Development Panel Will Meet on Tuesday 26 February 2013 at 1.00 Pm in the Wave - Maryport

15 February 2013

Development Panel Will meet on Tuesday 26 February 2013 at 1.00 pm in The Wave - Maryport

Membership:

Councillor Peter Bales (Chairman)

Councillor John (Binky) Armstrong Councillor Carole Armstrong Councillor Bill Bacon Councillor Nicky Cockburn Councillor John Crouch Councillor Len Davies Councillor Bill Finlay Councillor Chris Garrard Councillor Joe Holliday Councillor Margaret Jackson Councillor William Jefferson Councillor Peter Kendall Councillor Jim Lister Councillor Billy Miskelly Councillor Ron Munby Councillor Margaret Snaith Councillor Sam Standage Councillor Martin Wood Councillor Joan Wright

Members of the public are welcome to attend the meeting. If you have any questions or queries contact Paula McKenzie on 01900 702557.

Agenda

1. Apologies for absence

2. Declaration of Interest

Councillors/Staff to give notice of any disclosable pecuniary interest, other registrable interest or any other interest and the nature of that interest relating to any item on the agenda in accordance with the adopted Code of Conduct.

3. Questions

To answer questions from members of the public – 2 days notice of which must have been given in writing or by electronic mail.

4. Development Panel - 2-2012 -0784 - Outline application for residential development - Kirk Cross Quarry, Low Road, Brigham (Pages 1 - 24)

5. Development Panel - 2-2012 -0838 - Outline application for 8 dwellings - Land at Shawbank Brow, Dean (Pages 25 - 44)

6. Development Panel - 2-2012 -0479 - 2 Wind Turbines - Brownrigg Hall Farm, Allonby (Pages 45 - 64)

7. Development Panel - 2-2012 -0898 - 5 Terraces Houses - Former Carrs Coaches Garage, Waver Street, Silloth (Pages 65 - 78)

8. Development Panel - 2-2012 -0799 - Outline for one dwelling - Land adjac ent to Strawberry How, Cockermouth (Pages 79 - 90)

9. Development Panel - 02 -2012 -9011 - 4 Wind Turbines - Lillyhall Landfill Site, Joseph Noble Road, Lillyhall (Pages 91 - 106)

10. Development Panel - 2-2012 -0910 - Conversion o f garage to acheive annexed accommodation - 4 West Ghyll Place, High Harrington, Workington (Pages 107 - 110)

11. Development Panel - 2-2012 -0848 - Outline for 4 dwellings - Land adjacent to Overcroft Farm, Greysouthen (Pages 111 - 124)

12. Development Panel - 2-2012 -0824 - First floor extension and balcony - Woodend, Crosby (Pages 125 - 130)

13. Development Panel - 2-2013 -0028 - Replacement of wooden windows - 29 West Street, Wigton (Pages 131 - 134)

14. Development Panel - 2-2012 -0928 - First floor extension over garage and two storey extension - 2 Lowscales Drive, Cockermouth (Pages 135 - 142)

15. Appeal Decision - 2-2012 -0354 - Single Wind Turbine - Green Croft, Oughterby, Carlisle (Pages 143 - 146)

Chief Executive

Date of next meeting Tuesday 12 March 2013 at 1.00 pm The Wave - Maryport

Agenda Item 4

Allerdale Borough Council

2/2012/0784

Reference No: 2/2012/0784 Received: 25 September 2012 Proposed Outline application for residential development considering access Development: from the public highway and associated engineering works Location: Kirk Cross Quarry Low Road Brigham Cockermouth Applicant: North Homes Limited Drawing Numbers: 11-18-01a - Site Location Plan 11-18-12J - Proposed Site Plan (Access Only) Email dated 12/11/2012 Regarding revised proposal description confirming reserved matters. (amendment received 12/1/2012) Environmental Risk Assessment EES09-29 dated 29/5/2009 Ground Gas Assessment EES09-29 dated 23/7/2009 Risk Management Strategy EES12-099 dated 19/9/2012 Noise Assessment Report KDL/KB/NA/10/12 dated 19/10/2012 Tree Survey EESS09-29 dated 29/5/2009 Phase 1 Habitat Survey EES09-29 dated 29/5/2009 Environmental Documents Updates Statement EES12-099 dated 19/9/2012 Transport Statement A078102 dated August 2012 Travel Plan A078102 dated September 2012 Technical Note A66 Junction Capacity Assessment A078102 dated December 2012 (amendment received 10/12/2012 Drainage Statement RO/11058.5 dated December 2012 (amendment received 7/12/2012)

Constraints: Radon Assessment ASCA Area

Page 1 Policies: Allerdale Local Plan, Adopted 1999 (S aved) Policy EN14 - Safeguarding Water Environment, Policy EN25 - Protecting the open countryside Policy EN3 – Landscaping Policy EN35 - Creation of new wildlife habitats Policy EN4 - Tree & Hedgerow Preservation Orders Policy EN5 - Pollution Control Policy EN6 - Location of potentially polluting development Policy EN7 - Location of pollution sensitive development Policy EN9 - Contaminated/Derelict Land Policy L1 – Provision of open space in housing developements Allerdale Local Plan First Alteration, June 2006 (Saved) Policy HS4 - New housing in open countryside Policy HS7 - Housing development on unallocated sites Policy HS8 - Housing design Policy HS9 - Infrastructure requirements for housing North West of England Plan Regional Spatial Strategy to 2021 From a strategic point of view, the North West of England Regional Spatial Strategy is still currently part of the development plan and is a material planning consideration, although the Government has made clear their intentions that they may abolish at some point Regional Spatial Strategies and Saved Structure Plan Policies, following the enactment of the Localism Act 2011. National Planning Policy Framework March 2010 Achieving sustainable development

Relevant Planning 2/2009/0417 Twelve holiday lodges History: 2/2010/0291 Thirty four holiday lodges and warden’s dwelling SCR/2012/0057 Screening opinion concluding that an Environmental Impact Assessment was not required.

Representations: Parish Council – Objection regarding proven need for housing, highway safety, school capacity, foul and surface water discharge and potential for cumulative overdevelopment of the village with reference to other sites. Further representation has been made regarding the imported soil on the site and its impact upon off-site drainage. The soil importation is in accordance with the land remodelling approved as part of the holiday lodge applications 2/2009/0417 and 2/2010/0291.

Cumbria County Council – No objection subject to appropriate conditions regarding highway issues and ecological mitigation measures. The layout, density, design and appearance and landscaping of the site is referenced and is a reserved matter for subsequent applications. It is confirmed that commuted financial sums are required as part of a Section 106 Agreement. For local school improvements or transport to alternative schools elsewhere.

Allerdale Environmental Protection – No objections in principle

Page 2 subject to standard conditions.

Environment Agency – The agency has objected to the original scheme of non-mains drainage. No reply has been received to date (25/1/2013) regarding the drainage amendments. Officers have been informed that the Environment Agency has arranged a meeting with the developer to discuss relevant issues. It is anticipated that the conclusions from that meeting will be relayed to Members before the Panel meeting.

Allerdale Housing Services – No objections with a recommended percentage of affordable housing of appropriate tenure to meet local need.

Highway Agency – No objection

Natural England – No objection on any matter.

United Utilities – No objection to the revised drainage statement.

Allerdale Engineer – No objection in principle

The application has been advertised on site and in the local press. Twenty-one letters of objection have been received and seven letters of support as documented within the report.

Report The Application

This is an outline application for residential development considering access from the public highway. An illustrative site layout of 50 dwellings of various house types has been provided with a commitment to provide a percentage of affordable homes.

Site History

2/2009/0417 Twelve holiday lodges (Approved) 2/2010/0291 Thirty four holiday lodges and warden’s dwelling (Approved) SCR/2012/0057 Screening opinion concluding that an Environmental Impact Assessment is not required.

The Site

The application site is located on the former Kirkross Quarry at the junction between Low Road and Stan Lonning. Around this junction is a cluster of buildings, including a caravan park, church, business units, apartment building and houses. Although the site does not adjoin the built extent of Brigham, the site is well related to the village, with Stan Lonning and Low Road providing connectivity to the development limits of Brigham. The site is

Page 3 surrounded by a boundary wall and established trees, a number of which will need to be removed to accommodate the proposed development.

It is understood that quarry operations on the site ceased in the middle of the twentieth century. The applicant states that after this, the site was subsequently used by a contracting company for the receipt of inert landfill soils, aggregates, rubble and builder’s waste. It is indicated that this operation ceased in the 1980’s. Planning permission was granted for 34 holiday lodges and a warden’s lodge in 2010. The applicant has stated that it was anticipated that the development of the site for holiday purposes would have provided the cross subsidy to enable the remediation to be completed and for the site to be developed. The applicant has said that subsequent marketing has demonstrated that there is no developer interest in the site for use as a holiday lodge site.

Adjacent to the site is a flooded part of the former quarry. This is planned as a community fishing pond reflecting the current informal use for this same purpose. The pond is beyond the application site boundary, however the illustrative layout indicates that public access to the pond will be maintained.

The current access to the site is taken from the road connecting Low Road to the A66. Under the proposals, a new access to the site would be from Low Road. This is the same access that was agreed with the earlier holiday accommodation applications. In addition to the main access, it is proposed to provide two pedestrian linkages to the site from Low Road.

The site is not allocated in the saved Allerdale Local Plan for any particular use. However, the site is included in Allerdale Borough Council’s Strategic Housing Land Availability Assessment (SHLAA) for possible delivery in the 6-15 year period after the Local Plan’s adoption.

Considering the past quarrying of the site, landfill operations and excavations commencing the holiday lodge development, the site is considered to be a previously developed or ‘brownfield site’.

Policy Context

National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF)

The site is beyond the defined Settlement Limit of Brigham and as a departure to the Local Plan the aims and objectives of the NPPF are the key to the assessment of this application and are explained below.

Policy Statements have now been replaced by the planning

Page 4 guidance within the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF), published March 2012.

The NPPF advises the purpose of the planning system is to contribute to the achievement of sustainable development which has 3 dimensions.

“These dimensions give rise to the need for the planning system to perform a number of roles:

• an economic role – contributing to building a strong, responsive and competitive economy, by ensuring that sufficient land of the right type is available in the right places and at the right time to support growth and innovation; and by identifying and coordinating development requirements, including the provision of infrastructure; • a social role – supporting strong, vibrant and healthy communities, by providing the supply of housing required to meet the needs of present and future generations; and by creating a high quality built environment, with accessible local services that reflect the community’s needs and support its health, social and cultural well-being; and • an environmental role – contributing to protecting and enhancing our natural, built and historic environment; and, as part of this, helping to improve biodiversity, use natural resources prudently, minimise waste and pollution, and mitigate and adapt to climate change including moving to a low carbon economy”.

The NPPF does not change the statutory status of the development plan as the starting point for decision making. Proposed development that accords with an up-to-date Local Plan should be approved, and proposed development that conflicts, should be refused unless other material considerations indicate otherwise. The NPPF does however provide considerable emphasis in the need to have an up-to-date plan in place and the weight that should be given to out-of-date plans.

At the heart of the NPPF is a presumption in favour of sustainable development. When considering planning applications this means:

“where the development plan is absent, silent or relevant policies are out-of-date, granting planning permission unless:

• any adverse impacts of doing so would significantly and demonstrably outweigh the benefits, when assessed against the policies in this Framework taken as a whole: or • Specific policies in this Framework indicate development should be restricted”.

Page 5

Five Year land Supply

A key objective of the NPPF is to deliver a wide choice of high quality homes.

Local planning authorities are required to identify a supply of specific deliverable sites sufficient to provide five years supply of housing against the identified housing requirement. Where there is a record of under delivery of housing, LPA’s need to provide a buffer of an additional 20% to provide a realistic prospect of achieving the planning supply and to ensure choice and competition in the market for land.

Notwithstanding recent planning permissions at Stainburn, Harrington, Dearham and Clifton, and including the appeal decision relating to ‘The Fitz’ at Cockermouth. Allerdale does not have a 5 year supply of housing land. This is based on the requirements of Policy L4 of the North West of England Plan Regional Spatial Strategy to 2021 (RSS) which, at present, remains part of the Development Plan. Based on past delivery rates it is also necessary to take into account the need to provide an additional buffer of 20% as required by the NPPF.

Assessment

The assessment of the proposals for residential development against the site constraints and material planning considerations has been made with some regard to the extant approval (ref 2/2010/0291) for thirty four holiday lodges and warden’s dwelling.

Principle of Housing

As a site beyond the defined settlement limit a recommendation for approval would be a departure from the Local Plan and therefore subject to a Development Panel decision.

Historically on sites elsewhere, previous refusals of planning permission relied heavily on Policy HS4 of the Allerdale Local Plan (First Alteration) which restricts development outside the defined development limits. Whilst it is acknowledged the application site is outside the development limits for Brigham as currently defined, in the absence of a five year land supply and having regard to the provision of the NPPF, Policy HS4 cannot now be solely relied on to resist applications for residential development outside defined development limits. This was confirmed by the Inspector in the ‘Fitz’ appeal decision at Cockermouth. It is therefore necessary to consider whether the proposal represents an appropriate and sustainable form of development.

Page 6 The site is well related to individual buildings and the existing settlement form of lower Brigham with connection to the main body of the village.

This site can accommodate a significant number of dwellings that will contribute to the future housing supply for Brigham and the immediate area. Brigham is classed as an ‘infill village’ and considered a genuine sustainable location with local services and in reasonable proximity to other nearby village services and the full range of town centre facilities of Cockermouth. The development will also contribute to the social and economic well being of the area and help to sustain a healthy rural community thus satisfying the principles of the NPPF.

Whilst the site is outside the current development limits, it is considered that the site represents a logical extension of lower Brigham that would not adversely impact on the character of the village form or landscape. It is therefore considered the proposals does not give rise to any fundamental conflict with the provisions of Local Plan Policy EN25 which seeks to safeguard against development that results in unacceptable harm to the landscape. Likewise the proposal is not considered to be at odds with the NPPF which seeks recognition for the intrinsic character and beauty of the countryside.

Consideration of Alternative Sites

The development of this site must therefore be considered on its own merits having regard to the presumption in favour of sustainable development.

Although the application site lies outside the settlement boundary, it has been the subject of former development and therefore constitutes ‘brownfield’ land.

Saved policy HS7 of the Allerdale Local Plan, First Alteration June 2006 seeks the sequential release of housing land, and will seek the development of appropriate previously developed land before approving the development of greenfield sites.

Furthermore the NPPF continues to encourage the development of previously developed sites prior to greenfield sites.

Therefore whilst Policy HS7 relating to the development of brownfield sites has been superseded by the updated policies of the NPPF, the current scheme accords with its objectives and principles.

The Proposal

Page 7 The application considers the principle of housing and its access from the public highway along with the requirements of foul and surface water drainage. The precise site layout, house types, design and appearance and landscaping are ‘reserved matters’ and will be subject to a future application.

The applicant has offered a 30% provision of affordable housing totalling 15 dwellings. This is above the current policy requirement for 20% provision.

Access

The proposed access to the site is from Low Road requiring some demolition of the existing boundary wall and tree removal. The loss of selective trees and part of the wall is not considered to have a detrimental impact on the amenity of the area.

The Highway Authority does not object to the proposed access. A Transport Statement and Travel Plan have been provided regarding wider traffic issues of the movements to the site with particular reference to the A66 junction. An assessment of the A66 junction capacity has been provided on the request of the Highway Authority. The Highway Authority accepts the traffic flow information as satisfactory as does the Highway Agency. The extant planning approval for holiday chalet development has already agreed the principle of increased traffic movements in the locality and the housing is not seen to intensify matters to any significant degree.

As part of the comprehensive response from Cumbria County Council, The Highway Authority recommends appropriate conditions and a commuted sum to fund the investigation and possible implementation of local highway improvements as part of a Section 106 Legal Agreement (S106).

Drainage

The matter of drainage has caused a good deal of local objection and debate and can be summarised as follows.

Foul drainage (as amended) is planned to the main sewer. Although United Utilities has confirmed that the system is nearing capacity, they have agreed a method of redirecting highway surface water from the sewer to a local watercourse thus providing additional capacity for foul drainage from the development site. This is similar to offset of surface water drainage approved by Members for residential development at Brigham Road Cockermouth (ref 2/2012/0597). At the time of writing the Environment Agency (EA) has not responded to the amended drainage report. However as foul drainage is now to be discharged

Page 8 to the main sewer it is considered that the report addresses their concerns. Further comments from the EA are anticipated and will be relayed to Members at the Panel meeting.

Officers highlight that United Utilities raise no objections to the foul drainage details

Surface water drainage is planned to the local watercourse via the existing drainage which also raises no objection from United Utilities. At the time of writing the Environment Agency (EA) has not responded to the amended drainage report. However with the support of United Utilities and evidence submitted by the applicant it is considered that the report addresses their concerns. Further comments from the EA are anticipated and will be relayed to Members at the Panel meeting.

Local objection has been received on the general matter of off-site drainage problems in lower Brigham. The objection and concerns are summarised as follows.

It has been suggested that surface water in the area from a number of commercial and residential properties reaches the destination watercourse via pipes beneath the development site. Recent problems of flooding in the area has been blamed on the past and recent ground remodelling of the site with claims that pipework has been broken and blocked resulting in surface water backing-up. The claims from individuals and the ‘Communal Drainage Group’ (CDG) comprising local businesses and individuals is largely based upon local knowledge.

The other issue regarding surface water drainage is a perception of the pond and Stoney Beck being fed to such an extent as to saturate low lying adjacent agricultural land in the immediate vicinity.

In order to reach a conclusion on these issues, the applicant has commissioned a drainage report and met with Allerdale’s Engineer. The evidence put forward by the qualified engineer’s report has been considered at length and the conclusions summarised as follows.

1. Outflow from the other main quarry areas to the south (off Stan Lonning) remains undetermined. However, based upon historic information it is believed that the southern quarries discharge via infiltration and ultimately into springs discharging into Kirkcross. It is accepted that appropriate investigations have taken place by the developer and nothing further can be done at present, this actually concurs with the latest view outlined in correspondence received from the CDG.

Page 9 2. The Kirkcross pond appears not be directly connected or fed by any watercourse route but seems to be spring fed.

3. The Kirkcross pond outfalls in a pipe leading north, discharging to Stoney Beck. There have been some maintenance issues with the outfall pipe. It is sited shallow with little cover and is prone to damage from crushing by plant/livestock which graze the field. As this problem is outside the proposed development site it is considered a private matter beyond the scope of the planning application, although dialogue between the Landowners is ongoing and a solution has been suggested by the Developer.

4. The brick built culvert that crosses the centre of the site from south to north does not appear to convey the high flow rate necessary to identify it as the watercourse route. In the absence of such evidence, its status should at present remain as a private drain from unconfirmed sources. This was originally suggested as the drainage route used to convey pumped drainage from the commercial units within Brigham Quarry. Requests to the business owners for proof of this situation on their deeds or by easement or other agreement has met with no response. A survey of this culvert by the CDG had been commenced but failed due to a substantial blockage within the development site 8 metres from point of the commencement of survey. Attempts to clear this blockage to allow the survey to progress were unfortunately abandoned and the business owners are now not sure that this is their drainage route at all. They are now of the opinion that their private drainage merely goes to ground and is dissipated through the geology.

From a technical viewpoint this arrangement in the other quarry areas is unsatisfactory as there would be no controlled free drainage outlet and therefore a high risk of surcharge leading to flooding. Even though the CDG currently complain of flooding due to lack of flow through their claimed drainage route this is a recent occurrence and not a long standing situation and so is unlikely to arise from a long term "dissipation" situation. As this is a matter that is believed to be outside of the application site by both the developer and CDG, this has to be considered as a private matter, beyond the scope of the planning application.

5. The existing piped surface water drain entering the site at the southeast corner (from the direction of the old police HQ) is live and will be safeguarded by the developer with appropriate site layout and easement. It is reasonable that the developer should be free to re-route this drain to suit his proposed site layout if he should wish, as long as he does nothing to compromise its continuing function.

This functioning piped drainage route may be the sensible and

Page 10 economic way to take if the business owners are obliged to re- route their own present drainage due to its apparent failed condition. The developer recognises this as a possibility and has expressed a willingness to meet and discuss. The success of any such negotiation may hinge on agreement on funding such work beyond the scope of this application. As the developer does not drain or input to this piped drain the inference appears to be that connection and maintenance costs may have to be considered by the businesses as joint beneficiaries.

On balance the survey by the applicant demonstrably concludes that off-site drainage problems are not directly associated with the development of the site. The survey undertaken by CDG is incomplete and far from conclusive. The evidence provided documenting regular maintenance of the drainage pumps owned by the businesses of the CDG is not considered to be of significant relevance. Documentation regarding legal right of drainage, access or easement to the site has not been provided by CDG to the Council despite requests for this to be made available. The only response is a solicitor’s letter suggesting a historical informal easement can be presumed.

Based upon the evidence provided by the applicant, off-site drainage issues cannot be seen as a material planning consideration. In any case, the perceived drainage issues in lower Brigham can be solved by an alternative remedy negotiable as a civil matter, subject to any necessary consent.

The saturation of low lying adjacent agricultural land will not be impacted upon by the development, with off-site maintenance of the outfall to Stoney Beck being the critical issue. This is dependent upon the adjacent landowner, with whom the developer is willing to cooperate. The developer has already undertaken investigation works to resolve and improve this arrangement and has offered a proposed solution to the adjacent Landowner. Correspondence is in hand to deliver this improvement.

It is therefore considered that although the off-site drainage problems of lower Brigham are unresolved, the association with the development site is unproven and at this stage such matters are not a reason for refusal of the principle of residential development. The precise layout of the site is still a ‘reserved matter’ which can still be arranged to allow any easements for access to underground services should it prove necessary.

Contaminated Land

Environmental Risk Assessments and Gas Monitoring Assessment have been provided with. Allerdale Environmental Protection does not object to the findings with appropriate conditions. Despite the

Page 11 reports submitted further details of remediation are required with bespoke advice on methodology available to the applicant. The Environment Agency (EA) has identified similar issues and conditions. Further comments from the EA are anticipated and will be relayed to Members at the Panel meeting.

Pollution

The applicant has provided a Risk Management Strategy (including updates) which provides mitigation and procedures to minimise general environmental pollution of land and watercourses. This appears to satisfy the general recommendations of the Environment Agency (EA) and can be conditioned. Further comments from the EA are anticipated and will be relayed to Members at the Panel meeting.

Noise.

A Noise Assessment has concluded that minimal mitigation is required to protect residential amenity from road noise on the A66 and Low Road. A means of wall enclosure and standard double glazing are considered adequate which remain a reserved matter.

Landscape and Visual Assessment

A Landscape and Visual Assessment has been provided which concludes that the development will have minimal impact visually with appropriate landscape screening including the retention of selected existing trees. The assessment discusses the location of the site in context to surrounding landforms with photographic evidence of near and distant views.

Such landscaping remains a reserved matter as does the scale, design and appearance of the proposed dwellings. It is not expected that the development will have a detrimental impact upon visual amenity locally or from distant views

Ecology

The site is not designated as a recognised habitat of any particular importance. A Phase 1 Habitat Survey of the site has been produced. Despite the need to remove areas of rough grassland, scrub and selected trees, it is not considered that any harm will result to any interests of nature conservation. A mitigation strategy has been recommended regarding nesting birds and bats with recommendation for appropriate roosts to be provided as part of any landscaping scheme including bird and bat boxes. This can be conditioned for further details.

The development of the site including surface water drainage that

Page 12 ultimately reaches the R Derwent (SSSI (SAC) is not considered to have significant impact requiring an Assessment of Likely Significant Effect. This was agreed by Natural England with previous applications and during the consideration of the screening opinion (ref SCR/2012/0057)

Tree Survey

The report concludes that selected tree removal will be trees of moderate value with the retained trees on the perimeter of the site supplemented with appropriate species as part of a comprehensive landscaping scheme. This is again a reserved matter subject to further consideration.

Affordable Housing

In negotiation with Allerdale Housing Services a percentage of the total number of dwellings has been agreed that meets the local need of house type and tenure. The 30% proposed exceeds the 20% required by policy guidelines. In addressing the requirements of Circular 05/05 on planning obligation officers consider that only 20% of the estate could be reasonably restricted to Local affordable housing under a s106 as there is no demonstrated exceptional local need to deliver the additional housing. The applicant has provided a list of house sizes and type of tenure for the s106 which reflects the need identified in the local housing need survey. The precise layout is a reserved matter and any increase or decrease in total units can be considered with an adjustment of the affordable percentage as necessary.

Residential Amenity

The nearest dwellings to the development site are some distance away and separated by Low Road. It is not considered that the proposed development will have an adverse impact upon nearby residential amenity with no prospect of unreasonable overlooking or overshadowing The retained trees and additional landscaping will also serve to reduce any impact.

Open Space/Local Area for Play

Policy L1 of the Allerdale Local Plan based upon national guidance dictates the need for informal open space on residential developments exceeding 15 dwellings. Despite site layout being a reserved matter, the site is clearly capable of a density exceeding the threshold. On that basis the provision of open space is to be conditioned with a Section 106 Agreement regarding its maintenance.

The Quarry Pond

Page 13

The existing quarry pond is used as an informal community fishing pond. The pond is outside the development site but within the ownership of the applicant. The illustrative scheme gives convenient public access to the pond. This can be clarified as part of the reserved matters on site layout.

Representations

Twenty-one letters of objection have been received regarding drainage, flooding, highway safety, visual impact, and residential amenity, school capacity, proven housing need, wildlife, public transport and settlement character.

Seven letters of support have been received recognising the value of affordable housing and the sustainability of the site with regard to the NPPF.

On balance for the reasons above the reasons of objections are not a defensible reason for refusal.

Cumbria County Council has responded in full regarding all aspects of the development. No objections have been raised with a recommended approval subject to conditions. A commuted sum has been requested as part of a Section 106 Legal Agreement regarding financial contributions towards local school improvements or transport to alternative schools elsewhere. A sum to investigate and implement local highway infrastructure improvements is also requested.

Heads of Terms. Section 106 Legal Agreement.

Heads of Terms have been agreed regarding affordable housing provision and supplemented to include financial contributions for education and highway improvements. The precise details of the Section 106 can be negotiated further at a later date.

Local Finance Considerations

There are local finance considerations to be taken into account with respect to the ‘new homes bonus scheme’ and S106 contributions. Whilst a material consideration, this is not the overriding reason for the recommendation to approve planning permission.

Recommendation

The extant approval for 34 holiday lodges and warden’s dwelling and the brownfield status of the site is considered of some significance with a number of planning matters already agreed in

Page 14 principle.

On balance the proposals are acceptable as justified above and can be approved. The recommendation is in accordance with current Local Plan policies when considered in the context of the National Planning Policy Framework March 2012.

Recommendation: Approved subject to a S106 agreement relating to local affordable housing, education and highway contributions.

Conditions/ 1. Before any works commence, details of the layout, scale Reasons: and appearance, and landscaping (hereinafter called 'reserved matters') shall be submitted to and approved by the Local Planning Authority. Reason: The application has been submitted as an outline application, in accordance with the provisions of the details of the Town and Country Planning (General Permitted Development Procedure) Order 1995. 2. The development hereby permitted shall be carried out in accordance with the following plans: 11-18-01a - Site Location Plan 11-18-12J - Proposed Site Plan (Access Only) Email dated 12/11/2012 Regarding revised proposal description confirming reserved matters. (amendment received 12/1/2012) Environmental Risk Assessment EES09-29 dated 29/5/2009 Ground Gas Assessment EES09-29 dated 23/7/2009 Risk Management Strategy EES12-099 dated 19/9/2012 Noise Assessment Report KDL/KB/NA/10/12 dated 19/10/2012 Tree Survey EESS09-29 dated 29/5/2009 Phase 1 Habitat Survey EES09-29 dated 29/5/2009 Environmental Documents Updates Statement EES12-099 dated 19/9/2012 Transport Statement A078102 dated August 2012 Travel Plan A078102 dated September 2012 Technical Note A66 Junction Capacity Assessment A078102 dated December 2012 (amendment received 10/12/2012) Drainage Statement RO/11058.5 dated December 2012 (amendment received 7/12/2012) Reason: In order to ensure a satisfactory standard of development. 3. The submission of all reserved matters applications shall be made no later than the expiration of 3 years beginning with the date of this permission and the development shall begin no later than whichever is the later of the following dates:

Page 15 a) The expiration of three year s from the date of t he grant of this permission, or b) The expiration of two years from the final approval of the 'reserved matters' or, in the case of approval on different dates, the final approval of the last such matter to be approved. Reason: In order to comply with Section 51 of the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004. 4. The carriageway, footways, footpaths, cycle ways etc shall be designed, constructed, drained to the satisfaction of the Local Planning Authority and in this respect further details, including longitudinal/cross sections, shall be submitted to the Local Planning Authority for approval before work commences on site. No work shall be commenced until a full specification has been approved. Any works so approved shall be constructed before the development is complete. Reason: To ensure a minimum standard of construction in the interests of highway safety. 5. The development shall not commence until visibility splays providing clear visibility of 2.4m x 103m in a south westerly direction and 129m in a north easterly direction measured down the centre of the access road and the nearside channel line of the major road have been provided at the junction of the access road with the county highway. Notwithstanding the provisions of the Town and Country Planning (General Permitted Development) Order 1995 (or any Order revoking and re- enacting that Order) relating to permitted development, no structure, vehicle or object of any kind shall be erected, parked or placed and no trees, bushes or other plants shall be planted or be permitted to grown within the visibility splay which obstruct the visibility splays. The visibility splays shall be constructed before general development of the site commences so that construction traffic is safeguarded. Reason: In the interests of highway safety. 6. Details of the vehicular crossing over the footway, including the lowering of kerbs, shall be provided to the Local Planning Authority and approved in writing. The works shall be implemented as approved. Reason: To ensure a suitable standard of crossing for pedestrian safety. 7. The surfacing of the access road shall extend for at least 10m inside the site, as measured from the highway boundary prior to the use first being commenced and shall be carried out in accordance with details of construction which shall be submitted to the Local Planning Authority. Reason: In the interests of highway safety.

Page 16 8. There shall be no vehicular access to or egress f rom the site other than via the approved access, unless otherwise agreed by the Local Planning Authority. Reason: To avoid vehicles entering or leaving the site by an unsatisfactory access or route, in the interests of road safety. 9. Full details of the surface water drainage system 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 operational thereafter. Reason: In the interests of highway safety and environmental management. 10. Before any development takes place, a plan shall be submitted for the prior approval of the local planning authority firstly reserving adequate land for the parking of vehicles engaged in construction operations associated with the development hereby approved, and that land, including vehicular access thereto, shall be used for or be kept available for these purposes at all times until completion of the construction works and secondly showing the construction vehicle routing to the site avoiding Brigham village centre. Reason: The carrying out of this development without the provision of these facilities during the construction work is likely to lead to inconvenience and danger to road users. 11. The use shall not be commenced until the access requirements have been constructed in accordance with the approved plan. The access provision shall be retained and be capable of use when the development is completed and shall not be removed or altered without the prior consent of the Local Planning Authority. Reason: To ensure a minimum standard of access provision when the development is brought into use. 12. Within three months of the occupation of the first dwelling, the developer shall prepare and submit to the Local Planning Authority for their approval a Travel Plan which shall identify the measures that will be undertaken by the developer to encourage the achievement of a modal shift away from the use of private cars to visit the development to sustainable transport modes, including targets and the appointment of a Travel Plan Co- ordinator. The Travel Plan shall be the subject of annual review for a period of five years following the occupation of the first dwelling. Reason: To aid in the delivery of sustainable transport objectives. 14. Prior to the commencement of development, a scheme for surface water and foul water drainage (on seperate systems and inclusive of a maintence schedule following

Page 17 completion of the works ) shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The drainage scheme submitted for approval shall be in accordance with the principles set out in the drainage statement, December 2012, ref no. RO/11058.5 Rev 5 proposing surface water from the site discharging into the ponds and demonstrating a volumetric betterment by disconnecting highway drainage at High Brigham from the combined sewer and redirecting it into the surface water culverts. No part of the development shall be occupied until the drainage scheme has been constructed in accordance with the approved details. For the avoidance of doubt, neither surface water, land drainage, nor highway drainage shall connect into the public sewerage system (directly or indirectly). The development shall thereafter be managed in accordance with the approved details. Reason: To ensure a sustainable means of drainage from the site and minimise the risk of water pollution to the local water environment, in compliance with Policy HS9 of the Allerdale Local Plan, First Alterations June 2006 (Saved). 15. No development shall take place until a Construction and Demolition Method Statement has been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The statement shall include the following: (a) Traffic Management Plan to include all traffic associated with the development, including site and staff traffic; (b) Procedure to monitor and mitigate noise and vibration from the construction and demolition and to monitor any properties at risk of damage from vibration, as well as taking into account noise from vehicles, deliveries. All measurements should m ake reference to BS7445. (c) Mitigation measures to reduce adverse impacts on residential properties from construction compounds including visual impa ct, noise, and light pollution. (d) A written procedure for dealing with complaints regarding the construction or demolition; (e) Measures to control the emissions of dust and dirt duri ng construction and demolition; (f) Programme of work for Demolition and Construction phase; (g) H ours of working and deliveries; (h) Details of lighting to be used on site Reason: In the interests of the amenity of the occupiers of neighbouring properties, in compliance with Policy EN6 of the Allerdale Local Plan, Adopted 1999 (Saved). 16. As part of the reserved matters required by Condition 1, full details of the proposed glazing of the dwellings is provided as specified in the noise assessment report

Page 18 (KDL/KB/NA/10/12) dated 19 October 2012. The glazing shall be installed to each dwelling prior to its occupation and retained at all times thereafter. Reason: To ensure a satisfactory standard of housing development in accordance with Policy EN7 of the Allerdale Local Plan, Adopted 1999 (Saved). 17. No development shall take place until a detailed remediation scheme has been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The scheme must include an appraisal of remediation options, identification of the preferred option(s), the proposed remediation objectives and remediation criteria, and a description and programme of the works to be undertaken including the verification plan. Reason: To minimise any risk arising from any possible contamination from the development to the local environment in compliance with Policy EN9 of the Allerdale Local Plan (Saved). 18. The approved strategy under condition 17 shall be implemented in accordance with the approved details and a verification report submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority, prior to the development (or relevant phase of development) being brought into use. Reason: To minimise any risk arising from any possible contamination from the development to the local environment in compliance with Policy EN9 of the Allerdale Local Plan (Saved). 19. In the event that contamination is found at any time when carrying out the approved development that was not previously identified it must be reported immediately to the Local Planning Authority. Development on the part of the site affected must be halted and a risk assessment carried out and submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. Where unacceptable risks are found remediation and verification schemes shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. These shall be implemented prior to the development (or relevant phase of development) being brought into use. All work shall be undertaken in accordance with current UK guidance, particularly CLR11. Reason: To minimise any risk arising from any possible contamination from the development to the local environment in compliance with Policy EN9 of the Allerdale Local Plan (Saved). 20. As part of the reserved matters required by condition 1, details of the proposed landscaping shall include species as recommended in the Environmental Updates Statement EES12-099 dated 19/9/2012 Reason : In order to promote appropriate habitat to support

Page 19 local wildlife in accordance with Policy EN35 of the Allerdale Local Plan Adopted 1999 (Saved). 21. The development hereby approved shall be implemented in accordance with the mitigation measures as specified in the Phase 1 Habitat Survey EES09-29 dated 29/5/2009 and Environmental Updates Statement EES12-099 dated 19/9/2012 Reason : In the interests of nature conservation in accordance with Policy EN32 and EN35 of the Allerdale Local Plan Adopted 1999 (Saved). 22. The development hereby approved shall be implemented in accordance with the mitigation measures as specified in the Tree Survey EES09-29 dated 29/5/2009 and Environmental Updates Statement EES12-099 dated 19/9/2012 . Reason : In order to ensure that adequate protection is afforded to the existing trees to be retained on site. 23. The development hereby approved shall be implemented in accordance with the mitigation measures as specified in the Risk Management Strategy EES12-099 dated 19/9/2012 and Environmental Updates Statement EES12- 099 dated 19/9/2012 . Reason : To minimise any environmental pollution in accordance with Policies EN5 and EN6 of the Allerdale Local Plan Adopted 1999 (Saved) 24. As part of the reserved matters required by condition 1, details of the siting, height and type of all means of enclosure (including acoustic wall/fencing to roadside plots as recommended in the Noise Assessment Report KDL/KB/NA/10/12 dated 19/10/2012 shall be submitted to and approved by the Local Planning Authority before development commences. Any such means of enclosure shall be constructed prior to the approved buildings being brought into use/occupied. All means of enclosure so constructed shall be retained and no part thereof shall be removed without the prior consent of the Local Planning Authority. Reason: To ensure a satisfactory standard of development which is compatible with the character of the surrounding area and in the interests of noise abatement and general residential amenity in accordance with Policies HS8 of the Allerdale Local Plan First Alteration June 2006 (Saved) and Policy EN7 of the Allerdale Local Plan Adopted 1999 (Saved). 25. As part of reserved matters required by condition 1, details of the proposed site layout shall include provision for Local Area of Play (including its maintenance details.) The approved informal public open space shall be implemented at the site prior to the occupation of the 16 th dwellinghouse on the estate and maintained in accordance with the approved maintenance schedule at

Page 20 all times thereafter . Reason : In order to achieve a satisfacory standard of open space to serve the residential development in accordance with Policy L1 of the Allerdale Local Plan Adopted 1999 Saved). Reasons for Approval

The decision to grant planning permission has been taken having regard to the Development Plan, any comments from consultees (including statutory consultees) and any responses from third parties. The decision was taken having regard to relevant planning policy and it was considered that the proposal was acceptable having regard to the national, strategic and local plan policies, supplementary planning guidance/documents and design guidance (set out below) and when taking all other material planning considerations into account. It was considered that there is not a demonstrable harm to the open countryside, general amenity, highway safety, drainage, ecology nor any interests of acknowledged importance caused by the development that justifies withholding permission.

Allerdale Local Plan, Adopted 1999 (Saved) Policy EN14 - Safeguarding Water Environment, Policy EN25 - Protecting the open countryside Policy EN3 – Landscaping Policy EN35 - Creation of new wildlife habitats Policy EN4 - Tree & Hedgerow Preservation Orders Policy EN5 - Pollution Control Policy EN6 - Location of potentially polluting development Policy EN7 - Location of pollution sensitive development Policy EN9 - Contaminated/Derelict Land Policy L1 – Provision of open space in housing developments

Allerdale Local Plan First Alteration, June 2006 (Saved) Policy HS4 - New housing in open countryside Policy HS7 - Housing development on unallocated sites Policy HS8 - Housing design Policy HS9 - Infrastructure requirements for housing

North West of England Plan Regional Spatial Strategy to 2021 From a strategic point of view, the North West of England Regional Spatial Strategy is still currently part of the development plan and is a material planning consideration, although the Government has made clear their intentions that they may abolish at some point Regional Spatial Strategies and Saved Structure Plan Policies, following the enactment of the Localism Act 2011

National Planning Policy Framework March 2010 Achieving sustainable development

Proactive Statement

Application Approved Following Revisions

Page 21 The Local Planning Authority has acted positively and proactively in determining this application by identifying planning policies, constraints, stakeholder representations and matters of concern within the application (as originally submitted) and where appropriate negotiating, with the Applicant, acceptable amendments and solutions to the proposal to address those concerns. As a result, the Local Planning Authority has been able to grant planning permission for an acceptable proposal, in accordance with the presumption in favour of sustainable development, as set out within the National Planning Policy Framework.

Notes to The applicant/developer is referred to the consultation reply from Applicant: Allerdale Environmental Health Services dated 20/11/2012 regarding contaminated land. It is advised that the applicant/developer contacts an Environmental Health Officer regarding the remediation scheme required by Condition 17 above prior to development. Standard UU Standard Coal

Page 22 Page 23

This page is intentionally left blank

Page 24 Agenda Item 5

Allerdale Borough Council

2/2012/0838

Reference No: 2/2012/0838 Received: 05 November 2012 Proposed Outline application for 8 dwellings including 2 affordable dwellings Development: for social rent. Location: Land At Shawbank Brow Dean Workington Applicant: Mr Joe Lattimer J. J. Lattimer

Drawing Numbers: 12/05/764-01 - Site Location Plan

12/05/764 - 02b) - Indicative Site Plan amended plan received 18 January 2013

12/05/764 - 03a) Indicative Site Sections amended plans received 18 January 2013

Revised Heads of Terms for Section 106 legal agreement regarding 2 affordable homes for social rent and maintenace of common areas.

Letter received 18 January 2012 regarding reduction of scheme to 8 dwellings including 2 dwellings for affordable rent and that indicative plans show bunglaows (plots 1,2 and 8) or dormer bungalows( plots 3, 4, 5, 6 and 7). Confirmation that separation distances between principal elevations in excess of 30 metres.

Indicative Surface Water Drainage Layout received 21 January 2013

Scale parameters schedule amended details received 18 January 2013

Supporting Documents:

Ecological Scoping Survey Ground Investigation Report Phase 1:Desk Top Study Report Foul Water and Utilities Assessment Landscape and Visual Assessment Pre-development Arboricultural Report

Page 25 Flood Risk Assessment

Constraints: Settlement Limit HS5 Radon Assessment British Coal Area

Policies: Allerdale Local Plan, Adopted 1999 (Saved)

Policy CO22 - Protection of archaeological remains Policy E35 - Areas and features of nature conservation interests other than those of national and international conservation importance Policy EN1 - Minimising Travel Policy EN14 - Safeguarding water environment Policy EN25 - Protecting the open countryside Policy EN3 - Landscaping Policy EN32 - Protecting wildlife protected by law Policy EN39 - Access for the disabled Policy EN9 - Contaminated/ Derelict land Policy HS14 - Affordable/ local needs housing on large sites Policy HS15 - Affordable/ local needs housing outside settlements Policy TR11 - Provision for cyclists Policy TR13 - Provision for pedestrians

Allerdale Local Plan First Alteration, June 2006 (Saved)

Policy HS4 - New housing in open countryside Policy HS7 - Housing development on unallocated sites Policy HS9 - Infrastructure requirements for housing

Cumbria and Lake District Joint Structure Plan 2001-2016 (Saved)

Policy H19- Affordable housing sites outside the national park Policy ST4 - Major development proposals Policy T30 - Transport Assessments Policy E35 - Areas and features of nature conservation interest other than those of national and international conservation importance.

North West of England Plan Regional Spatial Strategy to 2021

From a strategic point of view, the North West of England Regional Spatial Strategy is still currently part of the development plan and is a material planning consideration, although the Government has made clear their intentions that they may abolish at some point Regional Spatial Strategies and Saved Structure Plan Policies, following the enactment of the Localism Act 2011.

Page 26

The Cumbria Community Strategy 2008–2028

Prepared by the Cumbria Strategic Partnership this strategy aims to create: safe; strong and inclusive communities; health and well being throughout life; a sustainable and prosperous economy; effective connections between people and places; and a world class environmental quality. The Community Strategy seeks to energise the county’s communities, health, economy, connections and environment over the next 10-20 years. It brings together aspirations and ambitions from a range of thematic and geographic strategies.

The Cumbria Strategic Partnership Sub-Regional Spatial Strategy (SRSpS)

This document sets out the spatial framework. This enables actions that affect specific areas and locations to serve the delivery of the Community Strategy, and it provides the sub- regional spatial framework for the preparation of Local Development Frameworks in Cumbria.

Relevant Planning A former screening opinion of the site under 2/2012/0066 History: concluded that the proposed housing scheme did not constitute EIA development Representations: Dean Parish Council - Objection - The site is poorly related to the village for; - The development will be prominent in local views to the detriment to the village and local character; - The proposal would create a cul de sac in open countryside to the rear of existing houses; - The site is a ‘discarded site’ in the Council SHLAA; - The proposed access is substandard squeezed into a piece of land between Trwen and William’s Croft; - There is existing flooding within the village due to the existing culvert; Land at Shawbank Brow is the wrong description.

Cumbria Highways - No objections subject to planning conditions

Cumbria Constabulary - No objections

County Archaeologist - No objections

Fire Officer - No representations received.

Housing Services - Dean was last surveyed in December 2008 Housing sets out that the developer is not required to put an affordable dwelling on the site but would request a two bedroom

Page 27 dwelling LCHO with the property to be sold at 60% of the market value.

Natural England - No objections

Cumbria Wildlife Trust - No representations received.

Allerdale BC Drainage Engineer - No flooding on site.

Environmental Health - No objections subject to planning condition

Environment Agency - No objections

United Utilities - No objections subject to planning conditions

The application has been advertised on site and within the local press. Adjoining owners have been notified.

23 letters of objections have been received to date 20 December 2012.

The reasons of objections are set out below:

- The site is poorly related to the village; - Increased noise from traffic and increased traffic flows; - No pavements and so dangerous roads, particularly the walk to school, local infrastructure needs improved like pavements and the school playground to be upgraded; - Increased demand on sewerage system; - The culvert which will accommodate surface water flows already floods; - The development will have a detrimental impact on the character of the village; - Traffic too fast in the village; - Increased surface water flooding in the village; - The beck and gullies into which the surface water scheme is proposed to flow already floods; - It is a skyline and elevated development that will be visible when approaching from Cockermouth and Workington; - Loss of good agricultural land; - Only a bus service on Wednesdays. - The dwellings will be executive homes; - The site is outside the settlement boundary and is not considered to be an appropriate extension to the rural village; - Brown field sites within the borough should satisfy sustainable development requirements - Houses are for sale so the need for housing is questionable.

Page 28 - The houses on Townhead will be overlooked; - The site was not selected as a SHLAA site; - Access to the site appears to be steep and dangerous; - Modern properties will be out of character; - Concern that the site will be developed further in the future; - Other sites in Dean that are identified as being deliverable in the next 5 years (identified in the SHLAA) should be considered; - The site was excluded from the SHLAA by virtue of its poor relationship to other dwellings; - The development of this site is considered premature; - The preferred options paper of the Allerdale BC Core Strategy sets out that the category rural villages (including Dean) is made up of small villages where new housing and employment will be restricted to infill development within the designated settlement boundary. - The scheme represents alien, backland development. - The access road is deemed to be unneighbourly; - The creation of tiered development is contrary to the prevailing character of the settlement; - The roads are narrow in the locality and more vehicles will be within Dean during construction; - There are milking herds within the village that are moved along the roads; - Existing new build houses remain unsold; - Dean has recently contributed to the Allerdale housing targets; - There is vehicle overspill parking on the access road to the proposed estate; - The application is opportunist being partly driven by current government policy to encourage (without due consideration of the consequences) the development of green belt land for housing; - There are other opportunities within Allerdale for house building not on green belt land; - Village roads are narrow, with pinch points and there is no traffic speed limit. - Additional housing will have an adverse impact on broadband activity. - Is it necessary to develop a discarded site when housing targets are nearly met? - There has been considerable development in Dean (17 homes) recently and houses remain unsold and the need for further housing in Dean is uncertain.

A petition of 42 signatories has been signed in objection to the development due to it being outside the settlement boundary and the proposal being an inappropriate use of a green field site that will have a detrimental impact on this rural village. There will be increased traffic, flooding, risks to pedestrians and increased

Page 29 health and safety issues around the agricultural workings of the village. Report Proposal

Outline planning permission (as amended) is sought for a residential development of 8 dwellings (2 affordable homes for social rent) and indicative plans show bungalows and dormer bungalows, on land to the north of Shawbank Brow, Dean.

The application is in an outline scheme with the vehicular access to be agreed at this stage with all other matters including appearance, landscaping, layout and scale reserved for future determination. The application was amended from 9 to 8 dwelling houses. As the plans are solely indicative and does not introduced any new elements only a limited period of reconsultation was undertaken.

Site Characteristics

The site measures approximately 0.78 hectares (including the access) and comprises grazing land located on the north east boundary of the village of Dean. The site is bounded on the two sides by existing development with open countryside to the north and east. The site will not be particularly visible from the highway as the site is bound to the south by a row of existing detached dwellings.

Access to the site will be from an existing access road to the public highway. The access will be created by modifying the existing turning head serving the William’s Croft development and extending a newly constructed access road between properties known as Williams Croft and Greenrigg, to the west of the access road and a dwelling known as Trwen to the east. A cross section of the access road has been provided to show the relationship of the road with the adjacent dwellings.

Consideration of Planning Issues

In assessing this outline application the following matters need to be assessed:

• Whether the proposed development accords with the provision of local, regional and national planning policy to include the recently published National Planning Policy Framework; • The principle of housing development in this locality and whether the Council is satisfied that that there are no preferable and deliverable brown field sites elsewhere in Dean that could be used as an alternative development site;

Page 30 • Whether development of the site would result in an excess of the identified 5-year housing supply quota, taking account the distribution of development across the Borough and whether it would meet local needs, and the other sites which are in the pipeline, either with planning permission or current planning applications; • The type and level of affordable housing proposed; • That matters of ecology and archaeology are satisfactorily resolved; • That the development reflects and protects the character of the site and its surroundings; • There is no adverse effect on landscape character in the locality; • That the density and siting of any houses is appropriate to the location and the number, type and tenure of housing indicatively shown, meet the findings of the Dean housing need survey; • That any measures to mitigate any adverse impacts are put in place; and • That the vehicular access is suitable from the adopted highway.

National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF)

Planning Policy Statements have now been replaced by the planning guidance within the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF), published March 2012.

The NPPF advises the purpose of the planning system is to contribute to the achievement of sustainable development which has 3 dimensions.

“These dimensions give rise to the need for the planning system to perform a number of roles:

• ‘an economic role – contributing to building a strong, responsive and competitive economy, by ensuring that sufficient land of the right type is available in the right places and at the right time to support growth and innovation; and by identifying and coordinating development requirements, including the provision of infrastructure; • a social role – supporting strong, vibrant and healthy communities, by providing the supply of housing required to meet the needs of present and future generations; and by creating a high quality built environment, with accessible local services that reflect the community’s needs and support its health, social and cultural well-being; and • an environmental role – contributing to protecting and enhancing our natural, built and historic environment; and,

Page 31 as part of this, helping to improve biodiversity, use natural resources prudently, minimise waste and pollution, and mitigate and adapt to climate change including moving to a low carbon economy”.

The NPPF does however provide considerable emphasis in the need to have an up-to-date plan in place and the weight that should be given to out-of-date plans.

At the heart of the NPPF is a presumption in favour of sustainable development. When considering planning applications this means:

“where the development plan is absent, silent or relevant policies are out-of-date, granting planning permission unless:

• any adverse impacts of doing so would significantly and demonstrably outweigh the benefits, when assessed against the policies in this Framework taken as a whole: or • specific policies in this Framework indicate development should be restricted”.

Five Year land Supply

A key objective of the NPPF is to deliver a wide choice of high quality homes.

Notwithstanding recent planning permissions at Stainburn, Harrington, Clifton and Wigton, and including the recent appeal decision relating to ‘The Fitz’ at Cockermouth, Allerdale does not have a 5 year supply of housing land. This is based on the requirements of Policy L4 of the North West of England Plan Regional Spatial Strategy to 2021 (RSS) which, at present, remains part of the Development Plan. Based on past delivery rates it is also necessary to take into account the need to provide

Page 32 an additional buffer of 20% as required by the NPPF.

Principle of Development of Site

Whilst it is acknowledged the application site is outside the development limits for Dean as currently defined, in the absence of a five year land supply and having regard to the provision of the NPPF, Policy HS4 cannot alone be relied upon to resist applications for residential development outside defined development limits. This was confirmed by the Inspector in the recent ‘Fitz’ appeal decision at Cockermouth.

It is therefore necessary to consider whether the proposal represents an appropriate and sustainable form of development and establish whether there are any adverse impacts that would significantly and demonstrably outweigh the benefits, when assessed against the policies in this Framework taken as a whole: or specific policies in this Framework indicate development should be restricted”.

Dean is categorised in the Allerdale Local Plan a Limited Growth Village. This is a village that has at least one of public transport, school, or shop(s) plus one or more of a public house, church and community hall/ sports facility.

Dean has the benefit of a primary school, church, public house and village hall. The settlement is served by country roads and only has a weekly bus service; however secondary school children are picked up by a school bus.

It is a settlement which is expected to accept a limited amount of development to support local services and the local community.

The Draft Allerdale Strategic Housing Land availability Assessment (SHLAA) has been recently published and the site has been discarded on the basis that there are concerns over the highway access and that the site being poorly related to the settlement.

Not only is the site outside the current development limits, it is considered that as the site represents an unacceptable extension of development to Dean and that it would adversely impact on the character of the settlement and the residential amenity of nearby dwellings. This is by virtue of its poor relationship with existing dwellings, and in particular the tenuous access route and the sites

Page 33 tiered relationship with existing dwellings to the south of the site.

It is acknowledged that the indicative amended design shows some mitigation in terms of the provision of bungalows and dormer bungalows and show landscaping within the indicative layout plan. Furthermore the amended plans show a reduction in dwelling number to 8 dwellings with the reduction in road length required to serve the development. However, due to the narrow width of the highway access, there is limited opportunity to provide an adequate and attractive buffer to residential properties that are sited adjacent to the access and due to the number of dwellings (8) proposed, there is likely to be a loss of residential amenity to properties adjacent to the access road by virtue of traffic noise and vehicle lights.

In terms of the landscape impact, it is Officer opinion that the development of the site is of a local significance and it is considered Local Plan Policy EN25 should be taken into account in that the elevated green field site should be safeguarded against development that results in unacceptable harm to the local landscape.

Notwithstanding that Allerdale BC does not have a 5 year land supply plus 20%, the Council has approved considerable housing development in recent months following the NPPF but these have been directed at Primary settlements but in rural areas, a modest scale development can have a significant impact on the intrinsic character of a settlement, therefore the siting and relationship of a proposal must be carefully considered in the context of the village setting and character.

It is acknowledged that the matter of prematurity and waiting for other sites to come forward (for instance that may be shown in the draft SHLAA currently publicised) is not an appropriate solution in the assessment of housing sites in a particular settlement. The site must therefore be considered on its particular merits at present.

It is noted that Dean has good facilities and therefore the development of housing could further support these community assets, but these benefits are also weighted against any local adverse impacts from the scheme.

On careful consideration, the proposal is considered to be at odds with the NPPF which seeks sufficient land of the right type being available in the right places to enable a high quality built environment, while contributing to protecting and enhancing our natural, built and historic environment.

With this in mind it is Officer opinion the scheme is not considered

Page 34 to recognise the distinctive intrinsic character and beauty of this rural settlement; when taking account of the character of this rural village and the historic evolvement along the village roads.

Consideration of Alternative Sites

The application site lies outside the settlement boundary, and is undeveloped, or ‘green field’ land. Saved policy HS7 of the Allerdale Local Plan, First Alteration June 2006 seeks the sequential release of housing land, and will seek the development of appropriate previously developed land before approving the development of green field sites.

The NPPF however makes it clear “relevant policies for the supply of housing should not be considered up-to-date if the local planning authority if the local planning authority cannot demonstrate a five year supply of deliverable housing sites”

Given the current lack of a five year land supply the presumption in favour of sustainable development must apply and policy HS7 cannot therefore be relied on to resist the development of ‘green field’ sites in favour of previously developed land. The development of this site must therefore be considered on its own merits having regard to the presumption in favour of sustainable development.

Prematurity

The question of ‘prematurity’ was addressed by the Inspector in relation to the recent ‘Fitz’ appeal decision at Cockermouth. In her decision letter the Inspector stated:

‘Whilst it is the Council’s position, which is supported by other objections, that the proposed development would undermine the development plan process, the Local Development Framework (LDF) has not even reached draft stage, so there is no plan to be undermined and thus the approach in paragraph 216 of the Framework is not engaged. The Planning System: General Principles sets out a similar approach. Clearly, allowing such a development would, if implemented, have an impact on the spatial distribution of housing. However, the Framework establishes, at paragraph 14, the approach to take where existing plans are out- of-date as already set out above. In this case, the Council’s approach of putting everything on hold until some undetermined future date is undermining the achievement of housing provision for which there is a well established need’..

Although the Council are now consulting on the ’preferred options’ for the Local Plan Core Strategy the draft plan has not yet been submitted to the Secretary of State and the ‘preferred options’ can

Page 35 be given very little, if any, weight in the consideration of planning applications. In view of the Inspectors conclusions detailed above it is considered a reasons for refusal on the grounds of prematurity cannot be sustained.

The site is not allocated in the saved Allerdale Local Plan for any particular use, and is outside but adjacent to the current defined settlement limits of Dean.

The site was discounted in the Allerdale Borough Council’s Strategic Housing Land Availability Assessment (SHLAA) because of concerns over the access arrangements and that the site had a poor relationship with the settlement. That said, the SHLAA is not a site allocating development and in the absence of any planning applications being submitted for consideration at this point in time, the individual merits of the subject site is considered.

Although officers consider a smaller scale scheme at this site which would reflect the rural pattern of the village adopting a courtyard layout served by a narrower access road may be more appropriate to the village’s distinctive character, this option was declined by the applicant.

Layout and Materials

The report now addresses planning matters relating to the housing proposal itself. The design, layout, materials and open space and landscaping is indicatively shown, although additional road details have also been provided to show the relationship of the access road with adjacent dwellings.

The applicant has set out that the indicative plans as amended show two distinct courtyards, with the first court yard serving plots 1-4 and the second distinct area serving plots 5-8 inclusive and that the access road would be cut into to the slope to reduce impact on adjacent dwellings. The access road would be narrowed to 4.1 metres consistent with a private driveway and surfaced with paviours to soften the visual impact of the access road.

The site would undergo new hard and soft landscaping to include a new vehicular, footpaths and parking spaces. Indicative plans show soft landscaping would include tree planting, plus Public Open Space (POS) that would be parallel to the proposed road layout and would act as a buffer to existing adjacent dwellings.

Local Plan First Alteration saved Policy HS8 seeks that new development is well related to existing development. The development of the site would create a tiered effect of the development in relation to lower level neighbouring dwellings to the south of the site and does not interact with the settlement

Page 36 pattern. That said, the indicative amended plans and indicative cross sections show that landscaping and the siting of the dwellings (especially as single storey or dormer bungalows) could mitigate against direct overlooking of existing dwellings.

Housing Type and Tenure

The indicative proposed amended scheme comprises a development of bungalows and dormer bungalows. The applicant has confirmed that the affordable element of the scheme is for 2 dwellings for social rent. Policy H19 of the Structure plan seeks the provision of local affordable housing on residential sites exceeding 0.4ha. Although the applicant is agreeable to this concept within a heads of terms, no s106 has been completed to verify this matter. Following concerns on the absence of this element of the proposal within the appeal at Lorton Rd Cockermouth, unless the applicant completes a s106 to secure this issue it is recommended that it also be considered as a ground for refusal (However it is anticipated that this will be addressed prior to the Panel meeting)

Affordable Housing

Allerdale Housing Services has recommended a proportion of housing including house type and tenure in accordance with the most up to date Housing Needs for Dean and adjoining parishes of Winscales, Little Clifton, Greysouthen, Brigham, Cockermouth, Blindbothel.

Dean was last surveyed in December 2008. The tenure split identified a tenure split of 29% LCHO and 71% Social rent. Housing Services are satisfied with the proposed 2 dwellings for social rent.

The NPPF requires housing development to provide a housing mix suitable for the locality. The housing type and tenure appears to be in line with the 2008 Dean Housing Survey.

Trees and Landscaping

Trees within the vicinity of the site have been placed in retention category C-Trees of low quality with an estimated life span of at least 10 years. It is proposed to retain all trees.

A Landscape and Visual Impact Assessment has been undertaken in relation to the site and its surroundings. It is considered by Officers that the development will constitute a relatively small, discrete extension to the edge of the settlement of Dean when viewed from outside the village.

Page 37 Nature Conservation and Biodiversity

The existing site is managed principally as agricultural grazing. The submitted Ecological Scoping Survey has concluded that the site has low potential for the disturbance or impact on individual protected species; as there is an absence of protected species on site.

A daytime inspection of the site was conducted during which all areas of the proposed development site were inspected in detail during a walk over survey. Evidence for the potential for amphibian species, otters, reptiles, badgers, breeding birds and other mammals was considered.

Great crested newts - Records obtained from Cumbria Biodiversity Data Centre do not include any records of great crested newts from within 2km of the site.

Two ponds exist within 500m of the site boundary, however the Ecological report concludes that no amphibian species have been previously recorded within 2km of the site and it is felt that even if great crested newts were to occur in either of these ponds, the proposed development would not impact on these species.

Breeding Birds – The site offers the potential for breeding birds in the hedgerows which bounds the north of the site. The field itself offers negligible potential for breeding birds. Some limited potential exists in the rough grassland/ scrub area towards the east of the site. The risk to breeding birds is categorised as moderate.

Badgers – Records obtained from Cumbria Biodiversity Data Centre do not include any records of badgers within 2 km of the site. The low potential for badger setts on the site is due to the fact that the habitat is very open.

It is considered that badgers could be crossing the site. No evidence of badger setts was discovered on the site or could be seen from the site boundary. The site is considered to offer low potential for badger setts.

Bats - No built structures exist within the site boundary. No large mature trees exist in the site or on the site boundary. The potential for roosting bats to occur on the site is considered to be nil. Individual bats may forage and commute across the site. The hedgerow which bounds the north of the site is tall and represents a potentially significant distinct linear habitat feature that will be maintained. In order to maintain the functional significance of this feature it is important to ensure that external lighting is not allowed to spill onto the hedgerow and this can be secured by planning condition.

Page 38

Otters - Records obtained from Cumbria Biodiversity Data Centre include 8 records of otter within 2km of the site. The habitat on site is considered to be unsuitable for otter holts or crouches and it is considered to be highly unlikely that an otter will routinely use the site. The potential for otters to routinely use the site are considered to be nil.

Red Squirrels - Records obtained from the Cumbria Biodiversity Data Centre include 27 records of red squirrels within 2km of the site. The habitat on site is broadly unsuitable for red squirrels. The hedgerow bounding the north of the site offers some potential for squirrels to move through the area but the foraging resource is limited as no suitable trees of seed baring age exist in the hedgerow. The field is exclusively improved grassland and therefore offers no suitable habitat for red squirrels. Red squirrels may move along the edge of the site but hedgerow will be maintained and therefore this potential corridor will not be affected. The risk of red squirrels being affected by the proposed works is negligible.

Reptiles - Records obtained from Cumbria Biodiversity Data Centre do not include any records of reptiles occurring within 2km of the site. The site is generally considered to offer negligible potential for reptiles.

It is Officer’s opinion that matters with regard to the protection of species protected by law; this has been suitably addressed in submitted documents.

Flora The habitat of the species is not considered to be of any specific conservation interest and invasive, non native species are not currently present.

Mitigation measures of species protected by law could be secured by planning conditions if the scheme was favourable considered.

Historic Environment Issues

The site is not considered to have archaeological assets and there are no objections from the County Council archaeologist.

Cumbria Highways

The proposed vehicular access arrangements would provide an estate road that would be constructed to a standard suitable for adoption. In order to connect to the public highway it will be necessary to modify the existing turning head and junction arrangement serving Williams Croft. There are no objections from

Page 39 the scheme from Cumbria Highways subject to planning conditions, although a commuted payment for an upgrade the footpath to the school parking onto the C2036 has been requested for £17,500.

With regard to this highway improvement request associated with the school Planning Officers must consider Part 11 Planning Obligations, Limitations on the use of Planning Obligations Section 122.

Section 122 (2) sets out that a 'Planning obligation may only constitute a reason for granting planning permission for the development if the obligation is- (a) necessary to make the development acceptable in planning terms; (b) directly related to the development; and (c) fairly and reasonably related in scale and kind to the development.

Taking into account the above test criteria under the provisions above, this commuted payment request of £17,000 is not considered to pass the tests.

It is acknowledged that the proposed vehicular access arrangements from a highway point of view is deemed safe to serve the proposed dwellings (8 number) subject to planning conditions but the long and narrow access road introduced between existing dwellings is designed to serve a site that is deemed to be not well related to the village form or character of the settlement, however in terms of the road access, it may be accepted that the proposed access road would be more suitable to serve a smaller number of residential units in order to enable a reduced impact from the comings and goings of traffic.

Foul Sewage Disposal

Foul sewage will be disposed of to the mains sewerage system. United Utilities have accepted this proposal.

Surface Water Disposal

Surface water drainage disposal could be secured by condition but indicative details have shown a surface water scheme with a flow control hydro brake to mitigate against any surface water flows above that as existing.

The indicative surface water scheme has been designed to attenuate surface water on site and connect to an existing surface water drain within the applicant’s ownership. In turn, the private drain connects to a culvert of Near Stone Beck. Near Stone Beck

Page 40 discharges into the River Marron.

The attenuate flow could be secured by planning condition to ensure that it will not exceed the existing discharge rate to the culvert. It is noted that there is local neighbour concern regarding existing surface water flooding in the locality but it is Officer opinion that an engineered solution could be designed to attenuate surface water flows from the site.

Desk Top Study for Ground Contamination

There is negligible risk of ground contamination, ground water contamination and ground gas on the site.

Local Facilities

The scheme would support local facilities to include Dean School, church and the local public house.

Other Issues

Neighbour concerns relating to disturbance during the construction phase could be appropriately dealt with by a condition securing construction management procedures.

Neighbour concerns relating to house values and loss of view are not a material planning consideration.

With regard to overlooking and loss of view, it is officer opinion that the indicative scheme has adequately shown that it is likely that acceptable separation distances to accommodate the amenity of existing and possible future residents, with a buffer landscape area could be achieved.

Local Financial Implications

The Localism Act provides that local financial considerations may be a material consideration to a planning application. Where financial matters are considered, it is necessary to clarify how financial considerations have impacted on the decision, and why.

The provision of public open space and two affordable homes (rent) will provide a benefit to the occupiers of the village of Dean and adjacent parishes.

Page 41 for affordable homes), for the following six years.

Conclusion

• The proposed housing site is outside the Dean settlement boundary however having regard to the NPPF, Policy HS4 of the Allerdale Local Plan First Alteration June 2006, which seeks to limit development outside development limits, cannot be relied on in the absence of a five year (+ 20%) supply of housing land .

• The NPPF promotes the delivery of a sustainable housing development. This is a green field site, which is considered to be poorly related to the character and form of this rural village where development has historically followed the village roads in a linear form with only small clusters of residential units served off access roads off the main road network.

• The site is in walking distance of Dean Primary School and local facilities including village pub, hall and church and could support the existing community services within Dean.

• Cumbria Highways have confirmed that the proposed vehicular access arrangements are satisfactory subject to planning conditions.

• Planning matters relating to ecology, archaeology and foul and surface water disposal have been satisfactorily addressed at this stage.

• The proposed housing development for 8 dwellings is considered to be likely to cause significant harm to the rural character of the settlement; being at variance with the linear form of the village and from the introduction of this elevated and tiered residential development; that is served by long and narrow access road, from which there is likely to be significant disturbance to the residential amenity of the locality (particularly dwellings adjacent to the new access road) from the introduction of the comings and goings of traffic and the associated noise and disturbances associated with traffic. The scheme is recommended for refusal accordingly.

• It is noted should the scheme being favourably considered, that the Heads of Term to secure the 2 homes for affordable rent would be required.(details awaited)

Rec ommendation: Refuse

Page 42

Reasons: 1. The proposed housing development for 8 dwellings at the application site, by virtue of it being at variance with the distinctive linear form and settlement pattern of the village is considered to be likely to cause significant harm to the distinctive rural character of the settlement. The introduction of this elevated and tiered residential development which is served by long and narrow access road would also result in significant disturbance to the residential amenity of properties in the locality (particularly dwellings adjacent to the new access road) from the noise disturbance from the comings and goings of traffic .The proposal is therefore contrary to saved Policy HS8 of the Allerdale Local Plan First Alteration 2006 and saved Policy EN25 of the Allerdale Local Plan 1999.

2.In the absence of demonstrating a layout which is well related to the exiting settlement and the character of the village, the proposal constitutes non essential and unsustainable development outside the designated settlement limits to the detriment of the visual amenity of the site and its surroundings contrary to policy HS4 of the First Alterations to the Allerdale local plan (saved ) and policy EN25 of the Allerdale local Plan (saved)

Applicat ion Refused Following Discussion – Where there is no Way Forward

The Local Planning Authority has acted positively and proactively in determining this application by identifying planning policies, constraints, stakeholder representations and matters of concern with the proposal and discussing those with the Applicant. However, the issues are so fundamental to the proposal that it has not been possible to negotiate a satisfactory way forward and due to the harm which has been clearly identified within the reason(s) for the refusal, approval has not been possible.

Notes to Applicant:

Page 43 Page 44

Agenda Item 6

Allerdale Borough Council

2/2012/0479

Reference No: 2/2012/0479 Received: 14 March 2012 Proposed Proposed erection of 2 no. 15 metre high wind turbines (19.02m to Development: blade tip) Location: Brownrigg Hall Farm Allonby Maryport Applicant: Brownrigg Hall Limited

Drawing Numbers: A001 - Site Plan A002 - Location Plan A003 - Site Location Plan A004 - Layout Plan X442/15 - Proposed Elevations

Constraints: World Heritage Site

Policies: National Planning Policy Framework

North west regional Spatial Strategy (RSS)

Policy DP7 - Promote environmental quality Policy EM17 - Renewable Energy

County and Lake District Joint Structure Plan (saved )

Policy R44

Allerdale local Plan (saved)

Policy EN10 - Restoration, after uses cease, Allerdale Local Plan, Adopted 1999 (Saved) Policy EN19 - Landscape Protection, Allerdale Local Plan, Adopted 1999 (Saved) Policy EN25 - Protecting the open countryside, Allerdale Local Plan, Adopted 1999 (Saved) Policy EN32 - Protecting wildlife protected by law, Allerdale Local Plan, Adopted 1999 (Saved) Policy EN6 - Location of potentially polluting development, Allerdale Local Plan, Adopted 1999 (Saved)

Relevant Planning An initial screening request under a planning application History: 2/2011/0646 for three turbines to the west and south of the current application site determined the proposal constituted EIA development due to their partial siting within the buffer zone of the

Page 45 World Heritage site A later screening request 2/2011/0041for the current revised proposal by virtue of being sited outside the national and international designations concluded it not constitute EIA development. A former application for the current proposal’s two turbines was withdrawn to allow ecological assessments.

A former application (2/2006/0790) for a larger windfarm comprising of 5 102m (to tip) turbines to the north of the current site at Brownrigg was refused on the grounds of ; 1. harmful individual and cumulative effect on the AONB 2. Harmful individual and cumulative impact on the Hadrian’s Wall World heritage designation. 3. Adverse impact on the setting of Scheduled Ancient Monuments to the north of the site. 4. adverse impact on the residential amenity of properties in the locality 5 potential harm to the local highway network 6. Cumulative harm to traffic radar displays and public safety.

A subsequent appeal to the refusal decision was withdrawn prior to determination

Representations: Allonby Parish Council -Recommend refusal- Object on the grounds on the visual impact on the AONB and it is felt that there are far too many turbines and that they are surrounded by them.

Westnewton parish council Object- Area has more than fair share of turbines referring to 4 turbines at Hellrigg 4 at Langrigg hall 2 at Tarns 1 at Crossrigg 3 at Westnewton Plus 5 current scheme at Pelutho, Low Tarns and Edderside. Other turbine development exists at Tallentire, High Pow., Mealrigg, Gt Orton, Crookdyke and High Scale plus the offshore turbines at Robin Rigg. Also refer to the dismissed appeal at Broughton which outlined the change from “a landscape with windfarms to a landscape with wind turbines as the defining and dominant feature” The parish council consider this potential change has been reached Civil Aviation Authority - Consultations for wind energy related development is exceeding the resource available to respond within LPA timeframes. Should consult with NATS and MoD and relevant aerodromes. The CAA has no responsibility for safeguarding sites other than within its own property.

Page 46 NATS – No safeguarding objections.

MoD - No objection. If permission is granted, the MOD must be informed of the date construction commences, the maximum height and the latitude/longitude.

Environment Agency – No objections. Informative requesting no interruption to existing drainage systems.

County Council Highways No objection subject to conditions requiring the road to be kept clear of mud during the construction phase and that a Traffic Management Plan is submitted for approval.

Natural England – Although sited close to the Salta Moss SSSI site, given the nature and scale of the proposal it is satisfied there is not likely to be any significant on the SSSI site. The National habitat indicates the site coincides with a Biodiversity Action Plan priority habitat. The local planning authority will need to satisfy itself in the context of conserving and enhancing biodiversity if a less harmful site can be pursued or compensated for. Reference is made to other ecological standing advice. The issue relating to impact on bat species and a reconsultation on the applicants bat survey was undertaken. Although they acknowledge that the turbines are sited within 50m of an existing hedgerow which is against their normal best practice guidance, given the evidence within the applicants submitted bat survey which indicated no evidence of bats the merits of the proposal are acceptable.

Environmental Health - No objection, condition recommended limiting noise levels for the nearest noise sensitive property.

County Archaeologist – No objections.

Carlisle airport No objections

Fire Officer – No reply to date.

Cumbria Wildlife Trust – No reply to date

County Planning –Advise the proposal does not constitute a Category 1 application and therefore do not wish to provide ant strategic comments The application should be determined in accordance with current development planning policies including Policies E37 and policy R44 of the Structure Plan

Aquiva - No reply to date

Page 47

County Archaeologist- No objections

English Heritage - Initially objected to the proposal to lack of evidence on the impact of the development on the landscape setting of the World \Heritage site. Further to the submission of additional evidence demonstrating additional evidence including a viewpoint they have withdrawn their application

Cumbria Wildlife Trust No reply to date

Solway Coast AONB No reply to date . The application has been advertised by site notice and neighbour letter.

A letter of objection was received from Westnewton Action Group on the grounds of;

(i) Cumulative impact – advised if approved these would act as the southern end of a chain of built and proposed turbines including Hellrigg (4turbines), Pelutho (2 proposed turbines)Tarns (one turbine) Low Tarns and Carrick Green (proposed turbine)

Additional turbines are at Abbeytown (2 proposed) plus proposals at Bromfield , two at Mealrigg, four exiting at Langrigg and a proposal at Goose Green plus the soon to be implemented windfarm at Westnewton (all within 9km distance of the site) Consider the Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty is becoming an area of sequential views to the detriment of its character and tourism. They consider the sequential impact has become the “defining and dominant element “ and may surpass the” tipping point “ expressed by the Inspector in dismissing the turbine appeal at Broughton Lodge whereby the turbines with “each approval adds to the cumulative baseline”

Lack of cumulative assessment with the former PPS22 Companion guide P5.21-5., 24 stating “Cumulative effects may arise where two or more of the same type of renewable energy development are visible from the same point, or are visible shortly after each other along the same journey. Hence it should not be assumed just that there are no other sites visible from the proposed development site , the proposal will not create any cumulative effects” Whilst it is accepted that this has been superseded in the NPPF this issue has been raised in Parliament and is referred to within the County’s Wind Energy in Cumbria document. Consider despite the viewpoints thee cumulative impact is having a sequential and negative impact.

Page 48 (ii) Ecology- The bat survey is based on a desk survey with no site visit. Contest the consultants view that the nearest observed bat is 4km from the site- lack of on site assessment including the proximity of woodland to the site and therefore is of little weight. Inadequate bird survey

(iii) Environmental statement –dispute the references to superseded policies PPS1 and PPS22. Also contests that the turbines will not be beneficial to the local community and considers it would harm local tourism with survey evidence on this subject being out of date.

(iv) Landscape assessment—Highlight the reports acceptance that the proposal will introduce a new vertical element into the landscape which they consider would be further exacerbated its moving blades. Inadequate viewpoints with glimpses of the site on the road from Westnewton to Allonby which may have cumulative impacts with the turbines at Crossrigg, Westnewton Robin Rigg and Hellrigg Dispute the impact as being “none to minor” It is considered that the size of the turbine can be irrelevant, as highlighted by the Crossrigg turbine which will be increased by the two turbines

The objection concludes the proposal is contrary to Policy EN25 of the Allerdale Local Plan as there is no overriding need and the considerable environmental, visual and cumulative impact on its amenity would be unacceptable The submitted landscape and visual evidence is unacceptable with no cumulative assessment. The adverse impact is so significant that they outweigh the benefits of the scheme. A further letter of objection was received from the Westnewton Action Group reiterating their objections on cumulative impact and in their opinion it has passed its saturation point. In reference to the ecology evidence they highlight that the records at Tuille house are out of date for desk top studies and are not a reflection on the quality or quantity of flora and fauna, nor its diversity... The additional letter explains the background to their conclusions on their original assessment and letter. The letter also refers to Natural England’s guidance document (TIN069) and considers the applicant has been selective on the guidance within it especially as the scheme is for 2 turbines and therefore has the potential for twice the impact reiterating that the bird evidence is inadequate, its sensitivity due to the proximity to the SSSI’s on the Solway marshes and Salta Moss with specific impact on Whooper Swan and Pink footed geese. The group refer to the RSPB document “Wind turbines and sensitive bird populations; A spatial guide for onshore wind farm development in Cumbria which demonstrate that the swan/geese

Page 49 wintering designations are quite close to the site. The fringe site could have impact on the substantial numbers of Whooper swans and pink footed geese in winter months and these will not fly in designated areas and may feed in outlying areas including managed agricultural land. They therefore seek a full habitat survey during winter months due to their high sensitivity, vulnerability to collision, especially in the context of their feeding areas which are nationally discrete. Reference is also made to a new report by Scottish heritage (commissioned report NO 523 Survey of the feeding areas, roosts and flight activity of qualifying species of the Caithness lochs special protection area concerning the impact from small scale turbines and the flight heights (20-150m) of birds in risk zones. They consider the characteristics in Scotland are likely to be replicated in Cumbria especially given the extensive scale of turbine development in the area. Statistical evidence is also submitted of 14 seabirds killed by a turbine in Portland in six months and that Spain’s 18,000 turbines are estimated to kill between 6-18 million bats and birds per year and estimated 200,000 bats are killed in Germany and 450,000 in America by wind facilities. Report Proposal

The proposal is for the erection of two Xzeres 443sr turbines to approx 276m to north east of Brownrigg Hall Farm The turbines (12Kw), are approx. 15m to hub height and 19m to tip height with 3 blades on a 7.2 diameter rotor.

The application has been supported by an ecological, noise, environmental and archaeological assessment, design and access statement, noise report, photomontages, and supporting statement.

The supporting documents indicate that the purpose of the proposal is to provide electricity to supply the applicants farm with any surplus being passed onto the grid network

The application indicates that the installation does not require a crane pad as it is installed by a hydraulic ram into a 3m x3.5m foundation Access to the site will be via the private road serving the existing farm complex.

Site

Brownrigg hall farm is located in the open countryside approximately 2km east of Allonby, 1.6km south of Edderside and 3km west of Westnewton. Access to the farm is via a private road from the Allonby – Westnewton public highway.

Page 50 The turbines themselves are sited within a flat open agricultural grazing field centrally located in a shallow basin of a wide valley opening out into the coastal plain. The application sites field is bordered by hedgerows. T the valley slopes are located to the north with a shallow escarpment up to Edderside and a steeper valley slope on the southern side towards Hayton. There are few residential properties in the immediate locality of the site with the nearest bungalow premises at the entrance to the farms driveway belonging to the applicant, The other nearest t properties are;

With the exception of isolated dwellinghouses and farmsteads and a caravan site (1.18km) near Edderside there is little manmade structures in the immediate locality.

The site is positioned approx 1.7km from the Solway Coasts AONB and a substantial distance from the National Park boundary. The buffer zone of the Hadrian’s Wall World Heritage site is located approx m to the west of the site

At the site visit, no other turbines were visible from the site. The larger turbines of the Hellrigg turbines are visible along the coastal highway. It is understood that the windfarm approved at Westnewton on appeal will be implemented in the near future.

Assessment

Policy National planning guidance is generally supportive of renewable energy production. Renewable energy targets are now binding through the Climate Change Act 2008.

The National Planning Policy Framework has a two of its core principles:

• To take account of the different roles and character of different areas, promoting the vitality of our main urban areas, protecting the Green Belts around them, recognising the intrinsic character and beauty of the countryside and supporting thriving rural communities within it; • Support the transition to a low carbon future in a changing climate, taking full account of flood risk and coastal change, and encourage the reuse of existing resources, including conversion of existing buildings, and encourage the use of renewable resources (for example, by the development of renewable energy);

When determining planning applications for renewable energy development, local planning authorities should:

Page 51

• Not require applicants for energy development to demonstrate the overall need for renewable or low carbon energy and also recognise that even small-scale projects provide a valuable contribution to cutting greenhouse gas emissions; and • Approve the application if its impacts are (or can be made) acceptable.

At the regional level, RSS Policy EM17 encourages the installation of renewable energy generation, where certain criteria are met. The courts have determined that the government’s intention to abolish RSS through the Localism Bill remains a material consideration.

Saved policy R44 of the Joint Structure Plan states that outside the Lake District and AONB, proposals for renewable energy, including any ancillary infrastructure or buildings, will be favourably considered subject to a number of criteria relating to landscape character, biodiversity and natural and built heritage, local amenity, local economy, highways or telecommunications. Specifically for wind turbines, the policy indicates that measures should be included to secure satisfactory removal of structures /related infrastructure and remediation of land following cessation of operation of the installation. The County Council has also produced the Cumbria Wind Energy Supplementary Planning Document.

Policy EN25 of the Allerdale Local Plan restricts development within the open countryside to that which is ‘essential’ to meet a local need. No Allerdale Borough Council policies specifically relating to renewable energy have been ‘saved’. However, the NPPF does not place a specific restriction on schemes for renewable energy within the open countryside. Such schemes will often need to be located where there is the resource and where economically feasible. Although sited outside to designation of the Solway Coast’s Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty, any landscaping setting impact issues would need assessment under this policy

Needs/Benefits

The needs and benefits of the proposal are important elements in the overall planning balance. The NPPF continues to give support to all forms of renewable energy development.

Page 52 the Government’s overall strategy on sustainability and renewable energy development, as emphasized in the Energy White Paper (2007), The UK Renewable Energy Strategy (2009) the UK Energy Road Map (2011) and a significant number of other policies and commitments. The NPPF continues to give support to all forms of renewable energy development.

In order to mitigate the effects of climate change, the North West Regional Spatial Strategy (NWRSS) policy EM17 encourages the use of renewable energy development in order to achieve 15% of the electricity supplied within the Region from renewable energy sources by 2015, rising to 20% by 2020. The RSS includes indicative generation targets and for Cumbria, these are:

2010 – 237.3MW 2015 – 284.8MW 2020 – 292.4 MW

The Courts have determined that the government’s intention to abolish Regional Spatial Strategies is a material consideration. However, in the context of renewable energy development, this intention is not considered to carry significant weight, given the binding legal targets relating to carbon and greenhouse gas emissions within the Climate Change Act.

The Cumbria Renewable Energy and Deployment Study (August 2011) confirmed that the capacity of operational or consented renewable energy schemes within Cumbria totalled 285.36MW. This figure is not directly comparable to the RSS targets because the RSS specified electricity generation only; whilst the Cumbria Renewable Energy and Deployment Study considered renewable energy schemes for both power and heat. The UK Renewable Energy Strategy recognises the importance of both electricity and heat from renewable sources and seeks around 35% of electricity and heat to come from renewable and low carbon (non nuclear) sources by 2020. Of the overall figure deployed or consented within Cumbria, 70% is located within the district of Allerdale.

As such, the consented/installed capacity for power and heat from renewable energy development is considered to be substantial and to make a positive contribution to addressing climate change.

Regardless of these figures, the imperative for further renewable energy within national policy and strategy is clear. Therefore, the weight to be attached to the deployment of renewable energy is not considered to have diminished.

Whilst this scheme would make only a small contribution towards regional and national targets for the production of energy from renewable sources, it remains valuable, thus contributing to

Page 53 meeting the objectives of the Climate Change Act. Whilst the local economic benefits cannot be precisely quantified there would be some in terms of the economic benefits to this local business. Achieving the binding national targets for the proportion of energy from renewable sources and the reductions sought in greenhouse gases can only be done by an accumulation of local projects of varying scale. Thus, based solely on national performance, a need for developments of this type exists. These are material considerations that weigh significantly in the planning balance.

Landscape Impact

At 19m to tip height, the proposed turbines are considered to represent some of the smallest commercial sized turbines considered for renewable energy resources for farmsteads. The applicant has provided a range of viewpoints and wireframes and a written landscape and visual impact assessment.

No national landscape designations directly apply. Whilst officers acknowledge the proximity of the AONB, given the size of the turbines proposed it is not considered there will be any significant landscape setting impact, especially as the coastal outlook is partially shielded by the farmstead which is sited on a slight mound in the valley floor. The current amended scheme acknowledged the sensitivity of this receptor by; relocating its siting further away from the boundary (but remaining in proximity of the farm) and also reduced the number of turbines to lessen its visual impact on the landscape. The site is located within landscape classification– Ridge and Valley, but is close to landscape classification 5b – Low Farmland. Landscape classification 5a – Ridge and Valley is characterised by: • A series of ridges and valleys that rises gently toward the limestone fringes of the Lakeland Fells • Well managed regular shaped medium to large pasture fields

Landscape Character 5a, is assessed as having a moderate capacity to accommodate wind energy development (3 – 5 turbines), exceptionally a large group (6 – 9). This proposal is for a single turbine, small – medium in scale and considered in isolation, the proposed turbine fits easily within the identified capacity of the landscape. It is considered that this single turbine would not be out of scale with this expansive landscape.

Given the separation distance and the scale of the proposed turbine, the proposal is not considered to result in any significant harm on either of the national Park or AONB national landscape

Page 54 designations.

Cumulative Impact

There is no significant clutter of man-made structures within the immediate vicinity of the site.

Existing/approved wind turbine development within a 5km radius of the site includes: 4 x turbines ( 121m to tip) Hellrigg 7.65 km(north) implemented 1 x turbine ( 18m to hub) 4,3km north Tarns implemented 3 x turbine (107m to tip) approved Warwick hall We stnewton – 2.7km to the east

A number of applications within a 5 km radius are currently under consideration: 1 x turbine (m to tip) at– Edderside 1.2 km(north 1 x turbine (to hub) at– 4.6km Pelutho appeal pending

As such, there is a degree of clustering of turbine development within the wider locality. However, given the smaller scale of the proposed development in comparison to large scale commercial wind energy developments, longer range views will be limited to some degree by topography, existing buildings, woodland and so forth.

It is considered that the proposal, especially given the turbines smaller scale at a low contour level will achieve a substantial and sufficient separation distance from the majority of existing and proposed turbine development to ensure that the proposal will be seen individually are would not be seen as part of a group. The exception is likely to be the nearby turbine at Edderside, approx. m north. As this application was received latterly it is considered the cumulative impact assessment falls under the consideration of the latter application i.e any assessment should reflect turbine schemes under consideration at the time of the applications submission. However, it is considered that these two turbines would not exceed the capacity of the local landscape. The landscape will remain the dominant feature and would be described as a landscape with windfarms and not a windfarm landscape. As such, the cumulative landscape impact of the proposal is considered to be acceptable.

Visual Impact

Public views of the proposed turbine would be possible from along parts of the surrounding highway network, including the coast road and the Allonby - Westnewton highway. However due to the size of the turbines, its levels and separation distances it is considered there would not be any significant

Page 55 harmful visual impact especially as the latter highway is bordered by hedgerows. The limited visual harm is demonstrated by English Heritage accepting that there will be no harmful setting to Hadrian’s wall’s World heritage designation (including its setting. The nearest properties to the site are within the applicant’s ownership and officers consider the separation distance to the nearest independent dwelling (0.78km) would not have any significant impact. Similarly although the turbines would be visible in the flat coastal landscape from the caravan park its separation distance and the height of the turbines would also not significantly affect this receptor. The nearest settlements of Allonby and Hayton would experience longer distant views which would not be considered significant.

The nearest dwelling not related to the farm “Newton Field” is located m form the turbines. Views of the turbine from some residential properties may be possible, but given the separation distance and the scale of the turbine, it is not considered that these turbines would appear visually dominant or overbearing to residents of these properties. (Wind turbines cannot be refused on visual impact grounds simply because they can be seen, the scale and proximity must be such that the proposal would be overly dominant to the point that residential amenity is adversely affected. This is not considered to be the case in this instance.)

As such, the visual impacts of the proposal individually and cumulatively are considered to be acceptable.

Biodiversity

The proposed turbine has been sited approx. m from an existing field hedge. This conflicts with normal guidance for the siting of turbines to account for the bat foraging corridors along the hedgerow. In response to an objection to the initial desk top study on the impact of bats and the guidance from Natural England the applicant’s ecologist acknowledged the best practice guidance in Natural England’s Technical information note 051 and undertook a further bat survey in September to evaluate the extent of the impact using bat detectors. The survey was undertaken in the correct weather conditions and in accordance with current practice guidance but did not detect any bats. The report refers to a document “Experimental evidence for the effect of small wind turbine proximity and operation on bird and bat activity” which recommend they are sited at least 20m form any hedgerow (with 50m for larger turbines) The survey considers any potential foraging area relates to the hedgerow but that any bats would fly close to such habitat features. Therefore the risk to bats at this location at this site will be very low to nil.

Page 56 The ecologist does not consider the site is suitable for foraging, commuting or roosting of bats due to the lack of trees, buildings and water features which he considers contributes to the lack of any bat activity. The ecologist also refers to the bat Conservation Trusts guidance; Bat surveys good practice guidelines 2 nd edition 2012 which refers to the risks to bats and Natural England’s TIN 059 and it reference to surveys which includes “bats in the UK are at risk from wind farms, though the risk from an individual turbine is considered to be low unless sited very close to a roost. Officers consider the very detailed mitigation submitted by the applicant’s ecologist demonstrates tat there would not be any likely significant impact on birds. This is reinforced by Natural England’s response who confirms that the applicant’s mitigation evidence outweighs their practice guidance. Officers do not therefore consider this constitutes any ground for refusal of the application.

A number of objectors note the nesting/roosting of barn owls at a number of buildings within Loughery. Given the location of the turbine within an open field, the proposal will not impact directly on any barn owl nest/roost. The advice of Natural England and the RSPB has been sought as to the potential impact of the turbine on the foraging routes of this species. The RSPB has indicated that the 50m separation from field hedges applicable to bats is sufficient and Natural England has indicated that the 500m separation from the roosting locations is sufficient not to warrant further survey work.

Advice on the Barn Owl Trust website is that there is currently no evidence to suggest that wind turbines in the UK are having any effect on Barn Owls. The main reason that Barn Owls are unlikely to be affected is due to the way they forage. As hearing is the primary sense utilised, Barn Owls must fly at comparatively low altitudes in order to hear their prey, typically not more than three metres above the ground. Most wind turbine blades have a ground clearance well in excess of this. Additionally, a wind turbine does not act like a propeller. Whereas a propeller accelerates air and actually ‘pulls in' objects in front of it, a wind turbine slows the air down.

Based on this information and the advice of consultees, it is considered that the proposal is unlikely to harm bats/barn owls.

The proposal falls outside the bird sensitivity area for pink footed geese and whooper swans, species that are linked to the Solway Marshes, SPA and SAC. Although Westnewton Action Group have requested a full habitat survey on the impact on these species officer consider that by virtue of the site being sited outside the bird designated zone or any statuary ecological designation and no objections being

Page 57 received from Natural England on these species the request for any such survey would be unreasonable.

No designated ecological sites fall within 2km of the proposal.

Based on the above, it is considered unlikely that the proposal will have any significant impact on wildlife species or protected habitats.

Built Heritage

English heritage have withdrawn their original objection on any adverse impact of the development to the sting of the Hadrian’s Wall world heritage site. The site is considered to be an adequate distance from both Allonby’s and Hayton's conservation area as not to cause any significant impact on their setting (especially given the Inspectors dismissal of the council’s grounds of refusal for larger turbines at a closer distance at the windfarm appeal at Westnewton. The County Archaeologist has raised no concerns in relation to archaeological interest. The site of the turbine is a greater distance from the heritage designations specified in the earlier refused wind farm application and especially given the substantially smaller scale of the proposal to the size of the refused turbines it is considered the former refusal grounds are not applicable to the current scheme.

Noise ETSU – R – 97 The assessment and rating of noise from wind turbines, is the standard guidance document relating to wind turbines. This indicates that noise from wind turbines should be limited to: • 5dB(A) above background noise level for both day and night time • In low noise environments, daytime noise level should be limited to an absolute level within the range of 35-40dB (A) • The fixed limit for night-time is 43 dB (A) • Day and night time levels of 45 dB (A) for any related property • For single turbines or large separation distances, simplified limit of 35dB (A) up to wind speeds of 10m/s should not require background noise measurements.

The application includes some acoustic information. Environmental Health has confirmed no objection to the proposal subject to conditions. A condition is recommended that noise from the wind turbine be limited to the ETSU guidelines for the nearest noise sensitive property.

Page 58 Shadow Flicker There are no related or unrelated residential properties within 10 rotor diameters of the turbine. As such, shadow flicker is not anticipated to be significant and would not justify grounds for refusal.

As such, the proposal is considered to be acceptable in terms of potential noise and shadow flicker.

Electromagnetic Interference (EMI), Aviation and RADAR

NATS and the MoD have raised no objections to the proposal. As such, the scheme is considered acceptable in terms of aviation safety and radar. These organisations have requested notification of approval of the scheme and erection of the structures. This can be a condition of the permission.

Information has been provided from the Joint Radio Company Ltd, which confirms that the proposal should not interfere with the radio systems of the utility companies. No information has been provided in relation to TV and more general radio reception.

Given that the precise implications of the wind turbine in respect to reception is not known, a precautionary condition is suggested requiring a formal procedure for dealing with any complaints made in respect of interference, should a complaint be made.

As such, the proposal is considered to be acceptable in relation to Electromagnetic Interference (EMI),

Highway/Traffic Impact

The Companion Guide to the now withdrawn PPS22 Renewable Energy suggests a separation distance between turbines and roads or railways of the height of the turbine plus 10%, to reduce any risks from toppling or icing, (the instances of such occurrences are noted as being rare). The separation distance proposed is well in excess of this. As such, it is considered that the proposal would not adversely affect the highway in an unacceptable manner in terms of safety.

The Highways Authority has raised no objection subject to conditions requiring the road to be kept clear of mud during the construction phase and that a Traffic Management Plan be submitted for approval.

On the advice of the Highways Authority, the highway implications of the proposal are considered to be acceptable.

Public Rights of Way

Page 59

There are no footpaths within the immediate vicinity of the site.

Conclusion It is considered that the significant smaller scale of this current scheme to that of the former refused windfarm despite its proximity to national designations overcomes the former reasons for refusal

In balancing the harmful effects of the proposal, which are in the main limited to the impact on landscape and visual amenity, against the benefits arising from the promotion of renewable energy development, it is considered that the harm identified is outweighed by the benefits in this instance. The recommendation is therefore for approval subject to conditions.

Recommendation: Approved

Conditions/ 1. The development hereby permitted shall be begun before Reasons: the expiration of three years from the date of this permission . Reason: In order to comply with Section 51 of the Planning & Compulsory Purchase Act 2004 2. The development hereby permitted shall be carried out solely in accordance with the following plans: Drawing A001 Drawing A002 Drawing A003 Drawing A004 Reason: In order to comply with Section 51 and Section 91 of the Planning & Compulsory Purchase Act 2004. 3. This permission shall remain valid for a period of 25 years from the date that electricity from the development is first connected to the grid. Within 12 months of the cessation of electricity generation at the site or the expiration of this permission, whichever is the sooner, all development shall be removed and the land restored in accordance with a scheme to be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority prior to any development commencing. Reason: To ensure the satisfactory long term restoration of the site, and the removal of any non essential development in the open countryside to safeguard the visual amenity of its site and surroundings in the open countryside

4. This permission shall remain valid for a period of 25 years from the date that electricity from the development is first produced ('First Export Date'). The date of the first production of electricity shall be notified in writing to the Local Planning Authority within 28 days of the event occurring.

Page 60 Reason: To ensure that this site within open countryside is restored to an appropriate standard, in accordance with Policies EN25 and EN10 of the Allerdale Local Plan, Adopted 1999 (Saved).

5. The overall height of the wind turbines hereby approved shall not exceed 19.02m metres to the tip of the blades when the turbine is in the vertical position as measured from natural ground level immediately adjacent to the turbine base Reason: In the interests of visual amenity and for the avoidance of doubt as to what size turbine is hereby approved.

6. Prior to the erection of the turbine, details of the colour and finish shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. Development shall be carried out only in accordance with the approved details. No part of the structure shall carry any logo or lettering .

Reason: To ensure that this site within open countryside is restored to an appropriate standard, in accordance with Policies EN25 and EN10 of the Allerdale Local Plan, Adopted 1999 (Saved).

7. Prior to the erection of the first wind turbine, the developer shall provide written confirmation to the Local Planning Authority, NATS en-route plc, and the Ministry of Defence of the proposed date for commencement; the anticipated date of completion of construction, the height above ground level of the highest structure and the position of each turbine in latitude and longitude. Reason: In the interests of air safety.

8. The following background noise levels shall not be exceeded when the wind farm is in operation: a) Night time noise limits (11 p.m. to 7 a.m.) - The LA90 (10 minutes) specific noise level shall not exceed 43dB (A) when assessed and measured 3.5m from the façade of the nearest noise sensitive use, namely Newton Field (in existence at the date of this permission) or 5dB above the night time LA90 background noise level at wind speeds not exceeding 12m/s, whichever is the greater. b) Day time noise limits (7 a.m. to 11 p.m.) - The LA90 (10 minutes) specific noise level shall not exceed 40dB (A) when assessed and measured 3.5m from the façade of the nearest noise sensitive use, namely Newton Field (in existence at the date of this permission) or 5dB above the quiet day time LA90 background noise level at wind speeds not exceeding 12m/s, whichever is the greater .

Page 61 Reason: In the interests of residential amenity and in accordance with Policy EN6 of the Allerdale Local Plan Adopted 1999 (Saved).

9. In the event of a complaint being received in writing by the Local Planning Authority alleging noise nuisance at a residential property or properties due to the wind turbine, the wind turbine operator shall, at its expense, employ an independent consultant approved by the Local Planning Authority to measure and assess the level of noise emissions from the wind turbine at the location of the complainants property. The results of the independent consultant's assessment shall be provided in writing to the Local Planning Authority within three months of the date of notification of the complaint. If a breach of the noise limits specified in Condition 8 is confirmed in the assessment the operation of the turbines shall cease until the Local Planning Authority is satisfied that the turbines can operate within the noise limits specified in Condition 8. The operator of the development shall be under no obligation to follow the procedure set out in this condition where the complaint relates to a residential property more than one kilometre from the wind turbine generator. Reason: In the interests of residential amenity and in accordance with Policy EN6 of the Allerdale Local Plan Adopted 1999 (Saved).

10. In the event of a complaint being received in writing by the Local Planning Authority alleging electromagnetic interference at a residential property or properties due to the wind turbine, No development shall take place until a written scheme has been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority setting out a protocol and methodology for dealing with the assessment of shadow flicker in the event of any complaint. The protocol and methodology shall include remedial measures to be taken to alleviate any identified occurrence of shadow flicker. Operation of the turbines shall take place in accordance with the agreed protocol and methodology. Reason: To minimise the risk of shadow flicker from the development affecting the occupiers of any residential dwellinghouses in the locality of the site.

11. Before any development commences, a scheme for traffic management for the construction and decommissioning phases of the development, shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The traffic management scheme shall include any works

Page 62 necessary to the highway and wheel cleaning arrangements to ensure that the public highway is kept clean of any mud or debris from the site. The construction and decommissioning phases shall be completed in accordance with the approved scheme . Reason:In the interests of highway safety.

Reasons for Approval

The decision to grant planning permission has been taken having regard to the Development Plan, any comments from consultees (including statutory consultees) and any responses from third parties. The decision was taken having regard to relevant planning policy and it was considered that the proposal was acceptable having regard to the national, strategic and local plan policies, supplementary planning guidance/documents and design guidance (set out below) and when taking all other material planning considerations into account. It was considered that there is not a demonstrable harm to interests of acknowledged importance caused by the development that justifies withholding permission.

Proactive Statement Application Approved Without Amendment

The Local Planning Authority has acted positively and proactively in determining this application by assessing the proposal against all material considerations, including planning policies and any stakeholder representations that may have been received and subsequently determining to grant planning permission in accordance with the presumption in favour of sustainable development, as set out within the National Planning Policy Framework.

Notes to Applicant:

Page 63 Page 64

Agenda Item 7

Allerdale Borough Council

2/2012/0898

Reference No: 2/2012/0898 Received: 19 November 2012 Proposed Erection of 5 terraced houses Development: Location: Former Carrs Coaches Garage Waver Street Silloth Wigton Applicant: Frank Scott Builders Ltd

Dr awing Numbers: FSCOTT-06 - Site Location Plan FSCOTT-01 - Ground Floor Plan FSCOTT-02 - First Floor Plan FSCOTT-03 - Elevations FSCOTT-04 - Garage Details and End Elevation FSCOTT-05 - Block Plan Email received 30 January 2013

Constraints: Settlement Limit HS5 314, Housing Land Availability ., Hadrians Wall Setting,CO24 Conservation Area:,SILLOTH CZ1-CZ6 ASCA Area ASCA Area Adv Control Exclusion - Silloth

Policies: Allerdale Local Plan, Adopted 1999 (Saved) Policy CO3 - New buildings in Conservation Areas Policy CO13 - The setting of a Conservation Area Policy CO18 - Setting of a Listed building Policy CO24 - Protection of setting of Hadrians Wall Policy EN1 - Minimising Travel Policy EN3 - Landscaping Policy EN6 - Location of potentially polluting development Policy EN9 - Contaminated/Derelict Land Policy EN14 - Safeguarding Water Environment Policy EN32 - Protecting wildlife protected by law Policy HS5 - New housing in settlements Policy TR6 - Car parking guidlines

Allerdale Local Plan First Alteration, June 2006 (Saved)

Page 65 Policy HS8 - Housing design Policy HS9 - Infrastructure requirements for housing

North West Regional Spacial Strategy to 2021 Policy DP2 - Promote sustainable communities Policy DP5 - Manage travel demand, reduce the need to travel and increase accessibility Policy DP7 - Promote environmental quality

National Planning Policy Framework

Relevant Planning 2/1997/0046 Outline application for residential development – History: Approved.

2/1992/0309 Outline application for residential development – Approved.

Representations: Town Council – Approve.

Cumbria Highways – No objections subject to conditions.

Environmental Health – No objections subject to conditions.

County Archaeologist – No objections.

Natural England – No objections.

English Heritage – Do not wish to comment in detail.

Fire Officer – No reply to date.

Housing Services – No comment to make.

Cumbria Wildlife Trust – No reply to date.

The application has been advertised on site and in the local paper. Adjoining owners have been notified.

1 letter of objection has been received. The concerns are:

• There is not enough space between the proposed end terrace house and the existing adjoining dwellings.

• The guest parking area appears to be right up to the boundary wall of No. 4 Waver Street, leaving little space from our existing gate. • The guest parking area is where everyone places their bins for collection.

A further letter has been received which supports the principle of

Page 66 the application but raises concern with regard to the metre erosion of the back lane.

1 letter of support has been received.

Report Planning permission is sought for erection of 5 terraced houses, Former Carrs Coaches Garage, Waver Street, Silloth, Wigton.

Site and Surrounding Area

The proposed application site is currently vacant and cleared, previously being the site of Carrs Coaches. The site lies to the north of Silloth town centre, within defined settlement limits and in the Conservation Area fronting Waver Street. Residential properties lie to the north, south and west and Silloth Social Club to the east. The site area is approx 0.106 ha. The land is level with an unadopted back lane to the rear separating the terraces with access to it both from Waver Street and Caldew Street.

Proposal

The application is for detailed consent for the erection of five terraced houses on the cleared site of the Former Carrs Coaches. The site lies within the settlement limit for Silloth and is considered to be a previously developed site.

The application seeks approval for 5 x3 bedroom, two storey dwellings in the form of a terraced which will front Waver Street. The properties will have a living room, kitchen/diner and sunroom at ground floor with three bedrooms and a bathroom at first floor level. Each will have a small garden to the front with a larger garden to the rear and a single garage erected in each.

The site has had several outline application approvals for housing development, which are no longer extant.

Policy

The site is considered to be in accordance with the recently adopted National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) which emphasises under paragraph 14 that there is a presumption in favour of sustainable development. In particular this development is supported by Chapter 6 which seeks to deliver a wide choice of high quality homes.

The National Policy Framework (NPPF) would support the policies relevant to this development within the Allerdale Local Plan and regional spatial strategy in terms of housing development and design.

Page 67 Five Year land Supply

A key objective of the NPPF is to deliver a wide choice of high quality homes.

Notwithstanding recent planning permissions at Stainburn and Clifton, and including the appeal decision relating to ‘The Fitz’ at Cockermouth. Allerdale does not have a 5 year supply of housing land. This is based on the requirements of Policy L4 of the North West of England Plan Regional Spatial Strategy to 2021 (RSS) which, at present, remains part of the Development Plan. Based on past delivery rates it is also necessary to take into account the need to provide an additional buffer of 20% as required by the NPPF.

Assessment

The application site is a previously developed site that lies within the settlement limit for Silloth, as such the principle of residential development is considered acceptable.

The proposed materials would be facing brickwork (red/brown) for the walls, Spanish slate roof tiles (as approved on Queen Street Court opposite) with double glazed sliding sash white uPVC windows and composite doors. Albeit some of these materials are modern they adopt traditional design details and are considered to be similar to other existing dwellings on this streetscene. Therefore overall, especially given the derelict appearance of the site, it will preserve and enhance the character of the conservation area.

The proposed terrace is sited back from the footpath and follows the existing line set by the adjacent property No. 4 Waver Street. The end terraced (unit 1) is sited 0.6m from the boundary with this property and 6.2 metres from the dwelling itself. Officers consider this to be of sufficient distance. A single bathroom window is proposed in the west elevation overlooking the garden area. Officers consider it would be appropriate to add a condition restricting this opening to obscure glazing, level 5 to remove any over looking issues.

Designations

Page 68 The proposal lies within Silloth Conservation Area and a World Heritage Site. The terraced houses to the west of the site are all Grade II Listed Buildings as are some of the properties opposite the site.

The applicant has submitted a Heritage Statement with the application that describes the significance of any heritage assets affected by the proposal. The assessment concludes that the proposal has a sympathetic affect on the Conservation Area in terms of scale, character and materials. The proposal can also be seen to enhance this part of the conservation area where it did not have a particularly strong traditional character in terms of the previous garage on site.

Officers concur with the details in heritage statement and consider the design, siting and scale of the proposal will enhance the Conservation Area with no significant impacts on any heritage assets.

Parking/highways

A single storey garage will be erected in the rear garden of each property to provide some off-road parking. Access to these will be via the rear lane with an access created between the end terrace and Silloth Social Club. A further three visitors parking space is proposed to the rear west of the site.

The ownership of the back lane in unknown with no records held by land registry, therefore the applicant has completed certificate C and advertised the proposal in the local paper to try to identify any owners of this section of the application site. The existing lane is 3.2 m in width and is currently in a poor state of repair with pot holes. The applicant is proposing to widen the width of the lane to 4.6 m at the narrowest point and 5.6 metres at the widest.

The applicant is making no legal claim to the back lane and existing rights of way access over this lane will remain.

The Highways Authority raise no objections to the proposal subject to appropriate conditions being attached.

Officers consider the use of this existing lane for vehicular access to the garages is acceptable, while providing an improved level of construction for the lane. Many existing properties within Silloth use the back lanes to access garages or parking within their curtilage due to restricted parking available on street.

Flood risk/drainage

The development will be drained via foul sewerage to the mains

Page 69 sewer and surface water via soakaway. These forms of drainage are considered acceptable.

Contamination issues

A Phase 1 Desk Top Study Report has been submitted with the application. Environmental Health has no objections to the application on contamination grounds, however they have recommended conditions be attached to the approval requiring investigation and remediation in terms of protecting human health. Subject to inclusion of appropriate conditions the proposal is considered acceptable with regard to Policy EN9.

Archaeology

The County Archaeologist has raised no objections to the proposal and no conditions are recommended.

Neighbour comments

The letters and grounds of objection are noted. The outstanding grounds not addressed in the report are addressed as follows:

• The area where the current bins are stored is not a designated bin collection area. The bins should be stored within individual curtilages and left on the street for collection on refuge day. Therefore the loss of this area for storage of refuse bins is not considered a material planning consideration.

• The obstruction of the rear access gate to Number 4 Waver Street would be a private matter to be discussed by the applicant and owner of the property.

Local Financial Considerations

Were the application to be approved and the dwellings occupied, the development would also attract ‘New Homes Bonus’, where the government will make a payment to the Council to the same value as the council tax raised for net additional new homes and empty properties brought back into use, (with an additional amount for affordable homes), for the following six years, however this has been accorded little weight in assessing the merits of this proposal.

Page 70

Conclusion

The site is considered to achieve a satisfactory relationship with the built environment within defined settlement limits. It has been demonstrated that the proposal can be achieved without resulting in a significant detrimental effect to the heritage assets in this area, complying with local and national planning policies. Approval is recommended subject to conditions.

Recommendation: Approved

2. The development hereby permitted shall be carried out solely in accordance with the following plans: FSCOTT-06 - Site Location Plan FSCOTT-01 - Ground Floor Plan FSCOTT-02 - First Floor Plan FSCOTT-03 - Elevations FSCOTT-04 - Garage Details and End Elevation FSCOTT-05 - Block Plan Email received 30 January 2013 Reason: In order to comply with Section 51 and Section 91 of the Planning & Compulsory Purchase Act 2004.

3. No development approved by this permission shall commence until a desktop study has been submitted to and approved by the Local Planning Authority. Should the preliminary risk assessment identify any potential contamination which may affect human health, controlled waters or the wider environment, all necessary site investigation works within the site boundary must be carried out to establish the degree and nature of the contamination and its potential to pollute the environment or cause harm to human health. The scope of works for the site investigations should be agreed with the Local Planning Authority prior to their commencement. Reason: To minimise any risk arising from any possible contamination from the development to the local environment in compliance with Policy EN9 of the Allerdale Local Plan (Saved).

Page 71 4. Should land affected by contamination be identified under the desk top study under condition 3 is found which poses unacceptable risks to human health, controlled waters or the wider environment, no development shall take place until a detailed remediation scheme has been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The scheme must include an appraisal of remediation options, identification of the preferred option(s), the proposed remediation objectives and remediation criteria, and a description and programme of the works to be undertaken including the verification plan. Reason: To minimise any risk arising from any possible contamination from the development to the local environment in compliance with Policy EN9 of the Allerdale Local Plan (Saved).

5. Should a contamination remediation scheme be required under condition 4, the approved strategy shall be implemented and a verification report submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority, prior to the development (or relevant phase of development) being brought into use. Reason: To minimise any risk arising from any possible contamination from the development to the local environment in compliance with Policy EN9 of the Allerdale Local Plan (Saved).

6. In the event that contamination is found at any time when carrying out the approved development that was not previously identified it must be reported immediately to the Local Planning Authority. Development on the part of the site affected must be halted and a risk assessment carried out and submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. Where unacceptable risks are found remediation and verification schemes shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. These shall be implemented prior to the development (or relevant phase of development) being brought into use. All works shall be undertaken in accordance with current UK guidance, particularly CLR11. Reason: To minimise any risk arising from any possible contamination from the development to the local environment in compliance with Policy EN9 of the Allerdale Local Plan (Saved).

7. No development shall take place until a Construction and Demolition Method Statement has been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The

Page 72 statement shall include the following: (a) Traffic Management Plan to include all traffic associated with the development, including site and staff traffic; (b) Procedure to monitor and mitigate noise and vibration from the construction and demolition and to monitor any properties at risk of damage from vibration, as well as taking into account noise from vehicles, deliveries. All measurements should make reference to BS7445. (c) Mitigation measures to reduce adverse impacts on residential properties from construction compounds including visual impact, noise, and light pollution. (d) Mitigation measures to ensure that no harm is caused to protected species during construction. (e) A written procedure for dealing with complaints regarding the construction or demolition; (f) Measures to control the emissions of dust and dirt during construction and demolition; (g) Programme of work for Demolition and Construction phase; (h) Hours of working and deliveries; (i) Details of lighting to be used on site. The approved statement shall be adhered to throughout the duration of the development. Reason: In the interests of the amenity of the occupiers of neighbouring properties, in compliance with Policy EN6 of the Allerdale Local Plan, Adopted 1999 (Saved).

8. The vehicular crossing over footway, including the lowering of kerbs, shall be carried out to the specificcation of the Local Planning Authority in consultation with the Highways Authority. Reason: To ensure a suitable standard of crossing for pedestrian safety.

9. Details of all measures to be taken by the applicant/developer to prevent surface water discharging onto or off the highway 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 operational at all times thereafter. Reason: In the interests of highway safety and environmental management.

10. The footways shown on drawing no FSCOTT-05 shall be provided that limk continuously and conveniently to the nearest existing footway. The footway details to be

Page 73 agreed prior to construction starting on site and the footway to be in place prior to occupation of the first dwelling hereby permitted. Reason: To ensure a suitable standard of pedestrian links.

11. Before any development takes place, a plan shall be submitted for the prior approval of the Local Planning Authority reserving adequate land for the parking of vehicles engaged in the construction operations associated with the development hereby approved, and that land, including vehicular access thereto, shall be used for or be kept available for these purposes at all times until the completion of the construction works. Reason: The carrying out of this development without the provision of these facilities during the construction work is likely to lead to inconvenience and danger to road users.

12. No part of the development hereby permitted shall be commenced until details and representative samples of all external and roofing materials have been submitted to and approved by the Local Planning Authority. The materials so approved shall be used in the development as approved. Reason: To ensure a satisfactory standard of development which is compatible with the character of the surrounding area, in compliance with Policy HS8 of the Allerdale Local Plan, First Alterations June 2006 (Saved).

13. Details of the siting, height and type of all means of enclosure/screen walls/fences/other means of enclosure shall be submitted to and approved by the Local Planning Authority before development commences. Any such walls/fences etc shall be constructed prior to the approved building being brought into use/occupied. All means of enclosure so constructed shall be retained and no part thereof shall be removed without the prior consent of the Local Planning Authority. Reason: To ensure a satisfactory standard of development which is compatible with the character of the surrounding area and safeguard the amenity of neighbouring properties.

14. The proposed window at first floor level in the west elevation shall be fixed glazing with no less than level 5 obscure glazing. The glazing shall be sitted prior to occupation of unit 1 and shall be retained at all times thereafter. Reason: To safeguard the residential amenity of the occupiers of the neighbouring dwellinghouse, in compliance with policy HS8 of the Allerdale Local Plan, First Alteration, June 2006 (Saved).

Page 74

Reasons for Approval

The decision to grant planning permission has been taken having regard to the Development Plan, any comments from consultees (including statutory consultees) and any responses from third parties. The decision was taken having regard to relevant planning policy and it was considered that the proposal was acceptable having regard to the national, strategic and local plan policies, supplementary planning guidance/documents and design guidance (set out below) and when taking all other material planning considerations into account. It was considered that there is not a demonstrable harm to interests of acknowledged importance caused by the development that justifies withholding permission.

Allerdale Local Plan, Adopted 1999 (Saved) Policy CO3 - New buildings in Conservation Areas Policy CO13 - The setting of a Conservation Area Policy CO18 - Setting of a Listed building Policy CO24 - Protection of setting of Hadrians Wall Policy EN1 - Minimising Travel Policy EN3 - Landscaping Policy EN6 - Location of potentially polluting development Policy EN9 - Contaminated/Derelict Land Policy EN14 - Safeguarding Water Environment Policy EN32 - Protecting wildlife protected by law Policy HS5 - New housing in settlements Policy TR6 - Car parking guidlines

Allerdale Local Plan First Alteration, June 2006 (Saved) Policy HS8 - Housing design Policy HS9 - Infrastructure requirements for housing

National Planning Policy Framework

Proactive Statement

The Local Planning Authority has acted positively and proactively in determining this application by identifying planning policies, constraints, stakeholder representations and matters of concern within the application (as originally submitted) and where appropriate negotiating, with the Applicant, acceptable amendments and solutions to the proposal to address those concerns. As a result, the Local Planning Authority has been able to grant planning permission for an acceptable proposal, in accordance with the presumption in favour of sustainable development, as set out within the National Planning Policy Framework.

Page 75 Notes to The applicant should be aware that the recommendations in S6 of Applicant: the Phase 1 desk study do NOT provide sufficient detail on the site investigation proposals.

Page 76 Page 77

This page is intentionally left blank

Page 78 Agenda Item 8

Allerdale Borough Council

2/2012/0799

Reference No: 2/2012/0799 Received: 29 August 2012 Proposed Outline application for a residential dwelling Development: Location: Land adjacent to Strawberry How Cattery Strawberry How Cockermouth Applicant: Mr & Mrs Craine The Cockermouth Post

Drawing Numbers: 12.2140.01a - Proposed Block Plan PB1 - Site Location Plan PB1a - Site Location Plan (as amended 13th December 2012) PB1b - Site Location Plan (as amended 22nd January 2013)

Constraints:

Policies: National Planning Policy Framework

Allerdale Local Plan, Adopted 1999 (Saved) Policy CEM3 - Business allocation, Strawberry How Road Policy HS5 - New housing in settlements

Allerdale Local Plan First Alteration, June 2006 (Saved) Policy HS8 - Housing design Policy HS9 - Infrastructure requirements for housing

Local Finance Section 70 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 (as Considerations: amended) provides that local finance considerations may be a material consideration to a planning application. Where financial matters are considered, it is necessary to clarify how financial considerations have impacted on the decision, and why.

Were the application to be approved and the dwellings occupied, the development would also attract ‘New Homes Bonus’, where the government will make a payment to the Council to the same value as the council tax raised for net additional new homes and empty properties brought back into use, (with an additional amount for affordable homes), for the following six years, however this has not been the overriding consideration in assessing the merits of this proposal.

Page 79

Relevant Planning 2/2009/0749 – Erection of single dwelling house on Land at History: Strawberry How, Lorton Road, Cockermouth REFUSED 27/01/10

2/2011/0200 – Revised dwelling type on Land at Strawberry How, Lorton Road, Cockermouth APPROVED 18/05/11

Representations: Town Council – Recommend approval

Highways - No objections but suggest condition relating to construction and drainage as this proposal is served off a private road.

Environmental Health – No objections

Fire Officer – No comment to date

United Utilities - Originally objected to the proposal pending submission of a flow and load impact assessment. Upon submission of the requested information, United Utilities raise no objections subject to condition.

The application has been advertised on site and in the press as a departure. Neighbouring properties have been notified.

Eight letters of support have been received relating to the proposal commenting that: • They would have no problem with the land being used for a residential dwelling. • The proposal would have no detrimental effect upon the area and would enhance and tidy the area. • Use of this piece of land would be a good addition to the area. • There has already been a house built opposite within the last 12 months.

Four letters of objection have been received relating to the proposal commenting that: • United Utilities would not allow connection to the main sewer for the disposal of foul sewerage within the Cockermouth area. • There are already problems with surface water drainage caused by development at adjacent sites. The run off leads down to Strawberry Howe Road which can cause flooding problems to this busy highway. Other sites have has to use private attenuation tanks to deal with surface water. A soakaway would not be possible. • The surface water drainage to Strawberry Howe Road and the private road serving the rugby club are already at capacity evidenced by flooding at times of heavy rain.

Page 80 • The owners of the road state that connection to the public sewer would not be possible as the whole of the surface water drainage along the private road is attenuated to which further connection could not be made. • The plan shows parking but no turning which means cars would have to reverse onto the very busy and narrow road creating safety problems. • Cannot see how the turning area can be constructed with the amount of retaining structure required. • Owners of the access road cite safety concerns regarding the site access and proximity to the Grayson Close junction as well as the safety issues which may impact upon times of heavy use at drop off and collection times for the nearby nursery, West House and Rugby Club. • The applicants do not own all of the land indicated on the planning application. • The block plan boundary line is different to that of the location plan which leads to questions over the ownership of the site and gives concerns that there is not enough land for the house and infrastructure to be built. • Impact Housing have not been consulted and it is their shared ownership dwellings and owners that the road gives access to. • There are deficiencies in the block plan in that it does not show the highway verge adjacent, does not include the junction at the Grayson Close development and does not show Apple Tree House. • The distance of the boundaries from adjacent buildings differs between the block plan and the location plan. • There are differing lines in relation to the road and parking area between the block plan and the location plan.

One letter has been received raising no objections to the proposal.

A further response has been received raising no objections to the proposal but citing concerns that: • The development should only be single storey. • There is already restricted parking around the site with visitors having to park on the street which would also be the case for the proposed development. • Vehicular access could cause problems given the existing junctions in the locality, especially during peak times. Suggest a turning area be incorporated. • The road drainage system in existence cannot cope with the volume of surface water leading to run off onto Strawberry Howe Road. In freezing conditions this can cause a safety risk.

Report Policy

Page 81

The proposal involves the creation of a residential dwelling within a defined settlement limit. The application is therefore subject to Chapter 6 of the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF). This outlines how housing applications should be considered in the context of the presumption in favour of sustainable development. It also stipulates that planning applications should be approved for housing in place of B use classes unless there are strong economic reasons why such development would be inappropriate.

Policies HS5 of the Allerdale Local Plan and policies HS8 and HS9 of the Allerdale Local Plan 1 st Alteration are not in conflict with the guidance of the NPPF. It is therefore considered appropriate to continue to apply some weight to these.

Assessment

Outline planning permission is sought for residential development at land adjacent to Strawberry How Cattery, Strawberry How, Cockermouth.

The site lies to the east of Cockermouth settlement. The site is within the defined development limits and is currently allocated within the Allerdale Local Plan for business use under Policy CEM3.

The application site comprises a triangular section of unused land currently accessed via a private road. The private road slopes down in a northern direction, leading onto the main highway of Strawberry How Road. The site is elevated to the main highway and the adjacent building to the north, which is currently used as a cattery. The site is bounded to the east by agricultural land. To the west of the site and the private road are the recent residential estate of Grayson Close and associated estate road, detached dwelling houses and commercial units.

Proposal

The applicant seeks outline planning consent for residential development with all matters reserved except access and layout. It has been indicated that the development would comprise of one single storey unit with parking and amenity space. The applicant proposes to level the site prior to construction, removing excess earth and securing retaining walls to the south and potentially east of the site. It has not been stipulated how the existing retaining wall between the site and the adjacent cattery would be affected.

Business Allocation

The site forms part of an allocation for business use under Policy

Page 82 CEM3 of the Allerdale Local Plan (saved). The proposal is therefore being considered as a departure from the Local Plan. Other sites within this allocation have since been developed for residential purposes.

Planning application 2/2009/0749 sought consent for a single dwelling house on land at Strawberry How, Lorton Road, Cockermouth. The site was situated to the west of the private road leading from Strawberry How Road, allocated under CEM3 for business use. The application was refused as the proposal was deemed to constitute over development of the site and there was insufficient evidence to justify the loss of the plot for business use.

A subsequent planning appeal found that the site did not provide material strategic importance in employment land provision in the locality. It was acknowledged that part of the allocated employment site had been previously developed for housing now developed and known as Grayson Close and that there are other alternative locations for employment uses which are likely to be more attractive to businesses. Development of housing on this particular site therefore would not conflict with Policy CEM3 of the Allerdale Local Plan.

The appeal was dismissed on the grounds of the particulars of the proposal rather than the alternative use of the site proposed. Permission was later granted under 2/2011/0200 following amendments to the particulars of the proposal and bearing in mind that the loss of business use for the site had been dismissed as a reason for refusal under the previous appeal.

Given the inspectors findings on the appeal at the adjacent site, and that other plots falling within this allocation have been developed for alternative use rather than the allocated business use, the proposed use outside the allocation under Policy CEM3 is accepted.

Ownership

Objections have been received in response to the application on the basis that the applicants do not own all of the application land. This appears to have been caused, in part, by discrepancies between the original location plan and block plan as submitted which demonstrated differing boundaries around the perimeter of the site.

The applicant has since submitted an amended location plan with accompanying title deeds demonstrating that the applicants are the owner of the site and the adjacent land to the north.

Page 83 Highways

The proposed block plan demonstrates that the site would include provision for two parking spaces. The Highways Department have raised no objections to the proposal, as the development does not affect the highway. They have suggested that the Local Planning Authority may wish to suitably condition the construction and drainage.

It is noted that the access connects to a private road. However, this road slopes down in a northerly direction to the main highway of Strawberry How Road. The Local Planning Authority would therefore seek to impose conditions to ensure the highway and driveway is of a suitable construction so as not to adversely affect the standards of this highway and the other users of the private road. The issue of gaining access along this route which is in differing ownership is a legal rather than planning consideration and the grant of planning consent would not overrule any legal restrictions relating to the site.

Objections have been raised to the development citing concerns over the use of the existing private road for reversing out of the site and for parking. Objectors indicate that the road is quite narrow and can become busy at drop off and collection times. They also raise safety issues over the proximity of the access to the junction of Grayson Close.

The access point offers adequate visibility to be able to view traffic coming both ways. It was noted that there are no markings to restrict parking along the private road at present. However, the road would not accommodate parked cars to both sides of the road therefore on street parking is already restricted to some extent already. It is not anticipated that the proposal would significantly alter this situation.

Given that the visibility at the access point is acceptable to view traffic approaching from both directions and that the applicants propose to incorporate two off street parking places, the highways conditions are considered suitable to accommodate a single dwelling house.

Drainage

The applicants initially proposed to discharge the surface water to soakaway with the disposal method for foul sewage unknown. The desk top study submitted alongside the application indicated that soakaway as a disposal method would not be viable.

United Utilities originally objected to the application, pending the submission of a flow and load impact assessment. Further

Page 84 information on the disposal of foul waste and surface water was requested from the applicant as well as the required flow and load impact assessment.

The requested impact assessment was subsequently submitted, indicating that the applicants intended to dispose of foul sewage via the public sewer, and that surface water would be attenuated via over sized pipe work and use of on site water butts. The residual surface water flow would then overflow to the public combined sewer.

United Utilities have raised no objections to this proposal subject to conditions.

Disposal of the foul sewage via the public sewer in agreement with United Utilities and the on site method of surface water disposal therefore alleviates the objections and concerns of nearby residents. United Utilities accept the overflow of surface water from the site which is considered a suitable method of disposal.

Contamination

A desk top study has been submitted with the application demonstrating that the site represents very low geotechnical risk posing negligible risk to the proposed end users and adjacent sites. It also states that there is a negligible level of risk from ground gas. The report concludes to recommend that a Phase 2 Ground Investigation Works/ Report is not required.

The Environmental Health Department raise no objections to the proposal.

Scale and Design

The application is offered in outline format only therefore the scale and design of the proposed residential unit are still to be determined. The applicant has indicated, however, that the unit proposed would be single storey only and that materials would reflect those of surrounding properties. Suitable conditions are suggested to ensure the proposed development is appropriate.

The applicant also proposes to level off the site prior to development, removing excess earth and securing the land through the use of retaining walls to the south and potentially the east. They consider that this would ensure the property is well screened from the open fields to the east and that the property would not dominate the street scenes. Conditions are suggested to ensure these works are appropriate so as to avoid any adverse impact upon the visual amenity of the area and the residential amenity of adjacent properties.

Page 85

Given the limited space available to the site and that the land levels are still to be determined, a condition would also be imposed to restrict future developments and alterations upon the site.

Summary

The use of the site contrary to Policy CEM3 of the Allerdale Local Plan is accepted given previous developments which have taken place upon adjacent sites and the comments from a recent planning appeal upon alternative uses for the site.

The applicant has demonstrated that the property and off street parking can be accommodated upon the limited plot. Access and parking arrangements are satisfactory. It has also been shown that adequate drainage can be achieved in agreement with United Utilities.

Taking all of the above into account it is considered that the proposal would accord with the requirements of Policy HS5 of the Allerdale Local Plan, Policies HS5 and HS9 of the Allerdale Local Plan 1 st alteration and the National Planning Policy Framework. The application is therefore recommended for approval under current policy guidelines.

Recommendation: Approved

Conditions/ 1. Approval of details of the scale and appearance of the Reasons: building(s) and the landscaping of the site (thereafter called the 'reserved matters') shall be obtained in writing from the Local Planning Authority before the development is commenced. Reason: To enable the Local Planning Authority to assess all the details of the development.

2. The development hereby permitted shall be carried out in accordance with the following plans: 12.2140.01a - Proposed Block Plan PB1b - Site Location Plan (as amended 22nd January 2013) Reason: In order to ensure a satisfactory standard of development.

3. The submission of all reserved matters applications shall be made no later than the expiration of 3 years beginning with the date of this permission and the development shall begin no later than whichever is the later of the following dates:

Page 86 a) The expiration of three years from the date of the grant of this permission, or b) The expiration of two years from the final approval of the 'reserved matters' or, in the case of approval on different dates, the final approval of the last such matter to be approved. Reason: In order to comply with Section 51 of the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004.

4. Any application for 'reserved matters' shall include plans showing the following: a. Cross sections through the site; b. Details of existing and proposed ground levels; c. Proposed finished floor levels of buildings; d. Levels of any paths, drives, garages and parking areas; and the development shall be carried out in accordance with the details so approved. Reason: To ensure that the works are carried out to a suitable level in relation to the adjoining properties and highways and in the interests of visual amenity.

5. The details required by the 'reserved matters' details shall relate to the development of a single storey dwelling. Reason: It is considered this is the most appropriate in this location taking into account the site conditions/character of the surrounding area, in compliance with Policy HS8 of the Allerdale Local Plan, First Alteration June 2006 (Saved).

6. Prior to the commencement of works details of the access road, including construction, surface and drainage details shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The works shall be implemented solely in accordance with the approved details prior to the occupation of the dwellinghouse hereby approved. Reason: To ensure a satisfactory standard of development and in the interests of highway safety.

7. The dwelling/land use hereby approved shall not be occupied until the vehicular access, parking and turning requirements have been constructed in accordance with the approved plan and have been brought into use. The vehicular access, parking and turning provisions shall be retained and capable of use at all times thereafter and shall not be removed or altered without the prior consent of the Local Planning Authority. Reason: To ensure a minimum standard of access, parking and turning provision when the development is brought into

Page 87 use.

8. Details of the siting, height and type of all means of enclosure/screen walls/fences/other means of enclosure shall be submitted to and approved by the Local Planning Authority before development commences. Any such walls/fences etc shall be constructed prior to the approved building being brought into use/occupied. All means of enclosure so constructed shall be retained and no part thereof shall be removed without the prior consent of the Local Planning Authority. Reason: To ensure a satisfactory standard of development which is compatible with the character of the surrounding area.

9. Notwithstanding the provisions of the Town and Country Planning (General Permitted Development) Order 2008 (or in any Statutory Instrument revoking or re-enacting that Order with or without modification) no development falling within Classes A, B C, D, E, F, G or H of the Schedule of the said Order shall be carried out without the prior written permission of the Local Planning Authority upon an application submitted to it. Reason: The Local Planning Authority wishes to retain control over any proposed alterations/extensions in the interests of the appearance of the site and safeguard the amenities of adjacent properties.

10. The development hereby permitted shall not be commenced until details for how foul and surface water shall be drained on a separate system has been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The drainage scheme submitted for approval shall be in accordance with the 'report on the organic and hydraulic loadings' dated 12th December 2012 proposing surface water runoff from the roof be attenuated into oversized pipeworks and water butts with overflow pipes connecting to the main sewer and proposing permeable materials at access drive and parking areas. Details shall include information relating to the maintenance and management of the system. No part of the development shall be occupied until the drainage scheme has been constructed in accordance with the approved details. The development shall be completed, maintained and managed in accordance with the approved details. Reason: To enable a satisfactory means of drainage, in compliance with Policy HS9 of the Allerdale Local Plan, First Alterations June 2006 (Saved).

Page 88

Reasons for Approval

The decision to grant planning permission has been taken having regard to the Development Plan, any comments from consultees (including statutory consultees) and any responses from third parties. The decision was taken having regard to relevant planning policy and it was considered that the proposal was acceptable having regard to the national, strategic and local plan policies, supplementary planning guidance/documents and design guidance (set out below) and when taking all other material planning considerations into account. It was considered that there is not a demonstrable harm to interests of acknowledged importance caused by the development that justifies withholding permission.

National Planning Policy Framework

Allerdale Local Plan, Adopted 1999 (Saved) Policy CEM3 - Business allocation, Strawberry How Road Policy HS5 - New housing in settlements

Allerdale Local Plan First Alteration, June 2006 (Saved) Policy HS8 - Housing design Policy HS9 - Infrastructure requirements for housing

Proactive Statement

The Local Planning Authority has acted positively and proactively in determining this application by identifying planning policies, constraints, stakeholder representations and matters of concern within the application (as originally submitted) and where appropriate negotiating, with the Applicant, acceptable amendments and solutions to the proposal to address those concerns. As a result, the Local Planning Authority has been able to grant planning permission for an acceptable proposal, in accordance with the presumption in favour of sustainable development, as set out within the National Planning Policy Framework.

Notes to Applicant:

Page 89 Page 90

Agenda Item 9

Allerdale Borough Council

2/2012/9011

Reference No: 02/2012/9011 Received: 30 October 2012 Proposed Erection and operation of 4 wind turbines to maximum height of 99 Development: metres and associated infrastructure. New access track, widening of access gate and new control kiosk. Location: Lillyhall Landfill Site Joseph Noble Road Lillyhall Industrial Estate Workington Applicant: Mr Matthew Hayes FCC Environment

Drawing Numbers:

Constraints: British Coal Area Adv Control Exclusion - Winscales

Policies: National Planning Policy Framework

North West Regional Spatial Strategy Policy DP7 - Promote environmental quality Policy EM17 - Renewable Energy

Cumbria and Lake District Joint Structure Plan Policy E38 - Historic environment Policy R44 - Renewable energy outside the Lake District National Park and AONBs

Allerdale Local Plan Policy EM17 - Consultation on overhead lines, Allerdale Local Plan, Adopted 1999 (Saved) Policy CO18 - Setting of a Listed building, Allerdale Local Plan, Adopted 1999 (Saved) Policy EN10 - Restoration, after uses cease, Allerdale Local Plan, Adopted 1999 (Saved) Policy EN19 - Landscape Protection, Allerdale Local Plan, Adopted 1999 (Saved) Policy EN24 - Protecting Historic Parks and gardens, Allerdale Local Plan, Adopted 1999 (Saved) Policy EN25 - Protecting the open countryside, Allerdale Local Plan, Adopted 1999 (Saved)

Page 91 Policy EN32 - Protecting wildlife protected by law, Allerdale Local Plan, Adopted 1999 (Saved) Policy EN5 - Pollution Control, Allerdale Local Plan, Adopted 1999 (Saved) Policy EN6 - Location of potentially polluting development, Allerdale Local Plan, Adopted 1999 (Saved)

Report Introduction Member may recollect that this application was deferred at the last development Panel meeting... The deferral followed a challenge to the County Council as to whether they constituted the correct determining local planning authority for this renewable energy development i.e does it constitute a County matter. This matter is the subject of detailed discussions with the County councils legal and planning officers to verify this issue. An update will be provided at the Panel meeting. The County Council has consulted this Council on a County Matter application for 4 wind turbines at the Lillyhall landfill site. (The submission of a report was delayed to enable additional important outstanding evidence to be submitted by the applicant.)

Although the site itself has not been disturbed by the landfill operations the County Council’s legal and planning officers are of the opinion that the proposal constitutes a County Matter by virtue of it being sited within the red line of the application site for the landfill and its area is affected by the restoration scheme associated with the landfill operations

The Proposal

The proposal comprises 4 three bladed turbines (64m hub height, 99m tip height with a 70 m diameter rotor) sited in a line NW to SE within the northern corner of the site landfill abutting the neighbouring industrial estate.

The scheme also includes ancillary cranepads and an onsite substation kiosk The turbines would be finished in a white, grey of off white colour and each turbine would generate up to 2.3 mw depending on the final model to be chosen (cumulatively enough electricity for 5000 houses).

The application is based on the EnerconE-70 turbine. The application seeks consent for a 25 year timescale. The proposed turbines would be connected to the national grid.

Branthwaite Lane forms the northern boundary of the application site with the landfill operational site (non hazardous household, commercial and industrial wastes) from the former opencast site (both restored and active) forming the southern and western boundary land uses. The site is open in character on the upper

Page 92 section of a slope although a belt of young trees is sited to the south east of the site. The site has an elevated outlook over Ridgeland to the Lakeland fells to the east.

Access to the site is via a proposed 4.5m track served by an existing blocked entrance onto Brantwaite lane which is independent of the vehicular access to the landfill site.

The application has been supported by an Environmental Impact Assessment with reference to; landscape and visual impact assessment , noise, ecology, aviation, archaeology and cultural heritage ,traffic and transport, shadow flicker, water environment, ground conditions ,benefits, security of supply, economic impacts and reduction in landfilling.

The applicant’s have advised the initial scheme had comprised of 10 turbines.

Policy

National planning guidance is generally supportive of renewable energy production. Renewable energy targets are now binding through the Climate Change Act 2008.

The National Planning Policy Framework has as two of its core principles:

• Support the transition to a low carbon future in a changing climate, taking full account of flood risk and coastal change, and encourage the reuse of existing resources, including conversion of existing buildings, and encourage the use of renewable resources (for example, by the development of renewable energy);

When determining planning applications for renewable energy development, local planning authorities should:

• Not require applicants for energy development to demonstrate the overall need for renewable or low carbon energy and also recognise that even small-scale projects provide a valuable contribution to cutting greenhouse gas emissions; and • • Approve the application if its impacts are (or can be made)

Page 93 acceptable.

Needs/Benefits

The needs and benefits of the proposal are important elements in the overall planning balance. The NPPF continues to give support to all forms of renewable energy development.

The increased development of renewable energy resources is vital to facilitating the delivery of the Government’s commitments on both climate change and renewable energy. Positive planning which facilitates renewable energy developments can contribute to the Government’s overall strategy on sustainability and renewable energy development, as emphasized in the Energy White Paper (2007), The UK Renewable Energy Strategy (2009) the UK Energy Road Map (2011) and a significant number of other policies and commitments. The NPPF continues to give support to all forms of renewable energy development.

In order to mitigate the effects of climate change, the North West Regional Spatial Strategy (NWRSS) policy EM17 encourages the use of renewable energy development in order to achieve 15% of

Page 94 the electricity supplied within the Region from renewable energy sources by 2015, rising to 20% by 2020. The RSS includes indicative generation targets and for Cumbria, these are:

2010 – 237.3MW 2015 – 284.8MW 2020 – 292.4 MW

As such, the consented/installed capacity for power and heat from renewable energy development is considered to be substantial and to make a positive contribution to addressing climate change.

Whilst this scheme would make only a small contribution towards regional and national targets for the production of energy from renewable sources, it remains valuable, thus contributing to meeting the objectives of the Climate Change Act. Whilst the local economic benefits cannot be precisely quantified there would be some in terms of the economic benefits to this local business. Achieving the binding national targets for the proportion of energy from renewable sources and the reductions sought in greenhouse gases can only be done by an accumulation of local projects of varying scale. Thus, based solely on national performance, a need for developments of this type exists. These are material considerations that weigh significantly in the planning balance.

Page 95 Needs/Benefits

The needs and benefits of the proposal are important elements in the overall planning balance. The wider economic benefits of all proposals for renewable energy projects at whatever scale are material considerations that should be given weight in determining whether proposals should be granted planning permission. This is also reflected in national energy policy.

The RSS regional target for electricity generation from renewable sources for 2010 was 237.3MW for Cumbria and the target for 2015 for Cumbria is 284.8MW. Latest figures from March 2011 indicate consented schemes within Cumbria equate to approximately 240-245MW operating/approved. This total exceeds the 2010 figure but falls short of the 2015 figure.

Whilst this scheme would make a relatively small contribution towards regional and national targets for the production of energy from renewable sources, it remains valuable, thus contributing to meeting the objectives of the Climate Change Act, current National Energy Policy. Whilst the local economic benefits cannot be precisely quantified there would be some in terms of construction and maintenance contracts and agricultural diversification.

Achieving the binding national targets for the proportion of energy from renewable sources and the reductions sought in greenhouse gases can only be done by an accumulation of local projects of varying scale. Thus, based solely on national performance, a need for developments of this type exists. These are material considerations that weigh significantly in the planning balance.

The proposal indicates that the turbine could generate electricity equivalent to meeting the needs of 5000 households.

Assessment

This Council in assessing the application does not have the benefit of detailed consultation stakeholder responses especially on technical matters to the individual planning merits of the scheme and therefore seek to provide an overall general consultation response to the scheme.

As with other turbine applications the merits of this EIA scheme relates to balancing the social economic and environmental benefits against any environmental harm that may arise from the individual merits of this particular scheme.

The applicants supporting evidence refers to the current European, National, strategic and local planning policy context of the proposed scheme including the NPPF and the presumption in

Page 96 favour of sustainable development and the National Policy statement for Renewable energy Infrastructure(EN-3).

The applicant has also referred to the councils core strategy and development management documents which have been the subject of a recent consultation exercise.

The applicants ES evidence indicates the benefits of the scheme include the saving of 10,396 tonnes of CO2, 242 tonnes of SO2 and 72.5 tonnes per annum and make a significant contribution to securing reliable energy supplies to reduce the dependence on fossil fuels. The schemes multi million pound project would not generate permanent jobs but would where possible use local contractors for construction.

The turbine scheme would prevent the implementation of the existing consent for 300,000 tonnes of inert waste reducing its associated traffic generation and disturbance.

Landscape

The landscape evidence of the EIA refers to the site being within the National Character Area 7 ”West Cumbria Coastal plain” but the neighbouring Solway basin and Cumbria High Fell designations also fall within the sites 30km study area.

The turbine is located within the local landscape character area Ridge and Valley but within a 12km study area it also affects Intertidal Flat, Coastal urban fringe, , Rolling Lowland ,Urban Fringe, Valley corridors, open Moorlands, Ridges, Foothills, Rolling Fringe, Rugged /Angular slate fell, Upland Valley and High Fell range.

The EIA includes 21 viewpoints as part of the landscape and visual impact assessment.

The applicant accepts that the impact on the Sites Ridge and Valley landscape designation through the introduction would be perceived as new vertical elements and the movement of rotor blades would draw attention. The turbines key characteristic and prominence would have a significant effect resulting in a new “Ridge and Valley with wind turbines” landscape, plus the viewpoint from Distington also generates a new landscape sub type “Lowland Urban Fringe with wind turbines”.

The EIA states that it was considered to be prominent from the Open Moorland viewpoint but not significant enough to generate a new landscape subtype.

The applications viewpoints suggested no significant impact to the

Page 97 Rolling Lowland, Foothills, Solway Basin, Valley corridor and National character area Cumbria High Fells.

The EIA assessment’s of viewpoints concludes that significant impact on visual amenity would be experienced from the SE of the A596, Workington (pre existing), Pica NE of Distington, West of Branthwaite, SW from A595 near Winscales windfarm, north of Gilgarren and the public footpath SE of Gale House Farm but considers it would form a legible well spaced and balanced group of turbines. Officers also refer to an additional footpath east from Lillyhall industrial estate towards Wythmoor head farm which may also experience significant impacts.

Cumulative impact

The EIA also addresses the issue of cumulative impact.

Cumulatively the EIA considers the Winscales turbines at Winscales have created a new characteristic of “prominent presence of wind turbines” resulting in the Ridge and Valley with turbines “within 3km of this windfarm and constitute a windfarm landscape within 400m of the Lillyhall site but would remain discreet from the Winscales windfarm landscape. The EIA states that at distances of 2-3km the existing Ridge and Valley with wind turbines from the Winscale development would extend south to Gilgarren where turbines would reinforce this key characteristic of the landscape sub type and would be significant. The EIA suggests views south towards Pica would also generate an Open Moorland with wind turbines landscape type with significant impacts between Common End towards Pica but would not affect the Open Moorland overall due to the limited extent of the cumulative effects. Cumulative impacts would also occur between High Park and Dean Moor and the eastern edge of the Urban Fringe landscape type.

In reference to other windfarms the ES considers each windfarm would give rise to a local windfarm landscape in the landscape and a localised sub type. The ES states that these would exist without any coalescence with the Lillyhall proposal due to the separation distance and therefore no significant cumulative impacts would occur and be limited.

The proposal would not adversely impact on any national designated landscape.

The ES accepts significant cumulative impacts would be experienced from; Gilgarren, Pica, High Harrington, Workington, Distington and Dean. However the ES advises that the effects on High Harrington, Distington, Workington and Dean would reinforce

Page 98 existing pre –existing effects from operational schemes within the area.

Sequential cumulative impacts would be experienced along the A595 in conjunction with the windfarms at Winscales and Fairfield for 1-2 km in length Significant cumulative impacts would also be experienced from a 1km length of the Cumbria coastal way and a 2km stretch of the national cycle route west of Distington.

Overall the ES concludes that whilst the Lillyhall windfarm would result in significant cumulative impacts that would largely reinforce pre –existing impacts from the Winscales and Fairfield windfarms and would be localised and therefore acceptable.

As part of the current pending application at Potato Pot the councils independent consultant in reviewing the landscape and visual impact of the scheme included “ in addition the cumulative impacts of the scheme in relation to other schemes which are currently within the planning system are likely to generate significant landscape and visual impacts within the area to the ....of the A595 which currently has few detracting elements.

In officers opinion this statement, in the context of cumulative impact, is of the same weight to the Lillyhall scheme as to the current proposed Potato Pot development

A key aspect of the proposal is whether it tips the balance on the degree of harm the inspector on the Tallentire and Westnewton windfarm appeals was of the opinion that in both instances the landscape remained the dominant factor and that “despite the intensification of the line of turbines between Workington and Carlisle the landscape remains the dominant feature and still would be described as a landscape with wind farms rather than a windfarm landscape”. However officers highlight that the land to the north and south of Aspatria includes wide, open and rolling landscape which is more able to absorb the vertical elements of windfarm (This is distinctively different in character from the proposed Lillyhall site which is a more condensed landscape which will be viewed against the backdrop of the Lake District National Park...

However the more recent appeal for 3 turbines at Broughton Lodge Appeal was dismissed with the Inspector referring to cumulative impact stating” Broughton Lodge occupies a location where the proposed wind turbines would combine with others in the locality and tip the balance from a landscape with wind turbines to a landscape with wind turbines as the defining and dominant element. “

Albeit regrettably Allerdale does not presently have the benefit of

Page 99 the County landscape officers professional opinion on the merits of the scheme in officers opinion it is very comparable in concept to the Broughton Lodge scheme given the sites close proximity to existing, (and indeed larger windfarm and individual turbine developments) approved and pending schemes in the locality of the site namely; Winscales, Fairfield, Lowca, Moorclose Farm and Potato Pot.

In officers opinion the Lillyhall scheme although acceptable on its individual landscape impact would have a significant adverse cumulative impact on the character and visual amenity of the landscape. It would be similar to the Broughton Lodge scheme result in a landscape dominated by windfarms. The prominence and impact of the development is partially acknowledged by the developer in the revised description to new landscape types to incorporate the turbines in new landscape character descriptions. However officer highlight that the applicant contests that the Winscales development is already a windfarm landscape.

The supporting evidence within the ES is conflicting as the applicant contests the turbines would be seen as a separate group but that the cumulative visual impact is lessened due to the current landscape character and appearance of the existing windfarms.

In officers opinion the windfarm would be seen as a separate group i.e. not an extension but would still have both local combined view and sequential impacts (especially along the A595 corridor with the existing, approved and pending wind farm developments. Therefore in officer’s opinion the proposal would in these circumstances tip the balance to create cumulatively a landscape with wind turbines as the dominant element to the detriment of the landscape character and visual amenity of its site and surroundings.

Little weight or evidence has been attached to the wider landscape impact on the national (landscape character?) designation NCA7 of the Solway basin as the combination of the proposal with the Winscales and Potato Pot scheme would be viewed as a group of turbines from longer distant views from the north. In addition to this similar views from NCA8 from within the LDNP.

No amendment visual evidence on the cumulative impact in association with the Potato Pot development has been provided with the submission despite being requested by the County officers.

Visual impact

The applicants ES also assesses the visual impact of the development in the context of the following sensitive visual

Page 100 receptors;

In relation to the impact on residential properties the ES accepts that 8 out of the 21 properties within 1km distance of the site would experience open views towards the site with the remainder experiencing oblique /screened views. However significant effects may be experienced by properties in the wider area.

The ES advises the proposal is the following distances from the nearest settlements (within 6km) ;

Winscales - km, Gilgarran 1.5km,High Harrington 1.8km, , Workington 3km, Pica 3km, Stainburn 3.5km, Dean 4km and Bridgefoot 4.5km and Distington 2km.

Road viewpoints include the A595, A596 A66 AND A597, plus views from national designated footpaths and bridleways. In officers opinion the proposal would have harmful cumulative impacts on the local visual amenity of the site and its surroundings. It is considered the submitted visualisation evidence which excludes the current Potato Pot application is insufficient to demonstrate the cumulative impact.

In addition, as part of the current pending application at Potato Pot the council’s independent consultant in reviewing the landscape and visual impact of the scheme, identified the impacts to visual amenity caused by the siting of wind turbines to the east of the A595 where open views are afforded towards the LDNP.

Noise

The applicants EIA evidence also contests the scheme complies with the guidance within ETSU-R-97 guidance.

This is not disputed by the councils Environmental Health officers who consider the submitted levels are acceptable. (Although insufficient evidence has been received by the County council on the cumulative noise impact of the proposal with other turbines in the locality i.e Potato Pot as this cumulative noise evidence was submitted within the other pending windfarm application at Potato pot Branthwaite this comparable evidence is considered insufficient to warrant refusal on these grounds..

Shadow Flicker

The submitted evidence accepts that there are 5 residential properties within ten rotor diameter distance (700m) from the turbines but as the occasions for this to occur is limited to 8-14 hours per year the considers this is not significant. However Allerdale would recommend that the County satisfy themselves

Page 101 that this can be safeguarded or mitigated and safeguarded by condition.

Highways

Officers consider that given the close proximity of the site to the strategic highway network there is unlikely to be any highway objections to the details of the scheme.

Radar

It is understood that the issues relating safeguarding radar coverage have been addressed due to the reduction in the number of turbines.

Ecology

In reference to ecology, a habitat and desk top study was undertaken, with particular reference to its location within the Hen Harrier designation. It was only considered to have a minor significant impact to breeding and wintering bird population but would have substantial impact on collision risk to Gulls in the vicinity of the tipping area. However the ES makes little reference to evaluating the impact on the Hen Harrier species whose importance has in itself prompted another screening direction in the locality to constitute EIA development.

The Hen Harrier which is known in the wider area was not recorded during the bird surveys. The risk of collision with these species was therefore considered negligible the ES and site is considered of low value with moderate/minor impact. Officers given the sensitivity designation of the status of the site (albeit on the edge) question whether adequate weighting and assessment has been given to this rare species (especially given the designated status of the site) which should be verified by Natural England’s consultation response.

Heritage

The Councils Conservation Officer has raised concerns on the visual impact and dominance of the line of the four proposed turbines on the Grade 2 listed building “Wythemoor Sough and Barn“which is located approximately 0.5km to the east.

The ES evidence concludes it will have a minor significant impact on this building which will cease upon decommissioning. The combined visual dominance of the turbines on this building is increased by virtue of the siting in a concentrated group on the edge of the landfill site, their size and higher contour level.

Page 102 This has to be balanced with the renewable energy benefits it is considered the dominating impact on the listed building is not outweighed in this instance.

Conclusion

Member’s role on this application is to assess the merits of the submitted scheme and provide Allerdale’s formal consultation response to the County Council as the determining local planning Authority for this development.

As with all turbine /windfarm applications the merits of the proposal relates to balancing the economic, social and environmental benefits of the renewable energy scheme against any environmental harm from the proposal.

In officers opinion the fundamental planning consideration relates to the weight of the impact of the development on the character and visual amenity of the landscape. Officers consider the cumulative impact of the development in association with existing, approved (but as yet unimplemented) and pending windfarm/turbine development would have a significant adverse and detrimental impact on the surrounding landscape (including the backdrop of the National park). The means to fully assess this harm has been further compounded by the absence of cumulative landscape visualisations with the Potato Pot development. It is considered the degree of this harm is not outweighed by any renewable energy benefits.

In addition officers would also recommend that additional aspects be the subject of further investigation depending on the applications stakeholder consultation responses.

Recommendation: Refused

Conditions/ 1. Allerdale Borough Council consider the Reasons: proposed development would be visually prominent and generate a landscape dominated by wind turbines and would in conjunction with existing, approved but as yet unimplemented and pending applications for wind turbine development have a significant adverse cumulative impact on the landscape character and visual amenity of the site and its surroundings. 2. Allerdale Borough Council consider insufficient visualisation evidence has been submitted with the applicantion to demonstrate the cumulative impact of the development in association with

Page 103 the pending windfarm application at Potato Pot , Branthwaite (2/2012/0594 )

Allerdale Borough Council also question whether sufficient and adequate evidence has been submitted within the ES to adequately address the planning considerations of the ecological impact on Hen Harriers and any shadow flicker to the residential properties generated by the proposed turbines (within 10 rotor diameter distance of the site of the turbines.)

Notes to Applicant:

Page 104 Page 105

This page is intentionally left blank

Page 106 Agenda Item 10

Allerdale Borough Council

2/2012/0910

Reference No: 2/2012/0910 Received: 06 December 2012 Proposed Conversion of attached garage store incorporating modified roof Development: structure to achieve annexed accommodation to existing dwelling - Resubmission Location: 4 West Ghyll Place High Harrington Workington Applicant: Mrs C Dryden

Drawing Numbers: Sheet 3 - Site Location Plan Sheet 6 - Proposed Plans

Constraints: Settlement Limit HS5 CZ1-CZ6 British Coal Area

Policies: Allerdale Local Plan, Adopted 1999 (Saved) Policy HS12 - Extensions to dwellings National Planning Policy Framework March 2012 Achieving sustainable development

Relevant Planning 2/2012/033 History:

Representations: Town Council – No objections

The application has been advertised on site and adjoining landowners have been notified. One letter of objection has been received from the neighbouring property owners who maintain their objection despite the revised roof design. They claim that the works will have an unreasonable impact upon general visual and residential amenity with the loss of light and outlook.

Recommendation: Approved

Page 107 2. The development hereby permitted shall be carried out in accordance with the following plans: Sheet 3 - Site Location Plan Sheet 6 - Proposed Plans Reason: In order to ensure a satisfactory standard of development.

Re asons for Approval

The decision to grant planning permission has been taken having regard to the Development Plan, any comments from consultees (including statutory consultees) and any responses from third parties. The decision was taken having regard to relevant planning policy and it was considered that the proposal was acceptable having regard to the national, strategic and local plan policies, supplementary planning guidance/documents and design guidance (set out below) and when taking all other material planning considerations into account. It was considered that there is not a demonstrable harm to residential or visual amenity or any interests of acknowledged importance caused by the development that justifies withholding permission.

Allerdale Local Plan, Adopted 1999 (Saved) Policy HS12 - Extensions to dwellings

National Planning Policy Framework March 2012 Achieving sustainable development

Proactive Statement The Local Planning Authority has acted positively and proactively in determining this application by assessing the proposal against all material considerations, including planning policies and any stakeholder representations that may have been received and subsequently determining to grant planning permission in accordance with the presumption in favour of sustainable development, as set out within the National Planning Policy Framework.

Notes to The additional living accommodation created shall only be used as Applicant: a family annexe associated with the host property 4. West Ghyll Place, High Harrington, Workington, and shall not be occupied as a separate planning unit.

Page 108 Page 109

This page is intentionally left blank

Page 110 Agenda Item 11

Allerdale Borough Council

2/2012/0848

Reference No: 2/2012/0848 Received: 23 August 2012 Proposed Outline application for erection of 4 dwellings Development: Location: Land adjacent to Overcroft Farm Greysouthen Cockermouth Applicant: Mr P Boustead Lakeland Building Design

Drawing Numbers: 12.24.LOC B - Site Location Plan (amendment received 20/12/2012) 12.24.SITE B - Proposed Site Layout (amendment received 20/12/2012) Flow and Load Impact Assessment (amendment received 7/12/2012) Odour Assessment (received 7/12/2012)

Constraints: Radon Assessment Conservation Area British Coal Area Radon Assessment British Coal Area

Policies: Allerdale Local Plan, Adopted 1999 (Sav ed) Policy EN14 - Safeguarding Water Environment Policy EN25 - Protecting the open countryside Policy EN3 - Landscaping, Allerdale Local Plan Policy EN4 - Tree & Hedgerow Preservation Orders Policy EN6 - Location of potentially polluting development Policy EN9 - Contaminated/Derelict Land Allerdale Local Plan First Alteration, June 2006 (Saved) Policy HS4 - New housing in open countryside Policy HS7 - Housing development on unallocated sites Policy HS8 - Housing design Policy HS9 - Infrastructure requirements for housing National Planning Policy Framework March 2012 Achieving sustainable development North West of England Plan Regional Spatial Strategy to 2021 From a strategic point of view, the North West of England Regional Spatial Strategy is still currently part of the development plan and is a material planning consideration, although the Government has made clear their intentions that they may abolish at some point

Page 111 Regional Spatial Strategies and Saved Structure Plan Policies, following the enactment of the Localism Act 2011.

Relevant Planning 2/2002/0514 Residential development adjacent History:

Representations: Parish Council – No objection to original submission. No reply to date (24/1/2013) regarding amendments with the Parish Council meeting delayed until 28/1/2013.

Allerdale Conservation Officer – No objections

Highway Authority - No objections

United Utilities – No objections

Allerdale Environmental Protection – No objections

County Archaeologist – No objections The application has been advertised on site and in the local press. Adjoining landowners have been notified. Seven letters of objection have been received regarding surface water flooding, highway safety, loss of hedgerow and wildlife habitat and general visual and residential amenity. Full details are documented in the report below.

Report The Application

The proposal is for an outline application for the erection of four dwellings with ‘all matters reserved’. This application therefore seeks approval for the principle of development only. However, an illustrative plot layout has been provided indicating the potential for access to the site from the public highway.

The Site

The site comprises an agricultural field beyond the settlement limit of the village. Recently completed modern residential development is noted adjacent to the west with other residential development roadside to the south. Open countryside extends to the north-west with a farmstead 40 metres away.

Policy Context

National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF)

The site is beyond the defined Settlement Limit of Greysouthen and as a departure to the Local Plan the aims and objectives of the NPPF are the key to the assessment of this application and are explained below.

Page 112

Policy Statements have now been replaced by the planning guidance within the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF), published March 2012.

The NPPF advises the purpose of the planning system is to contribute to the achievement of sustainable development which has 3 dimensions.

“These dimensions give rise to the need for the planning system to perform a number of roles:

At the heart of the NPPF is a presumption in favour of sustainable development. When considering planning applications this means:

“where the development plan is absent, silent or relevant policies are out-of-date, granting planning permission unless:

• any adverse impacts of doing so would significantly and demonstrably outweigh the benefits, when assessed against the policies in this Framework taken as a whole: or

Page 113 • specific policies in this Framework indicate development should be restricted”.

Five Year land Supply

A key objective of the NPPF is to deliver a wide choice of high quality homes.

Strategic Housing Land Availability Assessment (SHLAA)

This application site is part of a wider area of land that has been identified within the Strategic Housing Land Availability Assessment (SHLAA) as potential for meeting the housing supply for Greysouthen of 18 units over a 6-10 year period.

Assessment

Principle of Housing

As a site beyond the defined settlement limit a recommendation for approval would be a departure from the Local Plan and therefore subject to a Development Panel decision.

Historically on sites elsewhere, previous refusals of planning permission relied heavily on Policy HS4 of the Allerdale Local Plan (First Alteration) which restricts development outside the defined development limits. Whilst it is acknowledged the application site is outside the development limits as currently defined, in the absence of a five year land supply and having regard to the provision of the NPPF, Policy HS4 cannot now be solely relied on to resist applications for residential development outside defined development limits. This was confirmed by the Inspector in the

Page 114 ‘Fitz’ appeal decision at Cockermouth. It is therefore necessary to consider whether the proposal represents an appropriate and sustainable form of development.

The site is well related to the existing settlement limit of Greysouthen and appears as a natural extension to the limit with residential development existing adjacent.

This site is of a small scale compared to the residential developments recently approved as departures in the District, but despite this it is still considered to contribute to the future housing supply for Greysouthen and the immediate rural area. Greysouthen is classed as an ‘infill village’ and considered a genuine sustainable location with local services and in reasonable proximity to other nearby village services and the full range of town centre facilities of Cockermouth and Workington. The development will also contribute to the social and economic well being of the area and help to sustain a healthy rural community thus satisfying the principles of the NPPF.

Whilst the site is outside the current development limits, it is considered that the site represents a logical extension of Greysouthen that would not adversely impact on the character of the village form or landscape. It is therefore considered the proposals does not give rise to any fundamental conflict with the provisions of Local Plan Policy EN25 which seeks to safeguard against development that results in unacceptable harm to the landscape. Likewise the proposal is not considered to be at odds with the NPPF which seeks recognition for the intrinsic character and beauty of the countryside.

Consideration of Alternative Sites

The development of this site must therefore be considered on its own merits having regard to the presumption in favour of sustainable development.

The application site lies outside the settlement boundary, and is undeveloped, or ‘greenfield’ land.

Page 115 Furthermore the NPPF only encourages rather than requires the development of previously developed sites prior to greenfield sites.

Officers are unaware of any other brownfield sites within the village.

The Proposal

The layout plan proposes four detached dwellings as a small development forming an extension to the existing residential development. Access appears to be achievable with appropriate visibility splays. Precise details of access are reserved matters as is the ultimate siting, landscaping, design and appearance of the house types.

Adjacent dwellings to the west share a boundary with the site with other dwellings to the south across the road. The illustrative arrangement appears well related with adequate separation distances.

Drainage

Foul water drainage is planned to the convenient main sewer beneath the adjacent public highway.

Existing surface water run off from the field drains to the watercourse adjacent to the road. Any increase in surface water from the proposed development is to be controlled by means of rainwater harvesting within each plot and the use of permeable surfaces within the site. Such methods of sustainable drainage within each plot can be conditioned without the need for a Section 106 Agreement. The site is not in a defined area of flood risk.

United Utilities does not object following the submission of a load and flow impact assessment with an appropriate condition.

Access

The precise access is a reserved matter. However Officers are satisfied that appropriate access or multiple accesses can be achieved to the satisfactory of the Highway Authority who have confirmed no objection. The potential visibility splays will not interfere with those protected by condition of the existing adjacent development ref 2/2002/0514.

Page 116 Ecology

The site is not designated as a recognised habitat of any particular importance. It is not considered to have any unique features warranting a formal ecological survey. Natural England has not been consulted.

Odour

A brief odour assessment has been provided that concludes the nearest livestock building at the nearby farm to be 60 metres from the development site. Allerdale Environmental Protection has not raided any concerns.

Contaminated Land

The site is identified to be in the former coal mining area with known mine workings within 250 metres. In that respect a Phase 1 Desk Top Study has been provided. The conclusions have prompted Allerdale Environmental Protection to condition a further investigative survey before development commences.

Affordable Housing

As an ‘infill village’ the threshold for affordable dwellings is judged to be that of the open countryside being five dwellings or more. The four dwellings proposed do therefore not exceed the threshold with no requirement for affordable housing.

Removal of Hedgerow .

The illustrative layout has indicated the possible removal of part of the existing hedgerow to achieve access to the site. The existing adjacent development approved under ref 2/2002/0514 was also subject to hedgerow removal. The County Arboroculturist was consulted and judged the 35 metres of hedgerow to be ‘not important’ within the criteria of the 1997 Hedgerow Act. It follows therefore that the approximate removal of 18 metres of hedgerow is similarly ‘not important’ within the same regulations where a 20 metre length is the required amount for consideration.

Representations

Five letters of representation have been received from four individuals. The concerns and objection regards the following issues.

Drainage. Local residents have reported the drainage problems associated with the field in its undeveloped state and subsequent flooding of the nearby watercourse and the highway. In view of the

Page 117 load and flow impact assessment accepted by United Utilities and the prospect that a sustainable surface water harvesting system is to be implemented, the issue of flooding is not considered a reason for refusal. Effectively, it is likely that the development will attenuate the discharge of surface water run-off from the site thus reducing the perceived threat of flooding.

Highway Safety. The potential for parked vehicles on the highway and the general impact upon highway safety is not of concern to the Highway Authority. The precise access, parking and turning requirements are to be conditioned as reserved matters for further consideration.

Residential Amenity. The site is considered well related to existing residential development. Adequate separation distances, plot arrangement and appropriate house types can be achieved as reserved matters to have minimal impact.

Visual Amenity. The design and appearance of the development is a reserved matter. The use of appropriate materials and house types can be considered at a later stage.

Ecology and Hedgerow Removal. Concern has been raised on such matters which have been justified above.

On balance the content of objections are not a defensible reason for refusal with the matters of access, design and drainage subject to further reserved matters and conditions.

Local Finance Considerations

There are finance considerations to be taken into account regarding the ‘new homes bonus scheme. Whilst a material consideration, this is not the overriding reason for the recommendation to approve planning permission.

Recommendation

On balance the proposals are acceptable as justified above and can be approved. Conditions appropriate to an application of this type with ‘all matters reserved’ are to be imposed.

Recommendation: Approved

Conditions/ 1. Before any works commence, details of the layout, scale Reasons: and appearance, access and landscaping (hereinafter called 'reserved matters') shall be submitted to and approved by the Local Planning Authority. Reason: The application has been submitted as an outline

Page 118 application, in accordance with the provisions of the details of the Town and Country Planning (General Permitted Development Procedure) Order 1995. 2. The development hereby permitted shall be carried out in accordance with the following plans: 12.24.LOC B - Site Location Plan (amendment received 20/12/2012) 12.24.SITE B - Proposed Site Layout (amendment received 20/12/2012) Flow and Load Impact Assessment (amendment received 7/12/2012) Odour Assessment (received 7/12/2012) Reason: In order to ensure a satisfactory standard of development. 3. Prior to the commencement of works, full details of a scheme for surface and foul water drainage (including maintenance and management) shall be submitted in writing and approved by the Local Planning Authority. The drainage scheme shall be in accordance with the principles of the Flow and Load Impact Assessment dated 7/12/2012 proposing a sustainable means of surface water drainage. No part of the development shall be occupied until the drainage scheme has been implemented in accordance with the approved details and shall be maintained at all times thereafter. Reason: To ensure a satisfactory means of surface and foul water drainage and minimise the risk of flooding, in compliance with Policy EN14 of the Allerdale Local Plan, Adopted 1999 (Saved) and Policy HS9 of the Allerdale Local Plan, First Alterations June 2006 (Saved). 4. Only foul drainage shall be connected to the public sewer. Reason: To ensure a sustainable means of drainage from the site and minimise the risk of water pollution to the local water environment, in compliance with Policy HS9 of the Allerdale Local Plan, First Alterations June 2006 (Saved). 5. No development approved by this permission shall commence until all necessary site investigation works within the site boundary have been carried out to establish the degree and nature of the contamination and its potential to pollute the environment or cause harm to human health. The scope of works for the site investigations should be agreed with the Local Planning Authority prior to the commencement. Reason: To minimise any risk arising from any possible contamination from the development to the local environment in compliance with Policy EN9 of the Allerdale Local Plan (Saved). 6. Should land affected by contamination be identified under the desk top study under condition 5 is found

Page 119 which poses unacceptable risks to human health, controlled waters or the wider environment, no development shall take place until a detailed remediation scheme has been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The scheme must include an appraisal of remediation options, identification of the preferred option(s), the proposed remediation objectives and remediation criteria, and a description and programme of the works to be undertaken including the verification plan. Reason: To minimise any risk arising from any possible contamination from the development to the local environment in compliance with Policy EN9 of the Allerdale Local Plan (Saved). 7. Should a contamination remediation scheme be required under condition 6. the approved strategy shall be implemented and a verification report submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority, prior to the development (or relevant phase of development) being brought into use. Reason: To minimise any risk arising from any possible contamination from the development to the local environment in compliance with Policy EN9 of the Allerdale Local Plan (Saved). 8. In the event that contamination is found at any time when carrying out the approved development that was not previously identified it must be reported immediately to the Local Planning Authority. Development on the part of the site affected must be halted and a risk assessment carried out and submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. Where unacceptable risks are found remediation and verification schemes shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. These shall be implemented prior to the development (or relevant phase of development) being brought into use. All works shall be undertaken in accordance with current UK guidance, particularly CLR11. Reason: To minimise any risk arising from any possible contamination from the development to the local environment in compliance with Policy EN9 of the Allerdale Local Plan (Saved). 9. No development shall take place until a Construction and Demolition Method Statement has been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The statement shall include the following: (a) Traffic Management Plan to include all traffic associated with the development, including site and staff traffic (b) Procedure to monitor and mitigate noise and vibration

Page 120 from the construction and demolition and to monitor any properties at risk of damage from vibration, as well as taking into account noise from vehicles, deliveries. All measurements should make refer ence to BS7445. (c) Mitigation measures to reduce adverse impacts on residential properties from construction compounds including visual impa ct, noise, and light pollution. (d) Mitigation measures to ensure that no harm is caused to protected species during construction. (e) A written procedure for dealing with complaints regarding the construction or demolition; (f) Measures to control the emissions of dust and dirt during co nstruction and demolition; (g) Programme of work for Demolition and Construction phase; (h) Hours of working and deliveries; (i) Details of lighting to be used on site. The approved statement shall be adhered to throughout the duration of the development. Reason: In the interests of the amenity of the occupiers of neighbouring properties and highway safety, in compliance with Policy EN6 of the Allerdale Local Plan, Adopted 1999 (Saved). 10. The development shall not commence until visibility splays providing clear visibility of 2.4 metres by 70m, measured down the centre of the access road and the nearside channel line of the major road have been provided at the junction of each access with the county highway. Notwithstanding the provisions of the Town and Country Planning (General Permitted Development) Order 1995 (or any Order revoking and re-enacting that Order) relating to permitted development, no structure, vehicle or object of any kind shall be erected, parked or placed and no trees, bushes or other plants shall be planted or be permitted to grown within the visibility splay which obstruct the visibility splays. The visibility splays shall be constructed before general development of the site commences so that construction traffic is safeguarded. Reason : In the interests of highway safety. 11. 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.

Page 121 Reasons for Approval

The decision to grant planning permission has been taken having regard to the Development Plan, any comments from consultees (including statutory consultees) and any responses from third parties. The decision was taken having regard to relevant planning policy and it was considered that the proposal was acceptable having regard to the national, strategic and local plan policies, supplementary planning guidance/documents and design guidance (set out below) and when taking all other material planning considerations into account. It was considered that there is not a demonstrable harm to any interests of acknowledged importance caused by the development that justifies withholding permission.

Allerdale Local Plan, Adopted 1999 (Saved) Policy EN14 - Safeguarding Water Environment Policy EN25 - Protecting the open countryside Policy EN3 - Landscaping, Allerdale Local Plan Policy EN4 - Tree & Hedgerow Preservation Orders Policy EN6 - Location of potentially polluting development Policy EN9 - Contaminated/Derelict Land

National Planning Policy Framework March 2012 Achieving sustainable development

Proactive Statement

The Local Planning Authority has acted positively and proactively in determining this application by identifying planning policies, constraints, stakeholder representations and matters of concern within the application (as originally submitted) and where appropriate negotiating, with the Applicant, acceptable amendments and solutions to the proposal to address those concerns. As a result, the Local Planning Authority has been able to grant planning permission for an acceptable proposal, in accordance with the presumption in favour of sustainable development, as set out within the National Planning Policy Framework.

Page 122 Notes to Applicant:

Page 123 Page 124

Agenda Item 12

Allerdale Borough Council

2/2012/0824

Reference No: 2/2012/0824 Received: 05 November 2012 Proposed Proposed first floor extension and first floor balcony to rear of Development: extension - Resubmission Location: Woodend Crosby Maryport Applicant: Mr & Mrs J Mitchell

Drawing Numbers: JM/03b - Ground Floor Plan As Proposed JM/04a - First Floor Plan As Proposed JM/05b - Section And Side Elevation As Proposed JM/07 - Block Plan And Location Plan JM/10a - Proposed Elevations JM/11 - Rear And Side Elevations

Constraints: ASCA Area Settlement Limit HS5

Policies: Policy HS12 - Extensions to dwellings, Allerdale Local Plan, Adopted 1999 (Saved) NPPF - National Planning Policy Framework

Relevant Planning 2/2012/0534 - Proposed first floor extension and first floor balcony History: to rear of extension (Resubmission) – Omission of first floor balcony – Approved.

AM/2012/0534- Non-material amendment to planning approval 2/2012/0534 to omit the depressed gable, northern gable bathroom window and canopy over garage – Approved. Representations: Cumbria Highways – No objections

Environmental Health – No objections.

Crosscanonby Parish Council – No objections.

The application has been advertised on site and adjoining owners have been notified.

There has been one letter of objection raising concerns regarding the impact the balcony will have on the approved Lodge development.

Page 125

Report Site

The proposal site is an existing two storey detached dwelling within the settlement limit of Crosby. The dwelling has a driveway and garden area to the front with a relatively large garden to the rear. To the rear of the dwelling is an open grazed field. The boundary treatment to the north east of the host dwelling is a line of mature trees with the trees bordering the front garden of the host dwelling being subject to a TPO. The boundary treatment to the south west is a 1m high hedge. There is minimal change in ground level between the proposed site and the adjoining neighbours. In should be noted that the neighbour to the north east (The Lodge) has planning consent for the demolition of the existing building and to replace it with a bungalow.

Proposal

The application seeks approval for a first floor extension and first floor balcony to the rear of the extension.

Policy

Policy HS12 of the Allerdale Local Plan (1999) is considered to conform generally to the National Planning Policy Framework and can continue to carry weight in the determination of application.

Assessment

The host dwelling has had a side extension previously approved under planning consent (2/2012/0534), which has subsequently been implemented. During the course of application (2/2012/0534) Planning Officer’s were concerned with the potential overlooking incurred to the neighbouring property (The Lodge) from the proposed rear balcony. Planning Officer’s requested an amended plan (received 23/08/2012) removing the rear balcony element of the proposal and replacing it with two Juliet balconies. The side extension was subsequently than approved without the rear balcony. Therefore the merits of this current application solely relate to the inclusion of the proposed rear balcony onto the previously approved side extension.

Officers are aware of an amended layout plan received for the Lodge under planning reference (ref 2/2012/0317). However, Planning Officers still consider the proposed balcony will still lead to significant overlooking and oppressiveness being incurred on

Page 126 the Lodge’s rear garden. It should be noted that should the neighbouring property the Lodge erect a 2 metre high fence, as allowed under permitted development, it would not provide a sufficient screen against the development. It should be stated that the applicant has attempted to provide additional screening to the balcony from the design proposed on application 2/2012/0534. However, it is officer’s opinion that the screening provided is not sufficient enough to fully eradicate the loss of privacy or oppressiveness to the Lodge’s rear garden.

The proposal will not have any significant adverse effect on daylight entering the property, or the amenity space of the proposal dwelling. It should also be noted that 50% or more of the curtilage will remain undeveloped.

It is considered that the balcony will not have any effect on the neighbour to the south west (Rosslyn) as the existing host dwelling partly screens the extension from the south western neighbour.

(The proposal is not Listed nor is it within a Conservation Area.)

It is officer’s opinion that given the proposed balcony leads to a significant loss of residential amenity to the Lodge’s rear garden. Therefore the balcony does not comply with Section iii) of Policy HS12.

There are no local finance considerations related to the proposal.

Taking all of the above into account it is considered that this application should be refused on the grounds that it does not comply with Section iii) of Policy HS12.

Recommendation: Refused

Conditions/ 1. The balcony by reason of its height and scale in its Reasons: relation to neighbouring property, would significantly detract from the residential amenity of the neighbouring occupants by way of overlooking, and un-neighbourly impact, contrary to Policy HS12 of the Allerdale Local Plan.

Application Refused Without Discussion

The Local Planning Authority has acted positively and proactively in determining this application by identifying matters of planning policies, constraints, stakeholder representations and concerns with the proposal and determining the application within a

Page 127 timely manner, clearly setting out the reason(s) for refusal, allowing the Applicant the opportunity to consider the harm caused and whether or not it can be remedied by a revision to the proposal. The Local Planning Authority is willing to meet with the Applicant to discuss the best course of action and is also willing to provide pre- application advice in respect of any future application for a revised development.

Page 128 Page 129

This page is intentionally left blank

Page 130 Agenda Item 13

Allerdale Borough Council

2/2013/0028

Reference No: 2/2013/0028 Received: 29 November 2012 Proposed Replacement of wooden windows to the rear with UPVC windows Development: Location: 29 West Street Wigton Applicant: Mr Steve Christie

Drawing Numbe rs: 001 - Site Location Plan 002 - Proposed Windows

Constraints: Settlement Limit HS5 Conservation Area:,WIGTON ASCA Area Article 4 Adv Control Exclusion - Wigton

Policies: Allerdale Local Plan Adopted 1999 (Saved) Policy CO13 - The setting of a Conservation Area, Policy CO2 - Design of alterations in Conservation Areas,

National Planning Policy Framework.

Relevant Planning No Relevant Planning History. History:

Representations: Town Council – No Comments received to date. (13/02/2013)

Highways Agency– No Objections.

Cumbria Highways –No Objections.

The application has been advertised on site and within the local press. The adjoining owner has also been notified.

No representations have been received to date. (13/02/2013).

Report Site

This application site is a two storey terrace located within Wigton’s Conservation Area and is subject to an Article 4 Direction Order. The property is accessed from West Street and cannot be seen

Page 131 from the highway. The rear of the property is unseen from public view. To the north of the site is a Grade II listed building No 35 West Street.

Proposed

The proposal is to replace the 4 rear timber siding sash windows with 3 top hung UPVC windows and one fixed window to the rear of the property.

Policy

The proposal is to alter a residential dwelling within Wigton’s Conservation Area and therefore is subject to Chapters 7 and 12 of the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF). These outline the importance of good design and the positive contribution that development can make to local character. These policies reiterate those of CO2 of the Allerdale Local Plan. It is therefore considered acceptable to continue to apply some weight to these policies as they do not conflict with the guidance within the NPPF.

Assessment

Planning Officer’s consider the UPVC top hung windows to be of untraditional design and in materials. However, it is officer’s opinion that as the windows are unseen from public view the impact on the conservation area of these untraditional windows will not be significant enough to warrant a refusal based on the windows visual impact.

Various properties within Wigton’s Conservation Area have uPVC windows installed. It must be noted that the rear elevation of the host dwelling is unseen from public view. The rear elevations of the adjacent terraces are not in a sensitive part of the conservation area. The dwellings adjacent to No29 have suffered from unsympathetic alterations with No27 having the top hung UPVC windows of the same design as the proposal installed.

On balance it is considered that the rear elevation of these terraces do not retain a great deal of character. In the light of this, the proposed windows would preserve the appearance of the property, the terrace as a whole and the Conservation Area at this location.

It should be noted that Allerdale’s Conservation Officer has raised no objections to the proposal.

There are no local financial implications associated with this proposal.

Page 132

It is officer’s opinion the proposal will have no affect on the Grade II listed building to the north of the site.

The proposal therefore is considered acceptable and complies with Policies CO2 and CO13 of the Allerdale Local Plan.

Recommendation: Approved

2. The development hereby permitted shall be carried out solely in accordance with the following plans: 001 - Site Location Plan 002 - Proposed Windows Reason: In order to comply with Section 51 and Section 91 of the Planning & Compulsory Purchase Act 2004. Reasons for Approval

The decision to grant planning permission has been taken having regard to the Development Plan, any comments from consultees (including statutory consultees) and any responses from third parties. The decision was taken having regard to relevant planning policy and it was considered that the proposal was acceptable having regard to the national, strategic and local plan policies, supplementary planning guidance/documents and design guidance (set out below) and when taking all other material planning considerations into account. It was considered that there is not a demonstrable harm to interests of acknowledged importance caused by the development that justifies withholding permission.

Allerdale Local Plan Adopted 1999 (Saved) Policy CO13 - The setting of a Conservation Area, Policy CO2 - Design of alterations in Conservation Areas,

National Planning Policy Framework

Page 133 Page 134

Agenda Item 14

Allerdale Borough Council

2/2012/0928

Reference No: 2/2012/0928 Received: 28 November 2012 Proposed First floor extension over existing garage and two storey front Development: extension - Resubmission to 2/2012/0681 Location: 2 Lowscales Drive Cockermouth Applicant: Mr M Sharrock

Drawing Numbers: 12-0010-01 - Existing Plans 12-0010-02 - Proposed Plans 12-0010-03 – Sections 12-0010-04 - Site Location Plan & Block Plan

Constraints: Radon Assessment Settlement Limit HS5 Adv Control Exclusion - Cockermouth

Policies: National Planning Policy Framework

Allerdale Local Plan, Adopted 1999 (Saved) Policy HS12 - Extensions to dwellings,

Local Financial None Implications:

Relevant Planning 2/2012/0699 – Proposed rear and gable extensions to existing History: dwelling at 6 Moorfields, Broughton Moor, Maryport Refused 14/11/12

The proposal was similar to the current application in that it involved a gable extension to a dwelling house where the neighbouring dwelling was set at an angle to the application dwelling.

The application was refused for the following reasons:

1. The proposal, by reason of its scale and proximity in relation to the neighbouring property, 7 Moorfield's would significantly detract from the residential amenity of the neighbouring occupants by way of over dominance and un- neighbourly impact, contrary to Saved Policy HS12(iii) of the Allerdale Local Plan and advice contained within the

Page 135 NPPF.

2. The proposed extension, by reason of its scale, projection and positioning, would form a none subservient and cramped form of development, harmful to the visual amenities of the host dwelling itself and the visual amenities of the locality, contrary to Saved Policy HS12 (i) of the Allerdale Local Plan 1999 and advice contained within the NPPF.

This decision was upheld at appeal under APP/GO908/D/12/2189262 where the inspector found that the proposal would appear cramped in comparison with the spacious setting of others within the vicinity. The inspector also found that the gable extension would result in an oppressive sense of enclosure for the inhabitants of the neighbouring property.

Representations: Town Council – No objections

Highways - No objection as it is considered that the existing driveway provides adequate in-curtilage parking facility.

The application has been advertised on site and neighbouring properties have been notified.

Three letters of objection have been received for the proposal citing concerns that: • The extension would block light into the neighbouring properties’ properties. • The tall blank wall would have an overbearing appearance from the neighbouring houses and gardens. • The extension would block out light to the neighbouring gardens for the later part of the day. • The photos and diagrams have been taken at an angle to show a greater distance between the properties and that the sun paths are only relevant in November rather than in summer. • Other authorities set minimum standards for separation distances for such developments which this is in excess of. • Other extensions on Lowscales Drive do not go directly behind the neighbouring property therefore this cannot be considered a precedent.

Six letters of support have been received for the proposal for the following reasons: • There have been extensions added to most of the properties on Lowscales Drive, extending over the garage and forward of the original building line. The application should therefore be approved as a precedent has already been set.

Page 136 • It would be aesthetically the same as many others along Lowscales Drive and Rose Lane. • The adjacent neighbour at no. 1 Lowscales Drive was built as a four bedroom property with an extension over the garage which is closer to the neighbouring property set at a right angle to 1 Lowscales Drive. This sets a precedent. • The objectors indicate that the proposal would lead to loss of light to their own gardens. These gardens enjoy the sun for most of the day. Any loss of light is caused by existing features and structures.

Report Policy

The proposal would be used for domestic purposes and therefore would be subject to Chapter 7 of the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF), which outlines under paragraph 56 the importance of good design in securing sustainable development and making places better.

It is considered acceptable to continue to apply some weight to policy HS12 of the Allerdale Local Plan because the purpose of the policy (to add comfort and value to the home whilst preserving residential amenity) is not contrary to guidance within the NPPF.

Assessment

Background

Planning permission is sought for a first floor extension over the existing garage and two storey front extension at 2 Lowscales Drive, Cockermouth. The application is a resubmission to 2/2012/0681.

The application site is situated upon an established residential estate within the settlement of Cockermouth. The property is a two storey semi detached dwelling with attached garage, small yard area to the rear and front and side gardens. To the side of the property are a further pair of semi detached two storey dwellings at 29 and 27 Rose Lane. These properties are positioned at a right angle to the application property.

Proposal

The proposal is to extend the garage at first floor level over the existing garage and erect a two storey extension to the front of the garage, essentially bringing the extension to the front of the existing building line. The proposal would elongate the existing garage to the front and create two bedrooms with en-suite at first floor level. The applicants propose to finish the extension with wet

Page 137 dash render walls, marley roof tiles, white UPVC windows and white UPVC doors.

The application is a resubmission to 2/2012/0928 under which the applicant proposed an extension above the existing garage but also over the kitchen extension to the rear, incorporating a sliding roof slope to the rear and a larger gable. This application was withdrawn.

Daylight

Objections have been received from the neighbouring properties at 29 and 27 Rose Lane on the basis that the proposal would limit the daylight available both to the properties themselves and the gardens.

In contrast, a supporting letter stated that they did not consider this to be an issue. The letter indicates that they consider the loss of daylight to these properties are already in place due to the existing features on and around these properties, including the extension at 27 Rose Lane, the hedge surrounding 29 Rose Lane, their own properties and the existing application property.

The applicant has submitted information to indicate the sun paths in relation to the neighbouring properties on Rose Lane. This has been disputed by an objector who considers that these sun paths relate to the month of November and do not reflect the sun patterns for summer when the neighbours would be more likely to be enjoying the garden.

The application property is situated to the north west of Rose Lane. The orientation of the property is such that the shadowing from the extension would only occur in the later part of the day, as the sun travels in a westerly direction. Whilst some loss of light would occur at this period, this is not considered to be a sufficient enough reduction to warrant refusal of the application for this reason.

Visual Amenity of Locality & Property

The proposal has been designed with finishes to match those of the existing dwelling and those in the locality. Likewise, it replicates the character of the existing property and those of others in the area.

The applicant submits that the proportions of the proposal replicate those of other extensions within the locality. Supporters of the proposal also draw reference to the number of other extensions of similar design within the street and surroundings. The objectors to the proposal indicate that whilst this may be the case, these

Page 138 previous extensions are gable to gable and therefore cannot be considered a precedent in this case.

It is accepted that the scale and design of the proposal are in evidence throughout the area and are generally considered appropriate. However, in this case, the application site is positioned at a right angle to the neighbouring dwellings and is within close proximity to the dwellings at 27 and 29 Rose Lane, Cockermouth. There is therefore little spacing between the properties at present.

Other extensions upon the street have taken place gable to gable, which has retained the symmetry of existing residential development and maintained the open feel of the estate. The first floor extension proposed over the garage in this case, would in effect close the relatively small spacing between the application property and those of Rose Lane, resulting in further cramping at this corner of the estate which would have a detrimental effect upon the appearance of the street scene and the area.

In accordance with the planning decision relating to 2/2012/0699 (above) and the subsequent appeal decision, this cramping effect is considered unacceptable.

Residential Amenity

Objectors have indicated that they feel the proposal would have an overbearing impact upon neighbouring properties due to the positioning of a large, blank wall in close proximity to the rear of the properties on Rose Lane. This is especially notable to no. 29 Rose Lane which is set at an angle to the application property. They also refer to the setting of minimum distances between developments which they believe are in place at other Local Planning Authorities.

The neighbouring property at No. 29 Rose Lane has a small yard area to the rear which results in the rearmost wall of this property being situated less than 3m from the applicants’ current single storey garage. Likewise, the extension at first floor level would be less than 3m from the rearmost wall of the 29 Rose Lane. The two storey element would overlap with the neighbouring properties rear windows at ground floor level and bathroom window at first floor level, whilst being in close proximity to the bedroom window at first floor level.

Although the applicant does not propose to position windows within the gable extension at first floor level, it is considered that the minimal distances between the two properties would result in the extension forming an oppressive and overbearing structure to the residents of 29 Rose Lane. Furthermore, it would lead to a

Page 139 sense of enclosure to these residents so as to have a significant adverse impact upon the residential amenity of these occupiers.

The applicant has amended the current proposal to that proposed under 2/2012/0681 to reduce the bulk of the gable, removing the rear sliding roof slope of the extension. Despite this measure, the limited spacing between the properties and the proposals proximity to the neighbouring properties’ rear windows would still create an oppressive and un-neighbourly form of development.

In accordance with planning decision 2/2012/0699 (above) and the subsequent appeal decision, this oppressive sense of enclosure is considered unacceptable.

Summary

Whilst the scale and design of the proposal are generally acceptable elsewhere in this residential estate, the layout of the applicants plot and that of the neighbouring plot of 29 Rose Lane are such that the proposed first floor extension would result in significant cramping at this corner of the estate to the detriment of the visual amenity of the locality.

The limited spacing between the application site and 29 Rose Lane would lend a two storey extension in this location to form a dominant and overbearing structure to the residents of 29 Rose Lane which would have a harmful effect on the residential amenity to these occupants.

The proposal is therefore considered to be contrary to Policy HS12 of the Allerdale Local Plan (saved) and the National Planning Policy Framework. The application is therefore recommended for refusal.

Recommendation: Refused

Conditions/ 1. The pro posal, by reason of its proximity in relation to Reasons: the neighbouring property at 29 Rpse Lane, would significantly detract from the residential amenity of the neighbouring occupants by way of over dominance and un-neighbourly impact, contrary to Saved Policy Policy HS12(iii) of the Allerdale Local Plan and advice contained within the NPPF.

2. The proposed extension, by reason of its scale and positioning, would form a cramped form of development, harmful to the visual amenities of the locality, contrary to Saved Policy HS12 (i) of the Allerdale Local Plan 1999 and advice contained within

Page 140 the NPPF.

Proactive Statement

Notes to Applicant:

Page 141 Page 142

Agenda Item 15

Allerdale Borough Council Planning Department

Appeal Decisions

Appeal Reference: APP/GO908/A/12/2183244

Planning Reference: 2/2012/0354

Proposed Development: Installation of a single Endurance E-3210 wind turbine on a 24.6m hub-height tower Appeal Site: Green Croft, Oughterby, Carlisle, Cumbria, CA5 6JH Applicant: Mr Scott Bertram Type of Appeal: Written Representations

Date of Committee: August 2012

Officers’ Approval Recommendation: Development Panel Refused for the following reason: Decision: The proposal, by reason of its scale and location, would constitute a prominent and intrusive feature within the landscape, adversely impacting on local landscape character and the visual amenities of the locality, both individually and cumulatively with other wind turbine development. The proposal is therefore considered to be contrary to Policy R44 of the Cumbria and Lake District Joint Structure Plan 2001- 2016 (Saved).

Inspector’s Decision: Allowed appeal

Appeal decision details

The inspector considered the determining issues in the appeal are:

(i) The effects of the proposal on the character and appearance of the surrounding landscape, and upon the living conditions of local residents; (ii) Whether any harm in those respects would be outweighed by the benefits of generation of renewable energy

Character and appearance

The landscape around the site of the proposed turbine is an expansive one, gently rolling in parts, with large fields bounded by hedges and hedgerows trees and with scattered

Page 143 woods, especially on higher ground to the south. Though quite attractive it is not subject to any particular protective designation.

The turbine would be assimilated fairly readily into the landscape, even at close quarters. Looking south from its immediate surroundings and from Oughterby it would be seen against a background of rising ground in the distance in a way that would significantly reduce its apparent size and visual impact. There are also several sizeable blocks of dense woodland ranged along the skyline which are prominent in the landscape and which would tend to both act as a backdrop and distract the eye from the turbine. Such woodland also partly screens the existing turbines at Great Orton Airfield, this screening and the fact that they are 2km away would obviate any significant cumulative impact from the existing and proposed turbines. Also, there is a single turbine at Park House, Aikton, some 0.7km away, this is seen as an isolated feature in the landscape, partly against a backcloth of trees and well away from Great Orton turbines. It would appear similarly well separated from the proposed turbine in such a way that problems of cumulative impact would not arise.

The proposed turbine would stand close to local access tracks or lonnin which local residents say they use for recreation. However, there is no clear evidence that these are public rights of way. However, even if the lonnins were public rights of way, the turbine would be well away from the nearest track so as to obviate any perceived safety risks; and whilst it would be a striking feature at close range, it is not believed it would detract unacceptably from enjoyment of the surrounding countryside.

Seen from the surrounding countryside, towards Longrigg, Little Bampton, Aikton, Wiggonby and Great Orton, the visual impact of the proposed turbine would diminish quickly with increasing distance. It would be completely concealed by intervening landform and vegetation and at times would be seen in the same visual frame as overhead electricity. Although I saw several other turbines in the surrounding area on my visit, and the Council and objectors referred to other proposals, these are well separated from each other; and the surrounding landscape generally seems to me far from being one characterised by wind turbines, or in some way a “windfarm landscape” in the way that concerns a good number of objectors.

There are several houses on the green in Oughterby that face directly towards the proposed turbine at a distance if around 580-600m and it has been considered whether residents there would find the impact of the turbine particularly marked or indeed whether they might experience it as unduly intrusive or dominating. It is considered the outlook of the residents most closely affected would not be affected in such a way as to unacceptably damage their living conditions. The turbine would be a small element in the overall look and would certainly not appear as overbearing or dominating.

I conclude on the first issue that the proposal would not unacceptably harm the character or appearance of the surrounding landscape or the living condition of local residents.

Benefits or renewable energy and balance

SP Policy R44 contains an implicit balance between encouraging development of renewable energy and addressing possible environmental harm; and that balance is also to be found in general terms in the NPPF. The Framework also advises that applicants

Page 144 for renewable energy developments should not be required to demonstrate the overall need for such energy; and even small scale projects can make a valuable contribution to cutting greenhouse gas emissions. Accordingly, objectors, concern about the commercial justification for the appeal proposal and the merits of wind power, and arguments that renewable energy should be generated by other means, cannot carry great weight.

The proposed turbine, rated at 50kW, would make a modest but worthwhile contribution to supply of renewable energy which in turn would help reduce greenhouse gas emissions and counter climate change.

Opinions on the appearance and acceptability of wind turbines in the landscape duffer widely but in this case, taken in the round, I consider that the single turbine proposed, relatively small in an industry context, would not cause unacceptable visual impact or harm to landscape character.

Conclusion

The inspector found in favour of the appellant and considered the erection of the turbine at this location was acceptable subject to conditions attached.

Officer comments on the appeal decision

The inspector has considered the views of the members and individual objectors with regards to this application, taken account in particular of the views made in relation to the visual impact of the landscape both individually and cumulatively.

Members and officers need to take account of the size of existing turbines and the landscape in which the turbine lies, specifically in relation to surrounding landscape that can acts as a screen when refusing application on impacts on the landscape individually and cumulatively.

Page 145 This page is intentionally left blank

Page 146