Dales National Park Authority

Application Code: S/03/704 Committee Date: 14/07/2020 Location: land opposite Derry Cottages, Millthrop,

Chain Dub

Mast

Long Rigg

Playing Field Marthwaite Spring

T ra ck Shingle

Shingle Springs

Millthrop Bridge

Pa P th a ( th um Rawthey ) Bank Derry Cottages Weir

Mill Cottage 4 gle River Mead Bridge End Field

Shin 1

Woolly M u f fy H 3 Place S o l to m

n e

e B 1 1 G a a r

r n Hillside

th 2

M il l g H ig d o r n u e l E s n ) il e to (um M S th Pa use Ho Hi r l ive ls R Un id 1 e d e Ho rr Track

1 ig 4 g 6 Blandses Farm

TCB 3 Issues

Millthrop gs LB ig R ge 2 1 ta ot C 3 1

4 1 The FB k Clatter Beck Bridge Pond Clatter Bec Paddock Ford 7 1

Ch P FB ap a e t C l H T h a ou r Ashgill (u pe s a m l e c ) Be k ck

SpeddingS SpeddingCottage p e d Issues C d o i t n House ta g g Browside T e h e Sinks GP D O a l l d e P s o Pond w t a te y r C y o t Ford ta Saltpie g Spring e Fell Garth

Archers Hall

Cherry Hall

Issues

Spring Issues Well

) (um Path

Issues

Frostrow Fells

Shingle

Millthrop Bridge

P a Rawthey th Bank

Derry Cottages Weir

Mill Cottage 4

River Mead Bridge End Field 1

M u f fy S t H 3 o o

n l e m 1

e

G 1 a B 2 Hillside rt a h rn

g g ri e n to S S/03/704S/03/704

Hi l ls Un id 1 e d H e o

rr 1 ig 4 g Track 6 Blandses Farm

TCB 3

Millthrop gs LB ig R e 2 g 1 tta 3 o 1 C

4 1 Clatter Beck Bridge The FB Paddock Pond k 7 Clatter Bec 1

P Ch a FB ap th el C H Ashgill (u a ou m pe se ) l Be ck Spedding SpeddingS Cottage p C e o d House t d Browside ta in T g g h e e

D O a ld Sinks le P s o w t a te y ry C o t ta g Saltpie e

FOR REFERENCE PURPOSES ONLY. NO FURTHER COPIES TO BE MADE

© Crown copyright and database rights 2017 Ordnance Survey 100023740. Additional information: © Yorkshire Dales National Park Authority Schedule No:4

Application No: S/03/704

District:

Parish: Sedbergh

Applicant's Name: Mr & Mrs DB & A Hoggarth,

Grid Ref: SD66309126

Received by YDNP: 06/04/2020 Officer: Michelle Clowes

PROPOSAL: full planning permission for erection of 8 No. dwellings, associated accesses, parking and landscaping

LOCATION: land opposite Derry Cottages, Millthrop, Sedbergh

CONSULTEES Sedbergh PC No objections to the design or the density of the development, nor is there any objection to some new open market housing which could help to balance the market locally.

There are concerns at the quality and safety of pedestrian and cycle access to the town of Sedbergh from the hamlet especially as it grows in size and traffic increases, however it is recognised that this is likely to be outside the scope of the Planning Officer to consider in relation to this application. Given the difficulty of access for large vehicles locally and single lanes roads it is hoped an appropriate plan and conditions would be in place with regards to construction traffic as this is likely to be over a prolonged period. Residents locally have suffered extended disruption and long diversions recently due to several phases of repair to the bridge and further impact to the immediate community needs to be minimised.

The Parish Council are not comfortable in principal with the concept of a commutable sum being applied and the funds potentially being spent outside of the Parish instead of on local affordable housing provision. This is not a system normally applied locally in our experience. As the application represents a significant development for the Parish it was unanimously felt it would be better if the developer could be encouraged towards other options that would actually benefit the community. The Parish Council is happy to work with the Authority and the developer to find a solution that both retains the viability of the scheme and derives

S/03/704 14 Jul 2020 Schedule No:4 Highways, The LHA recommends a holding refusal at the present County Council time as no evidence has been provided to demonstrate that the necessary visibility splays at each of the accesses (horizontal and vertical) can be achieved. Consequently traffic generated by the proposed development would be likely to create conditions prejudicial to highway safety.

LLFA Inadequate information has been submitted to demonstrate that the proposal is acceptable in terms of; a.site investigatio/ percolation tests b.greenfield runoff rates c.outline drainage details d.outline drainage calculations e.details of who will maintain the drainage system f.details of exceedance routes The foul strategy proposing to connect to a rising main has not been satisfactorily proven. CEHO - South Lakeland Further clarification is required on the foul drainage District Council system in view of the application form stipulating unknown. United Utilities Water The site should be drained on a separate system with Ltd foul water draining to the public sewer and surface water draining in the most sustainable way.

A rising main crosses this site and building over it may not be permitted. Firefighter in Fire From the plans submitted the vehicle access and water Protection as per Approved Document B, Section 13 and section 14.13 is appropriate. Wildlife Conservation The Ecological Impact Assessment document indicates Officer that the application site is of low ecological value. Ecological enhancement in line with policy W2 is required. PUBLIC RESPONSES

18 letters have been received from local residents raising the following concerns/objections in relation to the development; - Increased traffic on a narrow single track lane - 50% of the properties in the village are holiday cottages or second homes. Unless the properties are affordable homes or for local people, the number of holiday homes will grow and further erode the local community. - local water and gas services maybe reduced as a result of the development. - construction traffic may cause damage to Millthrop Brow. - the development will harm the green outlook from existing properties. - Millthrop (Hospital) Lane sometimes flood and is not always passable. The new development may give rise to increased surface water run off. - Family housing should be provided in Sedbergh where there is better access to facilities

S/03/704 14 Jul 2020 Schedule No:4 and services rather than in a small hamlet. - The style & location of these proposed properties are incongruous with the character of the hamlet. There are currently 12 properties for sale within 1 mile radius of the site which indicates that there is no need for these dwellings. - there is a need nationally for low cost housing and the proposed properties would not fit into this category based on size and market price. - the existing sewerage system is inadequate and will be exacerbated by the development - the cumulative impact of this development along with that of Longrigg. - loss of light, overshadowing and overlooking - noise & disturbance from traffic and car parking - loss of value to existing properties - the general appearance of the houses are out of character of those already within the hamlet of Millthrop. - the site plan is misleading as private car parking spaces have been shaded in grey as if it is a passing place or part of the highway which it is not. - will there be safeguards to prevent the development affecting Clatterbeck - The removal of the original stipulation that the homes on the site should be affordable/subject to local occupancy, in response to a change in government policy, means that many of the benefits associated with any housing development on the site no longer apply. - it does not meet many of the Authority’s policies and guidelines on issues including: housing density on new developments; the spatial distribution of housing on new developments; housing design on new developments; and the need to ensure that new developments enhance the local natural and built environments. - The 2015-30 Plan requires that new developments have a housing density of 35 dwellings per hectare (page 40). The proposed development appears to have a housing density equivalent to around 25 dwellings per hectare. - The land associated with the 4 terraced houses amounts to 25% of the site; the semi- detached houses amounts to 25% of the site while the remainder of the land is occupied by the two detached houses resulting in a poor spatial distribution of houses. - The semi-detached and detached houses are of a style that is almost never found in Yorkshire Dales villages and would be incongruous. - Impact on existing wildlife including bats, birds and butterflies. - 2 parking spaces per property is insufficient and will result in vehicles trying to park on the already narrow roads. - The proposed development will encroach on green belt land when there are other permissible brown field sites available. - there are no services in the village and an infrequent bus service. - The open market nature of the development is not likely to satisfy the housing needs of those living locally and is not guaranteed to genuinely help with the vitality of the local area. - People walking through Millthrop along the Dalesway comment on and appreciate the bucolic nature of the hamlet. A large, estate-like development will damage the current, positive impact.

The Friends of the Dales objects to this proposal as Open Market housing, even with a commuted payment, would do little to solve the housing problems in the Dales. They recall that this site was previously allocated for affordable housing, and would therefore expect a substantial proportion of the housing to be made affordable in perpetuity. Millthrop is a small village with no services of any sort, and whatever development were to take place would inevitably increase the amount of traffic using the narrow Sedbergh-Dent road. If development is to be permitted, it should be conditional on provision for public transport and S/03/704 14 Jul 2020 Schedule No:4 for safer pedestrian access towards Sedbergh as far as the beginning of the pavement at Loftus Hill.

1 letter of support states that they support the scheme for a development that provides houses for local people and people from outside the area moving in (preferably families to support our schools, shops, doctors) but not for second homes.

Sedbergh Community Swifts suggest that this development offers an ideal opportunity to achieve biodiversity net gain through the installation of internal swift nest bricks. The Ecological Impact Assessment suggests installation of only 3 nest bricks but this development is suitable for a higher number. Clusters of 2/3 per dwelling are suggested. RELEVANT PLANNING POLICIES C1(15) - Housing in settlements L1(15) - Heritage assets W2(15) - Biodiversity enhancement W3(15) - Protecting trees, hedgerows and walls CC2(15) - Flood risk SP2(15) - National Park Purposes SP4(15) - Development Quality OFFICER OBSERVATIONS REASON FOR COMMITTEE CONSIDERATION This application is reported to the Planning Committee as in the opinion of the Head of Development Management it is in the best interests of the National Park Authority that the application is considered by the Committee.

APPLICATION SITE The site consists of the northern most part of an agricultural field that adjoins the main highway through the small hamlet of Millthrop. The site consists of allocated housing site No.4, plus some additional land to the east to complete the gap that would remain up until the track to Blandses Farm and to the south to give more depth to the site. The site is generally flat although it is raised slightly above the adjacent road level which is separated by an existing dry – stone wall. There are existing dwellings on the opposite side of the road and to the south west.

PROPOSAL Planning permission is sought for the erection of 8, 2 storey open market dwellinghouses and associated access, car parking and landscaping. The development would consist of a terrace, semi and detached properties consisting of between 3 and 4 bedrooms. 3 access points would be created off the existing highway to serve each of the different types of dwellings.

RELEVANT PLANNING HISTORY There are no previous decisions relating to this application site. However, the majority of the site forms part of Site 4 allocated for housing provision within the adopted Yorkshire Dales Local Plan (2015 – 2030).

No pre - application advice had been sought prior to the submission which would have

S/03/704 14 Jul 2020 Schedule No:4 helped to agree the basic principles in terms of housing numbers, type and design.

KEY ISSUES: - the principle of the development - siting & design - impact on the conservation area - impact on residential amenity of neighbours - impact on highway safety - impact on landscaping - drainage & surface water flooding - biodiversity enhancement - parish council comments

THE PRINCIPLE OF THE DEVELOPMENT The bringing forward of an application to develop an allocated housing site is very much welcomed in principle. Objective 25 of the National Park Authority’s Corporate Plan (2020 – 2021) seeks to “encourage and facilitate high quality proposals for new housing in a range of tenures, sizes, types and prices, such that around 85 new dwellings are approved each year.” The provision of 8 units would in general terms help to contribute towards this target and the more longer term objective, set out under F1 of the Yorkshire Dales National Park Management Plan 2019-24 which states that the Authority will, “support the completion of 400 dwellings in a range of tenures, sizes, types and prices, by 2024.”

The proposed development consists of 8 open market houses with no on – site affordable housing provision. Policy C1 of the adopted Local Plan (2015 – 2030) only requires on – site provision of affordable housing for sites of 11 or more units. On sites of between 6 and 10 dwellings a commuted sum towards the delivery of off – site affordable housing is required. Whilst the agent has indicated that they are willing to make a commuted sum payment, no information has been provided as to valuation of the properties or the level of commuted sum that is being offered in line with the calculation used by South Lakeland District Council.

Appendix 4 of the Local Plan lists the allocated site with a notional capacity of 10 units, taking into account a sewer that crosses the site at the eastern end. However, policy C1 requires a density of 35dph (dwellings per hectare). At this density, the allocated site area of 0.318ha suggests a site capacity of 11 houses, 3 more than in the proposed development. (10 units are potentially more realistic when factoring in the sewer constraint which is still 2 more than the units currently proposed). Crucially, the extended area that is shown as the site edged red for the application, is approximately 0.43ha. This would indicate that the site as submitted has capacity for the provision of 15 houses at 35dph. As it stands, the proposal makes an under – provision of 7 units compared to the policy requirement.

The justification text for policy C1 states that a lower density will be permitted where it is necessary to provide a safe access, conform to highway capacity, fit into the landscape, conserve the character of the settlement, or is required by the physical characteristics of the site. In this case, an existing sewer crosses the site diagonally to the eastern end. United Utilities have confirmed that a 3m buffer zone is required either side of the sewer. This would in reality, only remove a small proportion of the developable area (0.019ha) from the site. Irrespective of this constraint therefore, it is possible to increase the number of units across the site over and above what is currently proposed. The adopted Design Guide states that, “housing layouts that are…kept low to fit within a threshold set by S/03/704 14 Jul 2020 Schedule No:4 planning policies, are unlikely to be acceptable,” (Section 3.2.1, 2017). This is consistent with the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) which states that, “where there is an existing or anticipated shortage of land for meeting identified housing needs, it is especially important that planning policies and decisions avoid homes being built at low densities, and ensure that developments make optimal use of the potential of each site” (paragraph 123). It goes on to say that “Local Planning Authorities should refuse applications which they consider fail to make efficient use of land” (123c).

Currently, the design and layout of the site is contrary to the prevalent character of Millthrop which, in a good proportion of the hamlet, has a very high density (see siting and design section). This indicates that an increase in the number of units on the site as warranted by the density requirements, would actually help the development to better compliment the existing grain of the village.

For these reasons, it is considered that the development of the site for 8 houses that could more realistically accommodate 15 dwellings, is a wasteful use of land. The Authority needs new housing to meet it’s annual Corporate Plan and 5 – year Management Plan targets however the provision of housing should not be at any cost. There is potential here to accommodate additional dwellings (potentially up to 7 units), making a more efficient use of land as required by both the NPPF and policy C1.

On the face of it, it would appear that the proposed layout has been contrived to avoid the provision of on – site affordable housing contribution particularly through the provision of large executive style homes on the majority of the site. 15 units would go much further to delivering the Authority’s housing objectives as well as delivering more community benefit. On this basis the proposal would fail to comply with the requirements of policies C1 and SP3 of the local plan and paragraph 123 of the NPPF.

SITING & DESIGN Millthrop is a predominantly linear hamlet with houses lining the 2 main roads, the majority of which are high density terraced houses with plain frontages located in close proximity to the highway. There is some existing car parking in front curtilages and in off street car parking courtyards. Generally properties have flat frontages with the occasional porch providing a small scale feature. Modern infill development has had varying degrees of success in terms of integrating into the character of the village.

The proposed development consists of houses set in a loose linear arrangement along the length of the site. The proposal includes a mixture of a terrace of 4 houses, a pair of semi – detached properties and 2 large detached houses set behind 3 accesses. Half of the units (the 4 larger semi and detached dwellings) take up the majority or roughly 2/3rds of the development site.

The existing dry stone boundary wall adjacent to the highway has been identified as an important feature of the site that contributes to the character of the village (noted in the original Development Brief for the site when it was first allocated in the Housing Development Plan, 2012). The Design Guide states that, “existing roadside features, such as drystone walls, that contribute to the character of the area should be retained where possible.” The scheme proposes the creation of 3 separate access points, 1 for each of the different types of dwellings. This results in 3 punctuations of the wall which undermines the strong, solid, utilitarian character of the boundary which is created through its long uninterrupted form. 3 new accesses would therefore diminish the contribution that this wall makes to the character of the area. They also produce a development that is S/03/704 14 Jul 2020 Schedule No:4 dominated by the accesses and large car parking and turning areas with all parked vehicles located at the front of the dwellings. The proposed footpath is also an unnecessary feature as pedestrians are unlikely to enter the site to use, given that there are no other formal footpaths within the vicinity that it would link to. Pedestrians would instead walk down the road as they would do at present. The Highway Authority has confirmed that the footpath is not a requirement for this scale of development in this location.

The proposed development consists of a terrace of 4 properties with a staggered building line and differing roof heights. The design details include front projections and rear projections, low solid to void ratio’s, water tabling and dormer windows which combine to provide overly fussy, poor quality properties that would be more suited to a suburban housing estate than a small village within a National Park. Although it is acknowledged that water tabling and dormer windows can be found within the area, particularly in the nearby town of Sedbergh, these features are not characteristic of properties found within Millthrop itself and should not be incorporated into new development in this particular locality.

Likewise, the larger semi – detached dwellings are neither a bespoke modern dwelling nor a good barn conversion style. It is considerd that they are a poor hybrid that cherry picks architectural features from each building type and mixes them together in an unsuccessful manner. For example, plot 6 includes a large 1.5 storey gable projection to the front including a large false cart door style opening. Barns were never typically extended in this way and cart doors are not found in gable extensions, being usually found on the longer elevations of the building. In contrast the house type also includes domestic sized windows and chimneys. The proposal would therefore present a very confused architectural language that would have a negative impact on the character of both the streetscene and the wider hamlet, a point that a number of local residents have picked up on in their consultation responses.

The same can be said for the large detached properties which have an overly complicated form including covered links to large suburban double garages. Traditional dales houses tend to have straightforward plan forms without complex projections on multiple elevations (Design Guide 2017) unlike those proposed here. The farmhouse style property is probably the most appropriate design of all of the proposed dwellings, albeit refinements to its design detailing would be required to improve its overall scale and fenestration.

All car parking provision would be to the front of the dwellings, dominating the appearance of the site. Although it is appreciated that some of the existing dwellings within the village and across the road from the site have car parking provision between the road and the houses, they are interspersed with other properties that do not have such car parking provision. The Design Guide (2017) states that new, “housing layouts need to incorporate a range of parking solutions appropriate to the site context and the type of housing proposed. A single parking treatment is likely to result in the visual dominance of the car and uninteresting, regimented layouts.” Garages and buildings in front of the building line are few and far between in Millthrop and the scheme would benefit from a mixture of on – plot and courtyard car parking with no more than 1 or 2 garages, if any at all.

A development that looked more closely and sought to build on the existing grain and form of buildings within the village for example, including a more linear row of terraced properties with a flat frontage (building line) and the occasional small porch, with some of the properties located closer to the road, would have a more positive impact on the S/03/704 14 Jul 2020 Schedule No:4 character of the village. Lean – to’s and rear gables are also typical vernacular forms that could enable some occasional degree of variance between properties so that they do not all have to look the same. The access points should be revisited and reduced and an alternative layout that includes some courtyard parking to the side or rear of the dwellings (similar to the modern properties to the west of the site at Riggs Cottages). These suggestions have been made to the agent of the application but they have not been willing to make the fundamental changes required to improve the design.

For these reasons the proposed layout and design of the properties would be out of character with the streetscene and wider character of the hamlet as a whole. It would therefore fail to comply with the requirements of policies SP2 and SP4 of the adopted Local Plan and the Design Guide.

IMPACT ON THE CONSERVATION AREA The application site lies outside but adjacent to the Sedbergh Conservation Area. Section 72 of the Town & Country Planning (Listed Buildings & Conservation Areas) Act 1990 requires Local Planning Authorities to have special regard to the desirability of preserving or enhancing the character or appearance of Conservation Areas.

The Sedbergh Conservation Area extends to cover the older part of Millthrop with the eastern boundary incorporating the Riggs Cottages development which lies immediately to the west of the application site. The proposed development will naturally affect views into and out of the Conservation Area due to the close proximity. Paragraph 200 of the NPPF (2019) states that Local Planning Authorities should look for opportunities for new development within the setting of heritage assets to enhance or better reveal their significance.

For the reasons discussed in the siting & design section above, the proposed dwellings do not respect the layout, form or design detailing of the existing properties within the hamlet. Their complicated plan forms, regimented layouts dominated by parked cars, poor solid to void ratio’s and fussy architectural detailing all combine to produce a suburban layout that would appear in stark contrast to the bucolic character of Millthrop. In this regard the development would have a significant and detrimental impact on the character and appearance of the Conservation Area failing to meet the requirements of section 72 of the Act, policy L1 of the adopted Local Plan and paragraph 195. Although the provision of housing weighs in the proposals favour, the public benefit is severely limited in this case by the under - provision of housing units and lack of on – site affordable housing.

IMPACT ON RESIDENTIAL AMENITY OF NEIGHBOURS Existing dwellings are located to the north – west and south – west of the application site. A number of local residents have objected to the application on the basis that the proposed development would harm the amenity to their properties in terms of the loss of views, value or privacy. Unfortunately occupants do not have a right to a view and the impact of the development on the value of a private property is not a material consideration that can be taken into account in the determination of this application. The impact on privacy is of relevance however, the current layout shows that there would be sufficient separation between the new and existing properties on the opposite side of the road to prevent direct overlooking. The road is also an intervening feature which would reduce the sense of proximity for existing occupants.

Plot 1 is located behind the rear elevations of those adjacent dwellings at Riggs Cottages. Due to the oblique angle between the properties it is unlikely that there will be any S/03/704 14 Jul 2020 Schedule No:4 opportunity for direct overlooking of the existing dwellings. Riggs Cottages have a rear courtyard car parking area without any private amenity space. However, the application site sits at a higher land level than the Riggs Cottages development and the submitted plans do not include any streetscene drawings or sections to show the relative heights and scale of the existing and new dwellings. It is therefore unclear whether the new development would over - dominate the group at Riggs Cottages. The proposed development has the potential to harm neighbouring amenity and without further information to address this issue the proposal fails to comply with policy SP4 of the Local Plan in this regard.

IMPACT ON HIGHWAY SAFETY Many local residents have raised concerns about the potential for the development to lead to increased traffic on the surrounding road network which includes single track lanes without passing places. Access was considered with the Highway Authority at the time of the land allocation which effectively grants outline permission for housing development. They have confirmed during the consultation exercise on the current application, that the scale of the development would not have a material impact on the highway in terms of congestion. Consequently, although the local residents concerns are acknowledged and understood, it would be difficult to sustain a refusal of the scheme on these grounds without the support of the Highway Authority.

As discussed above, the proposed development seeks to create 3 new access points off the highway leading to private drives for the new dwellings. A footpath is proposed to be set behind the existing dry stone wall. However, it would be an arbitrary feature as there are no other formal footways within the village. The Highway Authority has confirmed that this is not a requirement and it would be preferable to delete the footpath from the scheme.

The Highway Authority has also indicated that they would object to the development on the grounds that insufficient information has been provided with regard to visibility splays from the access points. It is likely that the 3 access points would need to be widened further in order to meet the visibility requirements of the Highway Authority thereby further reducing the extent of the existing boundary wall. As indicated above, it is considered that the 3 new access points would be detrimental to the character of the village through the loss of the feature dry stone wall and therefore the number of access points should be reduced. At present the proposal, through the lack of visibility splays would prejudice highway safety and would not have appropriate access and car parking as required by policy SP4.

LANDSCAPING The proposed site plan makes provision for hard and soft landscaping including dry stone walls between the rear boundaries of the properties which is welcomed. A native hedgerow is planned for the rear boundary of the site where it adjoins the remainder of the field. Whilst hedgerows are not typical boundary features in this locality, it would have the potential to increase biodiversity subject to the use of appropriate species and being planted to a good standard. Although the proposal appears to make good provision for trees and shrubs, the car dominated layout to the front could potentially undermine the success of the landscaping areas unless appropriate species were carefully selected.

In terms of hard landscaping, it is proposed to construct the driveways from permeable paving with the access paths in contrasting permeable setts. The indicative images contained within the design and access statement appear to indicate block paviours and red setts, neither of which are appropriate for this rural location, instead being akin to the type of surfacing material typical found on a more urban housing estate. S/03/704 14 Jul 2020 Schedule No:4

A further detailed landscaping plan would be required to ensure that both the proposed hard and soft landscaping was appropriate to the character of the site and the wider hamlet.

DRAINAGE & SURFACE WATER FLOODING The site is in flood zone 1 and at low risk of flooding. However, Clatter Beck to the south of the field within which the application site sits does pose a risk for surface water flooding of the field. The application proposes to deal with surface water through an infiltration strategy. However, there is no evidence of the suitability of the ground. Infiltration testing in accordance with BRE365 is required by the LLFA to demonstrate the size/depth of paving and soakaways required as well as details of the exceedance route and maintenance proposals.

The application also proposes to discharge foul waste into the foul sewer running through the site. However, the LLFA have advised that this is a rising main and therefore may not be suitable or possible. The Environmental Health Team at SLDC has also raised concerns in relation to this aspect of the proposal.

At this stage there is insufficient information to determine that the proposed development would be acceptable in terms of drainage and surface water flooding as required by criterion p and q of policy SP4.

BIODIVERSITY ENHANCEMENT Policy W2 requires all applications that have an ecological impact to make provision for on site biodiversity enhancement, in this case equivalent to £5/sqm of the footprint of the development. The 3 bat and 3 swift boxes set out in the supplied Ecological Statement would not be sufficient enhancement for a development of this size. The Sedbergh Community Swifts group has suggested that the development could accommodate significantly more swift bricks that are built into the fabric of the new homes. They suggest as a minimum 1 per dwelling but recognise that clusters of 2 or 3 per dwelling would be more beneficial. The applicant needs to provide a more comprehensive biodiversity enhancement scheme that could also include extensive landscaping or a small SUD’s scheme would provide opportunities for biodiversity enhancement while also dealing with run off from the site and making a more attractive development. This could potentially be accommodated in the buffer zone area for the sewer. Insufficient information has been provided to demonstrate compliance with policy W2 of the adopted Local Plan.

PARISH COUNCIL COMMENTS The Parish Council has raised concerns about the concept of a commutable sum being applied and the funds potentially being spent outside of the Parish instead of on local affordable housing provision. They consider the application represents a significant development for the Parish and as such it should benefit the local community which the provision of 8 open market dwellings is unlikely to. This accords with the above assessment that the proposal should include the on – site provision of affordable housing. Although this issue has been discussed with the agent and they have been provided with contact details for Housing Associations that are looking for affordable housing sites in the Sedbergh area, they have not shown willingness at this stage to amend the proposal to make on – site affordable provision.

ANALYSIS AND MATERIAL CONSIDERATIONS Although the development of an allocated housing site is welcomed the proposal does not offer the best form of development for this site at this stage. The application site is larger S/03/704 14 Jul 2020 Schedule No:4 than the allocation and yet makes provision for 7 less houses than the density requirements of policy C1 and 2 less than the notional capacity of the site as set out in Appendix 4 of the Local Plan. The scheme fails to meet the density requirement as set out in policy C1 even when factoring in the sewer constraint and it is considered that the proposal amounts to an inefficient use of land. Land for building new housing within a National Park is a precious resource and it should not be wasted - under – developing sites does not amount to sustainable development, a premise that the whole Local Plan is based upon. The proposal makes no provision for on – site affordable housing provisions as is required based on the proposed extended site area and the density requirements.

The layout, form and design detailing of the proposed dwellings does not respect the prevalent character and grain of existing development within Millthrop and the number of accesses and car parking to the front of the dwellings would result in visual harm to the appearance of the streetscene and views in and out of the adjacent Conservation Area

Insufficient information has been submitted to determine the acceptability of the proposed method of drainage or surface water run off, the provision of sufficient biodiversity enhancement and the impact on highway safety and neighbouring amenity. The proposed development is contrary to policies SP2, SP3, SP4, C1, L1, CC2, W1 and W2 of the adopted Yorkshire Dales Local Plan (2015 – 2030), the advice contained within the adopted Design Guide 2017 and the NPPF. RECOMMENDATION It is recommended that permission is refused for reasons based on the following;

1. In the opinion of the Local Planning Authority the proposal amounts to an inefficient use of land without the required provision of on - site affordable housing contrary to the requirements of policy C1 of the adopted Yorkshire Dales Local Plan (2015 - 2030) and paragraph 123c of the National Planning Policy Framework (2019).

2. In the opinion of the Local Planning Authority, the proposal by virtue of the siting, layout, form and detailed design would result in a suburban housing development that would be detrimental to the character of Millthrop and fails to preserve and enhance existing views into and out of the Sedbergh Conservation Area. As such the proposal would be contrary to policies L1 and SP4 of the adopted Yorkshire Dales Local Plan (2015 - 2030) and the adopted Design Guide 2017.

3. In the opinion of the Local Planning Authority insufficient information has been submitted to demonstrate the impact of the development on neighbouring amenity, surface water run off, foul sewerage and highway safety and no information has been submitted to provide for on - site biodiversity enhancement. The proposed development therefore fails to comply with the requirements of policies SP4, CC2 and W2 of the adopted Yorkshire Dales Local Plan (2015 - 2030).

S/03/704 14 Jul 2020