appeal APP/L3245/A/14/2212314 which states at point 6 ‘the site was previously used as a car park to the public house and therefore may be considered to be previously developed land’. 2.2.3 The site is not within a conservation area, however is opposite the grade II listed Lowther Castle Inn. It is within a flood zone 1. 3. Consultees 3.1 Statutory Consultees Consultee Response Highway Authority A response was received on the 21 September 2020 raising no objection and noting that the access is existing and outline parking has been provided. Conditions and an informative are recommended (see recommendation). Lead Local Flood Authority A response was received on the 21 September 2020 raising no objection and noting there are no records of minor surface water flooding to the site. It is stated ‘the applicant would need to provide Calculations to determine if the site carried out to BRE 365 standards is suitable to undertake infiltration techniques and details showing that any proposed attenuation structure etc. has the adequate capacity to deal with the volume of water running off the additional impermeable areas, if infiltration is not suitable for the proposed development then they would need to provide detailed assessment, to account for a 1 in 100 year plus 40% storm event, a discharge equivalent to greenfield runoff for the site, discharge location and exceedance routes for the drainage’. 3.2 Discretionary Consultees Consultee Response United Utilities A response was received on the 28 September 2020 raising no objection to the proposal. 4. Parish Council Response Please Tick as Appropriate No View Parish Council Object Support No Response Expressed Lowther
Page 27 Agenda Item 1 REPORTS FOR DEBATE 4.1 A response was received on the 16 September 2020 advising ‘Lowther Parish Council recognises that the Lowther Castle Inn is a valuable asset to the community, however the Parish Council is objecting to this application for the following reasons: 1. The construction of the property will reduce the amount of car parking. The Parish Council is concerned that customers of the public house will park in Hackthorpe Gardens. This is commercial parking on a residential development which has limited parking for residents. 2. The provision for staff and owner parking has been underestimated. 3. There are safety concerns about customer’s vehicles reversing onto and off the A6 due to the reduced amount of parking spaces’. 5. Representations 5.1 Letters of consultation were sent to nearby neighbours and a site notice was posted on 8 September 2019. No of Neighbours Consulted 18 No of letters of support 5 No of Representations Received 13 No of neutral representations 3 No of objection letters 5 5.2 Letters of objection raised the following material considerations to the application: Car parking for customers at Lowther Castle Inn is already a problem and to lose the par park would create a bigger problem. Cars park on the A6 which forces traffic to drive in the centre of the road. Vehicles turning out of Hackthorpe Gardens are unable to see in both directions because of cars parked around the junction. The safest place for customers to park is in the existing car park. Converting the current car park will create further parking problems. While the pub is operating as a business, the existing dedicated off-street car park should be retained and used as the primary parking location for the pub. The proposed permanent loss of the dedicated off-street car park will move parking and vehicle movements associated with the pub business into two less safe/satisfactory locations and encourage parking behaviour expressly prohibited by road traffic regulations. It would be inappropriate to remove suitable self-contained off-street parking where the clear result would be to increase disadvantage and reduce safety for residents. The loss of the car park which serves the Lowther Castle pub would make the lives of the residents in Hackthorpe Gardens intolerable as the proposed provision for new spaces for the pub would fill all the footpaths (which I believe is about to be made illegal) and would make movement in the private cul-de-sac very difficult and at times unsafe. The car park is not currently marked out in accordance with CCC parking guidelines, at the weekend, pre-COVID19, it regularly held around 20 cars. Where will these cars park? Even with the pubs reduced capacity, there will not be enough space for cars to park safely. 5.3 Letters of objection raised the following non-material considerations:
Page 28 Agenda Item 1 REPORTS FOR DEBATE The parking spaces in front of the Lowther Castle Inn are not very deep, longer vehicles extend onto the road. They have to back out onto the A6. Rule 240 of the Highway Code states that you must not stop or park on a road marked with double white lines, even when a broken white line is on your side of the road, except to pick up or set down passengers, or to load or unload goods. There are double white lines extending northbound past the pub from before the entrance to Hackthorpe Gardens (solid white line on the pub side). The speed limit is 40mph on this stretch of the A6 and there is no traffic calming within Hackthorpe. Hackthorpe has a faster stretch of the A6 than other villages between Penrith and Kendal, such as Clifton and Shap which both have 30mph limits. A new housing development on Land North of Hackthorpe Hall (Genesis Homes) is planned and will be linked by footway(s) along the A6 to the village amenities. The Department for Transport is currently undertaking a consultation regarding pavement parking (Pavement parking: options for change; 31 August 2020) and this refers to an evidence review regarding pavement parking which cites the many user groups directly disadvantaged by pavement parking. 5.4 Letters of observation raised the following comments: Pub brings large volumes of parked vehicles which overflow from the existing car park to both in front of the pub itself, along the A6 on the grass verge and within the residential street of Hackthorpe Gardens. Very dangerous and inconsiderate parking practices from patrons of the pub and blocking the road in Hackthorpe Gardens for access. Blocked views when existing Hackthorpe Gardens onto the A6, there have been a number of accidents as a result of this. Removal of car park will seriously exaggerate this problem as there will no longer be any designated parking for the pub. 5.5 Letters of support raised the following comments: A reduction in the size of the pub and construction of new parking spaces should reduce the parking congestion particularly at the weekends. May be worth looking at the largely ignored 40 mph limit. Walking North on the pavement is a very hazardous pursuit with overhanging branches pushing pedestrians toward fast moving HGVs. A 30 limit, bearing in mind people live on both sides of the A6, would hopefully be taken more seriously. The new proposed car park area around the back of the property will reduce the amount of cars parking on the A6. Only 3 car parks being lost, since the pub has reopened there has been less cars and no congestion around the front or back of the pub, which is much appreciated as now the pavements are free. The reduced numbers of meals being served in the pub will have a positive impact on parking. 6. Relevant Planning History Application No Description Outcome 95/0328 Development of five terraced and three Full Approval 29 detached residential properties and September 1995 design detailing and on 12 September
Page 29 Agenda Item 1 REPORTS FOR DEBATE Application No Description Outcome 1995 and 21 September 1995 in respect of re-alignment of unit 8 proposed drainage and site levels. 00/0774 Renewal of full consent re no. 95/0328 Full Approval 14 for the development of five terraced and December 2000 three detached residential properties. 02/0463 Residential development for 13No. Full Approval 19 Dwellings. December 2002 7. Policy Context 7.1 Development Plan Eden Local Plan (2014-32) LS1 Locational Strategy DEV1 General Approach to New Development DEV3 Transport, Accessibility and Rights of Way DEV5 Design of New Development HS2 Housing in the Smaller Villages and Hamlets ENV10 The Historic Environment Supplementary Planning Documents: Housing (2010) 7.2 Other Material Considerations National Planning Policy Framework: Chapter 2 Achieving sustainable development Chapter 4 Decision-making Chapter 5 Delivering a sufficient supply of homes Chapter 11 Making effective use of land Chapter 12 Achieving well-designed places Chapter 16 Conserving and enhancing the historic environment National Planning Practice Guidance 7.3 The policies detailed above are the most relevant policies relating to this application. 8. Planning Assessment 8.1 Key/Main Planning Issues Principle Landscape and Visual Impacts Residential Amenity Scale and Design Infrastructure Historic Environment 8.2 Principle 8.2.1 Policy LS1 ‘Locational Strategy’ sets the settlement hierarchy where the Council expects the focus for residential, employment and commercial provision. Hackthorpe is
Page 30 Agenda Item 1 REPORTS FOR DEBATE identified as a ‘smaller village and hamlet’ in which development (inter alia) is restricted to infill sites, which fill a modest gap between existing buildings within the settlement. 8.2.2 Policy DEV1 ‘General Approach to New Development’ advises that the Council will always work proactively with applicants to find solutions which mean the proposals can be approved wherever possible, and to secure developments that improves economic, social and environmental conditions in the area. 8.2.3 Policy DEV3 ‘Transport, Accessibility and Rights of Way’ states that development will be refused if it will result in a severe impact in terms of road safety and increased traffic congestion. 8.2.4 Policy DEV5 ‘Design of New Development’ requires developments to show a clear understanding of the form and character of the districts built and natural environment, complementing and enhancing the existing area. It also looks for proposals to protect the amenity of the existing residents and provide an acceptable amenity for future occupiers. 8.2.5 Policy HS2 ‘Housing in the Smaller Villages and Hamlets’ advises that permission will be given for housing of an appropriate scale, which reflects the built form of adjoining and neighbouring development to the site and the service function of the settlement, where it meets all of the following criteria: Where development is restricted to infilling and rounding off of the current village settlement pattern, in accordance with policy LS1. The resultant dwelling does not contain more than 150m2 gross internal floorspace. In the case of Greenfield sites a condition or legal agreement restricting occupancy to only those meeting local connection criteria, defined in Appendix 6, will be applied. 8.2.6 The proposal site sees the A6 to its east, residential properties to its south and west and the access road to Hackthorpe Gardens to the north with the Lowther Castle Inn beyond. The application site is appropriately located within the village of Hackthorpe and due to the aforementioned surrounding site conditions, it is considered to be an infill, brownfield site of an appropriate scale, in accordance with policy LS1. 8.2.7 In principle this proposal is considered to be acceptable and in accordance with the Development Plan. Further considerations on landscape and visual impacts, residential amenity, scale and design and infrastructure are discussed further below. 8.3 Landscape and Visual Impacts 8.3.1 The application site is not located within an area of any landscape designation or sensitivity despite its rural village setting. 8.3.2 Policy DEV5 requires that proposed development demonstrates that it shows clear understanding of the form and character of the District’s built environment, complementing and enhancing the existing area. 8.3.3 The application is in outline form; as such it is difficult to fully assess how the proposed development would impact on the landscape and amenity of the area. However the indicative site plan shows how a dwelling could be sited forward within the plot and of a similar scale to other dwellings in the immediate vicinity. Whilst the final layout of the site and location of the dwelling is not proposed under this current application, the indicative plans do show and demonstrate how a dwelling could be positioned within
Page 31 Agenda Item 1 REPORTS FOR DEBATE the site that would tie-in with the surrounding built environment and street scene, resulting in no harm upon the character or appearance of the area. 8.3.4 The landscape and visual impacts would be fully assessed at a reserved matters stage. However, it is considered that a finals scheme, layout and design could be achieved that would not adversely impact upon the landscape in this location given its immediate built up nature. 8.3.5 In this regard, it is considered that the proposed development is in accordance with policy DEV5 of the Eden Local Plan. 8.4 Residential Amenity 8.4.1 Policy DEV5 requires that (inter alia) development shall protect the amenity of existing residents and provides an acceptable amenity for future occupiers. 8.4.2 The closest neighbouring property is 1 Hackthorpe Gardens, located to the west of the proposal site. This neighbouring property set back in its plot on land higher than the proposal site. A stone wall, with wooden fence on the neighbour’s side separates the two. There is a distance of approximately 4 metres between neighbouring property and the host site boundary. This is in-keeping with the distances between other properties within the vicinity. According to the indicative plan the proposal could be set forward from the neighbouring property, resulting in no adverse impacts or harm upon the neighbouring property. Whilst the full impacts on this property would be fully assessed at a reserved matters stage, should outline approval be granted, in principle it is not considered that the residential amenity of this property would be adversely impacted upon should the reserved matters submission follow the indicative plans provided with this application. 8.4.3 The property to the rear is not in direct line with the proposal site and there is a distance of approximately 9 metres to the rear boundary with a footpath/bridleway between the two. It is not considered that this proposal would impact adversely on this neighbouring property. However this would be fully assessed at a reserved matters stage, should outline approval be granted. 8.4.4 The properties to the east of the A6 are approximately 17 plus metres away and to the north of the site is the Lowther Castle Inn, approximately 20 metres away. It is not considered that this proposal would adversely impact upon any of these properties. 8.4.5 Overall, it is considered that the information provided at this outline stage is acceptable and the principle of a dwelling in this location could be achieved without creating an adverse effect on the residential amenity in accordance with policy DEV5 of the Eden Local Plan. 8.5 Scale and Design 8.5.1 Chapter 12 of the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) and DEV5 of the Eden Local Plan require the design of new development to be to high standard, reflecting the form and character of the locality. 8.5.2 The application is purely outline with all matters reserved for the construction of a single dwelling. As such the scale and design is for assessment at a reserved matters stage. 8.5.3 However, the indicative plan is considered to be in-keeping with other properties in this location and acceptable in principle. Furthermore, there is no reason to suggest that a final design could not be achieved for the site which would be on an appropriate size,
Page 32 Agenda Item 1 REPORTS FOR DEBATE scale and appearance and achieve a sufficiently high quality design which is in-keeping with the existing built environment and street scene, in accordance with policy DEV5 of the Eden Local Plan and the NPPF. 8.6 Infrastructure 8.6.1 Policy DEV3 ‘Transport, Accessibility and Rights of Way’ states that development will be refused if it will result in a severe impact in terms of road safety and increased traffic congestion. 8.6.2 Objections and observations have been received from the Parish Council and members of the public raising concerns that the construction of a property in this location would reduce the amount of parking for the Lowther Castle Inn. 8.6.3 It is reported that parking in this area has caused problems with vehicles being left in non-designated parking places, creating hazards for other drivers. 8.6.4 The applicant and owner of the Lowther Castle Inn has advised that due to the current economic climate and pandemic, the Court Room Restaurant is to remain closed for business. The closure of this restaurant area sees a reduction of 75 people being able to be seated. The bar end of the premises is to remain open and seats 45 people which is estimated at attracting approximately 12 cars. It is duly noted that this element of the business could lawfully re-open in the future should the economy improve or there be a change of ownership. 8.6.5 Whilst not for consideration under this outline application, but for information, a change of use and listed building application was received at the Council to convert the Court Room Restaurant into a single dwelling. These applications were withdrawn to address advice given by the Conservation Officer and are advised to be due for re-submission in the New Year. It is duly noted that no weight can be added to this information in the planning decision process, however it is considered to show the applicants intention to leave the restaurant closed. 8.6.6 Also not for consideration under this outline application, the Lowther Castle Inn is looking to create 10 car parking spaces to the rear and 8 car parking spaces are available to the front of the Inn, totalling 18 car parking spaces. It is duly noted that a planning application has not been received or approved for this and as such no weight can be added in the planning decision process to something that may or may not happen in the future. 8.6.7 Objectors concerns regarding vehicles reversing onto the A6 which is within a 40mph zone and parking in unsafe places is fully understood, however this is an existing issue that is not a material planning consideration for this proposal, which reasonably would not be exacerbated by the likely number of vehicle movements resulting from the development of one single dwelling. 8.6.8 In consultation with Cumbria County Council as the Highway Authority, they have confirmed that they raise no objection to the proposal, noting that the access is existing and outline parking has been provided. They have requested standard conditions in terms of surface water drainage and vehicle turning within the site. 8.6.9 It is considered that given the reduction in use for dining at the Lowther Castle Inn, a justification has been provided as to why less car parking would be acceptable. Whilst it is acknowledged that the dining area could re-open in the future without the need for planning permission, the proposal site is described as an overspill car park. As it is not
Page 33 Agenda Item 1 REPORTS FOR DEBATE the main off-street parking for the Inn, it is not considered that one single dwelling would outweigh any likely highway safety harm that would be caused. 8.6.10 In accordance with the Highway Authority’s advice, it is not considered that a severe impact in terms of road safety and increased traffic congestion would occur through this proposal. Therefore, the proposed development is considered to be compliant with policy DEV3 of the Eden Local Plan. 8.7 Historic Environment 8.7.1 It is duly noted that the Lowther Castle Inn is a grade II listed building and located approximately 20 metres to the north of the proposal site with the access road to Hackthorpe Gardens separating the two. 8.7.2 The Planning (Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas) Act 1990 s 66(1) requires a decision-maker, in considering whether to grant planning permission for development which affects a listed building or its setting, to have special regard to the desirability of preserving the building or its setting or any features of special architectural or historic interest which it possesses. 8.7.3 Paragraph 192 of the NPPF, 2019: In determining applications, local planning authorities should take account of the desirability of new development making a positive contribution to local character and distinctiveness. Paragraph 193 of the NPPF, 2019 states ‘when considering the impact of a proposed development on the significance of a designated heritage asset, great weight should be given to the asset’s conservation. This is irrespective of whether the potential harm amounts to substantial harm, total loss or less than substantial harm to its significance’. 8.7.4 Policy ENV10 ‘The Historic Environment’ of the Eden Local Plan says the Council will require proposals for development to conserve and enhance the significance of heritage assets and their setting. 8.7.5 The proposal site would face the side elevation of the Lowther Castle Inn, which sees a door and two windows facing the proposal site. The separation distance is the same as existing dwellings within Hackthorpe Gardens and as such would follow the theme of this built up area. 8.7.6 It is considered that a scheme is achievable that would not result in a harm to the listed building, either to its appearance, setting, character or significance. This would be further assessed at a reserved matters stage, should this outline application be approved, when the design of the dwelling and proposed materials would be known. 8.7.7 Therefore, in principle, the development is considered to be in accordance with the conservation policies as outlined within the Planning LBCA Act 1990, NPPF and ENV10 of the Eden Local Plan. 9. New Homes Bonus 9.1 The prospect of receiving a New Homes Bonus is, in principle, capable of being taken into account as a ‘material consideration’ in determining a planning application. Whether potential Bonus payments are in fact a material consideration in relation to a particular application will depend on whether those payments would be used in a way which is connected to the application and to the use and development of land. For example, potential Bonus payments could be a material consideration if they were to be used to mitigate impacts resulting from development. But if the use to which the payments are to be put is unclear or is for purposes unrelated to the development concerned a decision maker would not be entitled to take them into account when
Page 34 Agenda Item 1 REPORTS FOR DEBATE making a decision on a planning application. In this particular case, there are no plans to use the New Homes Bonus arising from this application in connection with this development. 10. Implications 10.1 Legal Implications 10.1.1 The following matters have been considered but no issues are judged to arise. 10.2 Equality and Diversity 10.2.1 The Council must have regard to the elimination of unlawful discrimination and harassment, and the promotion of equality under the Equality Act 2010. 10.3 Environment 10.3.1 The Council must have due regard to conserving bio-diversity under the Natural Environment and Rural Communities Act 2006. 10.4 Crime and Disorder 10.4.1 Under the Crime and Disorder Act 1998, the Council must have regard to the need to reduce crime and disorder in exercising any of its functions. 10.5 Children 10.5.1 Under the Children Act 2004, the Council has a duty to safeguard and promote the welfare of children in the exercise of any of its functions. 10.6 Human Rights 10.6.1 In determining applications, the Council must ensure that all parties get a fair hearing in compliance with the provisions of Article 6 under the European Convention on Human Rights, as now embodied in UK law in the Human Rights Act 1998. 11. Conclusion 11.1 It is considered that the proposal accords with the Development Plan for the following reasons which are not outweighed by material considerations: 11.2 The principle of a residential development at the proposal site is considered to be acceptable. There would be no adverse impacts on highway safety, the landscape and character of the area, any heritage assets or residential amenity. As such, the outline proposal for one dwelling with all matters reserved is considered to be compliant with policies LS1, DEV1, DEV3 and DEV5 of the Eden Local Plan and the National Planning Policy Framework. 11.3 Therefore, the application is recommended for approval.
Oliver Shimell Assistant Director Planning and Economic Development
Checked by or on behalf of the Monitoring Officer 30/11/2020 Background Papers: Planning File 20/0589
Page 35 Agenda Item 2 REPORTS FOR DEBATE Date of Committee: 17 December 2020
Planning Application No: 20/0429 Date Received: 21 July 2020
OS Grid Ref: 359268 521240 Expiry Date: 21 December 2020
Parish: Newby Ward: Morland
Application Type: Outline application, including access and layout, with some matters reserved
Proposal: Erection of Detached Dwelling and Detached Shed/Kennels (as amended)
Location: Land at/to the rear of Cross House, Newby
Applicant: Messrs A & T Howe
Agent: Holt Planning Consultancy Ltd
Case Officer: Mr D Cox
Reason for Referral: Recommendation contrary to that of the Parish Meeting and there has been a request for the application to be heard at Planning Committee by the Councillor for Morland based on material planning grounds
Page 36 Agenda Item 2 REPORTS FOR DEBATE
Page 37 Agenda Item 2 REPORTS FOR DEBATE 1. Recommendation
It is recommended that planning permission be Refused for the following reasons: 1. The proposed development by virtue of its location, scale, siting would have significant and adverse impact on the character and amenity setting of the hamlet and thereby does not accord with Policy LS1 of the Eden Local Plan (2014-2032). 2. The proposed development would have an unacceptable and demonstrably harmful impact on the character of the local landscape and the hamlet contrary to Policies DEV5 and ENV2 of the Eden Local Plan (2014-2032).
2. Proposal and Site Description 2.1 Proposal 2.1.1 The submitted application forms (as revised), is for outline approval but with access and layout details, provide that the development proposed would be for one detached custom self-build single storey dwelling house. No otherwise exceptional justification accompanies the submission, and the proposal is not sought as an agricultural workers dwelling. 2.1.2 The site area of the proposed development is 0.25 hectare, and comprises elements of both walled garth and agricultural field, considered as a greenfield site, located to the rear of the associated Cross House dwelling. Cross House itself, as an existing smallholding of approx. 55 acres, is located within the settlement of Newby, which is designated in the adopted Eden Local Plan, under Policy LS1 “Locational Strategy” as a smaller village and hamlet. The applicant has indicated that the proposed L Shaped single storey dwelling would have its own new separate vehicular access point, created off and from the nearby agricultural farm track/public right of way and thence the village highway. In addition, approval is also sought in principle for the erection of detached tractor shed and kennel block, as illustrated on the proposed Indicative Block Plan layout as submitted. In addition, the indicative block plan shows the retention of existing drystone boundary walls, and new internal access/road/turning area layout, wildlife pond and surface water attenuation and allotment/vegetable plot. 2.1.3 The current proposal is for unrestricted outline residential planning permission, for one dwelling, at this stage, with all matters relating to design, scale and appearance of buildings and landscaping, including trees being subject to a further reserved matters application, were planning permission to be granted. The current application does provide an indicative block plan layout to help consideration at this stage in terms of relationship to access and plot layout. 2.1.4 The application is supported by a: Site Location and Indicative Layout plan, Supporting Letters from both Applicants and Applicants Father, “illustrative purposes” additional plans, Planning Statement. 2.1.5 The supporting letters received from both applicants (who works full time at Whinfell Park for AW Jenkinson, as head Shepherd and head gamekeeper) and the applicant’s father, Mr C Howe, who runs the present 55 acre Cross House, Farm, in relation to the submission are summarised as follows:
Page 38 Agenda Item 2 REPORTS FOR DEBATE - the house in Newby is sought so (the applicants) can eventually take over the farm and look after their parents and uncle, and farm it for their and future generations. - are presently unable to afford a house in Newby, which their age also limits in terms of mortgage provision. This option would allow them to come back to the village. - their present tied accommodation is under jeopardy as it is on the line of the proposed A66 re-route. - it is believed that policy has changed to allow this. 2.2 Site Description 2.2.1 The application seeks outline planning permission, with all matters reserved, except for access and layout, effectively for market led residential development, within an existing small (0.24 Hectare) walled grazing field, alongside an existing farm lane, to the rear of Cross House, Newby. 2.2.2 The application site and details (as amended) are located within a walled, gently sloping agricultural grazing field and former garth, adjacent and with access off the adjacent farm lane (a public bridleway), and thence the village highway, to the north, peripherally, but outside the small, designated village and hamlet of Newby, which is approximately 1 mile to the south-east of Morland. 2.2.3 To the north-east of the application site and field, and on the opposite (eastern) side of the separating farm lane and bridleway (353014) a barn conversion, of an existing single storey cow byre to two bed bungalow (as approved under application Ref No 19/0674), to the rear of Cross House barn, is currently underway and construction. 2.2.4 Although there are no specific landscape designation relating to the application site proper. Newby as a small village and hamlet is located within and surrounded by a mixed use agricultural hinterland, of a type found not only in this but many of the small rural villages within the District. To the east of the site is an existing agricultural farm track, and public right of way from which the site gains its present access. 3. Consultees 3.1 Statutory Consultees Consultee Response Highway Authority and Lead Thank you for forwarding additional plan showing Local Flood Authority visibility splays regarding the above Planning Application. Cumbria County Council as the Highways Authority and the Lead Local Flood Authority (LLFA) has reviewed the above planning reference and our findings are detailed below. Highways response: I will agree with your view that speeds on this road will be considerably lower than 60mph. Considering the Parish Council support and those expressed by you we are willing to accept that speeds will be in the region of 30mph. The access splay details as proposed on the latest drawing is therefore acceptable. Adequate parking
Page 39 Agenda Item 2 REPORTS FOR DEBATE provisions have also been provided. Lead Local Flood Authority (LLFA) response: The Lead Local Flood Authority (LLFA) have records of minor surface water flooding to the south of site which indicate a 0.1 percent (1 in 1000) chance of occurring each year and the Environment Agency (EA) surface water maps do not indicate that the site is in an area of risk. Outline drainage details have been provided. This is a minor development which is below the Lead Local Flood Authority (LLFA) threshold for below 5 dwellings will be picked up by building control. The surface water drainage should not be greater than already existing. If installing a soakaway we would advise not to be positioned in close proximity to the highway - which should be at least 5m away from the highway and the property. Conclusion: I can confirm that the Highway Authority and Lead Local Flood Authority has no objection to the proposed development as it is considered that the proposal does not affect the highway nor does it increase the flood risk on the site or elsewhere, but would recommend that conditions be included if approved. NOTE: If the application is approved the applicant must not commence works, or allow any person to perform works, on any part of the highway until in receipt of an appropriate permit allowing such works. They will need to contact Streetworks East [email protected] for the appropriate permit. A PROW (public bridleway) number 353014 lies adjacent to the site, the Applicant must ensure that no obstruction to the footpath occurs during, or after the completion of the site works. 3.2 Discretionary Consultees Consultee Response County Archaeologist Our records indicate that the site lies in an area of archaeological potential. It is located in the centre of Newby, which has medieval origins and is first mentioned in 12th century documents. The village retains its medieval form, which is suggestive of a planned layout similar to other villages in Eden, and also elements of medieval strip field systems that surround it. Medieval earthworks are recorded in several locations throughout the village and the archaeological investigations undertaken to date in
Page 40 Agenda Item 2 REPORTS FOR DEBATE Newby have revealed buried medieval deposits and finds. It is therefore considered that there is the potential for archaeological assets to be disturbed by the construction of the proposed development. Consequently, I recommend that, in the event planning consent is granted, the site is subject to archaeological investigation and recording in advance of development. I advise that this work should be commissioned and undertaken at the expense of the developer and can be secured through the inclusion of a standard archaeological watching brief and evaluation condition in any planning consent. United Utilities No objection, The NPPG clearly outlines the hierarchy to be investigated by the developer when considering a surface water drainage strategy. We would ask the developer to consider the following drainage options in the following order of priority: 1. into the ground (infiltration); 2. to a surface water body; 3. to a surface water sewer, highway drain, or another drainage system; 4. to a combined sewer. We recommend the applicant implements the scheme in accordance with the surface water drainage hierarchy outlined above. If the applicant intends to offer wastewater assets forward for adoption by United Utilities, the proposed detailed design will be subject to a technical appraisal by an Adoptions Engineer as we need to be sure that the proposal meets the requirements of Sewers for adoption and United Utilities’ Asset Standards. The proposed design should give consideration to long term operability and give United Utilities a cost effective proposal for the life of the assets. Therefore, should this application be approved and the applicant wishes to progress a Section 104 agreement, we strongly recommend that no construction commences until the detailed drainage design, submitted as part of the Section 104 agreement, has been assessed and accepted in writing by United Utilities. Any works carried out prior to the technical assessment being approved is done entirely at the developers own risk and could be subject to change. Details of both our S106 sewer connections and S104 sewer adoptions processes (including application forms) can be found on our website
Page 41 Agenda Item 2 REPORTS FOR DEBATE http://www.unitedutilities.com/builders- developers.aspx Please note we are not responsible for advising on rates of discharge to the local watercourse system. This is a matter for you to discuss with the Lead Local Flood Authority and / or the Environment Agency if the watercourse is classified as main river. Water supply If the applicant intends to obtain a water supply from United Utilities for the proposed development, we strongly recommend they engage with us at the earliest opportunity. If reinforcement of the water network is required to meet the demand, this could be a significant project which should be accounted for in the project timeline for design and construction. To discuss a potential water supply or any of the water comments detailed above, the applicant can contact the team at [email protected]. Please note, all internal pipework must comply with current Water Supply (water fittings) Regulations 1999. 4. Parish Meeting Please Tick as Appropriate Parish Meeting No View Object Support No Response Expressed Newby Parish Meeting 4.1 The following correspondence has been submitted by the Clerk to the Parish Meeting on behalf of the Newby Parish Meeting: 4.2 Due the virus crisis it has not been possible to hold a meeting of Newby Parish to discuss this application, however it has been published on the noticeboard to consult with the residents and the Chairman has discussed it with several people. There have been no objections to the proposal and to the contrary the Chairman is confident that the majority of the village would be very supportive. Therefore please record that Newby Parish Meeting fully supports this application. The Chairman himself has written a letter of support which I attach to this email. 4.3 The Chairman of the Newby Parish Meeting’s letter is reproduced as follows: “Planning Application 20/0429, Land rear of Cross House, Newby, CA10 3EX Outline permission for dwelling house and agricultural shed/kennels Due to the Covid restrictions Newby has not been able to have a Parish meeting to discuss the above planning application.
Page 42 Agenda Item 2 REPORTS FOR DEBATE To date I have not heard of any objections to this application and my feeling is that the village will be fully supportive as the applicant is a local person whose family has lived in Newby for four generations. At present the applicant lives in a tied house which may be lost in future development of the A66. The proposed house will still be close to his work. I as Chairman of Newby Parish Meeting fully support this application”. Tim Somerville Chairman Newby Parish Meeting 4.4 A further e-mail was received from the chairman of the Newby Parish Meeting, and again is reproduced as follows: “I am writing to further support this application for the following reasons: I believe that the proposed dwelling and agricultural shed should be considered as rounding off as this development is directly opposite (across the lane) to the development taking place under planning No:19/0674 and mirrors the extent of that housing. The applicants have longstanding ties with the village. Andrew Howe’s family have lived and worked in the village for four generations and it is the family’s intention for the applicant to take over the running of the farm from his father who is 75 and is due to retire shortly. By taking on the farm he will be able to maintain the economic and environmental sustainability of the holding thereby benefiting the village. The application has the support of many people in Newby and is welcomed as being beneficial to the village”. Tim Somerville Chairman Newby Parish Meeting 4.5 In addition the following comment in support of the proposal has been submitted by the Ward Councillor, as follows: “I would make a case for the granting of this application under 2 criteria. A. HS3. Rural employment. Both the applicant and his wife are employed locally at Jenkinsons (the applicant as a shepherd and his wife as a game keeper) living in a tied house which may in the future be destroyed if the A66 improvement take place. He understandably wants to join his father in the village of Newby where he will be the 4th generation to live in the village. B. HS2.My understanding is that infill development of this kind is allowed in hamlets. Although not a planning matter I am not aware of any local opposition and although it was several months ago when I visited the site it fits in well within the cluster of dwellings. For the reasons listed above I (also) request that this application be heard before a planning committee”. 5. Representations 5.1 Letters of consultation were sent to nearby neighbours and a site notice was posted on 22 July 2020. No of Neighbours Consulted 7 No of letters of support 10 No of Representations Received 10 No of neutral representations 0
Page 43 Agenda Item 2 REPORTS FOR DEBATE No of objection letters 0 5.2 Ten letters of broad support have been received, as well as the one from the Ward Councillor with nature of support summarised as follows: - the development would allow the applicants to help and look after both parents and uncle who are residents in the village. - the applicants are from a local family with strong connection to the village. - the applicants existing tied home is under threat. - the applicants would like to afford to live in the village, and this option would allow them to do so. - at least this would not be another holiday home. - would help support local services. - would allow the applicants to care for family members. - would not be dissimilar to recent nearby development, as approved under application Ref No 19/0674. 6. Relevant Planning History Application No Description Outcome 93/0453 Agricultural building and animal housing Withdrawn in existing garth. 02/0888 New Dwelling and garage Withdrawn 03/0317 Single storey dwelling, stone/render Refused under slate roof 03/0904 Re-submission of 03/0317 Refused 7. Policy Context 7.1 Development Plan Eden Local Plan 2014 – 2032: Policy LS1 – “Locational Strategy” Policy DEV5 – “Design of new development” Policy HS2 – “Housing in the Smaller Villages and Hamlets” Policy ENV2 – “Protection and Enhancements of Landscapes and Trees” 7.2 Other Material Considerations National Planning Policy Framework: Chapter 2 Achieving sustainable development Chapter 6 Building a strong, competitive economy Chapter 12 Achieving well-designed places Chapter 15 Conserving and enhancing the natural environment “Housing” Supplementary Planning Documents (SPD 2010 and 20). 7.3 The policies detailed above are the most relevant policies relating to this application.
Page 44 Agenda Item 2 REPORTS FOR DEBATE 8. Planning Assessment 8.1 Key/Main Planning Issues - Principle and acceptability of development in this location, - Absence of overriding or exceptional justification, - Character and appearance of the settlement and the areas visual amenity, - Residential Amenity. 8.2 Principle 8.2.1 Planning applications must be determined in accordance with the Development Plan unless material considerations indicate otherwise. The Eden Local Plan (2014 – 2032) 8.2.2 The Eden Local Plan does not specifically identify this site for development, however as a “Smaller Village and Hamlet”, Newby is identified within Policy LS1. Policy LS1 “Locational Strategy”, as developed by supporting Policy HS2 identifies such designated “Smaller Villages and Hamlets” as locations where development of a modest and appropriate scale, which reflects the existing built form of the settlement will be permitted. Importantly, such small scale and sensitive development, being of necessity required to help meet local demand, must however be limited to acceptable “infill” or “rounding off” sites. Modest “infill plots” between buildings can be considered acceptable, however in the context of this application, the development proposed is neither “modest” nor located between buildings. It is therefore not reconcilable to the relevant requirements of Members own adopted Plan Policy HS2 and in this case the built form of the existing settlement. Of material relevance in this consideration are the previous refusals for residential development proposed in relation to this site, under applications Ref Nos 03/0317 and 03/0904 (as a re-submission of the earlier, for an unrestricted open market dwelling), and where in accepting the Officers recommendation to Refuse, Members supported the following as consideration and reasons for refusal: 8.2.3 In the light of the above historic submission and refusal, The present application, in outline principle only, again advocates the provision of one unrestricted market led dwelling, to be subject to no agricultural or local occupancy restriction, but in relation to a “lifestyle need” put forward only by the applicant and his father, and as a requisite in such locations, is “argued” by them as thereby complying with this aspect of Policy LS1. 8.2.4 Again to be noted as above, the current proposal represents the latest in the series of historical, and similar such planning applications on, or in the vicinity of the present site, to the rear of Cross House, by the applicants family, and where otherwise unjustified, market led residential development has historically been sought, and refused (under relevant applications Ref No 03/0317 and 03/0904, and which were both refused for the following reasons and grounds: - “The application site and proposed new dwelling is effectively located outside of the settlement of Newby in open countryside. The circumstances surrounding the application are such that insufficient justification has been put forward to outweigh the environmental costs and undue harm to the character and defensible limits of the settlement and the character and landscape quality of the surrounding countryside of the dwelling”.
Page 45 Agenda Item 2 REPORTS FOR DEBATE - “The proposal as submitted represents a market led development which is not designed to meet an identified housing need, which together with the location of the site, in proximity to a settlement identified as having a limited range of facilities and service availability, is such that acceptance of a development of the type proposed in the light of emerging guidance, would unreasonably and effectively compromise the Authorities ability to implement (sustainable housing aims), make proper plan provision for the District and resist other such similar proposals which might set awkward precedent which the Authority would find difficult to resist.” and, - “The greenfield nature, location and absence of overriding justification for the need of the type of dwelling proposed is considered to be unacceptable and at odds with the sustainable aims and objectives of (National, emerging Regional and Local) Policy Guidance.” 8.2.5 In addition, it is considered that an unrestricted and non-associated residential development of the existing agricultural land immediately to the rear of the farmhouse, and between it and the balance of the remaining holding might also in this location, and as a non-associated dwelling, effectively jeopardise its’ ongoing day to day “practical operation” of Cross House as a farm It is again to be noted that the present submission does not propose any legal tie to the farm or its undertaking, other than a family connection. 8.2.6 Under the current Local Plan and Policy LS1 and associated Policy HS2, Newby is listed under “Smaller Villages and Hamlets” where development, within the settlement, of an appropriate scale, which reflects the existing built form of adjoining and neighbouring development to the site and the service function of the settlement will be permitted within villages and hamlets, to support the development of diverse and sustainable communities. Development in these locations will be permitted in the following circumstances: Where it re-uses previously-developed land. Where it delivers new housing on greenfield sites to meet local demand only. Where it helps support local services and facilities. 8.2.7 Within these Smaller Villages and Hamlets all development must be of a high quality design and will be restricted to infill sites, which “infill” a modest gap between existing buildings within the settlement; or “rounding off”, which extends the edge of a settlement within a logical, defensible boundary. Outwith those provisions, and outside of the settlement, such development is restricted to exceptional justification and need. 8.2.8 Historically, and in previous reason for refusal, this location has however been considered by the Planning Authority as not to fall within the settlement, and be effectively within, and having potential for significant adverse impact on the surrounding open countryside. This still remains the case, and the site, in this location is still considered to be outside the village envelope. 8.2.9 Smaller Villages and Hamlets have been identified on the basis that they contain a coherent and close knit group of ten or more dwellings, which are well related and in close proximity to each other, or clustered around a central element or feature, as opposed to area of scattered and poorly related development. In addition, any residential development within Smaller Villages and Hamlets, and on a greenfield site, is to be restricted to a local connection secured through a local occupancy condition.
Page 46 Agenda Item 2 REPORTS FOR DEBATE 8.2.10 In this case the location of the proposed development in considered to conflict with the aim of Policy LS1 because the application site, in line with historical view of the Authority, again cannot be construed to be either “rounding off” or “infill” development as the development location and site would neither have defensible boundaries, fill in a “modest gap” within, nor (in this particular location) represent a reasonable “rounding off” of the hamlet. 8.2.11 The Council’s position (supported both specifically, within the Council’s own “Housing” Supplementary Planning Document (SPD) historically, and in principle in Appeal decisions elsewhere which have been received since the Local Plan was adopted which supports this view and interpretation) is that such a defensible boundary should and would be a landscape feature such as a road, wood, river, railway line or a significant rise or fall in the topography, which would prevent the further extension of development. Walls, hedges or fences are held in themselves insufficient. Other than the farm lane to the east, and garden curtilage of Cross House to the north, it is considered that no such other strong defensible boundaries (even acknowledging the presence of stone walls) exist to the remainder of the application site, and that therefore the proposal does not represent a practical or reasonable “infill” or “rounding off” of the hamlet of Newby in this particular location. This consideration is consistent and in line with the historic view taken by the Authority in relation to development proposals on, or in relation to this specific site. 8.2.12 Again, and in noting the absence of an exceptional overriding need (either local occupancy or specific agricultural) or being put forward, despite supporting letters received beyond that of aspiration to live in the settlement, and possibly engage in some form of full time agricultural practice, at some date in the future. Members should note that “an ultimate or possible future intention” to engage in agricultural practice is not the same as an established and bona fide “need” to work on a farm or agricultural unit. It is to be noted that no such justification accompanies this current application, the proposal is purely sought as an unfettered market led dwelling. Therefore, and contrary to views expressed by the Parish, such does not form part of this applications’ formal planning consideration. 8.2.13 It is again also to be noted that as the Local Plan has now been adopted, and that the Council can demonstrate a 7.3 years housing land supply, (as recently confirmed by the Council’s Policy Section, October 2020), that as such there are, and remain no acceptable “non exceptional” arguments or justification otherwise to be made in terms of this aspect in the consideration of this particular application. The development as proposed is, as historically Members have also agreed and supported, and in the absence of overriding or exceptional need or justification, as still being located outside the settlement and therefore in open countryside. It therefore remains at odds with the aims of the adopted Eden Local Plan and specifically criteria concerns of Policies LS1 and HS2. The Golden thread here therefore remains: - the sites accepted location in the open countryside and outside of the settlement of Newby, - relevant adopted Plan Policy which requires exceptional and overriding justification in such localities for open market and/or unfettered residential development, - the absence in this case of relevant exceptional and overriding justification, and - Were this and other such applications to be approved, in such locations, and in the absence of the required Policy backed exceptional justification requirement, it could
Page 47 Agenda Item 2 REPORTS FOR DEBATE create awkward precedent which the Authority would find difficult to resist elsewhere. 8.2.14 Finally, it is noted that certain comments of support relate to a nearby recent approval granted for residential development under application Ref No 19/0674. This was for a barn conversion, within the village to the north-east of the site and distinctly separated from the current application site by the presence of the intervening farm track and public bridleway. The development approved under the above application (19/0674) was held to accord with the provisions and criteria concerns of the above adopted Eden Local Plan, and with its obvious differences (locationally and physically as an existing barn “conversion”, is therefore different and distinct from and with the present application and relevant consideration and does not therefore set any degree of precedent in terms of justification for the present “new build” application on a greenfield site distinctly outside the settlement in question. 8.2.15 Therefore, for the reasons detailed above it is considered that the application site does not accord with the Locational Strategy of the Eden Local Plan, and as such the principle of the development cannot be supported in this location. 8.3 Landscape and Visual Impacts 8.3.1 The application is in outline only with all matters reserved, except for access and layout. 8.3.2 Policies LS1 and DEV5 of the Eden local plan both require that development demonstrate a clear understanding of the form and character of the District’s built and natural environment. Furthermore those areas of open space and built frontages both within and peripheral to towns and villages are to be protected and enhanced where they are important to the character and amenity of the area. 8.3.3 The development of the application site would extend the built form of the settlement on the south-west side of the settlement, and would result in undue harm to the character and otherwise defensible limits of the settlement (the lane to the east and Cross House to the north) and the character and landscape quality of the surrounding countryside of the settlement. 8.3.4 Such development as is proposed, and were it to be sited on the south-western fringe of the hamlet, would have significant likelihood to unreasonably and unacceptably compromise this character and sensitive visual amenity, especially as the site is located adjacent the public realm in the form of a Public Bridleway (number 353014). 8.3.5 This therefore would be inconsistent with the present compact and presently well- defined and predominantly linear form of the small hamlet overall, and any development extending out and beyond, especially in this south-westward direction would appear as an incongruous and inappropriately prominent “backland” extension of the majority built form into the open countryside alongside the farm track and agricultural field lane. 8.3.6 It is considered that the development proposed would therefore not amount to a rounding off of the hamlet. It would extend the current, compact albeit built form of the hamlet into the open countryside beyond the hamlet which would be harmful, both to the character of the settlement and to the character and visual amenity of the surrounding sensitive landscape around the village. 8.3.7 The immediate surrounding countryside is not covered by any statutory designations, however the erosion of visual amenity that would result of and to the surrounding
Page 48 Agenda Item 2 REPORTS FOR DEBATE countryside and the expansion of the village in a manner that is inconsistent with its current extent and built form would cause demonstrable harm to the character and appearance of the hamlet, and to the surrounding landscape. Policy ENV2 “Protection and Enhancements of Landscapes and Trees” identifies the need amongst to: - conserve and enhance distinctive elements of landscape character and function, - take account of and complement the form of settlements and buildings within their landscape setting, and - the tranquillity of the open countryside. 8.3.8 The adverse impacts of the scheme are considered to be the impact upon the character of a relatively small settlement by extending the village on ground beyond the existing built up part of the hamlet, in neither a logical “infill” or “rounding off” fashion. Although as a cumulative total, the provision of one dwelling is not considered excessive, it does however relate to a relatively small hamlet, which has no significant local service provision and/or facility and the application clearly extends out-with the village’s clearly defined boundary in this locality, and without a defensible boundary. 8.3.9 These effects are considered to amount to significant and demonstrable harm which would outweigh the benefits of the scheme in the ‘planning balance’ which therefore is not considered acceptable in principle, or to accord with the historic view of the authority as well as the aims and criteria concerns of the now relevant Policies LS1, DEV5 and ENV2 of the adopted Eden Local Plan 2014-32. 8.4 Amenity 8.4.1 The application is in outline only with all matters reserved, except for access and layout. The neighbouring comments and support letters received are noted in this aspect, and were the present application to be approved, and a reserved matters application materialise, then relevant design detail would take the above into account, and the application considered in the light of the aims and criteria concerns of Policy DEV5 and relevant “Housing” SPDs and the recommended conditions of the relevant Utility Companies and their responses. 8.4.2 The fundamental issue remains that of principle, and in the absence of overriding justification and the contrary nature of the proposal against accepted aims of adopted Eden Local Plan policies as well as a historic acknowledgement of the sites relationship to the settlement. However, principle aside, and based on layout illustrative drawing submitted (Ref No 120-129-02 Rev B as received by the Local Planning Authority on the 2 September 2020.), the size, position of and relationship to nearby neighbouring gardens, and the separation distances between nearest existing dwelling (Cross House) and a proposed single storey dwelling footprint, then it is unlikely that a proposal of this nature (if designed sympathetically) would significantly or unreasonably conflict with the relevant “Housing” SPD separation and design guidelines. As such, adverse amenity impact likelihood is considered to be limited in this specific context. In this aspect then, the development as envisaged would be unlikely to conflict with the privacy and amenity aims and criteria concerns of the “Housing” SPD’s in light of the requirements of Policy DEV5. This consideration is however outwith the nature of the present submission. 8.4.3 A question remains however how a non-agricultural unrestricted dwelling in this location, and unassociated as it might become, might affect the ongoing operational ability of the existing (Cross House) farm being, as it would be, between it and the balance of the (55 acre) operational farm land. It is envisaged that such outcome might
Page 49 Agenda Item 2 REPORTS FOR DEBATE potentially present future difficulty, in terms of amenity, were the scheme as presently outlined and sought, to be approved. 8.5 Access 8.5.1 The comments and concerns of both neighbours, residents and the Parish are noted in the context of the development proposed and responses received. 8.5.2 Policy DEV3 “Transport, Accessibility and Rights of Way”, as relevant outlines that “developments likely to generate severe adverse travel impacts will not be permitted will not be permitted where they are in isolated or difficult to access locations”. In terms of highway and operational safety, the CCC Highway and LLF Authority have confirmed that they have no objection to the proposal, subject to safeguarding conditions. 8.5.3 In consideration therefore there would be no adverse impacts upon the highway network and therefore, in-compliance with Policy DEV3 and Para 109 of the NPPF. 8.5.4 As an outline application, no specific design details accompany the submission. The application is however accompanied by an indicative only block plan layout. 9. Implications 9.1 Legal Implications 9.1.1 The following matters have been considered but no issues are judged to arise. 9.1.2 The Authority has been notified as part of the submission, under Part 24 of the application submission details, that the Applicant is related to Councillor Patterson, as Chairman of the Planning Committee. 9.2 Equality and Diversity 9.2.1 The Council must have regard to the elimination of unlawful discrimination and harassment, and the promotion of equality under the Equality Act 2010. 9.3 Environment 9.3.1 The Council must have due regard to conserving bio-diversity under the Natural Environment and Rural Communities Act 2006. 9.4 Crime and Disorder 9.4.1 Under the Crime and Disorder Act 1998, the Council must have regard to the need to reduce crime and disorder in exercising any of its functions. 9.5 Human Rights 9.5.1 In determining applications, the Council must ensure that all parties get a fair hearing in compliance with the provisions of Article 6 under the European Convention on Human Rights, as now embodied in UK law in the Human Rights Act 1998. 10. Conclusion 10.1 In summary, the “Golden thread” in the consideration of this application as submitted, and the reason for the recommendation to Refuse therefore remains as follows, that: - the sites (as historically accepted and continually held view) is located in the open countryside outside of the settlement of Newby, - the proposed site remains as such neither a location for modest “infill” nor effective “rounding off” of, or within the village,
Page 50 Agenda Item 2 REPORTS FOR DEBATE - this consideration represents a consistent view of the Authority in light of historic consideration of the village boundary in this part of the settlement, - the relevant adopted Eden Local Plan and Members own Policies require exceptional and overriding justification for residential development in the open countryside, - the application as submitted is solely for an open market and unfettered residential development, sought in the absence of relevant Policy required exceptional and overriding justification and of no less important consideration for Members, that: - were this and other such applications to be approved, in the open countryside locations, and in the absence of the required Policy backed “exceptional justification” requirement, it could create awkward precedent which the Authority would find difficult to resist elsewhere. 10.2 The support of the Parish Meeting and Ward Councillor are noted. Such views however do not coincide or accord with the aims and criteria concerns of the adopted Eden Local Plan, the aims and criteria concerns of which Members are required to consider the application as submitted against. It is also noted that certain comments of support relate to a nearby recent approval granted for residential development under application Ref No 19/0674. This was for an existing barn conversion within the village to the north-east of the site and distinctly separated from the current “greenfield open countryside” application site by the presence of the intervening farm track and public bridleway. The development approved under the above application (19/0674) was held to accord with the provisions and criteria concerns of the above adopted Eden Local Plan, and with its obvious differences (locationally and physically as an existing barn “conversion”, is therefore different and distinct from and with the present application and relevant consideration and does not therefore set any degree of precedent in terms of justification for the present “new build” application on a greenfield site, in open countryside distinctly, and again as historically accepted, outside the settlement in question. Notwithstanding this detail, Officers remain of the view that additional information and plan submitted, and circulated separately to Members, serves only to confirm their present concerns, and view with regard to the relationship of the site to the village, and reasons for refusal as outlined above. 10.3 Therefore, and for the reasons detailed above it is and remains considered that the application site does not accord with the Locational Strategy of the Eden Local Plan, and as such the principle of the development cannot be supported in this location. The proposed development is considered to not be in accordance with the development plan and which is not outweighed by material considerations and therefore the application is recommended for refusal.
Oliver Shimell Assistant Director Planning and Economic Development
Checked by or on behalf of the Monitoring Officer 1.12.20
Background Papers: Planning Files 03/0317, 03/0914, 19/0674 and 20/0429
Page 51 Agenda Item 3 REPORTS FOR DEBATE Date of Committee: 17 December 2020
Planning Application No: 20/0484 Date Received: 20 July 2020
OS Grid Ref: 344828 545299 Expiry Date: 21 December 2020
Parish: Hesket-in-the- Ward: Hesket Forest
Application Type: Outline
Proposal: Outline application for erection of 2no. local occupancy dwellings with all matters reserved
Location: Land at Southwaite, Southwaite, CA4 0LL
Applicant: Mr Fisher
Agent: Ms Anthea Jones, Planning Branch Ltd
Case Officer: Karen Thompson
Reason for Referral: The Parish Council’s view to approve the application is contrary to the recommendation of the planning authority.
Page 52 Agenda Item 3 REPORTS FOR DEBATE
Page 53 Agenda Item 3 REPORTS FOR DEBATE 1. Recommendation
It is recommended that outline planning permission be refused for the following reasons: 1. The proposed development is not considered to be infill or rounding off, conflicting with Policies LS1 and HS2 of the Local Development Plan. 2. The proposed development would have an unacceptable landscape impact conflicting with Chapters 12 and 15 of the NPPF and Policies DEV5 and ENV2 of the Local Development Plan.
2. Proposal and Site Description 2.1 Proposal 2.1.1 This application is for outline planning permission sought for two dwellings (local occupancy) with all matters reserved. 2.1.2 An indicative plan has been submitted which shows the footprints of two houses – both parallel to each other, and facing the C1041 road and having a single access to a shared driveway at the front of the properties. 2.1.3 In addition, the applicant has also submitted a location and site plan; noise survey; speed survey; and details of the levels in the application site and adjoining land. 2.1.4 As the current proposal is for outline planning permission, at this stage, matters relating to the site layout, scale, appearance of the buildings, landscaping and access would be subject to a reserved matters application should outline planning permission be granted. Notwithstanding the indicative plans submitted, the current outline application seeks approval for the principle of residential development only at this site. 2.2 Site Description 2.2.1 The application site measures approximately 25 metres x 35 metres and is positioned in the south western corner of what was a larger agricultural field which has been divided off by a post and rail fence and the land has been left to overgrow. The south and west boundaries are enclosed with hedgerows and to the east is main North West railway line which is elevated above the surrounding ground. 2.2.2 The application site is moderately level with a gentle incline in a westerly direction, towards the C1041 road. 2.2.3 Immediately to the south of the site is an unclassified lane with Barrock Close, a bungalow development, at the other side. 2.2.4 To the west, at the other side of the C1041 are open agricultural fields, with the nearest dwelling being Barrock View, which is almost parallel to the Barrock Close. Both Barrock Close and Barrock View signify the start of the built up area of Southwaite when approaching from the north. 2.2.5 To the north, is an agricultural field which rises in a northerly direction alongside the C1041 but slopes down in an easterly direction towards the railway line. 2.2.6 The application site is not within a conservation area and there are no nearby listed buildings.
Page 54 Agenda Item 3 REPORTS FOR DEBATE 3. Consultees 3.1 Statutory Consultees Consultee Response Highway Authority and Lead 7 September 2020 – As visibility splays have been Local Flood Authority provided we the Highway Authority and Lead Local Flood Authority has no objections to the proposed development but would recommend conditions relating to the visibility splays; height of the boundary treatment; vehicular crossing; access drive and gates; turning requirements; construction traffic management plan; and the prevention of surface water discharging onto the highway. 3.2 Discretionary Consultees Consultee Response Environmental Health 28 September 2020 - according to the Noise ProPG guidance document, in this situation the application should not be an outline one. The revised noise assessment has moved the proposed dwellings closer to the railway line in order to achieve the required noise levels in the garden. There is nothing wrong with this approach, however, according to the principles of ‘good acoustic design’ in the guidance, we would have expected to see consideration given to the internal layouts of the proposed properties, so that ‘non-habitable rooms’ could be located closest to the railway line, therefore reducing the potential noise impact on bedrooms and living rooms. This is another reason why an outline application is far from ideal. Our advice has consistently been that, in line with the guidance, an outline application with all matters reserved is not suitable in this scenario. Having said that, I am supportive of the proposal to move the dwellings so that noise levels in the gardens can be achieved. In the event that you are minded to grant the outline application, I would strongly recommend the following: 1. Before the development herby approved is occupied the noise insulation and ventilation scheme prepared by Nova Acoustics dated 21 August 2020 and submitted as part of the application reference 20/0484 shall be implemented and validated by a competent person and the validation report submitted to and approved in writing by the local planning authority. The validation report shall confirm that
Page 55 Agenda Item 3 REPORTS FOR DEBATE Consultee Response the following internal and external noise levels have been achieved: Living Room 07:00-23:00 35 dB LAeq (16 hour) Dining Room/area 07:00-23:00 40 dB LAeq (16 hour) Bedroom 07:00-23:00 35 dB LAeq (16 hour) Bedroom 23:00-07:00 30 dB LAeq (8 hour) Bedroom 23:00-07:00 45dB LAmax (not to be exceeded more than 10 times / night) Garden and Outdoor Amenity Areas: 50dB LAeq16hr 0700hrs- 2300 hrs. 2. Prior to the commencement of the development the applicant shall provide details of the internal layouts of the proposed dwellings for approval by the Local Planning Authority. The internal layouts shall demonstrate that good acoustic design principles have been followed, and that as far as is reasonably practicable, non- habitable rooms are positioned closer to the railway line than habitable ones. Reason - To ensure that the scheme is safeguarded in respect of potential noise nuisance from the adjoining rail network. United Utilities 25 August 2020 - The applicant should be aware of a large pressurised sewer with associated legal easement running through the site. The proposed site layout plan appears to show dwellings located on top of this asset which would be unacceptable to United Utilities. Whilst we are aware that the scheme has been submitted in outline, with all matters reserved, it would be in the applicant’s interest to resolve this matter prior to the determination of this application to demonstrate that the scheme is in fact implementable. Housing Officer 26 November 2020 - Firstly; (and only if you decide to approve as rounding off), then it would come under the Smaller Village and Hamlets criteria (Southwaite) for affordable provision and fewer than 6 dwellings would have no requirement for any affordable units or commuted sums. Secondly; If it was decided not to be part of Southwaite, it would have to be classed as ‘other rural’ and within Policy HS 1, 1 or more dwellings would have to be affordable or as per Policy LS1. In terms of affordable rented housing, the housing team would not deem this location suitable. Regarding affordable rented demand, it is patchy
Page 56 Agenda Item 3 REPORTS FOR DEBATE Consultee Response and as follows; a total of 14 applicants on the Choice Based Lettings waiting list within the whole parish of Hesket (choosing areas Low Hesket, Plumpton and Ivegill) and none of these applicants require adapted properties (as suggested within the DAS, although this may also take into account the private market). As you know, any affordable properties would be secured in perpetuity and this is a deciding factor in the location of affordable rented units. This being the case, a commuted sum would be more appropriate (7% of the GDV) to provide affordable housing elsewhere and held within the Affordable Housing Fund/Reserve. Again within the DAS, there is suggestion of bungalow properties and tenuous links to the Housing Needs Survey for the parish of Hesket. This still doesn’t enable or change the view of this not complying with planning policy. Although bungalows are sought in most conurbations, this location would not have enough amenity to sustain the client types and the demographic, that the DWHNS refers to. In the last 2 years, 10 new build discounted sale properties have been secured and sold to households in affordable need through the Councils discounted sale housing scheme in the Parish of Hesket and there is some demand for this tenure type of housing (probably a mix of 2 and 3 bed). There are currently circa 37 applicants on our discounted register whose areas of choice cover this area. This type of housing would also meet the criteria for ‘affordable housing’. There are currently no applicants on this list for a bungalow in this location. 4. Parish Council/Meeting Response Please Tick as Appropriate Parish No View Object Support No Response Council/Meeting Expressed Hesket-in-the-Forest Parish Council 4.1 The Parish Council’s initial concerns, raised in correspondence dated 14 August 2020, was that the application site was not infill or rounding off and therefore did not conform to Policies LS1 and HS2 of the Eden Local Plan. The Parish Council also raised concerns regarding noise from the railway line and that access to the site would be outside the 30 mph zone and that the layout of the land presents potential visibility issues.
Page 57 Agenda Item 3 REPORTS FOR DEBATE 4.2 Further to additional information - a survey of the levels - presented to the Parish Council by the applicant, they withdrew their initial objection and advised that they are in support of the application. The Parish Council’s comments are as follows: ‘Upon consideration, and with reference to further information submitted by the applicant, the Parish Council wishes to support the application on the grounds that it meets local planning policies LS1 and HS2. The Parish Council would agree with the applicant that the proposed development should be classed as rounding off of the existing settlement, with the steep incline of the adjacent field effectively forming a settlement boundary. It is considered that as local occupancy dwellings the application would also accommodate local demand for housing, which is high in Southwaite with limited availability.’ 5. Representations 5.1 Letters of consultation were sent to nearby neighbours and a site notice was posted on 1 August 2020. No of Neighbours Consulted 20 No of letters of support 0 No of Representations Received 6 No of neutral representations 0 No of objection letters 0 5.2 Letters of objection raised the following material considerations to the application: The location does not appear to be in an area identified as being within the Eden District Council Local Plan for development of this kind. Southwaite does not have any facilities for public transport, shops etc and more housing results in more vehicles in the village. Question the capacity of the drains to cope with further properties in the area as there are existing issues of flooding down the road and into Barrock Close where it pools and nearly entered properties. The site is on a national speed limit road, on a steep slope with a blind bend as it enters the village and therefore a danger to vehicles manoeuvring into and out of the properties and to pedestrians. The road is used by heavy Lorries and other farm vehicles from Mellguards and is already an accident waiting to happen as traffic does travel fast down this hill. The speeds recorded in the traffic survey are an underestimate of the usual speed observed on this section of the road. The survey was undertaken in part during works to lay a new water pipe along the road which would have slowed traffic. If there is a need for local occupancy housing in the area, it can be resolved elsewhere. The properties will overlook gardens resulting in loss of privacy. 5.3 Letters of objection raised the following non-material considerations: Loss of view. The present broadband and electricity network is already strained and will not cope with more houses.
Page 58 Agenda Item 3 REPORTS FOR DEBATE 6. Relevant Planning History Application No Description Outcome 15/1166 Outline application for 4 no. dwelling Withdrawn prior to houses with all matters reserved. recommendation to refuse - 25 January 2016 18/0771 Outline application for 3 no. dwelling Withdrawn prior to houses with approval sought for access. recommendation to refuse - 19 February 2019 7. Policy Context 7.1 Development Plan Eden Local Plan (2014-2032): LS1 – Locational Strategy HS2 – Housing in the Smaller Villages and Hamlets DEV5 – Design of New Development ENV2 – Protection and Enhancement of Landscapes and Trees Supplementary Planning Documents: Housing (2020) 7.2 Other Material Considerations National Planning Policy Framework: Chapter 2 Achieving sustainable development Chapter 12 Achieving well-designed places Chapter 15 Conserving and enhancing the natural environment 7.3 The policies and documents detailed above are the most relevant policies relating to the determination of this application. 8. Planning Assessment 8.1 Key/Main Planning Issues Principle and acceptability of development in this location Landscape and Visual Impacts Residential Amenity Infrastructure Natural Environment 8.2 Principle 8.2.1 This is an application for outline planning permission for 2no. dwellings with all matters reserved on land north of Barrock Close at Southwaite. The village of Southwaite is defined as a ‘Smaller Village and Hamlet’ under Policy LS1 of the Local Development Plan 2014-2032. Policy LS1 Locational Strategy states that: ‘Development of an appropriate scale, which reflects: the existing built form of the settlement, adjoining and neighbouring development to the site, and the service function of the settlement, will be permitted within Smaller Villages and Hamlets, to
Page 59 Agenda Item 3 REPORTS FOR DEBATE support the development of diverse and sustainable communities. Development in these locations will be permitted in the following circumstances: Where it reuses previously-developed land (PDL) defined in Appendix 2. Where it delivers new housing on greenfield sites only, in accordance with the local connection criteria defined in Appendix 6.’ 8.2.2 The proposed development is on a green field site and for two local occupancy dwellings, and therefore complies with the future occupancy element of Policy LS1. 8.2.3 However, Policy LS1 goes on to say that development should be restricted to infill sites (which fill a modest gap between existing buildings), rounding off (which provides a modest extension beyond the limit of the settlement to a logical, defensible boundary) and the reuse of traditional buildings and structures. This is supported by Policy HS2 Housing in Smaller Villages and Hamlets which states that development will be restricted to ‘infilling and rounding off of the current village settlement pattern’. 8.2.4 Furthermore, the Council’s Housing Supplementary Planning Document (Housing SPD) adopted in April 2020 also provides guidance on ‘modest infill development’ and ‘modest rounding off development’. 8.2.5 With regard to infill sites it states ‘in most cases modest development is considered to be development that fill a gap in an otherwise built frontage of not more than two dwellings’ and consideration will be given to: - The scale of the proposal in relation to the number of existing dwellings that form the existing settlement; - The length of the site; and - The size of the overall site area. 8.2.6 With regards to rounding off development, the Housing SPD states that ‘the requirement for “modest rounding off” development is to protect the open countryside from unjustified and inappropriate development eroding the quality of the countryside’. Modest rounding off development is a modest extension beyond the limit of the settlement to a clearly defined strong physical feature which is long standing such as, but not limited to, ‘a road, wood, river, or a railway line, which would prevent the further extension of development’. 8.2.7 With regard to the above definition of ‘infill’, it is considered that the application site, positioned in the corner of an open agricultural field with no immediate buildings either side of it, cannot be considered to be an ‘infill’ site. 8.2.8 With regards to ‘rounding off’ and the need for these sites to have ‘defensible boundaries’, the Council’s position, and supported by the Planning Inspectorate on a number of recent appeals, is that these should be landscape features as mentioned in the Housing SPD above, which would prevent the further extension of development. 8.2.9 Immediately to the south and west of the application site there are roads (a minor lane and the C1041). However, immediately to the east is land in the ownership of the applicant with the railway line beyond. To the north is an open agricultural field which slopes relatively steeply in a northern direction away from the application site and adjacent to the C1041 road, and also slopes down in an easterly direction towards the railway line. The applicant is claiming that the steepness of the field would preclude further development and has submitted results of a topographical survey in order to
Page 60 Agenda Item 3 REPORTS FOR DEBATE provide some justification that the gradient of the land could be justified as a defensible boundary. 8.2.10 The survey results show that the gradient on the application site is between 89.32 to 90.52 and the gradient in the adjacent land is 94.77 – which is over 4 metres higher than the application site and having a gradient of between averages of 1:12 (8.3%) and 1:17.3 (5.8%). 8.2.11 The applicant has not submitted any information or analysis to support their argument that building works on this land could not take place due to the gradient of the land. However, a simple internet search has revealed that gentle grades of less than about 10% are the easiest to build on. Between 15% and 20%, you should plan to spend a little more on grading and the foundations, which may need to stepped down or have deeper footings on the low side. On steeper slopes, much above about 20% you may have to do more extensive earth moving, retaining walls, and soil stabilisation to create workable grades and prevent erosion. Therefore, whilst the applicant’s views on this matter are duly noted, officers do not agree that the gradient and topography of the land adjacent to the site would in fact prevent any future development. As such, officers remain of the view that whilst steep rises or falls in topography can be considered a defensible boundary, this is not the case in this specific instance. 8.2.12 The Parish Council’s support for the application is fully noted, and although it is agreed that the field does have a reasonably steep slope, as stated above, it is the planning officers opinion that the slope in itself would not preclude further development, and therefore, it cannot be considered as a defensible boundary as described within Policy LS1 of the Eden Local Plan, and as further defined within the Housing SPD (2020). 8.2.13 Policy HS2 – Housing in the Smaller Villages and Hamlets supports housing of an appropriate scale, which reflects the built form of adjoining and neighbouring development to the site and the service function of the settlement (including sub- division of existing housing) where it meets all of the following criteria: where development is restricted to infilling and rounding off of the current village settlement pattern, in accordance with Policy LS1. The building does not have more than 150 sqm internal floorspace (gross). In the case of Greenfield sites a condition or legal agreement restricting occupancy to only those meeting local connection criteria. 8.2.14 New dwellings within the village of Southwaite are considered acceptable providing they comply with the above. However, in this particular case, it is considered that the application site does not satisfy the definition of a rounding-off site. 8.2.15 The applicant proposes the dwellings to be restricted to a local occupancy condition which would restrict occupancy to those meeting a local connection criteria defined in Appendix 6 of the Eden Local Plan. Consultation has taken place with the Council’s Housing Officer who has advised that if the site is not considered rounding-off or infill then the site would fall under ‘other rural’ where there would be an affordable housing requirement but has confirmed that there are no applicants on the housing waiting list for a bungalow in this location and also questions the suitability for such dwelling in this location where there are no services or amenity to sustain the client types and the demographic. 8.2.16 Therefore it is considered that the proposed site cannot be perceived as either infill or rounding off. New dwellings can be supported in Southwaite, but only where they
Page 61 Agenda Item 3 REPORTS FOR DEBATE strictly comply with the aforementioned policies. However, in this particular case, it is considered that the application site does not satisfy the definition of a rounding off site nor does the benefit of the two dwellings represent sufficient gain to outweigh the detrimental harm caused by a dwelling in this location, particularly when the Council is already able to demonstrate a 7.3 year housing land supply. Therefore the principle of the proposed development in this location is not in accordance with the Local Development Plan Policies and is considered unacceptable. 8.3 Landscape and Visual Impacts 8.3.1 Chapter 12 ‘Achieving well-designed places’ of the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) states that new development should be ‘sympathetic to landscape setting’. This is supported by Policy DEV5 Design of New Development of the Eden Local Plan which states that new development should ‘reflect the existing streetscene’. 8.3.2 Policy ENV2 Protection and Enhancement of Landscapes and Trees of the Eden Local Plan refers to landscape setting and states that new developments should take into account and complement ‘the distribution and form of settlements and buildings within their landscape setting’. This is supported by Chapter 15 Conserving and enhancing the natural environment of the NPPF which states that decisions should ‘recognising the intrinsic character and beauty of the countryside’. 8.3.3 Although the application site has been fenced off from the rest of the field, this is barely noticeable as the application site is enclosed on two public boundary by a mature hedge. Other than the presence of the main north west railway line to the east, the character and appearance of the area north of Southwaite is open countryside with agricultural fields enclosed by hedgerows, trees and fencing with only a glimpse of a residential dwelling – Crosshills House – 150 metres away to the north. 8.3.4 The application field is physically separated from the village of Southwaite by a narrow surfaced lane that runs along its southern edge and provides access to the dwellings at Hesket Place. The first two houses on the approach to the village from the north – 1 Barrock Close and Barrock View - are either side of the village road (C1041) and are almost parallel with each other. These dwellings signify the start of the built up area of the village. 8.3.5 There has been an appeal decision relating to a field adjacent Nab Barn, South Dykes, Great Salkeld (ref. APP/H0928/W/18/3194233) which was dismissed in May 2018 by the Planning Inspector. The site specific conditions and the lack of a defensible boundary are very similar between the appeal site and this application. In the South Dykes case, there were also houses that were almost parallel at either side of the road positioned at the start to the village, with the appeal site being outwith of the built up part of the village. In determining the appeal, the Inspector states: ‘16 The Council’s position is that a defensible boundary would be a landscape feature such as road, wood, river, railway line or a significant rise or fall in the topography, which would prevent the further extension of development. In my view, this is a more credible definition…’.and continued at paragraph 17 ‘It would, moreover, extend the current, compact, built form of the settlement into the open countryside beyond the village which would be harmful, both to the character of the village and to the character of the surrounding landscape, by disrupting the established patter of well-defined agricultural fields around the village…the erosion of the surrounding countryside and the expansion of the village in a manner that is inconsistent with its current extent and
Page 62 Agenda Item 3 REPORTS FOR DEBATE built form would cause harm to the character and appearance of the village, and to the surrounding landscape’. 8.3.6 Although the cumulative total of dwellings is not considered excessive, the application clearly extends outwith the village’s clearly defined boundary, without any defensible boundary. These effects are considered to amount to significant and demonstrable harm which would outweigh the benefits of the scheme in the ‘planning balance’ which therefore is not considered acceptable in principle and therefore does not comply with the aims of ENV2 and DEV5 of the Eden Local Plan and Chapters 12 and 15 of the National Planning Policy Framework. 8.4 Residential Amenity 8.4.1 Policy DEV5 of the Eden Local Plan seeks to protect the amenity of existing residents and provide a suitable amenity for future occupants. This application is in outline and the details of the layout and design of the proposed dwellings are not a matter for consideration. Notwithstanding, there is no reason to suggest that a scheme could not be proposed which would preserve the amenity of the neighbouring residential dwellings. 8.4.2 Concerns have been raised by some local residents that housing on this site would have a negative impact on their privacy and their outlook. These views have been considered and although outlook or loss of view is not a material consideration, the details of design of any future housing on this site would be considered at the Reserved Matters stage. 8.5 Infrastructure 8.5.1 Although this is an outline application with all matters reserved, including access, the applicant provided speed survey results and details of visibility splays. Although the Highway Authority has not raised any objection to the submitted information (subject to conditions), the location of the access to the site is not considered under this application. 8.5.2 The Lead Local Flood Authority (LLFA) have records of minor surface water flooding to the south of the site which indicate a 0.1 percent (1 in 1000) chance of occurring each year and advised that the Environment Agency (EA) surface water maps do not indicate that the site is in an area of risk. 8.5.3 There are no drainage details submitted with the application other than that a soakaway would be installed to deal with surface water and that this would be dealt with at the Building Regulation stage as the development being under 5 houses is considered to be minor development. 8.5.4 United Utilities have commented that there is a large pressurised sewer with associated legal easement running through the site and that it would be in the developer’s interests to resolve this matter prior to the determination of this application to demonstrate that the scheme is in fact implementable. However, such matters would need to be considered in the final design and layout of the site at the Reserved Matters stage were outline approval to be granted for the site. 8.6 Natural Environment 8.6.1 The application site is a greenfield agricultural parcel of land which although is enclosed by a hedgerow on two boundaries it is not considered to be ecologically sensitive. Should outline planning consent be granted, a suitably worded condition
Page 63 Agenda Item 3 REPORTS FOR DEBATE would be recommended which prevented its removal on environmental and visual amenity grounds. 9. New Homes Bonus 9.1 The prospect of receiving a Bonus is, in principle, capable of being taken into account as a ‘material consideration’ in determining a planning application. Whether potential Bonus payments are in fact a material consideration in relation to a particular application will depend on whether those payments would be used in a way which is connected to the application and to the use and development of land. For example, potential Bonus payments could be a material consideration if they were to be used to mitigate impacts resulting from development. But if the use to which the payments are to be put is unclear or is for purposes unrelated to the development concerned a decision maker would not be entitled to take them into account when making a decision on a planning application. In this particular case, there are no plans to use the New Homes Bonus arising from this application in connection with this development. 10. Implications 10.1 Legal Implications 10.1.1 The following matters have been considered but no issues are judged to arise. 10.2 Equality and Diversity 10.2.1 The Council must have regard to the elimination of unlawful discrimination and harassment, and the promotion of equality under the Equality Act 2010. 10.3 Environment 10.3.1 The Council must have due regard to conserving bio-diversity under the Natural Environment and Rural Communities Act 2006. 10.4 Crime and Disorder 10.4.1 Under the Crime and Disorder Act 1998, the Council must have regard to the need to reduce crime and disorder in exercising any of its functions. 10.5 Children 10.5.1 Under the Children Act 2004, the Council has a duty to safeguard and promote the welfare of children in the exercise of any of its functions. 10.6 Human Rights 10.6.1 In determining applications, the Council must ensure that all parties get a fair hearing in compliance with the provisions of Article 6 under the European Convention on Human Rights, as now embodied in UK law in the Human Rights Act 1998. 11. Conclusion 11.1 It is considered that the proposal does not accord with the Development Plan for the following reasons which are not outweighed by material considerations. 11.2 The proposed development for a new dwelling house by reason that there is no logical or defensible boundary to contain development does not comply with the fundamental aims of Policies LS1 and HS2 within the adopted Eden Local Plan 2014-2032 as well as resulting in an inappropriate and harmful encroachment into the open countryside contrary to the aims of Policies DEV5 and ENV2 of the Eden Local Plan and also the National Planning Policy Framework.
Page 64 Agenda Item 3 REPORTS FOR DEBATE 11.3 Therefore, it is recommended that the application be refused.
Oliver Shimell Assistant Director Planning and Economic Development
Checked by or on behalf of the Monitoring Officer 30.11.2020
Background Papers: Planning File 20/0484
Page 65 Agenda Item 4 REPORTS FOR DEBATE Date of Committee: 17 December 2020
Planning Application No: 20/0669 Date Received: 11 September 2020
OS Grid Ref: 384546 514831 Expiry Date: 21 December 2020
Parish: Stainmore Ward: Brough
Application Type: Full
Proposal: Demolition of existing shed and erection of a replacement shed. Re-submission of 20/0223
Location: Banks Gate, North Stainmore, Kirkby Stephen, CA17 4EX
Applicant: Mr F Allison
Agent: Addis Town Planning
Case Officer: Miss G Heron
Reason for Referral: The recommendation is contrary to that of the Parish Council
© Crown Copyright and Database Rights (2016) Grid Ref: NY
Page 66 © Crown Copyright and Database Rights (2016) Grid Ref: NY
Agenda Item 4 REPORTS FOR DEBATE
Page 67 Agenda Item 4 REPORTS FOR DEBATE 1. Recommendation
It is recommended that planning permission be refused for the following reasons: 1. The proposal is of a scale, size and design which causes unacceptable harm to the residential character and setting of the site and surrounding area. Therefore, the development is contrary to Policy DEV5 of the Eden Local Plan 2014-32 and Paragraph 130 of the NPPF 2019. 2. The proposal is of a scale, size and design which causes harm to the North Pennines Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty designation contrary to Policy ENV2 and Policy ENV3 of the Eden Local Plan 2014-32.
2. Proposal and Site Description 2.1 Proposal 2.1.1 Planning application 20/0223 was put before Members in June 2020 for the erection of a replacement shed to be used for domestic purposes. This application was subsequently refused for the following reasons: 1. The proposal is of a scale, size and design which causes unacceptable harm to the residential character and setting of the site and surrounding area. Therefore, the development is contrary to Policy DEV5 of the Eden Local Plan 2014-32 and Paragraph 130 of the NPPF. 2. The proposal is of a scale, size and design which causes harm to the North Pennines Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty designation contrary to Policy ENV2 and Policy ENV3 of the Eden Local Plan 2014-32. 2.1.2 This application is a re-submission of 20/0223 and seeks to address the previous reasons for refusal. The proposal now before Members for consideration seeks full planning permission for the erection of a replacement shed to be used for domestic purposes. The garage will approximately measure 12 metres by 8 metres and will stand to 4.5 metres to the eaves. It will have a total ground area of 96 square metres. It shall be constructed from plasticol coated composite panels with a section of stone facing to the south elevation. 2.1.3 In comparing the differences between the current application before Members (20/0669) and the most recent refusal (20/0223) on the site, there are two material differences. Firstly, the applicant has reduced the size and scale of the proposal with the current application having a ground floor area of 96 square metres, as opposed to 20/0223 having a ground floor area of 150 square metres. There has been a reduction of 54 square metres from the previous refusal (20/0223). The eaves height of the current application (20/0669) has been reduced to 4.5 metres, compared to the previous refusal (20/0223) which had an eaves height of 5 metres. 2.2 Site Description 2.2.1 The site relates to an existing garage/shed building directly adjacent to the residential property, Banks Gate. It is located in a considerably elevated position to the north of A66 at North Stainmore, being accessed via an existing junction off the A66 onto an unclassified road to the site. 2.2.2 The site is located within the North Pennines Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty, Upper Eden Neighbourhood Plan area and in an area of Minerals Safeguarding. There is a Public Bridleway (366062) to the west of the site.
Page 68 Agenda Item 4 REPORTS FOR DEBATE 3. Consultees 3.1 Statutory Consultees Consultee Response Local Highway Authority Responded on 14 October 2020 with no objection. Lead Local Flood Authority Responded on 14 October 2020 with no objection. 3.2 Discretionary Consultees Consultee Response Cumbria County Council – Responded on 9 November 2020 with no objection. Minerals and Waste Highways England Responded on 30 September 2020 with no objection. North Pennines Area of No response received. Outstanding Natural Beauty Partnership 4. Parish Council/Meeting Response Parish No View Object Support No Response Council/Meeting Expressed Stainmore Parish Council 4.1 ‘Stainmore Parish Council have looked at these new plans and all Councillors would like to offer support to the proposal, for the reasons outlined below: This new building is hidden from public views especially the A66 This new building will be in-keeping with other buildings in the area We really need to see the removal of this old garage – it is not very nice to look at.’ 5. Representations 5.1 Letters of consultation were sent to nearby neighbours. No of Neighbours Consulted 1 No of letters of support 0 No of Representations Received 0 No of neutral representations 0 No of objection letters 0 6. Relevant Planning History Application No Description Outcome 96/0213 Extension to the rear and side of the Full Approval property to provide additional utility space 31/05/96 and a double garage as amended by information in respect of the domestic curtilage boundary of the site as received on 31/05/96 18/0918 Proposed replacement garage Withdrawn 04/01/19
Page 69 Agenda Item 4 REPORTS FOR DEBATE Application No Description Outcome 19/0068 Proposed replacement garage Full Refusal 27/03/19 19/0591 Proposed replacement garage – Full Approval resubmission of 19/0068 24/10/19 20/0223 Demolition of existing shed and erection Full Refusal of replacement shed. 18/06/2020 7. Policy Context 7.1 Development Plan Eden Local Plan (2014-2032): Policy LS1: Locational Strategy Policy DEV1: General Approach to New Development Policy HS2: Housing in Smaller Villages and Hamlets Policy DEV5: Design of New Development Policy ENV2: Protection and enhancement of Landscapes and Trees Policy ENV3: The North Pennines Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty Supplementary Planning Documents: North Pennines AONB Planning Guidelines (July 2011) North Pennines AONB Building Design Guide (2011) 7.2 Other Material Considerations National Planning Policy Framework: Chapter 12: Achieving well-designed places 7.3 The policies and documents detailed above are the most relevant policies relating to the determination of this application. 8. Planning Assessment 8.1 Key/Main Planning Issues Principle Scale and Design Landscape and Visual Impacts Site History Infrastructure Natural Environment Built Environment 8.2 Principle 8.2.1 The principle of residential extensions and outbuildings are acceptable providing they comply with Policy DEV5 of the Eden Local Plan which supports high quality design that reflects local distinctiveness and shows a clear understanding of the form and character of the district’s built environment. 8.2.2 It is considered that an outbuilding to be used in a residential setting, in association with a main domestic property, is acceptable in principle, subject to other material planning considerations.
Page 70 Agenda Item 4 REPORTS FOR DEBATE 8.3 Scale and Design 8.3.1 Policy DEV5 of the Eden Local Plan states new development will be required to demonstrate that it meets each of the following criteria: Shows a clear understanding of the form and character of the district’s built and natural environment, complementing and enhancing the existing area. Protects and where possible enhances the district’s distinctive rural landscape, natural environment and biodiversity. Reflects the existing street scene through use of appropriate scale, mass, form, layout, high quality architectural design and use of materials. Optimises the potential use of the site and avoids overlooking. Protects the amenity of existing residents and business occupiers and provides an acceptable amenity for future occupiers. Uses quality materials which complement or enhance local surroundings. Protects features and characteristics of local importance. Provides adequate space for the storage, collection and recycling of waste. Can be easily accessed and used by all, regardless of age and disability. Incorporates appropriate crime prevention measures. 8.3.2 Paragraph 130 of the NPPF states ‘Permission should be refused for development of poor design that fails to take the opportunities available for improving the character and quality of an area and the way it functions, taking into account any local design standards or style guides in plans or supplementary planning documents. Conversely, where the design of a development accords with clear expectations in plan policies, design should not be used by the decision-maker as a valid’. 8.3.3 The application is for a garage to be used for domestic purposes and information has been supplied as a justification for the size and scale of the proposal. This relates to the applicant wishing to continue his passion and hobby of restoring and converting old buses into motorhomes and restoring classic trucks, which at the current time they are able to do at their business Grand Prix Garage in Brough. However, they would like to continue this into retirement and have a building which would allow for this at their residential property. They also wish to have the capacity to store classic vehicles in the building. The agent for the application confirms that the building would be operated on an ancillary basis to the residential property Banks Gate and would not be used commercially. Therefore, the application shall be assessed in accordance with its proposed domestic use. 8.3.4 Firstly, the proposal is not considered to be of an acceptable size and scale when considering the application site, its proposed use and surroundings. Typically although not restricted through Local Plan Policy, a domestic garage to be used in association with a dwellinghouse would be used as an ancillary building to the main house and therefore, would typically be expected to be subservient in size in order to achieve good or high quality design. There is an existing double garage to the east of the main house, which is single storey and subservient in size compared to the main house. In considering this, the proposal seeks a domestic garage which would approximately measure 12 metres by 8 metres, standing to 4.5 metres to the eaves. The garage would have a total ground area of 96 square metres. As outlined above, a domestic
Page 71 Agenda Item 4 REPORTS FOR DEBATE garage is considered to be an ancillary structure to the main dwelling. However, the proposal will not appear ancillary, will appear overbearing to the residential property and the plot of land of which it is situated. The scale is commensurate with that of a commercial building which is not considered to be appropriate as a domestic garage. 8.3.5 To provide further context on the scale and size of the proposal, the Town and Country Planning (General Permitted Development) (England) Order 2015 (as amended) Schedule 2 Part 1 Class E allows for buildings incidental to the enjoyment of a dwellinghouse, subject to the criteria. The maximum height allowed under this provision is 4 metres for a dual-pitched roof with a maximum eaves height of 2.5 metres. Also, the legislation places greater restrictions on Article 2(3) land, of which the site is due to its designation in the North Pennines AONB. It restricts development under this provision to the side of the dwellinghouse and places a restriction of 10 square metres on the total area of ground covered by development under Class E. This proposal seeks a domestic building which has a total ground area of 96 square metres in comparison. 8.3.6 Also, there is an existing disused outbuilding on the application site which is rundown and derelict, and is not of significant architectural merit. In considering Paragraph 130 of the NPPF, this application could have taken the opportunity to improve the character and quality of the area. However, the proposal raises significant concerns in relation to its size and scale. 8.3.7 In addition to this, it is important to consider there is an extant planning permission on the site for a replacement garage under planning application 19/0591. This extant permission will have a ground floor space of approximately 63 square metres, which is considered to be of an acceptable size, scale and design to the Council. To compare this directly with the application before Members, there is a difference of approximately 33 square metres between the extant planning permission (19/0591) and this current proposal. 8.3.8 In terms of the materials proposed, the building would be built from plasticol coated composite panels and stone facing to the south elevation. Whilst the use of stone facing in this location is perhaps considered acceptable, the use of plasticol coated composite panels are typical of an agricultural or commercial building and does not relate to the local surroundings, especially given its proposed domestic use. 8.3.9 As outlined in the above paragraph 8.3.3, the applicant has submitted information to justify the size and scale of the proposal. However, it is considered by Officers that this does not provide a significant justification to outweigh Officers’ concerns with its size, scale and use of materials. 8.3.10 Overall, whilst it is noted that the applicant has reduced the size and scale of the proposal from the previous submission, which is commended, the extent of the changes made are still considered to be insufficient to fully address the previous reasons for refusal. Whilst the revised plans have been considered on their own merits, it remains the case that the proposal is not considered to reflect the character of the area due to its size and scale, and does not use quality materials which complement or enhance local surroundings. It is considered the size of the building is not commensurate of its proposed domestic use, being an overbearing and dominant structure in comparison to the main residential property, Banks Gate. It is considered to cause harm to the residential character of the site and surrounding area. Therefore, it is considered that the application fails to accord with Policy DEV5 of the Eden Local Plan 2014-32 and Paragraph 130 of NPPF.
Page 72 Agenda Item 4 REPORTS FOR DEBATE 8.4 Landscape and Visual Impacts 8.4.1 Policy DEV5 states development which “protects and where possible enhances the district’s distinctive rural landscape, natural environment and biodiversity” can be supported. 8.4.2 Policy ENV2 concerns the protection and enhancement of landscapes. It states “new development will only be permitted where it conserves and enhances distinctive elements of the landscape character and function”. 8.4.3 The site is located within the North Pennines Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty and therefore, Policy ENV3 of the Eden Local Plan applies. Policy ENV3 of the Eden Local Plan states ‘Development within or affecting the North Pennines Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty (AONB) will only be permitted where each of the following criteria apply: Individually or cumulatively it will not have a significant or adverse impact upon the special qualities or statutory purpose of the AONB. It does not lessen or cause harm to the distinctive character of the area, the historic environment, heritage assets and their setting. It adheres to any formally adopted design guides or planning policies, including the North Pennines Management Plan, the North Pennines AONB Planning Guidelines and the North Pennines AONB Building Design Guide’. 8.4.4 The North Pennines AONB Building Design Guide 2011 under LC9 states ‘Look to the local landscape for design inspiration. Pay particular attention to the scale, mass, form and detailing of local buildings, local vegetation patterns and local styles of wall, hedges, fencing, gates and paving materials. Under this guide, LC10 states ‘use natural materials in construction where possible and particularly local stone and timber’. 8.4.5 According to the Cumbria Landscape Character Guidance, the site is designated as Sub type 13a, Scarps which characterises the landscape as open, expansive and undeveloped in character which gives a sense of remoteness. 8.4.6 The proposal is situated adjacent to a residential property, of which it is associated, and to the north west is a neighbouring residential property alongside an existing large building used for dog breeding which has an agricultural appearance. In the wider context, it is surrounded by open countryside with views over the wider valley across the A66 and the North Pennines AONB. The site and surrounding area is especially rural in nature, surrounded by agricultural fields which contribute to its open and undeveloped character. 8.4.7 Whilst it is acknowledged that the North Pennines AONB Partnership have offered no response on the application, it is considered that the introduction of a large scale garage to be used for domestic purposes is not characteristic of the immediate residential setting of the site and wider landscape area. Whilst the applicant has worked to reduce the size and scale of the proposal from the original submission and address the previous concerns and reasons for refusal, it is still considered that the reductions do not go far enough and as such the proposal would still appear at odds with the wider landscape context due to its size and scale, and does not conserve or enhance distinctive elements of the landscape character. It would appear as an overbearing feature alongside a residential property due to its size and scale which is not considered to be acceptable in this location, or for domestic purposes.
Page 73 Agenda Item 4 REPORTS FOR DEBATE 8.4.8 The proposal would cause adverse harm to the sensitive landscape designation, compromising the character and visual amenity of the site and surrounding area. Notwithstanding the alterations and changes made to the design of the shed, the proposal due to its size, scale, siting and design does not conserve or enhance the landscape character or function of the site or surrounding area, or the North Pennines AONB designation. Therefore, the proposal is considered to be contrary to Policy DEV5, Policy ENV2 and Policy ENV3 of the Eden Local Plan 2014-32. 8.5 Site History 8.5.1 It is important to consider the previous planning history of the site; of which there are two refusals for a replacement garage (20/0223) and (19/0068) and one approval for a replacement garage (19/0591) on the site. 8.5.2 Firstly, the 19/0068 application was for a domestic garage on the site which would approximately measure 15 metres by 10 metres, standing to 3.6 metres to the eaves to be finished in render blockwork to match the main house. In considering this, Officers expressed concerns in relation to the size, scale and of the proposal, especially given its domestic use. This resulted in the application being refused for the following reasons: i. The proposal is of a scale, size and design which causes unacceptable harm to the residential character and setting of the site and surrounding area. Therefore, the development is contrary to Policy DEV5 of the Eden Local Plan 2014-32 and Paragraph 130 of the NPPF 2019. ii. The proposal is of a scale, size and design which causes harm to the North Pennines Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty designation contrary to Policy ENV2 and Policy ENV3 of the Eden Local Plan 2014-32. 8.5.3 To continue this, planning application 20/0223 was before Members earlier this year for the demolition of the existing garage and the erection of a replacement domestic garage which would approximately measure 15 metres by 10 metres, standing to 5 metres to the eaves to be finished in plasticol composite panels with stone facing to the south elevation. This application was consequently refused at Planning Committee by Members for the same reasons outlined above in regards to the previous refusal of 19/0068. 8.5.4 In considering the differences between the current application before Planning Committee (20/0669) and the most recent refusal (20/0223) on the site, there are two material differences. Firstly, the applicant has reduced the size and scale of the proposal with the current application having a ground floor area of 96 square metres, as opposed to 20/0223 having a ground floor area of 150 square metres. There has been a reduction of 54 square metres from the previous refusal (20/0223). The eaves height of the current application (20/0669) has been reduced to 4.5 metres, compared to the previous refusal (20/0223) which had an eaves height of 5 metres. Whilst the reduction in the size and scale of the proposal is a welcome amendment, in the opinion of Officers this does not address the concerns by Officers which formed the reasons for refusal of the 20/0223 and 19/0068 applications, especially in relation to the size and scale of the proposal. 8.5.5 Also, there has been a previous application for a replacement shed on the site under planning application 19/0591 which was approved under delegated powers. This is an extant permission and is ultimately the fall back positon of the applicant. This application had a considerable reduction in the overall size of the building, being
Page 74 Agenda Item 4 REPORTS FOR DEBATE reduced from 150 square metres ground floor space under the 19/0068 application, to 63 square metres under the 19/0591 application. To directly compare the current application (20/0669) against the extant approval (19/0591), there are some key differences. The approval (19/0591) is 63 square metres; compared to 96 square metres under the current application (20/0669) which is a difference of 33 square metres between the two schemes. The approval has an eaves height of 3.45 metres, compared to the current applications proposed eaves height of 4.5 metres. The approval (19/0591) will be constructed from plasticol composite panels for the roof finished in render for the walls to match the main house with stone facing to the south elevation; in comparison to the plasticol composite panels for both the roof and walls of the current application, with stone facing to the south elevation. 8.5.6 In considering the site history in relation to the proposal, whilst alterations have been made to the size and scale of the proposed garage, it is in the Officers’ opinion that this current application 20/0669 presents largely the same issues and concerns of the 19/0068 and 20/0223 application in relation to its size, scale and design which led to the refusal of the previous applications on the site. Ultimately, the applicant has a fallback position of the extant planning approval 19/0591 which they could implement on the site. 8.6 Residential Amenity 8.6.1 Policy DEV5 of the Eden Local Plan 2014-32 states that development should “protect the amenity of existing residents” and provide an “acceptable amenity for future occupiers”. 8.6.2 The application site is located in a relatively isolated position with only one neighbouring property located approximately 45 metres to the north west of the site in an elevated position. It is considered that due to this separation distance between the two, the proposal will not cause any issues in relation to overshadowing, providing an overbearing impact or overlooking. 8.6.3 The proposal is considered to accord with Policy DEV5 of the Eden Local Plan 2014-32 in regards to the residential amenity. 8.7 Infrastructure 8.7.1 Within the Eden Local Plan, Policy DEV3 of the Eden Local Plan seeks to ensure that all new development would not result in any adverse impacts upon highway safety or congestion. This policy is further supported by Paragraph 109 of the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF), which notes that, ‘Development should only be prevented or refused on highway grounds if there would be an unacceptable impact on highway safety, or the residual cumulative impacts on the road network would be severe’. 8.7.2 The development will have no material impact on highway conditions, replacing an existing outbuilding on the site. The level of traffic movements generated by the development can be absorbed by the surrounding highway network and result in no highway safety impacts. This view is supported by Cumbria County Council as the Highway Authority, which raises no objection or concerns to the proposal. 8.7.3 Policy DEV2 seeks to ensure that all new development does not result in any increased flood risk at the site or to any surrounding land. 8.7.4 In the case of the current application, whilst the proposed new garage is large in size, the application site is not located within an area of increased flood risk or historic flood events. The proposed garage would be erected on an area of existing hardstanding,
Page 75 Agenda Item 4 REPORTS FOR DEBATE and would not result in the loss of any permeable surfaces. The development would utilise the existing drainage arrangements for the site, which would be capable of accommodating the new development if approved. This view is supported by Cumbria County Council as the Lead Local Flood Authority which raises no objection or concerns to the proposal. 8.7.5 Therefore, for the reasons detailed above, it is considered that appropriate and acceptable levels of infrastructure could be achieved to support the proposal. As such, the development is considered to be in accordance with Policies DEV2 and DEV3 of the Eden Local Plan, and the NPPF. 8.8 Natural Environment 8.8.1 The proposal is located on an existing area of hardstanding and would be in place of an existing garage on the site. The development would not result in the loss of any trees, vegetation, habitat or previously undeveloped land. Therefore, it is considered that due to this, no harm is likely to arise to protected species or the Natural Environment. 8.9 Built Environment 8.9.1 The site is not located in a Conservation Area and there are no listed buildings within the vicinity of the application site which need to be considered as part of this application. 9. Implications 9.1 Legal Implications 9.1.1 The following matters have been considered but no issues are judged to arise. 9.2 Equality and Diversity 9.2.1 The Council must have regard to the elimination of unlawful discrimination and harassment, and the promotion of equality under the Equality Act 2010. 9.3 Environment 9.3.1 The Council must have due regard to conserving bio-diversity under the Natural Environment and Rural Communities Act 2006. 9.4 Crime and Disorder 9.4.1 Under the Crime and Disorder Act 1998, the Council must have regard to the need to reduce crime and disorder in exercising any of its functions. 9.5 Children 9.5.1 Under the Children Act 2004, the Council has a duty to safeguard and promote the welfare of children in the exercise of any of its functions. 9.6 Human Rights 9.6.1 In determining applications, the Council must ensure that all parties get a fair hearing in compliance with the provisions of Article 6 under the European Convention on Human Rights, as now embodied in UK law in the Human Rights Act 1998. 10. Conclusion 10.1 It is considered that the proposal does not accord with the Development Plan for the following reasons which are not outweighed by material considerations.
Page 76 Agenda Item 4 REPORTS FOR DEBATE 10.2 The proposal is not considered to reflect the character of the area due to its size and scale and does not use high quality materials which complement or enhance local surroundings. The size and scale of the building is not commensurate of its proposed use, being a dominant, overbearing structure compared to the main residential property. It is considered to cause harm to the sensitive landscape designation of the North Pennines AONB which compromises the character and visual amenity of the site and surrounding area. 10.3 It is considered that the justification for the building provided by the applicant does not override these concerns. As such, the proposal is considered to fail to accord with Policy DEV5, Policy ENV2, and Policy ENV3 of the Eden Local Plan as well as Paragraph 130 of the NPPF. 10.4 Therefore, the application is recommended for refusal for the reason outlined in Section 1 of this report.
Oliver Shimell Assistant Director Planning and Economic Development
Checked by or on behalf of the Monitoring Officer 30.11.2020
Background Papers: Planning File 20/0669
Page 77 This page is intentionally left blank