Date: 8 July 2020

Town Hall, Penrith, Cumbria CA11 7QF Tel: 01768 817817 Email: [email protected]

Dear Sir/Madam

Planning Committee Agenda - 16 July 2020

Notice is hereby given that a meeting of the Planning Committee will be held at 9.30 am on Thursday, 16 July 2020.

This meeting will be a virtual meeting and therefore will not take place in a physical location following guidelines set out in Section 78 of the Coronavirus Act 2020.

To view the Planning meeting for 16 July 2020 click here

To view the overspill Planning meeting (if needed) for 17 July 2020 click here

To view the overspill Planning Meeting (if needed) for 21 July 2020 click here.

1 Apologies for Absence

2 Minutes

To sign the minutes:

1) Pla/1/06/20 to Pla/13/06/20 of the meeting of this Committee held on 18 June 2020 and 19 June 2020 as a correct record of those proceedings (copies previously circulated).

3 Declarations of Interest

To receive any declarations of the existence and nature of any private interests, both disclosable pecuniary and any other registrable interests, in any matter to be considered or being considered.

4 Planning Issues (Pages 7 - 20)

To note the attached lists of the Assistant Director Planning and Economic Development.

a) Applications determined under office delegated powers for the month of June 2020. b) Reasons for refusal on delegated decisions for the month of June 2020.

Rose Rouse Chief Executive www.eden.gov.uk

5 Planning Issues - Applications for Debate (Green Papers) (Pages 21 - 192)

To consider the reports of the Assistant Director Planning and Economic Development on the following applications:

Item Officer Page Application Details No Recommendation Number 1 Planning Application No: 20/0134

Outline application for residential Recommended to: development, with approval sought for access APPROVE 23 Subject to Land adjacent to the Mains, Stainton Agreement under Section 106 Mr J Avery – Atric Ltd

2 Planning Application No: 20/0077

Formation of a drainage basin to Recommended to: attenuate surface water associated a residential development APPROVE 50

Subject to Land west of Thorpefield, Sockbridge Conditions

Stoneswood Developments Ltd

3 Planning Application No: 20/0078

Reserved matters application for access, appearance, landscaping, Recommended to: layout and scale attached to approval ref. 17/0080 APPROVE 71 Subject to Land west of Thorpefield, Sockbridge Conditions

Stoneswood Developments Ltd

4 Planning Application No: 19/0418

Change of use of land to mixed Recommended to: agricultural/keeping of horses and proposed general purpose agricultural APPROVE 100 horse-culture building Subject to Conditions Field at Kings Meaburn Road, Colby

www.eden.gov.uk 2

Mr D Birkett

5 Planning Application No: 20/0165

Proposed two storey extension to rear and front elevations, together with single Recommended to: storey extension to side, and new porch (as amended) APPROVE 112

Subject to 8 Frenchfield Way, Penrith Conditions

Mr Martin Woodhall

6 Planning Application No: 19/0869

Full detail retrospective application for the ongoing retention of external toilet Recommended to: facility APPROVE 123 Bolton Methodist Church, Chapel Street, Subject to Bolton Conditions

Mr J B Thornborrow

7 Planning Application No: 20/0235

Removal or variation of condition 11 (removal of permitted development Recommended to: rights) attached to outline approval 17/0032 APPROVE 132

Subject to Land at Station Road, Newbiggin, Conditions Temple Sowerby

Messrs Alderson and Chapman

8 Planning Application No: 20/0262

Variation of conditions 2 (approved plans) and 7 (timber garage doors) Recommended to: attached to reserved matters approval 19/0080 APPROVE 141 Subject to Land at Station Road, Newbiggin, Conditions Temple Sowerby

Messrs Alderson and Chapman www.eden.gov.uk 3

9 Planning Application No: 20/0133

Construction of live/work unit comprising 2 storey dwelling, single storey link and Recommended to: work unit with remote secure storage APPROVE 151 Land adj. to Fernbank, Great Strickland Subject to Applegarth Foods Conditions

Mrs K. Twentyman

10 Planning Application No: 20/0248

Creation of gated area with hard Recommended to: standing and erection of timber car port APPROVE 183 2 The Faulds, Front Street, Armathwaite Subject to Conditions Mrs J Dutton

6 Confirmation of Site Visits (if any)

To confirm the date and location of any site visits that may have been agreed.

7 Any Other Items which the Chairman decides are urgent

8 Date of Next Meeting

The date of the next scheduled meeting be confirmed as 13 August 2020.

Yours faithfully

R Rouse Chief Executive

Democratic Services Contact: Karen Wyeth

Encs

For Attention All members of the Council www.eden.gov.uk 4

Chairman – Councillor W Patterson (Independent Group) Vice Chairman – Councillor I Chambers (Conservative Group)

Councillors M Clark, Independent Group H Sawrey-Cookson, Independent Group M Eyles, Liberal Democrat Group G Simpkins, Liberal Democrat Group D Holden, Liberal Democrat Group J G Thompson, Conservative Group J C Lynch, Conservative Group D Wicks, Conservative Group A Ross, Green Group

Standing Deputies A Armstrong, Conservative Group E Martin, Conservative Group P G Baker, Liberal Democrat Group A Meadowcroft, Conservative Group D Banks, Independent Group G Nicolson OBE, Conservative Group L Harker, Liberal Democrat Group D Ryland, Independent Group S Lancaster, Independent Group D Smith, Liberal Democrat Group D Lawson, Green Group

Please Note: 1. Section 78 of the Coronavirus Act 2020 and the Local Authorities and Police and Crime Panels (Coronavirus)(Flexibility of Local Authority and Police and Crime Panel Meetings)(England and Wales) Regulations 2020 mean that this meeting of Eden District Council is classed as a virtual meeting. 2. Under the Openness of Local Government Bodies Regulations 2014 this meeting has been advertised as a public meeting (unless stated otherwise) and as such could be filmed or recorded by the media or members of the public

www.eden.gov.uk 5 This page is intentionally left blank PLANNING COMMITTEE Agenda Item No. APPLICATIONS DETERMINED UNDER OFFICER DELEGATED POWERS FOR THE MONTH OF JUNE 2020

App No App Type Parish Description Location Applicant Decision

17/0962 Outline Crackenthorpe Outline application for residential development with OAKLEA, CRACKENTHORPE, Mr B Hall & Miss L Kelly REFUSED Application all matters reserved. APPLEBY-IN-WESTMORLAND, CA16 6AF

18/0417 Reserved by Penrith Discharge of condition 6 (programme of FORMER GARAGE SITE, WILLIAM Ms R Field APPROVED Cond archaeological work) attached to approval 16/0933. STREET, PENRITH,

19/0271 Reserved by Newbiggin Discharge of condition 5 (surface water drainage), 6 LAND AT STATION ROAD, Messrs C Alderson & C APPROVED Cond (surface water and foul water drainage) and 9 NEWBIGGIN, TEMPLE SOWERBY, Chapman (archaeological work) attached to approval 17/0032 and condition 3 (materials) attached to approval 19/0080.

20/0087 Reserved Matters Langwathby Reserved matters for appearance, landscaping LAND AT EDEN VIEW, Mr Wilkinson - JIW APPROVED layout and scale attached to 18/0775. LANGWATHBY, PENRITH, CA10 1NH Properties Ltd

20/0091 Full Application Greystoke New external kitchen extract duct and roof fan, part BOOT AND SHOE INN, BERRIER Mr W Hunt - Punch APPROVED retrospective. ROAD, GREYSTOKE, PENRITH, Limited CA11 0TP

20/0092 Listed Building Greystoke Listed building consent for new external kitchen BOOT AND SHOE INN BERRIER Mr Wayne Hunt - APPROVED extract duct and roof fan, part retrospective. ROAD, GREYSTOKE, PENRITH, Punch Limited CA11 0TP

20/0102 Full Application Lazonby Retrospective application for use of site for LAZONBY CAMPSITE, LAZONBY Lazonby and District APPROVED motorhomes, tented camping accommodation and SWIMMING POOL, TOWN FOOT, Swimming Pool touring caravans. LAZONBY, PENRITH, CA10 1BL Association-Mrs J Eastham

20/0135 Full Application Skelton Erection of single storey side extension (en- 2 COOPERS GARTH, SKELTON, Mr Ken Hornby APPROVED suite/store room). Revised scheme. PENRITH, CA11 9SA

20/0147 Full Application Hesket Part retrospective change of use from agricultural BIRKTHWAITE MEWS, WREAY, Mr & Mrs Little REFUSED Agenda Item 4 field to domestic use and siting of 2 storage buildings. CARLISLE, CA4 0RZ

20/0151 Full Application Murton Variation of condition 2 (plans compliance) to include LANGTON FIELD, LANGTON FARM, Mr J Bell APPROVED alterations to ground floor layout attached to approval LANGTON, APPLEBY-IN- 18/0864. WESTMORLAND, CA16 6JG

20/0157 Full Application Long Marton Construction of ancillary accommodation (agricultural GLEBELANDS, KNOCK, PENRITH, Mr & Mrs Shepherd APPROVED workers dwelling). CA16 6DT Page 7 Page

20/0159 Full Application Brougham Erection of rear and side extensions. STABLE COTTAGE, BROUGHAM, Mr N Davies APPROVED PENRITH, CA10 2DE

03 July 2020 Page 1 of 5 App No App Type Parish Description Location Applicant Decision Page 8 Page 20/0160 Full Application Skelton Extension, alterations and change of use of barn to DUCK POND BARN, SOWERBY Alltrust SIPP Ltd APPROVED dwelling. ROW, CARLISLE, CA4 0QG

20/0208 Full Application Hesket Proposed covered silage pit. MONKS HOUSE, PLUMPTON, Turnbull Farming - Mr A APPROVED PENRITH, CA11 9NS Turnbull

20/0209 Full Application Penrith Variation of condition 2 (plans compliance) for the FORMER CARE HOME, BEACON Atkinson Homes Ltd - APPROVED relocation of 3no garages from the West of the site EDGE, PENRITH, CA11 8BN Mr R Atkinson to the East, attached to approval 18/1008.

20/0213 Full Application Penrith Retention of four 5m high lighting and ANPR camera I PARK SMART SERVICES LTD, I Park Smart Ltd APPROVED columns and the erection of one 5m high lighting and CROMWELL ROAD, PENRITH, CA11 ANPR camera column. 7JW

20/0227 Full Application Brougham Erection of agricultural shed. Part retrospective. HIGH GROUNDS, CLIFTON DYKES, Mr & Mrs C Chappelhow APPROVED PENRITH, CA10 2DH

20/0228 Full Application Kings Meaburn Conversion of barn to wedding/function venue and KELD FARM, KINGS MEABURN, Mrs Addison APPROVED associated works. PENRITH, CA10 3BS

20/0231 Full Application Brough Change of use from stable building to dog kennels CHERRY TREE HOUSE, BROUGH, MR & MRS P HOLMES APPROVED and grooming area. KIRKBY STEPHEN, CA17 4DS

20/0232 Full Application Brough Covering of existing silo pit. WEST VIEW, BROUGH, KIRKBY Mr D Hayllar APPROVED STEPHEN, CA17 4DS

20/0233 Notice of Intention Murton Agricultural building to cover existing livestock STONERIGGS, MURTON, APPLEBY, Messrs GA & DE APPROVED handling facilities. CA16 6LS Slack - Mr K Slack

20/0236 Change of Use Sockbridge & Change of use of an agricultural building to CELLERON HAY BARN, CELLERON Lowther Estate Trust REFUSED PD/PN Tirril dwellinghouse. SOUTH FARM, CELLERON, PENRITH, CA10 2LS

20/0237 Full Application Alston Change of use of the ground floor of former bank BARCLAYS BANK CHAMBERS, Mr W Dodsworth APPROVED premises to residential accommodation. GROUND FLOOR, FRONT STREET, ALSTON, CA9 3SE

20/0239 Full Application Crackenthorpe Roof over existing silage pit. BRIDGE END FARM, KIRKBY Mr C Dent - Messrs C APPROVED THORE, PENRITH, CA10 1UZ Dent

20/0240 Full Application Crackenthorpe Roof over existing silage pit. BRIDGE END FARM, KIRKBY Mr C Dent - Messrs C APPROVED THORE, PENRITH, CA10 1UZ Dent

20/0241 Full Application Crackenthorpe Roof over existing silage pit. BRIDGE END FARM, KIRKBY Mr C Dent - Messrs C APPROVED THORE, PENRITH, CA10 1UZ Dent

20/0243 Full Application Kirkoswald Single storey side extension to the existing porch. SPRING BANK, KIRKOSWALD, Mr Gavin Howe APPROVED PENRITH, CA10 1DQ

03 July 2020 Page 2 of 5 App No App Type Parish Description Location Applicant Decision

20/0247 Full Application Lazonby Detached garage/secure store with attached car port 1 BACK ROW, LAZONBY, PENRITH, Mr B Metcalfe APPROVED and separate refuse/recycling store. CA10 1AG

20/0257 Full Application Skelton Variation of condition 2 (plans compliance) to amend THE UPFRONT GALLERY, Mr J Parkinson - APPROVED the design of the cabins, attached to approval UNTHANK FARM, SKELTON, Ecostay Ltd 07/0466. PENRITH, CA11 9TG

20/0259 Reserved by Langwathby Discharge of condition 4 (materials) attached to LAND AT LANGWATHBY HALL Willan Homes APPROVED Cond approval 19/0222. FARM, LANGWATHBY, PENRITH, CA10 1LW

20/0264 Reserved Matters Dacre Reserved Matters application for access, MOSS THORN FARM, PALLET HILL, Mr R Fisher APPROVED appearance, landscaping, layout and scale, attached PENRITH, CA11 0BY to approval 18/0025.

20/0265 Tree Works (CA) Alston Removal of 3 x trees. BELDY HOUSE, GARRIGILL, Mr O'Dwyer APPROVED ALSTON, CA9 3DH

20/0266 Full Application Kaber Installation of 1MW heat pumps and associated BROXTY FARM, KABER, KIRKBY Mr & Mrs K Buckle APPROVED infrastructure. STEPHEN, CA17 4ER

20/0268 Non-Material Temple Sowerby Non Material Amendment for the reduction in height THE LODGE, TEMPLE SOWERBY, Mr & Mrs M Clayton APPROVED Amend and design amendments, attached to approval PENRITH, CA10 1SB 19/0790.

20/0272 Full Application Penrith Demolition of outbuildings and garage and erection LORNE HOUSE, MEETING HOUSE Mr A Stackhouse APPROVED of new extensions. Addition of larger rooflights and LANE, PENRITH, CA11 7TR general improvements and formation of new entrance door on side elevation.

20/0273 Listed Building Penrith Listed Building Consent for replacement of concrete 29 ALBERT STREET, PENRITH, Mrs M Finch APPROVED tiled roof with slate and replacement of single glazed, CA11 7XA timber rooflight with double glazed, aluminium rooflight.

20/0276 Listed Building Kirkoswald Listed Building Consent for addition of garden room BUSKRIGG, RENWICK, CA10 1LA Mrs J Milburn APPROVED to rear and insertion of window in front elevation.

20/0277 Full Application Kirkoswald Addition of garden room to rear and insertion of BUSKRIGG, RENWICK, CA10 1LA Mrs J Milburn APPROVED window in front elevation.

20/0279 Full Application Penrith Proposed two storey rear extension. 58 CASTLE HILL ROAD, PENRITH, Mr A Gasgarth APPROVED CA11 7HD

20/0280 Change of Use Yanwath & Change of use of agricultural building to 4no YANWATH HALL, YANWATH, Lowther Estate Trust REFUSED PD/PN Eamont Bridge dwellings. PENRITH, CA10 2LF Page 9 Page 20/0281 Householder Penrith Single storey rear extension. 9 CYPRESS WAY, PENRITH, CA11 Mr D Irving APPROVED PD/PN 8UN

03 July 2020 Page 3 of 5 Page 10 Page App No App Type Parish Description Location Applicant Decision

20/0284 Full Application Castle Sowerby Variation of condition 2 (plans compliance) for STONEGARTH, HESKET Mr G Ostle APPROVED rotation of dwelling, enlargement of garage to provide NEWMARKET, WIGTON, CA7 8HR storage, addition of part cedar cladding. Omit glass roof and insertion of 3no. Velux windows on south elevation, attached to approval 17/0819.

20/0285 Tree Works (CA) Penrith Tree to rear of back garden adjoining rear of 49 ARTHUR STREET, PENRITH, John Marshall APPROVED properties on Sandcroft - remove a small number of CA11 7TU lower branches that overhang neighbours gardens.

20/0286 Tree Works (CA) Alston Lime (1) remove epicormic growth and trunk growth ALSTON HIGHWAYS DEPOT, CCC - Miss Emma APPROVED to 5m; Sycamore (2) remove trunk growth to 5m; CHAPEL TERRACE, ALSTON, CA9 Chapman Lime (3) remove trunk growth to 5m; Sycamore (4) 3SW crown raise to provide 2m clearance of sub-station.

20/0287 Tree Works Penrith Ash (T1) - pollard to 5m at appropriate pollard points THE LABS, SKIRSGILL DEPOT, CCC - Miss Emma APPROVED (TPO) due to decline and several fungal fruiting brackets. PENRITH, CA10 2BQ Chapman

20/0288 Tree Works Penrith Sycamore (T1) - remove hung up branch. LAND AT SKIRSGILL DEPOT, CCC - Miss Emma APPROVED (TPO) PENRITH, Chapman

20/0294 Notice of Intention Greystoke Extension to existing agricultural building. TILERY FARM, SKELTON, PENRITH, Mr M Holmes APPROVED CA11 9SH

20/0297 Non-Material Dacre Non Material Amendment for change in roof material, VILLAGE HALL, NEWBIGGIN, Dacre Parish Council APPROVED Amend reduction of glazing height and addition of drainage PENRITH, CA11 0HT channel, attached to approval 18/0981.

20/0300 Notice of Intention Glassonby Extension to existing agricultural building. BANK FARM, UNTHANK, T T & J E Mason APPROVED GAMBLESBY, CA10 1JB

20/0310 Notice of Intention Alston Erection of agricultural storage shed. DYKEHEAD, NENTHEAD, ALSTON, Mr L Wood APPROVED CA9 3PY

20/0317 Tree Works (CA) Kirkby Stephen T1 Sycamore - fell to allow improved driveway 4 MANOR HOUSE, KIRKBY Mr Charles Hill APPROVED access; STEPHEN, CA17 4SH T2 Sycamore - prune to clear telephone wires by 2m; T3 Oak - fell due to previous poor pruning; T4 Conifers - remove due to previous poor pruning.

20/0336 Notice of Intention Skelton Proposed agricultural building. CROFT HOUSE, LAMONBY, Mr T Birks APPROVED PENRITH, CA11 9SS

20/0347 Notice of Intention Penrith Proposed agricultural building. GREENGILL HEAD, MAIDENHILL, P H Thompson & APPROVED PENRITH, CA11 8SH Partners - Mr R Thompson

20/0350 Notice of Intention Skelton Proposed agricultural building. MIDDLESCEUGH HALL, M&G Cash Ltd - Mr M APPROVED SOUTHWAITE, CA4 0NN Cash

03 July 2020 Page 4 of 5 App No App Type Parish Description Location Applicant Decision

In relation to each application it was considered whether the proposal was appropriate having regard to the Development Plan, the representations which were received including those from consultees and all other material considerations. In cases where the application was approved the proposal was considered to be acceptable in planning terms having regard to the material considerations. In cases where the application was refused the proposal was not considered to be acceptable having regard to the material and relevant considerations. In all cases it was considered whether the application should be approved or refused and what conditions, if any, should be imposed to secure an acceptable form of development. Page 11 Page

03 July 2020 Page 5 of 5 This page is intentionally left blank

Notice of Decision

Carriage Return

To: Mr B Hall & Miss L Kelly Mansion House, Penrith, Cumbria CA11 7YG Oaklea Tel: 01768 817817 Crackenthorpe Appleby CA16 6AF

Town and Country Planning Act 1990 Town and Country Planning (Development Management Procedure) Order 2015

Application No: 17/0962 On Behalf Of: Mr B Hall & Miss L Kelly

In pursuance of their powers under the above Act and Order, Eden District Council, as local planning authority, hereby REFUSE outline planning permission for the development described in your application and on the plans and drawings attached thereto, viz:

Application Type: Outline Application Proposal: Outline application for residential development with all matters reserved. Location: OAKLEA CRACKENTHORPE APPLEBY-IN-WESTMORLAND CA16 6AF

The reasons for this decision are:

1) The development is considered to be unacceptable on the grounds that the proposal conflicts with the spatial planning policies of the Council. The application site does not meet the criteria of infill or rounding off development as required for new housing within the Smaller Villages and Hamlets, and therefore constitutes an unjustified and unsustainable form of development which does not accord with the hierarchy of settlements. The proposal is therefore considered to be contrary to Policies LS1 and HS2 of the Eden Local Plan 2014-2032.

Where necessary the local planning authority has worked with the applicant in a positive and proactive manner seeking solutions to problems arising in relation to dealing with the planning application and to implement the requirements of the NPPF and the adopted development plan.

Date of Decision: 12 June 2020

Signed:

www.eden.gov.uk Oliver Shimell LLB Assistant Director Planning and Economic Development Page 13

Oliver Shimell LLB Assistant Director Planning and Economic Development

www.eden.gov.uk 2 Page 14 Notice of Decision

Carriage Return

To: Stansgate Planning Mansion House, Penrith, Cumbria CA11 7YG 9 The Courtyard (ADM/9296) Tel: 01768 817817 Timothy's Bridge Road Stratford Upon Avon CV37 9NP

Town and Country Planning Act 1990 Town and Country Planning (Development Management Procedure) Order 2010 Town and Country Planning (General Permitted Development) Order 2015 Determination of Local Planning Authority as to whether the prior approval of the authority is required for the below development

Application No.: 20/0236 On Behalf Of: Lowther Estate Trust Proposal: Change of use of an agricultural building to dwellinghouse. Location: CELLERON HAY BARN CELLERON SOUTH FARM CELLERON PENRITH CA10 2LS Under the provisions of Part 3 of the Town and Country Planning (General Permitted Development) Order 2015, I hereby confirm that this Authority has made the following determination: THAT THE PRIOR APPROVAL OF THE AUTHORITY IS REQUIRED. THE AUTHORITY REFUSES TO APPROVE THE DETAILS SUBMITTED FOR THE FOLLOWING REASON(S):

Schedule 2, Part 3, Class Q(2) states ‘Where the development proposed is development under Class Q(a) together with development under Class Q9b), development is permitted subject to the condition that before beginning the development, the developer must apply to the local planning authority for a determination as to whether the prior approval of the authority will be required as to (inter alia) (c ) contamination risks on the site, and the provisions of paragraph W (prior approval) of this Part apply in relation to that application’.

Paragraph W (9) advises that the local planning authority may require the developer to submit such information as the authority may reasonably require in order to determine the application which may include - (a) Assessments of impact risks; (b) Statements setting out how impacts or risks are to be mitigated; or (c) Details of proposed building or other operations.

Paragraph W (10) (c ) states that in relation to the contamination risks on the site, that the local planning authority must - (i) Determine whether, as a result of the proposed change of use, taking into account any proposed mitigation, the site will be contaminated land as described in Part 2A of the Environmental Protection Act 1990, and in doing so have regard to the Contaminated Land Statutory Guidance issued by the Secretary of State for the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs in April 2012, and www.eden.gov.uk Oliver Shimell LLB Assistant Director Planning and Economic Development Page 15

(ii) If they determine that the site will be contaminated land, refuse to give prior approval.

A Phase 1 contaminated land assessment has not been provided and as such there is insufficient information to determine whether the site is contaminated land.

Date of Decision: 12 June 2020 Signed:

Oliver Shimell LLB Assistant Director Planning and Economic Development

www.eden.gov.uk 2 Page 16 Notice of Decision

Carriage Return

To: PlanB Building Drawing - Mr S Leslie Mansion House, Penrith, Cumbria CA11 7YG The Wish Tel: 01768 817817 160 Dalston Road Carlisle CA2 5PJ

Town and Country Planning Act 1990 Town and Country Planning (Development Management Procedure) Order 2015

Application No: 20/0147 On Behalf Of: Mr & Mrs Little

In pursuance of their powers under the above Act and Order, Eden District Council, as local planning authority, hereby REFUSE full planning permission for the development described in your application and on the plans and drawings attached thereto, viz:

Application Type: Full Application Proposal: Part retrospective change of use from agricultural field to domestic use and siting of 2 storage buildings. Location: BIRKTHWAITE MEWS WREAY CARLISLE CA4 0RZ

The reason(s) for this decision are:

1) The proposal involving the change of use of part of an agricultural field to domestic use (curtilage/garden) would have an adverse harm to the intrinsic character of the open rural landscape, contrary to aims of Policy DEV5 and ENV2 of the Eden Local Plan.

2) The proposed buildings are not characteristic or sympathetic to the agricultural character and appearance of the area and the proposed domestic style buildings, on open agricultural land, do not protect or enhance the district’s distinctive rural landscape and are therefore contrary to the aims of Policy DEV5 of the Eden Local Plan.

Where necessary the local planning authority has worked with the applicant in a positive and proactive manner seeking solutions to problems arising in relation to dealing with the planning application and to implement the requirements of the NPPF and the adopted development plan.

Date of Decision: 23 June 2020

Signed:

Oliver Shimell LLB www.eden.gov.uk Oliver Shimell LLB Assistant Director Planning and Economic Development Page 17

Assistant Director Planning and Economic Development

www.eden.gov.uk 2 Page 18 Notice of Decision

Carriage Return

To: Graham K Norman (Architect) Ltd. Mansion House, Penrith, Cumbria CA11 7YG Unit 4 Mereside Tel: 01768 817817 Eden Business Park Greenbank Road Penrith Cumbria CA11 9FB

Town and Country Planning Act 1990 Town and Country Planning (Development Management Procedure) Order 2010 Town and Country Planning (General Permitted Development) Order 2015 Determination of Local Planning Authority as to whether the prior approval of the authority is required for the below development

Application No.: 20/0280 On Behalf Of: Lowther Estate Trust Proposal: Change of use of agricultural building to 4no dwellings. Location: YANWATH HALL YANWATH PENRITH CA10 2LF Under the provisions of Part 3 of the Town and Country Planning (General Permitted Development) Order 2015, I hereby confirm that this Authority has made the following determination: THAT THE PRIOR APPROVAL OF THE AUTHORITY IS REQUIRED. THE AUTHORITY REFUSES TO APPROVE THE DETAILS SUBMITTED FOR THE FOLLOWING REASON(S): i) The proposal does not comply with Q (b) and accordingly Q.1 (i) as the building operations, including significant demolition, are not considered to be reasonably necessary for conversion and would be tantamount to a significant rebuild due to the extensive nature of the work proposed to the existing structure.

Date of Decision: 30 June 2020 Signed:

Oliver Shimell LLB Assistant Director Planning and Economic Development

www.eden.gov.uk Oliver Shimell LLB Assistant Director Planning and Economic Development Page 19

This page is intentionally left blank Agenda Item 5 Agenda Index REPORTS FOR DEBATE

Eden District Council Planning Committee Agenda Committee Date: 16 July 2020 INDEX

Item Officer Application Details No Recommendation

1 Planning Application No: 20/0134 Recommended to: Outline application for residential development, with approval sought for access APPROVE Subject to Agreement Land adjacent to the Mains, Stainton under Section 106 Mr J Avery – Atric Ltd

2 Planning Application No: 20/0077 Recommended to: Formation of a drainage basin to attenuate surface water associated a residential development APPROVE Subject to Conditions Land west of Thorpefield, Sockbridge Stoneswood Developments Ltd

3 Planning Application No: 20/0078 Recommended to: Reserved matters application for access, appearance, landscaping, layout and scale attached to approval ref. APPROVE 17/0080 Subject to Conditions Land west of Thorpefield, Sockbridge Stoneswood Developments Ltd

4 Planning Application No: 19/0418 Recommended to: Change of use of land to mixed agricultural/keeping of horses and proposed general purpose agricultural horse- APPROVE culture building Subject to Conditions Field at Kings Meaburn Road, Colby Mr D Birkett

5 Planning Application No: 20/0165 Recommended to: Proposed two storey extension to rear and front elevations, together with single storey extension to side, and new porch APPROVE (as amended) Subject to Conditions 8 Frenchfield Way, Penrith Mr Martin Woodhall

Page 21 Agenda Index REPORTS FOR DEBATE 6 Planning Application No: 19/0869 Recommended to: Full detail retrospective application for the ongoing retention of external toilet facility APPROVE Subject to Conditions Bolton Methodist Church, Chapel Street, Bolton Mr J B Thornborrow

7 Planning Application No: 20/0235 Recommended to: Removal or variation of condition 11 (removal of permitted development rights) attached to outline approval 17/0032 APPROVE Subject to Conditions Land at Station Road, Newbiggin, Temple Sowerby Messrs Alderson and Chapman

8 Planning Application No: 20/0262 Recommended to: Variation of conditions 2 (approved plans) and 7 (timber garage doors) attached to reserved matters approval APPROVE 19/0080 Subject to Conditions Land at Station Road, Newbiggin, Temple Sowerby Messrs Alderson and Chapman

9 Planning Application No: 20/0133 Recommended to: Construction of live/work unit comprising 2 storey dwelling, single storey link and work unit with remote secure storage APPROVE Subject to Conditions Land adj. to Fernbank, Great Strickland Applegarth Foods – Mrs K. Twentyman

10 Planning Application No: 20/0248 Recommended to: Creation of gated area with hard standing and erection of timber car port APPROVE Subject to Conditions 2 The Faulds, Front Street, Armathwaite Mrs J Dutton

Page 22 Agenda Item 1 REPORTS FOR DEBATE Date of Committee: 16 July 2020

Planning Application No: 20/0134 Date Received: 20 February 2020

OS Grid Ref: 348705 Expiry Date: 22 May 2020 (extension of time 528089 agreed to 31 July 2020) Parish: Dacre Ward: Dacre

Application Type: Outline

Proposal: Outline application for residential development, with approval sought for access

Location: Land adjacent to the Mains, Stainton

Applicant: Mr J Avery – Atric Ltd

Agent: Mr Armstrong-Payne

Case Officer: Nick Atkinson

Reason for Referral: The recommendation is contrary to the views of the Parish Council who object to the proposal

Page 23 Agenda Item 1 REPORTS FOR DEBATE

Page 24 Agenda Item 1 REPORTS FOR DEBATE 1. Recommendation

It is recommended that delegated power be given to the Assistant Director Planning Services and Economic Development and the Assistant Director Governance to grant planning permission subject to a Section106 Agreement being entered into to the absolute satisfaction of the Assistant Director Planning Services and Economic Development and Assistant Director Governance requiring the provision of 30% affordable Houses, the phasing of the development; and the Council’s reasonable costs being paid in relation to that Section 106 Agreement and subject to the following conditions: Time Limit for Commencement 1. The development permitted shall be begun either before the expiration of three years from the date of this permission or before the expiration of two years from the date of approval of the last of the reserved matters to be approved, whichever is the later. Reason: In order to comply with the provisions of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990. 2. The approval of the details of the scale, layout, external appearance of the buildings and the landscaping of the site (called “the reserved matters”) shall be obtained from the Local Planning Authority in writing before any development is commenced. Reason: The application is in outline form only and is not accompanied by full detailed plans. 3. An application for approval of all reserved matters shall be made to the Local Planning Authority before the expiration of three years from the date of this permission. Reason: In order to comply with the provisions of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990. Approved Plans 4. The development hereby approved shall be undertaken in strict accordance with the application form dated the 19 February 2020 and the following plans and documents:  Site Location Plan (ref: 19045-02A), received 20 February 2020;  Site Restrictions Plan (ref: 19045-03A – Rev.A), received 20 February 2020;  Flight Ecology Extended Phase 1 Habitat Survey (ref: Q173-D01), received 20 February 2020;  Lowther Arboricultural Survey, Tree Constraints Plan and Abroricultural Impact Assessment (ref: LSF/401-01/BK), received 20 February 2020;  Hamilton Technical Services Drainage Strategy Report (ref: Issue 1 – C- 0918), received 20 February 2020;  Hamilton Technical Services Flood Risk Assessment (ref: Issue 1 – C-0918), received 20 February 2020. Reason: To ensure a satisfactory development and to avoid ambiguity as to what

Page 25 Agenda Item 1 REPORTS FOR DEBATE constitutes the permission. Prior to Commencement 5. Prior to the commencement of the development hereby approved, a surface water drainage scheme and management plan, based on the hierarchy of drainage options in the National Planning Practice Guidance with evidence of an assessment of the site conditions (inclusive of how the scheme shall be managed after completion) shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The surface water drainage scheme must be in accordance with the Non- Statutory Technical Standards for Sustainable Drainage Systems (March 2015) or any subsequent replacement national standards. No surface water shall discharge to the public sewerage system either directly or indirectly. The development shall be completed, maintained and managed in accordance with the approved details. Reason: To promote sustainable development, secure proper drainage and to manage the risk of flooding and pollution. 6. The carriageway, footways, footpaths, cycle ways etc. shall be designed, constructed, drained and lit to a standard suitable for adoption and in this respect further details, including longitudinal/cross sections, shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority for before work commences on site. No work shall be commenced until a full specification has been approved. These details shall be in accordance with the standards laid down in the current Cumbria Design Guide. 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. 7. Prior to the commencement of the development hereby approved, 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 and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. 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. 8. Prior to the commencement of the development hereby approved, a Construction Environment Management Plan (CEMP), for construction of the proposed development, shall be submitted to and approved by the Local Planning Authority in writing. The Plan shall include the following details:  potential impacts and mitigation measures from all construction activities to prevent pollution of groundwater and public water supply and to protect the integrity of existing utility assets;  Measures to control noise and dust;  Details and specification of any external lighting;

Page 26 Agenda Item 1 REPORTS FOR DEBATE  Retained areas for vehicles parking, manoeuvring, loading and unloading for their specific purpose during the development;  Surface water management details during the construction phase. The development shall then be undertaken in accordance at all times with the approved Construction Management Plan (CEMP). Reason: To promote sustainable development, to manage the risk of pollution, and to protect the public water supply and the groundwater environment. 9. Prior to the commencement of the development hereby approved, ecological mitigation measures, based upon the recommendations within the Extended Phase 1 Habitat Survey (ref: Q173-D01), shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. Thereafter, the development shall be undertaken in accordance with the approved measures. Reasons: In the interest of protecting and enhancing the ecology and biodiversity of the site. 10. Prior to the commencement of the development hereby approved, a Construction Method Statement including details of all onsite construction works, post- construction reinstatement, drainage, mitigation, and other restoration, together with details of their timetabling has been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The scheme shall include measures to secure:  Formation of the construction compound and access tracks and any areas of hard standing;  cleaning of site entrances and the adjacent public highway;  The sheeting of all HGVs taking spoil to/from the site to prevent spillage or deposit of any materials on the highway;  Post-construction restoration/reinstatement of the working areas. Thereafter, all works shall be undertaken in accordance with the approved Construction Method Statement. Reason: In the interest of protecting highway safety. 11. No development shall commence within the site until the applicant has secured the implementation of a programme of archaeological work in accordance with a written scheme of investigation which has been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. This written scheme will include the following components: i. An archaeological evaluation; ii. An archaeological recording programme the scope of which will be dependent upon the results of the evaluation; iii. Where significant archaeological remains are revealed by the programme of archaeological work, there shall be carried out within one year of the completion of that programme on site: a post-excavation assessment and analysis, preparation of a site archive ready for deposition at a store approved by the LPA, completion of an archive report, and submission of the results for publication in a suitable journal. Reason: To afford reasonable opportunity for an examination to be made to

Page 27 Agenda Item 1 REPORTS FOR DEBATE determine the existence of any remains of archaeological interest within the site and for the preservation, examination or recording of such remains. Prior to occupation 12. No dwellings or buildings or structures shall be occupied until the access roads, as approved, are defined by kerbs and sub base construction. Reason: To ensure that the access roads are defined and laid out at an early stage. Ongoing Conditions 13. Foul and surface water shall be drained on separate systems. Reason: To secure proper drainage and to manage the risk of flooding and pollution. 14. There shall be no vehicular access to or egress from the site other than via the approved access. Reason: To avoid vehicles entering or leaving the site by an unsatisfactory access or route, in the interests of road safety. Informative 1. This decision notice grants planning permission only. It does not override any existing legal agreement, covenant or ownership arrangement. It is the applicant’s responsibility to ensure all necessary agreements are in place prior to the commencement of development. 2. Any plots bordering the designated watercourse will take on the rights and responsibilities of riparian ownership. Please see the guidance on owning a watercourse which is available via the following link: https://www.gov.uk/guidance/owning-a-watercourse. 3. The Environmental Permitting (England and Wales) Regulations 2016 require a permit to be obtained for any activities which will take place:  on or within 8 metres of a main river (16 metres if tidal)  on or within 8 metres of a flood defence structure or culverted main river (16 metres if tidal)  on or within 16 metres of a sea defence  involving quarrying or excavation within 16 metres of any main river, flood defence (including a remote defence) or culvert;  in a floodplain more than 8 metres from the river bank, culvert or flood defence structure (16 metres if it’s a tidal main river) and you don’t already have planning permission For further guidance please visit https://www.gov.uk/guidance/flood-risk-activities- environmental-permits or contact our National Customer Contact Centre on 03708 506 506. The applicant should not assume that a permit will automatically be forthcoming once planning permission has been granted, and we advise them to consult with us at the earliest opportunity.

Page 28 Agenda Item 1 REPORTS FOR DEBATE 4. A public footpath which is numbered 321015 would be effected by the proposed development. The site plan indicates that it will be accommodated on its existing alignment albeit partly on a road which is not ideal. The County Council would need to know what the specification for the new surface for the entire route is to be and, if there is to be a change to the existing gate access as shown on the site plan, we would need to know what it is to be so that it can be agreed. Prior to any work being undertaken on site it would be necessary for the applicant to apply to Cumbria County Council to temporarily close the footpath by means of a temporary traffic regulation order. A minimum notice period of 14 weeks is required for processing such an application. The applicant should be advised to email [email protected] to request the application form and advice if required.

2. Proposal and Site Description 2.1 Proposal 2.1.1 The application seeks outline planning permission for the residential development of the site and land adjacent to the Mains, Stainton. The application also seeks the approval of access. All other matters would be reserved, and such considerations of layout, scale, external appearance and landscaping would be considered at a later date were this proposal granted planning permission. As such, only the principle of residential development and access are considered under this proposal. 2.1.2 The applicant has provided indicative plans which demonstrate that up to 35 residential dwellings could be accommodated at the site, although a lower figure would likely be required to achieve the Local Plan’s aims and requirements in relation to design and the provision of open amenity space. In accordance with the Council’s Affordable Housing requirements, 30% of the final number of dwellings developed at the site would be affordable units. If 35 dwellings were proposed at a Reserved Matters stage, this would equate to 10 affordable dwellings being constructed as a result of this proposal. 2.1.3 The application site would be accessed via an access road leading into the adjacent parcel of land referred to as ‘Land to the rear of Staynegarth’, which was granted planning permission by the Planning Committee on 20 July 2017 under planning permission 17/0150. The access road proposed through this current application, would link into the approved access road for planning permission 17/0150 which exits onto the existing public highway which forms one of the main thoroughfares through the settlement. 2.1.4 The application was submitted alongside the following supporting information:  Planning Statement;  Geophysical Survey Report;  Application Plans;  Flood Risk Assessment;  Extended Phase 1 Habitat Survey;  Arboricultural Assessment;  Drainage Strategy.

Page 29 Agenda Item 1 REPORTS FOR DEBATE 2.1.5 The application site is located within a Flood Zone 1 and is not within a Conservation Area. There are no planning constraints relevant to the determination of this planning application. 2.1.6 In line with the requirements of Town and Country Planning (Environmental Impact Assessment) Regulations 2011 (as amended 2015), it is considered that whilst the development falls within the criteria of Schedule 2 Development (Part 10 Infrastructure Projects [b]), the application does not meet or exceed the threshold criteria, by virtue of being less than 5 hectares and for less than 150 residential dwellings, even when considered cumulatively with the adjacent site. Therefore, the application need not be accompanied by an Environmental Impact Assessment. 2.2 Site Description 2.2.1 The application relates to an under-used area of Greenfield land with no discernible current use or significant visual/practical value. The site covers an area of approximately 1.72 hectares and is of a generally triangular shape. 2.2.2 The site is bounded to the west and south west by existing residential development forming part of Stainton. To the north, the site sits immediately adjacent to an area of undeveloped land which was granted planning approval for the development of 31 houses. There is no built development to the immediate east of the application site, which bleeds into a continuation of the open and rolling countryside beyond Stainton village. There is a gently undulating topography across the site. 2.2.3 The site is considered to be open countryside and in terms of the Local Plan spatial strategy policy, it falls within the classification of Other Rural Areas outside the Key Hubs and Smaller Villages and Hamlets. The site has no other specific designation in terms of planning policies, ie it is not within a Conservation Area, or designated as an area at risk of flooding, etc. 3. Consultees 3.1 Statutory Consultees Consultee Response Highway Authority Responded on 24 April 2020 noting that the Transport – Cumbria County Council Statement submitted by the applicant has been considered, in addition to the likely traffic movements which would be generated by this proposal and the adjacent site. It is concluded that the Transport Statement satisfactorily demonstrates that the joint development would not have a detrimental impact on the public highway network. Therefore, there is no objection to the proposal subject to conditions being imposed on the decision notice relating to the construction of carriageways and footpaths; kerbing details being approved; restricting access to the site to the access road proposed; details of turning spaces being provided and a construction management plan being submitted for prior approval. Environment Agency Responded on 11 March 2020 confirming that there was no objection to the proposal however, the further

Page 30 Agenda Item 1 REPORTS FOR DEBATE comments were noted advising that the Flood Risk Assessment is acceptable in terms of the Agencies remit. However, that the site is within a Flood Zone 1 should be considered a default designation only. The site is near the top of the catchment of Kirk Sike. Whilst this has been assessed within the Flood Risk Assessment, there is no detailing of modelling available for this stretch of the watercourse, then the likelihood of flooding occurring over the lifetime of the development, which may be potentially worsened as a result of climate change, cannot be completely excluded. As such the developer must take this into account and the development must proceed in strict accordance with the Flood Risk Assessment and the mitigation measures it details. Natural England Responded on 26 March 2020 raising no objection to the proposal. However, it was conformed that there is a direct hydrological link from the proposed site to the River Eamont to the south. This river is part of the River Eden and Tributaries SSSI and the River Eden SAC. Therefore there are the following potential impacts on the adjacent watercourse that need to be addressed:  the potential for sediment or other polluting run-off to enter the river - both during the construction period (including earthworks, storage and use of machinery, materials and fuels) and any potential siltation, run-off or other pollution arising from the development in its permanent phase.  any discharge (including foul drainage) and/or run- off/drainage from the site leading to a deterioration in water quality of the river;  the potential for impacts derived from use and/or disturbance of contaminated land.  the potential for introduction and/or spread of invasive non-native species (biosecurity issues). To address construction impacts a Construction Environmental Management Plan (CEMP) must be conditioned as part of the Outline approval to be submitted with the Reserved Matters application. A finalised drainage statement will also be required to ensure the proposed SuDS are still viable as the project progresses. The recommendations detailed in the submitted Habitat Survey report should also be conditioned, with regards to the biodiversity enhancements that should be secured across the site, and lighting requirements to minimise disturbance of wildlife utilising adjacent

Page 31 Agenda Item 1 REPORTS FOR DEBATE beck. An ecological walk-over survey of the site should also be conditioned prior to the commencement of the development to assess if there have been any changes on site since the habitat survey was completed. This should include a check for invasive plant species. Lead Local Flood Authority Responded on 24 April 2020 raising no objection to – Cumbria County Council the proposal subject to conditions requiring the submission of a surface water drainage scheme and a construction surface water management plan being secured through condition on any decision notice as may be issued. It was noted that application would look to a discharge to Kirk Sike (Main River) and that permits could be required from the Environment Agency, it should also be added that Cumbria County Council plans indicate that there is a culverted Ordinary Watercourse (OWC) which crosses the site, the exact location of the watercourse is not definitive on the County Council’s mapping however this should be looked at as the maps does indicate the culvert runs through the proposed development site and the County Council would not support the construction of properties onto of the OWC and as such the OWC may need to be diverted and or properties and layout designs altered to accommodate. Any such work on an OWC would require an Ordinary Watercourse Flood Defence Consent (OWFDC). It is noted that matters relating to, or applications for Ordinary Watercourse Consents are covered by separate and distinct legislation that falls outside of Planning Considerations. 3.2 Discretionary Consultees Consultee Response Education Authority Responded on 24 April 2020 noting that there are – Cumbria County Council sufficient Primary School places available in the catchment school to accommodate the primary pupil yield from this development and no financial contribution for the school or transport is required in this respect. In relation to Secondary School Places, whilst it is considered the development will contribute to pressure on secondary school spaces, more work is required to undertake a strategic solution to the issue. Therefore, no contribution is required for secondary school spaces or transport.

Page 32 Agenda Item 1 REPORTS FOR DEBATE Environmental Health Officer No response has been received to date. – Eden District Council Housing Officer Responded on 31 March 2020 noting that there is a – Eden District Council requirement for 30% Affordable Housing for this proposal in line with the requirements of Policy HS1 of the Eden Local Plan. In terms of affordable housing need, there are currently 10 applicants on the Cumbria Choice (Housing Register) who have indicated that the Parish of Dacre is their first choice preference to live. As such, it is confirmed that there is an affordable housing need within the Parish of Dacre. Dacre is considered to be a good location for affordable housing given its range of services and good transport links. Therefore, an affordable housing mix of tenure on this location is supported. United Utilities Responded on 24 March 2020 raising no objection to the proposal. It was requested that conditions relating to surface water and foul water be attached to any planning permission as may be issued. Minerals and Waste Responded on 28 February 2020 noting that although – Cumbria County Council the site is located within a Minerals Safeguarding Area for Limestone, there is no objection to the proposal. Historic Environment Responded on 24 April 2020 noting that records – Cumbria County Council indicate that the site lies in an area of archaeological potential and that any such remains will be disturbed by the construction of the proposed development. As such, a condition is recommended to be attached to any decision notice as may be issued, requiring the undertaking of a programme of archaeological work prior to the commencement of the development. Arboricultural Officer Responded on the 20 March 2020 noting that the Tree Report is an accurate assessment of the trees on site. The removal of trees is necessary to enable access to be provided and therefore, there is no objection subject to a condition to secure mitigation planting and a landscaping scheme being imposed on any permission as may be issued. 4. Parish Council/Meeting Response Please Tick as Appropriate Parish Qualified No View Object No Response Council/Meeting Support Expressed Dacre Parish  Council 4.1 The Parish Council responded as follows:

Page 33 Agenda Item 1 REPORTS FOR DEBATE ‘Dacre Parish Council have considered this application via e-mail consultation under delegated authority during the Covid-19 outbreak. The Parish Council note that this application is likely to have significant local interest, and that the public’s right of consultation is being frustrated by the current Covid-19 socially distancing measures, normally a public meeting would have been held to allow all members of the public an opportunity to comment. The Parish Council have already emailed EDC to ask if there are any plans/options for the suspension/postponement of the planning process until the Covid-19 situation stabilises. However in the meantime Dacre Parish Council would like to formally object on the grounds of increased pressure on an already overburdened highways infrastructure in particular the increase in cars that would be associated with this development and the increased danger of the awkward junction that leads to this development. Additionally Dacre Parish Council would note that the proposed development is outside of the current envelope of the village and is on a green field site.’ 4.2 Following receipt of the above response from the Parish Council, specifically in relation to the request that the determination of this application be suspended/postponed, a response was provided to the Parish Council confirming that this request could not be agreed to. Although the Government has relaxed a number of pieces of legislation as a result of the current Covid-19 Pandemic, the statutory determination dates for planning applications has not been included or altered and remains as set out within the Town and Country Planning Act 1990. On the contrary, the importance of the Planning System continuing as normal has been stressed by the Government on numerous occasions in order to assist the economic recovery of the Country. Therefore, there are no reasons or justification to defer or postpone the determination of any planning applications at the current time. 4.3 The application has been advertised by means of neighbour notification letters and the erection of a site notice both prior to the current Covid-19 restrictions being in place. A number of letters of representation have already been received from members of the public, in addition to a response having been provided by the Parish Council. The current restrictions have not prevented any member of the public or consultee from submitting letters of representation to this planning application. 5. Representations 5.1 Letters of consultation were sent to nearby neighbours on the 25 February 2020; a site notice erected on the 18 March 2020 and a press notice published on the 29 February 2020.

No of Neighbours Consulted 43 No of letters of support 0 No of Representations Received 5 No of neutral representations 1 No of objection letters 4 5.1.1 Four letters of objection to the proposal have raised the following issues:  The proposal would result in the loss of trees and habitat for wildlife and protected species.  There is a significant risk of pollution to the River Eden which is a Special Area of Conservation and less than half a kilometre away which is fed by Sike Beck. The risk of pollution is very real and cannot be guaranteed not to occur.

Page 34 Agenda Item 1 REPORTS FOR DEBATE  The application would destroy mature trees, drain damp habitats and result in the loss of fauna and flora.  The archaeology report underplays the existence and importance of Rigg and furrow farming – soon nothing will be left for future generations to see locally.  The development will exacerbate adverse impacts on the local highway network.  I object to the grant of additional housing to justify a previous approval which combined would greatly exceed a 10% increase.  The access and entrance to the site, combined with the adjacent development, is inappropriate and unsafe.  The drains and geography of Stainton cannot cope with further development. The village will flood in heavy rain if approved.  The loss of trees is not in accordance with Eden District Council’s Climate and Ecological Emergency.  The development is onto a Greenfield site outwith of the village.  This development, along with other permissions approved and pending determination would take the village beyond its projected growth as a result of this application.  The application cannot be considered in isolation of other planning permissions that have been granted, and the overall growth and increase in the size of the village.  The proposal is out of proportion with the size of Stainton.  The proposal does not follow the form and character of Stainton and does not protect and enhance the rural landscape character of the edge of the settlement and therefore, does not comply with the requirements of Policy DEV5 of the Eden Local Plan.  The application site is not a future growth site for the settlement. Future growth sites have been identified in Stainton within the Eden Local Plan, which should be considered and developed first.  The application does not appropriately consider the immeasurable constraints of the site itself in-relation to its viability for development. If approved, this development would burden the district with undeliverable planning permissions as proven by the adjacent site which will be a hindrance to developable applications in the future.  The cumulative size of the current proposal and the adjacent site is greater than 10% and out of character in terms of the scale of Stainton.  The 2010 SHLAA considered the site and found it unsuitable due to lack of access and unacceptable development into the countryside.  Housing Needs assessments indicate that such need in the village has been met by outstanding approvals and allocations. That these haven’t come forward yet is a moot point as they could. 5.1.2 One letter of representation was received which raises the following considerations:  Residents of Stainton value being in a village environment and do not want to become a suburb of Penrith.

Page 35 Agenda Item 1 REPORTS FOR DEBATE  Over recent years Stainton has doubled in size.  There is sufficient development already for Stainton.  So far low cost housing as not been available for young people or couples in the village who have had to move away.  Services in the village are all that limit.  The access is off the main road on the brow of a hill which is difficult to negotiate if a large vehicle is travelling in the opposite direction. How will the network cope with the additional traffic? 6. Relevant Planning History 6.1 There is no planning history affecting the application site itself which is considered relevant to the determination of this planning application. However, the immediately adjacent land has the following planning history which is considered relevant:  17/0150 – Residential development of 31 houses. Approved 25 July 2017.  15/0543 – Approval of all reserved matters relating to outline planning permission, approved 13 August 2015.  14/0528 – Outline planning permission for residential development with 30% affordable, approved 07 July 2015. 7. Policy Context 7.1 Development Plan Local Plan 2014-2032 Relevant Policies  LS1 Locational Strategy  LS2 Housing Targets and Distribution  RUR1 A Plan for the Key Hubs  DEV1 General Approach to New Development  DEV2 Water Management and Flood Risk  DEV3 Transport, Accessibility and Rights of Way  DEV4 Infrastructure and Implementation  DEV5 Design of New Development  HS1 Affordable Housing  HS4 Housing Type and Mix  ENV1 Protection and Enhancement of the Natural Environment, Biodiversity and Geodiversity  ENV2 Protection and Enhancement of Landscapes and Trees Supplementary Planning Documents:  Housing (2020) 7.2 Other Material Considerations National Planning Policy Framework:  Achieving sustainable development

Page 36 Agenda Item 1 REPORTS FOR DEBATE  Decision making  Delivering a sufficient supply of homes  Making the effective use of land  Achieving well-designed places  Meeting the challenge of climate change and flooding  Conserving and enhancing the natural environment 7.2.1 The policies detailed above are the most relevant policies relating to this application. 8. Planning Assessment 8.1 Key/Main Planning Issues  Principle  Scale and Design  Landscape and Settlement Character Impacts  Infrastructure and Drainage  Highways and Access  Affordable Housing Contribution  Environmental Impacts  Residential Amenity 8.2 Principle 8.2.1 The District’s locational strategy for development is defined at Policy LS1 of the Eden Local Plan which sets out the hierarchy of settlements where development should be focused in the most sustainable locations. 8.2.2 The application relates to an area of underused agricultural land on the edge of the village of Stainton. Within Policy LS1 of the Eden Local Plan, Stainton is designated as a ‘Key Hub’ in which it is stated that, ‘Key Hubs will be the focus for development to sustain local services appropriate to the scale of the village and its hinterland, including new housing, the provision of employment and improvements to accessibility. Unless proposed in this plan, new housing developments which would increase the size of a village by more than 10% on a single site will not normally be supported. Proposals will only be acceptable where they respect the historic character and form of the village’. As such, Stainton is considered to be a location and settlement where the type of development as proposed in this application are considered acceptable. 8.2.3 This site is not allocated within the local plan for residential development or as a ‘Future Growth Site’. Instead the proposal is considered to be a ‘windfall’ which the Planning Portal defines as ‘sites which have not specifically identified as available in the Local Plan process. They normally comprise previously developed sites that have unexpectedly become available’. Although the application site is not previously developed, the use of the word ‘normally’ in this definition is not rigid and does offer some flexibility to include sites such as this. Therefore, the site can reasonably be considered as a windfall site. 8.2.4 It is noted that Policy LS1 does not specifically restrict developments in Key Hubs to allocated or future growth sites. The explanatory text for Policy LS1 confirms that for non-allocated sites, ‘housing development which increases the size of a village by

Page 37 Agenda Item 1 REPORTS FOR DEBATE more than 10% on a single site will not normally be supported.’ However, the explanatory text for Policy LS1 goes onto further clarify that ‘A proposal that would increase the size of the village by more than 10% may be supported where the particular circumstances and context of the development is appropriate and the development respects the historic character and form of the village.’ In the case of the current application, the main consideration in the determination of this application rests in whether or not the proposal is considered to be appropriate in terms of its size and scale, and whether or not it respects the historic form and character of the settlement. 8.2.5 The proposal, whilst only at outline, indicates that up to 35 houses could be accommodated and developed at the site. However, as an outline application the final numbers cannot be confirmed at this stage, although a lower figure would likely be required at the Reserved Matters stage to provide sufficient open amenity space and to achieve an appropriate layout and design. Notwithstanding, should a figure of 35 houses be achieved, then the development itself would fall below the 10% threshold for increases in the size of Key Hubs on a single site, as required through Policy LS1 of the Eden Local Plan. As such, the size and scale of the proposal if considered in isolation would be considered to be in-compliance with the requirements of Policy LS1 as an appropriate extension to an existing Key Hub. 8.2.6 However, officers are in agreement with the comments made by objectors to this application, that consideration should be given to previous planning permissions that have been approved with in the village of Stainton In the case of the current application, consideration should be given specifically to planning permission ref: 17/0150, which was granted on the immediately adjacent land, and to which this proposal essentially represents a second phase as it is intrinsically linked in terms of access arrangements, and also likely shared services and utilities. 8.2.7 In consideration of the size increase that the two sites would represent, there are approximately just over 400 houses comprising the settlement of Stainton. If the current application site and the adjacent site are considered cumulatively the combined this would represent an approximate 16.5% increase in the size of the settlement. However, it is important to again note that the explanatory text within Policy LS1, does not mean that the 10% increase, is not in itself represent a cap, where a development is otherwise considered to be appropriate and respects the historic character and form of the village. 8.2.8 It is considered that the historic core and character of the settlement has been significantly altered and eroded over time with past development, due to more modern developments that have been approved and constructed throughout the village. Although the current proposal cannot be said to follow the historic character of the settlement, this is considered to have been eroded to such an extent, that few sites in the settlement would be able to follow such a pattern, including allocated and future growth sites. 8.2.9 The current proposal could be considered to suitably follow the form of development in the area, however this is only in the event that the adjacent site is first developed in the future. Was this not to be the case, then it is considered that the current proposal would represent a poorly related spur, that would be harmful to the character of the settlement. However, in the event that the adjacent site is first developed, whilst the current proposal would undoubtedly alter the character of the settlement, the extent and degree of such a change is, on balance, not considered to be significantly harmful, or to a degree that would warrant the refusal of this application.

Page 38 Agenda Item 1 REPORTS FOR DEBATE 8.2.10 Notwithstanding the above comments and opinion of officers, it is important to stress that this represents a very finely balanced matter. Furthermore, whilst this is an opinion and planning judgement held by the case officer, this is not a black and white matter. This is a subjective matter and the aforementioned views are an opinion which is not shared by objectors to the proposal, whose concerns and comments in this regard should be duly noted and given full consideration in the determination of this finely balanced application. 8.2.11 In this instance, the principle of the proposal is considered to be very finely balanced; specifically in relation to the cumulative effect that it would have upon the size and character of Stainton when considered in conjunction with the adjacent land. However, on balance the principle of the development is considered to be acceptable, as the overall effect is not considered to be significantly harmful to the character and appearance of the settlement. Therefore, on balance is it considered that the application merits support in this instance subject to consideration of all other material considerations relevant to this application before the Planning Authority. 8.3 Design 8.3.1 As the current proposal is at an outline stage only, it is not possible to fully assess the design and appearance of the proposed dwellings. Such matters do not form part of this submission and are therefore, not before the Council for determination at this time. The current proposal must solely consider the principle of the development, including access. 8.3.2 Notwithstanding the outline nature of this application, should planning permission be granted then an appropriate and high quality design would be required at a Reserved Matters Stage. This would be required in order to ensure the proposal remained ‘in- keeping’ with and reflective of the character of the local built environment. The requirements for a high quality design which reflects the local distinctiveness of the area is required both through Policy DEV5 of the Eden Local Plan and reinforced through Chapter 12 of the National Planning Policy Framework. 8.3.3 At the time of the grant of planning permission 17/0150, an appropriate high quality design and layout was achieved on the adjacent parcel of land. Whilst the Council’s requirements on design, layout and provision of open space have changed since this time, through the adoption of the Eden Local Plan, there is no reason to suggest that the applicant could provide and achieve a layout, design and palate of materials that would be considered acceptable and of suitably high quality at the reserved matters stage if this outline application is approved. 8.4 Landscape and Settlement Character Impacts 8.4.1 One of the main considerations relevant to the determination of this planning application, is the landscape impact of the proposal upon the character of the settlement. In this regard commentary on this matter has been referred to previously in the ‘Principle’ section (8.2) above. 8.4.2 The application site has no local or national landscape character designation or protection. Policy DEV5 of the Eden Local Plan requires development to demonstrate a clear understanding of the form and character of the district’s built and natural environment. It states that the Council will support proposals that ‘protects and where possible enhances the district’s distinctive rural landscape’.

Page 39 Agenda Item 1 REPORTS FOR DEBATE 8.4.3 The National Planning Policy Framework also incorporates Section 12 entitled, ‘Achieving well-designed places’. Paragraph 124 confirms the importance of the design of the built environment, it states, ‘the creation of high quality buildings and places is fundamental to what the planning development process should achieve’. 8.4.4 Paragraph 127 of the National Planning Policy Framework confirms that, ‘Planning Policies and decisions should ensure that developments: a) will function well and add to the overall quality of the area, not just for the short term but over the lifetime of the development; b) are visually attractive as a result of good architecture, layout and appropriate and effective landscaping; c) are sympathetic to local character and history, including the surrounding built environment and landscape setting, while not preventing or discouraging appropriate innovation or change (such as increased densities); d) establish or maintain a strong sense of place, using the arrangement of streets, spaces, building types and materials to create attractive, welcoming and distinctive places to live, work and visit; e) optimise the potential site to accommodate and sustain an appropriate amount and mix of development (including green and other public space) and support local facilities and transport networks; and f) create places that are safe, inclusive and accessible and which promote health and well-being, with a high standard of amenity for existing and future users and where crime and disorder, and the fear of crime, do not undermine the quality of life or community cohesion and resilience’. 8.4.5 As has been previously noted, the application site does not follow the historic form of the settlement, and proposes a scale that is cumulatively above the 10% threshold for increases in the size of Key Hubs. However, it is again noted that the 10% threshold does not represent a cap, and applications can still be considered and approved, but only in instances where the proposal is considered to be appropriate and respect the historic form and character of the settlement. 8.4.6 The Eden Local Plan does not set out or proscribe what constitutes the historic form of any of the settlements listed in Policy LS1. As such, this represents a subjective assessment that must be made of each individual settlement, and also the specific characteristics of each proposal, relevant to the surrounding existing built environment. 8.4.7 In isolation, the application site would be considered to represent a poorly related spur into the surrounding countryside and previously undeveloped land. In reference to isolation, this is referred to on the basis of the site to be granted planning approval and developed independently of the adjacent site granted approval under planning permission 17/0150. In this regard, the application could not be reasonably said to be in-keeping with, sympathetic to or reflect the form of the settlement, and ultimately would result in an inappropriate development that could not be supported. 8.4.8 However, the intrinsic links between the application site and the adjacent land, have been duly noted by objectors to the application and agreed by officers throughout this report. It is reasonable therefore, that both sites be considered cumulatively and not in isolation of each other. This is the case with regards to considerations made regarding the cumulative size increase that would result to the settlement, and therefore,

Page 40 Agenda Item 1 REPORTS FOR DEBATE reasonably they can be considered cumulatively in regards to their relationship together as part of the built environment of the settlement. 8.4.9 In the event that the adjacent site was built out and developed, then the application site would no longer appear as a poorly related spur. Instead it would appear largely as one larger and overall site. Whilst the current development would result in the form of the settlement being extended in a southerly direction, the overall extent would not be extended beyond the existing built form of the village to the north, south or to the north east due to the presence of existing dwellings. In this regard the development would not adversely filer out into the wider adjacent countryside beyond the current limits of the settlement. 8.4.10 In this regard, it is considered appropriate to ensure that the restrictions are put in place, preventing the development of the current application site, until the physical development of the adjacent site has commenced to an acceptable and appropriate degree. This matter would be controlled through the imposition of a restriction with the Section 106 Legal Agreement which the applicant has agreed to enter into. This restriction would prevent any development of the application site, until at least 50% (16 houses) have first been developed through planning permission 17/0150. 8.4.11 In terms of the application sites relationship with the existing village, whilst the site is not considered to be within the settlement, it is noted that the site does run parallel with the edge of the settlement and would represent a sequentially acceptable extension should the adjacent site be developed. This means that whilst the application site may not truly reflect the historic linear form of the adjacent historic dwellings to the west. However, this is not considered to be representative of the overall historic form of the settlement, which is not linear in its form. 8.4.12 Therefore, whilst the development would result in the loss of an area of agricultural land, and would represent an extension to the village resulting in a degree of harm, the extent of that harm is not considered to be significantly adverse in respect of its impact upon the character and appearance of the settlement. It is considered that the proposed development could be accommodated into the local landscape without resulting in any significantly adverse impacts upon the character of the area or to the character of the settlement or appearing as an incongruous development. 8.4.13 It is however again important to note, that whilst these are the views of the case officer, this does represent a subjective matter and an opinion which is incredibly finely balanced and not shared by objectors to the proposal. It is in this regard, that the basis and acceptability of the application largely rests, as a compelling argument could be made for rejecting the scheme on this basis. 8.4.14 A final consideration that must be made is in relation to the past planning permissions that have been granted within the settlement of Stainton and the impacts that cumulatively, this would have upon the settlement. It is noted that the settlement has contributed to the provision of housing following the prior grants of residential planning permission. However, it is also noted that few of these past permissions have yet been developed. 8.4.15 The settlement does have allocated sites for residential development, in addition to ‘Future Growth Sites’, which sets out the settlements further contribution to housing supply within Key Hubs, which at the time of the adoption of the Eden Local Plan was set out at being a residual requirement of 196 within Policy LS2.

Page 41 Agenda Item 1 REPORTS FOR DEBATE 8.4.16 However, a balanced argument exists in this regard. The applicant has noted that limited weight can be afforded to the past permissions and the allocated sites as they have not yet come forward and no approaches have yet been made to the Council. Similarly, objectors to the proposal are correct in their comments that this does not mean that the allocated and ‘Future Growth Sites’ will not come forward throughout the life time of the Eden Local Plan. 8.4.17 In total there are approximately 100 houses that have been granted planning permission within Stainton that have not yet been developed. This includes (not exhaustive) the following planning permissions:  17/0150 – 31 residential dwellings - implemented;  17/0487 – up to 30 residential dwellings – not yet implemented and may expire in July 2021.  17/0540 – up to 5 residential dwellings – not yet implemented and may expire in April 20201.  17/0559 – 12 houses. Not yet implemented but Reserved Matters application submitted.  18/0585 – 9 residential dwellings – not yet determined.  19/0343 – up to 12 residential dwellings – not yet determined. 8.4.18 The cumulative impact of each of these planning permissions being physically developed, would undoubtedly alter the character of the settlement. The degree of change to the character of the settlement would be further altered should the allocated site and ‘Future Growth Sites’ come forward and be developed. Should each permission be implemented and developed, this would cumulatively result in an approximate 25% increase in the size of the settlement but finely balanced as some permission may not be implemented and others under determination may not be approved. However, in contrast each could be. 8.4.19 It is noted that as a settlement, Stainton has already significantly contributed to the provision of housing within Key Hubs. Within Policy RUR1 of the Eden Local Plan, it is noted that 871 new homes will be provided within Key Hubs throughout the duration of the plan period which expires in 2032. In relation to Stainton specifically it is noted that there is an overall target of 97 dwellings, with a windfall allowance of a further 29. There is already a commitment to 64 dwellings in the plan with 4 competed, meaning that there is no residual requirement specifically for the village. 8.4.20 However, as the village remains as a Key Hub within the Local Plan, it is important to assess the impact of each of these developments as a whole upon the village itself. In many regards, this represents is a very difficult and challenging judgement and assessment and judgement to make as none of these permissions have yet been physically developed on site and some may not be. 8.4.21 Consideration has been given to the sporadic and geographically unrelated location of these past permissions throughout the village, in addition to the nature of more modern previous growth in the settlement which has already occurred and altered its historic form. Whilst the past permissions would represent a significant increase in the size of the settlement and affect its character, on balance it is considered that the impact of this growth would be not considered significantly adverse and harmful to the form, feeling and character of the settlement. On balance, it is considered that each of these

Page 42 Agenda Item 1 REPORTS FOR DEBATE past permissions could be accommodated within the form and setting of the village without resulting in a significant degree of harm to its appearance or character. 8.4.22 In relation to the current proposal, the main question would therefore be whether or not this further application could also be accommodated into the form and character of the settlement in a similar manner, or whether this would essentially represent a development too far for the village? 8.4.23 This is arguably the most important consideration for this proposal, and one which is very finely balanced with many opposing views. However, it is considered that when the aforementioned site specific considerations of past permissions are taken into account, and consideration is given to the form and relationship of the adjacent site with the current proposal, it is difficult to identify and conclude that this proposal would result in such a significant degree of harm to the character of the settlement, that this proposal should be refused. 8.4.24 The proposal would undoubtedly further affect the character of the settlement, but the extent of that impact is not considered to be significantly harmful or detrimental to the character and for of the settlement. The proposal does also present some planning gain through the development of additional housing including affordable housing provision, which on balance, is considered to outweigh the perceived harm to the character of the settlement. Although again it is important to again highlight that this is a subjective opinion and a finely balanced consideration. 8.4.25 Overall therefore, whilst the current proposal would result in an impact upon the character of the settlement and local landscape, the extent of this impact is not considered to be sufficiently harmful so as to warrant the refusal of this proposal. 8.5 Infrastructure and Drainage 8.5.1 An important consideration in the determination of this application, is the impact of the proposal in relation to flooding. It is noted that whilst the site is positioned in a Flood Zone 1, the Environment Agency have confirmed that this is essentially a default designation due to the proximity of Kirk Sike watercourse which flows into the River Eden. 8.5.2 Policy DEV2 of the Eden Local Plan, entitled ‘Water Management and Flood Risk’ confirms that ‘new development’ should ‘meet the sequential approach to development in flood risk areas’. 8.5.3 Section 14 of the National Planning Policy Framework entitled ‘Meeting the challenge of climate change, flooding and coastal change’ confirms the role of planning in dealing with these issues. Paragraph 150 confirms that ‘new development should be planned for in ways that: a) avoid increased vulnerability to the range of impacts arising from climate change. When new development is brought forward in areas which are vulnerable, care should be taken to ensure that risks can be managed through suitable adaption measures, including through the planning of green infrastructure; and b) can help to reduce greenhouse gas emissions, such as through its location, orientation and design. Any local requirements for the sustainability of buildings should reflect the Government’s policy for national technical standards’. 8.5.4 Paragraph 155 of the National Planning Policy Framework states that ‘inappropriate development in areas at risk of flooding should be avoided by directing development

Page 43 Agenda Item 1 REPORTS FOR DEBATE away from areas at highest risk (whether existing or future). Where development is necessary in such areas, the development should be made safe for its lifetime without increasing the risk elsewhere’. 8.5.5 Paragraph 162 of the National Planning Policy Framework states that, ‘where planning applications come forward on sites allocated in the development plan through the sequential test, applicants need not apply the sequential test again. However, the exception test may need to be reapplied if relevant aspects of the proposal had not been considered when the test was applied at the plan making stage, or if more recent information about existing or potential flood risk should be taken into account’. 8.5.6 The applicant has provided a Flood Risk Assessment and Drainage Strategy Report as part of the planning application, which has set out the likely flood risks and provided details of how appropriate drainage could be achieved for the site if planning permission is granted. The indicative details notes that foul water would be drained into the existing sewer network, whilst surface water would be drained towards the south east corner of the site and will discharge into the open section of Kirk Sike at a controlled rate of discharge. In addition to the above, the submission indicates that additional capacity would be achieved through the inclusion of two attenuation tanks located parallel to the southern boundary of the site, set either side of a public foul sewer. 8.5.7 Although detailed drainage is not proposed under this current outline application, the principle of this drainage approach has been subject of Consultation with Cumbria County Council as the Lead Local Flood Authority; the Environment Agency and United Utilities. Whilst a number of conditions have been requested to be attached to any decision notice as may be issued, by way of securing further mitigation, none of these Statutory Consultees object to the proposal or raise any concerns that an appropriate drainage scheme could not be designed and engineered for the site to ensure that the development would not result in an increased flood risk or result in any adverse impacts associated with flooding. 8.5.8 Therefore, on the basis further mitigation and details relating to drainage are secured through the imposition of planning conditions and fully implemented on site, it is considered that the development could proceed without undue or significant harm relative to flood risk and is unlikely to result in flood events on site or elsewhere in accordance with the Policy DEV2 of the Eden Local Plan and the requirements of the National Planning Policy Framework. 8.6 Highways and Access 8.6.1 A significant concern that has been expressed by each of the objectors to the application, is the unacceptable impacts that they consider would occur as a result of this development upon the surrounding highway network. In this regard, both highway safety and capacity concerns have been expressed by the objectors. 8.6.2 Policy DEV3 of the Eden Local Plan seeks to ensure that proposals would not result in adverse impacts upon the surrounding highway network. Policy DEV3 confirms ‘New development will be encouraged in areas with existing public transport availability, or in areas where new development is likely to lead to the creation of available public transport. Developments likely to generate severe adverse travel impacts will not be permitted where they are in isolation or difficult to access locations unless an overwhelming environmental, social or economic need can be demonstrated.’

Page 44 Agenda Item 1 REPORTS FOR DEBATE 8.6.3 Within the National Planning Policy Framework, Paragraph 109 confirms that ‘development should only be prevented or refused on highways grounds if there would be an unacceptable impact on highway safety, or the residual cumulative impacts on the road network would be severe’. 8.6.4 The direction of paragraph 109 is explicit in that in order to refuse a proposal on the basis of Highways grounds, the development would have to be based on an ‘unacceptable impact on highway safety’ or ‘the residual cumulative impacts on the road network would be severe’. The Highway Authority does not object to the proposal, or raise any concerns on the impacts of Highway Safety having assessed the application and the supporting Transport Assessment. As such, it would be unreasonable to refuse the proposal on such grounds. 8.6.5 The applicant has confirmed that access to the site would be achieved via the adjacent site granted consent under planning permission 17/0150, which in turn exits on the public highway to the west of the site and one of the main village thoroughfares. The indicative plans have shown how a second access point to the site would be achieved adjacent to the Mains which would not be used as a vehicular access, instead only for pedestrians, cyclists and emergency services. The confirmation of this secondary access does not form part of the current outline application, and would be confirmed at the Reserved Matters stage if planning permission is granted. 8.6.6 The applicant has supplied a Transport Statement in support of this proposal, which sets out the predicted impact of the development upon the surrounding highway network, and the suitability of the proposed access. The Transport Statement confirms that the proposed development would have a negligible impact upon the Highway Network. 8.6.7 Whilst the conclusions of the Transport Statement differs from the views of objectors, no contradictory report or information has been presented beyond anecdotal opinions to the contrary. This application, and the Transport Statement has been subject of consultation with Cumbria County Council as the Highway Authority, who having assessed the application and Transport Statement, has raised no objection or concerns to the proposal, re-affirming the conclusions within the Transport Statement. 8.6.8 The highway response indicates that a safe access can be provided in association with this development, and the proposal would not result in severe or adverse travel impacts, notwithstanding the concerns that have been raised by objectors. Furthermore, the Highway Authority raises no objection to the proposal subject to appropriate conditions being attached to any subsequent approval. On this basis, it would be unreasonable to refuse the application on grounds of highway safety, contrary to Policy DEV3 of the Eden Local Plan and paragraph 109 of the National Planning Policy Framework. 8.6.9 Furthermore, it should be noted that sustainable transport options are available within Stainton, by means of a bus service into Penrith. Whilst the use of this service cannot be guaranteed, this should be afforded weight in the determination of this application, in terms of the proposals sustainability. Due to this existing bus service, future residents would not solely need to rely on the use of a car to access shops, services, education, or employment in accordance with Policy DEV3 of the Eden Local Plan. 8.6.10 For the reasons detailed above, it is considered that the proposed development would not result in adverse, or unacceptable highway safety or capacity impacts. The

Page 45 Agenda Item 1 REPORTS FOR DEBATE proposal can be accessed by sustainable modes of transport. Therefore, the proposed development is considered to be in accordance with Policy DEV3 of the Eden Local Plan, and the National Planning Policy Framework. 8.7 Affordable Housing Contribution 8.7.1 The Eden Local Plan confirms the requirements for affordable housing contributions. Policy HS1, entitled, ‘Affordable Housing’ confirms that ‘the council will seek to secure the provision of 30% of all new housing as affordable homes on schemes with 11 or more units where the on-site contribution does not equate precisely to a whole number of units, the contribution will be rounded down to the nearest unit’. 8.7.2 In this instance the applicant has provided indicative plans which shows up to 35 dwellings at the site. This figure would equate to 10 affordable dwellings should this application be approved, and 35 dwellings proposed at the Reserved Matters Stage, although a slightly lower figure is likely to be proposed for the reasons stated within Section 8.2.5 of this report. 8.7.3 In this regard the current application complies with the requirements of the Eden Local Plan in relation to the provision of affordable housing. In consultation with the Council’s Housing Officer it has been noted that the current Housing Need in the Parish of Dacre is currently for 10 affordable dwellings, which would be satisfied as a result of this current proposal. 8.7.4 Although the tenure of the affordable houses is not yet known at this stage, the Housing Supplementary Planning Document (SPD) confirms that the Council’s initial preference for the mix of affordable units is 70% rented units and 30% low cost home ownership units. However, there will be flexibility around this, specifically within the Key Hubs depending upon housing needs evidence at the time of the application 8.7.4 As such, the current application offers considerable social gains and benefits through the provision of affordable housing, which makes a significant contribution to the Council’s identified Housing Need within the Parish of Dacre. In this regard, the social gains proposed through the development of this affordable housing should be duly afforded significant weight in the planning balance and determination of this planning application. 8.8 Environmental Impacts 8.8.1 Within the Eden Local Plan, Policy ENV1 entitled ‘Protection and Enhancement of the Natural Environment, Biodiversity and Geodiversity seeks to ensure that protection is afforded to areas designated with international, national or local importance. The policy confirms that ‘new development will be required to avoid any net loss of biodiversity, and where possible enhance existing assets. Should emerging proposals identify potential impacts upon designated sites, regard should be given to the objectives for each of the hierarchy of sites’. 8.8.2 In this instance the application site is not afforded any landscape designation nor is it subject to any special ecological designation. The site is currently and underused agricultural field. The applicant has submitted a Phase 1 Ecology Survey in support of this proposal. The survey concludes that no protected or notable species were identified on the site which consists of low diversity semi-improved grassland. The survey did conclude that the site has the potential to offer foraging and commuting habitats for bats and nesting habitats, although possibilities exist to potentially increase the diversity options available to wildlife.

Page 46 Agenda Item 1 REPORTS FOR DEBATE 8.8.3 The Phase 1 Habitat survey proposes a number of mitigation measures to ensure that compensatory habitat is provided for wildlife in the future which include:  Implementation of pollution control measures near the watercourse;  Additional native tree plantings throughout the site;  Retention of the single ash tree at the south eastern corner of the site. If to be removed, then further ecological assessment of the tree is needed;  Communal planting areas with native species;  Incorporation of bird nesting features into the constructed buildings;  Bat roosting boxes to be incorporated into the development;  Lighting on site should be kept to a minimum. 8.8.4 As such, whilst the loss of an area of greenfield land is regrettable, it is considered that the proposal would not necessarily result in a biodiversity net loss or ecological harm. This however, would be an important consideration for the Reserved Matters application, where the layout, design and landscaping of the site would need to be designed to ensure that there was no ecological net loss. The Reserved Matters application would need to include appropriate mitigation green space and plantings to achieve this position. At this stage, there is no reason to suggest that this could not be achieved. 8.8.5 Furthermore, it is considered important that the recommendations set out in the Phase One Habitat Survey are secured through a specific condition to ensure that they are approved prior to the commencement of the development, and implemented thereafter. 8.8.6 It is further noted that the proposal would result in the likely loss of a number of trees currently located on the site. The Arboricultural Assessment provided by the applicant suggests that two trees should be removed irrespective of this proposal due to their poor form, with an additional four trees and one group also to be felled to enable the development of the site. The report suggests replacement planting along the boundary of Staynegarth and Silkside to enhance the landscape contribution of the site, with mitigation measures to be secured to prevent the loss of, or harm to any of the trees to be retained. 8.8.7 This application has been subject of consultation with the Council’s Arboricultural Officer who has confirmed the suitability and accuracy of the Arboricultural Assessment and raised no concerns to the proposal. However, it was noted that additional plantings should be secured through condition as mitigation for the loss of these trees which is considered to be reasonable and has been included in the proposed conditions in Section 1 of this report. 8.8.8 As such, on the basis that an appropriate landscaping and planting scheme is proposed at the Reserved Matters stage, and the further mitigation measures secured through the imposition of condition and implemented on site, the proposed development could result in no net loss to biodiversity and ecology, in compliance with Policy ENV1 of the Eden Local Plan. 8.9 Residential Amenity 8.9.1 Due to the outline nature of the proposal and the limited details that are under consideration, it is not possible to fully assess the impact of the proposed development upon residential amenity. The full impacts would be assessed at a Reserved Matter

Page 47 Agenda Item 1 REPORTS FOR DEBATE stage once final details relating to layout, and housing types are submitted. Notwithstanding, the impact of the proposed development upon local amenity is still considered to represent a material consideration in the determination of this planning application when considering the principle of residential development. 8.9.2 Policy DEV5 of the Local Plan requires that development protects the amenity of existing residents and provides an acceptable amenity for future occupiers of any potential development. 8.9.3 In relation to the impact of the development upon residential amenity, it is noted that the application would be bordered to the west and south west by existing dwellings, with further housing to the north should the site be developed. Whilst the layout plans that have been provided at this stage, are only indicative, they indicate that appropriate separation distances can be achieved in the layout of the site, to ensure that the development would not lead to any adverse impacts upon local amenity caused through a loss of light, privacy, nor appear over-bearing or result in overlooking. 8.9.4 In relation to existing residents of the area, it is acknowledged that during any building out of a development amenity can be affected. Such construction works can result in noise and emissions which can impact upon local residents, however this is to be expected for a temporary period. The inclusion of appropriate controls and mitigation secured through the imposition of conditions, deal with such matters satisfactorily. 8.9.5 For the reasons detailed above, it is considered that this proposal would not have significant and demonstrably harmful impacts in terms amenity of any potential and existing residents contrary to policy DEV5 of the Local Plan and the National Planning Policy Framework. 9. New Homes Bonus 9.1 The prospect of receiving a Bonus is, in principle, capable of being taken into account as a ‘material consideration’ in determining a planning application. Whether potential Bonus payments are in fact a material consideration in relation to a particular application will depend on whether those payments would be used in a way which is connected to the application and to the use and development of land. For example, potential Bonus payments could be a material consideration if they were to be used to mitigate impacts resulting from development. But if the use to which the payments are to be put is unclear or is for purposes unrelated to the development concerned a decision maker would not be entitled to take them into account when making a decision on a planning application. In this particular case, there are no plans to use the New Homes Bonus arising from this application in connection with this development. 10. Implications 10.1 Legal Implications 10.1.1 The following matters have been considered but no issues are judged to arise. 10.2 Equality and Diversity 10.2.1 The Council must have regard to the elimination of unlawful discrimination and harassment, and the promotion of equality under the Equality Act 2010. 10.3 Environment

Page 48 Agenda Item 1 REPORTS FOR DEBATE 10.3.1 The Council must have due regard to conserving bio-diversity under the Natural Environment and Rural Communities Act 2006. 10.4 Crime and Disorder 10.4.1 Under the Crime and Disorder Act 1998, the Council must have regard to the need to reduce crime and disorder in exercising any of its functions. 10.5 Children 10.5.1 Under the Children Act 2004, the Council has a duty to safeguard and promote the welfare of children in the exercise of any of its functions. 10.6 Human Rights 10.6.1 In determining applications, the Council must ensure that all parties get a fair hearing in compliance with the provisions of Article 6 under the European Convention on Human Rights, as now embodied in UK law in the Human Rights Act 1998. 11. Conclusion 11.1 It is important to note that the application does not fully comply with the requirements of the Eden Local Plan. This is primarily due the fact that the application site is not an allocated site, is not a ‘Future Growth Site’ and cumulatively with planning permission 17/0150, would result in an overall development greater than 10% in terms of the increase in the size of the settlement. 11.2 However, it has been detailed that Policy LS1 of the Eden Local Plan is not restrictive in that proposal for non-allocated sites, ‘non-Future Growth Sites’ and proposals which would result in a greater than 10% increase in the size of the settlement can be supported. However, this would only be the case where a proposal is appropriate and would reflect the historic form of the settlement. 11.3 A proposal for a major residential development of this size, is considered to be appropriate for a Key Hub and is considered to be appropriate within the context of the size and location for Stainton. 11.4 The proposal does respect the form of the settlement and built environment, but only where the adjacent site is first developed which would be secured through the Section 106 Legal Agreement. 11.5 The proposal would result in a degree of harm being caused to the appearance and character of the settlement and the surrounding landscape. However, this harm is not considered to be so adversely significant or harmful so as to warrant the refusal of this planning application. When the benefits of the scheme, through the provision of housing and affordable housing is balanced against the extent of this harm, and the lack of harm that has been identified in relation to Highways Impacts, the environment, drainage and amenity, although not a straight forward decision, the planning balance is considered to tip, very finely, in favour of support for the scheme. 11.6 Therefore, the application is recommended for approval. Oliver Shimell Assistant Director Planning and Economic Development

Checked by or on behalf of the Monitoring Officer 28.06.2020

Background Papers: Planning File 20/0134

Page 49 Agenda Item 2 REPORTS FOR DEBATE Date of Committee: 16 July 2020

Planning Application No: 20/0077 Date Received: 3 February 2020

OS Grid Ref: 349848 526511 Expiry Date: 1 April 2020 extension of time agreed until 20 July 2020

Parish: Sockbridge and Ward: Eamont Tirril

Application Type: Full

Proposal: Formation of a drainage basin to attenuate surface water associated a residential development

Location: Land west of Thorpefield, Sockbridge

Applicant: Stoneswood Developments Ltd

Agent: Mr Daniel Addis

Case Officer: Mr Ian Irwin

Reason for Referral: The recommendation is contrary to that of the Parish Council

Page 50 Agenda Item 2 REPORTS FOR DEBATE

Page 51 Agenda Item 2 REPORTS FOR DEBATE 1. Recommendation

It is recommended that permission is granted subject to the following conditions: Time Limit for Commencement 1. The development permitted shall be begun either before the expiration of three years from the date of this permission. Reason: In order to comply with the provisions of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990. Approved Plans 2. The development hereby granted shall be carried out strictly in accordance with the application form dated 3 February 2020 and the following details and plans hereby approved; i. Proposed Site Plan, ref. 317/02 Dwg No (02) 203 Rev. A, dated November 2019; ii. Existing Site Plan, ref. 317/02 Dwg No (02) 202 Rev. A, dated November 2019; iii. Site Location Plan, ref. 317/02 Dwg No (02) 200 Rev. A, dated November 2019; iv. Drainage Strategy, Rev A, dated 19 May 2020; v. Preliminary Ecological Appraisal, ref. 4733, dated June 2020; vi. Responses to e-mail letter, dated 18 May 2020; vii. Outline Construction Phase Plan, Rev 2, submitted 11 June 2020. Reason: To ensure a satisfactory development and to avoid any ambiguity as to what constitutes the approved details. Prior to commencement 3. Prior to the commencement of the development, clear arrangements must be in place for ongoing maintenance of the drainage system over the lifetime of the development. The drainage system must be designed for ease of maintenance. In this respect further details shall be submitted to the Local Planning Authority for approval in writing and once approved shall be adhered to at all times. Reason: To ensure flood risk is not increased within the site or elsewhere. 4. Within 6 months of the date of this permission, a scheme of hard and soft landscape planting shall be submitted to and approved in writing. The scheme shall include appropriate aftercare and management plans. Thereafter, the development shall be undertaken in accordance with the approved scheme, with all planting undertaken within the first available planting season. Any trees or other plants which die or are removed within the first five years following the implementation of the approved scheme shall be replaced during the next planting season. The landscape scheme proposed should be informed by the recommendations of the Preliminary Ecological Appraisal, ref. 4733, dated June 2020. Reason: To protect the character and visual amenity of the area.

Page 52 Agenda Item 2 REPORTS FOR DEBATE On-going conditions 5. No construction works shall take place outside the hours of: 08:00-18:00 Monday to Friday; 09:00-13:00 Saturday; and No Activity on Sundays or Bank Holidays. Reason: In the interests of the amenity of the area. 6. Any excavations left open overnight will have a means of escape for mammals that may become trapped in the form of a ramp at least 300mm in width and angled no greater than 45°. Reason: In the interests the biodiversity and ecology of the area. Note to developer: 1. This decision notice grants planning permission only. It does not override any existing legal agreement, covenant or ownership arrangement. It is the applicant’s responsibility to ensure all necessary agreements are in place prior to the commencement of development. 2. The enhancement proposals included in the Preliminary Ecological Appraisal included, Landscaping around the SuDS should aim to enhance structural diversity and utilise native species of local provenance. Nectar, fruit and seed bearing species of shrubs should be incorporated to provide a foraging resource for wildlife. In addition good horticultural practises will be adopted (e.g. no, or low, use of residual pesticides) and The SuDS area will be planted with a meadow mix suitable for wetlands, such as Emorsgate EM8. The Local Planning Authority encourages any landscaping scheme submitted to take account of these recommendations. 3. Vegetation clearance should be undertaken outside of the bird nesting season (March to August inclusive) unless a checking survey by a suitably qualified ornithologist confirms the absence of active nests. 4. Prior to any work commencing on the watercourse the applicant should contact the Lead Local Flood Authority on tel: 01228 221331 or email: [email protected] to confirm if an Ordinary Watercourse Flood Defence Consent is required. If it is confirmed that consent is required it should be noted that a fee of £50 will be required and that it can take up to two months to determine. 5. It is noted that the development is not being considered for adoption and as such there are private drains which will need to be installed under the public highway, these drains and associated works will require Section 50 Streetworks permits from Cumbria county Council as highway authority, permits will also be required for the undertaken of any works on the public highway and the creation of the new access onto the public highway, for further details the applicant would need to contact the East area Streetworks team [email protected]

2. Proposal and Site Description 2.1 Proposal

Page 53 Agenda Item 2 REPORTS FOR DEBATE 2.1.1 This application is a full application proposing an attenuation basin for drainage of a nearby site subject to an outline approval for residential development (ref. 17/0080). That permission granted only the principle of a residential development. A subsequent reserved matters application (ref. 20/0078) is currently under determination. 2.1.2 The reserved matters application confirms the intention to construct 24 dwelling on the neighbouring site. As such, this proposed drainage scheme would provide, if approved, an attenutation scheme for surface water associated with that development. 2.1.3 The basin would release water at run-off rates comparable with existing rates into Lady Beck, to the southeast of the application site. The site is proposed to be enclosed by stockproof fencing and incorporate planting along the boundary. The applicant also proposes to incorporate an amenity area for people to walk around the perimeter of the proposed attenutation basin from the adjacent site. 2.1.4 Whilst the development is clearly linked to the neighbouring site, approved for residential development, the determination of this application must be based upon its own merits, and those alone with regards to whether this is an acceptable use of the land. 2.1.5 The proposed basin would be 32 metres long, 20.5 metres wide and 1.5 metres depth. There would be a 2 metre track around the perimeter of the proposed basin to allow adjacent residents to walk around it for recreational purposes. As such, the overall footprint of the proposed development would be 36 metres long by 24.5 metres in width. This would provide a capacity of 330 metre cube at maximum which is a total that would manage storm events based upon current 100 year (plus 40%) calculations. This would result in the basin being 1.2 metres in depth. As there is an additional 300mm capacity, this equates to a further 150 metre cube storage capacity beyond the already calculated 100 year plus 40% calculation. 2.2 Site Description 2.2.1 The application site is an agricultural field of approximately 0.15 hectares in size. It is located on the western edge of the village of Sockbridge and Tirril beyond Thorpefield Road and a further site subject to the aforementioned residential development (ref. 17/0080). 2.2.2 The site is bordered to the south by the B5320. To the west is further agricultural land and beyond that, approximately 270 metres from the nearest boundary point of the Lake District National Park. 2.2.3 Opposite the site, beyond the adjacent public highway to the south are some residential dwellings, Broad Ing Farm, Wasfell View, Briar Cottage, No’s 1, 2, 4 and 5 Broad Ing and Sunniside Cottage. 2.2.4 The site is noted to be relatively flat, within an existing agricultural field. To the south, the site is bound by a dry stone wall. This wall will be retained were this proposal approved. 2.2.5 The site is not located in an area subject to any ‘special’ designation in terms of landscape or heritage zones. There are no other constraints considered relevant to the determination of this application. 3. Consultees 3.1 Consultees

Page 54 Agenda Item 2 REPORTS FOR DEBATE Consultee Response Cumbria County Council - Were consulted on the 11 February 2020. No Local Highway Authority comments have been received. Cumbria County Council – Responded on the 23 April 2020 and confirmed that Lead Local Flood Authority the details supplied had been assessed. It was noted that the proposal intended to discharge attenuated surface water to the nearest river/watercourse at a greenfield runoff rate of 8.85l/s. The principle of this approach was considered acceptable but some further detail was requested. This confirmed that, ‘First CCC would need to see that the basin has been sized to accommodate the 1in 100 plus 40% climate change event. The second point is that the drawing No 317/02(02)003 is confusing as the drawing indicates that the connection to Ladybeck will be made by linking the basin with a manhole at the junction to Thorpe Field, CCC would need to see detail of this connection point as there are no recorded watercourses at this location and that Ladybeck is the nearest watercourse and situated approx. 30m further to the east in an open channel. CCC would need to see detailed evaluation which demonstrates that the site will not increase the risk of flooding both on and off of the site and detailed evaluation would need to be undertaken to demonstrate that the downstream would be take the surface water discharge and/or the site would have discharged to the downstream network naturally as it is within the hydraulic catchment’. The applicant therefore provided additional information which was assessed by the Lead Local Flood Authority. On the 28 June 2020 they responded and confirmed that ‘The proposed attenuation has been suggested as a means to deal with the surface water discharge associated with the Outline planning application for 24 residential units on a section of land to the west of Thorpe Field in the village of Sockbridge. The applicant has provided a Drainage Strategy produced by Tweddell and Slater Consulting and drawing No 6563-200 Rev D, the drainage strategy has demonstrated that invasive ground investigation has been undertaken in two trail pits, and that the infiltration testing carried out to BRE 365 came back indicated that the ground conditions on the site would not support the use of infiltration techniques to deal with the surface water discharge. The proposed solution following the hierarchy of drainage option is to discharge surface water at an attenuated discharge

Page 55 Agenda Item 2 REPORTS FOR DEBATE rate to the nearest river/watercourse, and as such the application looks to discharge surface water to Ladybeck at Greenfield runoff rate of 8.85l/s. The principle of the proposal would is acceptable as demonstration has now been provided to show that the basin has been sized to accommodate the 1in 100 plus 40% climate change event. The drawing also indicates that a private drain will be installed which will drain the basin in to Ladybeck. CCC requested details in the past response that demonstration and detailed evaluation would be needed to demonstrates that the site will not increase the risk of flooding both on and off of the site, the consultants have included this detail within the drainage strategy and as such CCC would have no principle objections to the proposed attenuation basin however we would need to see a more detail with regards to management and maintenance requirements for the basin and the associated drainage infrastructure and as such we would request the inclusion of the following conditions in any potential permission the planning authority may consider’. These conditions related to a construction surface water management plan and maintenance plan. The response therefore confirmed that the Lead Local Flood Authority supported the proposed scheme. Cumbria County Council – Responded on the 24 February 2020 and confirmed Minerals Planning Authority no objection to the proposal. Environment Agency Were consulted on the 11 February 2020. No response has been received. Natural England Responded on the 6 March 2020 and confirmed that ‘From looking at the submitted papers it is difficult to assess where there is a hydrological link from the site currently to Lady Beck, which is across the carriageway. However if there is a direct link and the possibility of polluted surface water entering the beck then more detail on where the silt traps need to be located and their maintenance should be detailed. During the creation of the attenuation pond there is likely to be a large amount of excavated material. Once the connection to Lady beck is made then any stockpiled material will need to be silt fenced to prevent any polluted water entering the beck. The applicant will need to obtain an Environmental Permit from the Environment Agency to discharge to the watercourse’. The applicant considered these comments and

Page 56 Agenda Item 2 REPORTS FOR DEBATE provided additional information by means of a construction phase plan. The Natural England response was received on the 22 June 2020 and stated that, ‘Natural England advise that the mitigation described is adequate to prevent pollution of the River Eden and Tributaries SSSI and River Eden SAC and the proposal will not have an adverse impact on site integrity. It is advisable for your Authority to have a record of this conclusion within your own Habitats regulations Assessment’. United Utilities Responded on the 16 March 2020 and confirmed that ‘the drainage strategy proposing surface water discharging into watercourse is acceptable to us in principle’. The response added that they recommend the applicant implements a drainage scheme that accords with the drainage hierarchy as set out in the NPPG. It was further confirmed that, ‘Both during and post construction, there should be no additional load bearing capacity on the main without prior agreement from United Utilities. This would include earth movement and the transport and position of construction equipment and vehicles. Where United Utilities’ assets exist, the level of cover to the water mains and public sewers must not be compromised either during or after construction’. Environmental Health Responded on the 13 February 2020 and confirmed ‘I have no comments to make myself over these reserved matters. The Lead Flood Authority (CCC) will oversee the discharge of conditions relating to surface water drainage’. Policy Were consulted on the 11 February 2020. No response has been received. Historic Environment Responded on the 20 February 2020 and confirmed no objection to the proposal. Lake District National Park Responded on the 11 March 2020 and confirmed that they noted that a ‘strong landscape boundary would be highly beneficial. The development lacks such a boundary and as such there will be no transition from the rather formal built form of the development to the countryside, the result being a little abrupt. This aspect of development is likely to be visible from some vantage points, however we consider that, due to the landform, and tree cover in the area and the backdrop that the settlement provides to views from elevated land to the south and west, the development would still be unlikely to result in a significant adverse effect on the setting of the National Park’.

Page 57 Agenda Item 2 REPORTS FOR DEBATE 4. Parish Council/Meeting Response Parish Object Support No Response Comments Council/Meeting Sockbridge and   Tirril 4.1 The Parish Council responded on the 12 March 2020 and confirmed: ‘Sockbridge and Tirril Parish Council discussed this application at their meeting on the 4th of March 2020. Residents of the Parish attended the meeting to offer comment. The Parish Council resolved to object to this application and respectfully request you consider the following reasons in your decision. 1. This is a green field site, outside the village. It is an extension beyond the outline permission of the proposed residential development (17/0080). As it is part of a speculative residential development of 24 dwellings, it does not conform to the Local Plan, including policies LS1 and HS2. In a ‘smaller village’, the development would not reuse previously-developed land, nor would it deliver new housing on a greenfield site in accordance with the local connection criteria. It does not extend the settlement to a logical, defensible boundary. 2. The need for attenuation of floodwater is recognised as vital by the applicant and Eden District Council, and should be dealt with on the site which was granted outline permission (17/0080), as clearly stated in the conditions attached to that permission. 3. The application provides no explanation of how the attenuation system would work. 4. The system involving the Aco Drain appears to be somewhat contradictory in that the surface water collected at this point (168.05m) will drain UPHILL to the Detention Basin (170.468m), before being collected and released downhill. There appears to be a realistic prospect of the Aco drain failing to collect all the access road runoff and overflowing onto the B5320. 5. There is risk of increased flooding along the B5320 and adjoining properties, by adding to the flow of Ladybeck, which frequently floods from near the development site to the junction with Quaker Lane. This is contrary to Local Plan policy DEV2. Sockbridge and Tirril Parish Council requests that the application should go before planning committee and that the Parish Council should speak at the meeting. 5. Representations 5.1 Letters of consultation were sent to nearby neighbours and a site notice was posted on site on the 19 February 2020. No of Neighbours Consulted 50 No of letters of support 0 No of Representations Received 38 No of neutral representations 0 No of objection letters 38 5.2 It is not possible to convey, ‘word for word’ each of the objectors comments, but the following confirms the basis of the objections received;  Plans don’t follow the outline application;  The site is open countryside;

Page 58 Agenda Item 2 REPORTS FOR DEBATE  The development is on a greenfield and not supported by the Local Plan;  The proposal would have an unacceptable landscape impact;  There is insufficient detail provided upon which to determine the application;  There is no detail as to how the system would work, who would maintain it and what would happen if it malfunctions;  The scheme should be constructed within the red line boundary of the outline planning permission;  The proposal is an increase of the original outline development;  Lady Beck cannot cope with the surface water now;  The basin proposed is too large;  Children from the estate may fall into the proposed attenuation pond;  Concerns over highways flooding due to the development;  There is no detail as to how the River Eden Special Area of Conservation and the River Eden and Tributaries Site of Special Scientific interest will be protected;  Proposal will potentially damage roman aqueducts in the area which could lead to flooding of nearby gardens and property. As such, de-watering must take place;  Any access or egress onto Thorpe Lane would require permission from the landowner; 6. Relevant Planning History On land adjacent to the application site: Application No Description Outcome 17/0080 Outline application for residential Approved development with all matters reserved 20/0078 Reserved matters for access, Ongoing appearance, landscaping, layout and scale attached to ref. 17/0080 20/0100 Discharge of conditions 3 (construction Ongoing method statement), 4 (carriageway, footways, footpaths, cycle ways etc.), 8 (surface water discharge), 9 (surface water drainage), 11 (parking, turning, loading and unloading of vehicles), 12 (surface water drainage - national planning practice guidance), 13 (hard and soft landscaping) and 14 (tree protection measures) attached to approval 17/0080 7. Policy Context 7.1 Development Plan Eden Local Plan 2014-2032:

Page 59 Agenda Item 2 REPORTS FOR DEBATE The specific policies considered relevant in the determination of this particular application are as follows;  Policy DEV1: General Approach to New Development;  Policy DEV2: Water Management and Flood Risk;  Policy DEV3: Transport, Accessibility and Rights of Way;  Policy DEV5: Design of New Development;  Policy ENV1: Protection and Enhancement of the Natural Environment, Biodiversity and Geodiversity; 7.2 Other Material Considerations National Planning Policy Framework February 2019:  Achieving sustainable development.  Decision-making.  Making effective use of land.  Achieving well designed places.  Meeting the challenge of climate change, flooding and coastal change.  Conserving and enhancing the natural environment. The policies detailed above are the most relevant policies relating to this application. 8. Planning Assessment 8.1 Key/Main Planning Issues  Principle of development  Landscape and Visual Impacts  Drainage  Natural Environment  Residential Amenity  Highway Safety  Historic Environment 8.2 Principle 8.2.1 In terms of the principle of any development, consideration is given to the Development Plan. This consists of the adopted Eden Local Plan (2014-2032) and the policies which it contains. 8.2.2 Policy LS1 of the Eden Local Plan, entitled ‘Locational Strategy’ sets out the hierarchy of settlements where development should be focused in the most sustainable locations, the most sustainable being Penrith, the Market Towns and Key Hubs. 8.2.3 The Local Plan document confirms that that in relation to Policy LS1 ‘the following policy sets out our settlement hierarchy and shows which areas we expected to be the focus for residential, employment and commercial provision’. 8.2.4 Policy DEV1 entitled ‘General Approach to New Development’ states that ‘‘Planning applications that accord with policies in this Local Plan (and, where relevant, with policies in neighbourhood plans) will be approved without delay, unless material considerations indicate otherwise. Where there are no policies relevant to the application or relevant policies are out of date at the time of making the decision then the Council will grant permissions unless material considerations indicated otherwise – taking into account whether:

Page 60 Agenda Item 2 REPORTS FOR DEBATE  Any adverse impacts of granting permission would significantly and demonstrably outweigh the benefits, when assessed against the policies in the National Planning Policy Framework taken as a whole; or  Specific policies in that Framework indicate that development should restricted’. 8.2.5 It is recognised that Policy LS1 relates directly to proposals that are considered residential, employment and commercial development. This proposal seeks approval for an attenuation basin to assist in providing drainage for surface water on a neighbouring site, approved for a housing development. As such, the application, in its own right is not considered to accord with Policy LS1 and therefore the Policy does not apply. 8.2.6 Instead, the key material consideration is Policy DEV1 in relation to the principal of development. This policy recognises that some proposals will have no specific, relevant policies and as such, those criterion will apply. Namely, the decision will take account of all relevant material considerations, taking into account whether any adverse impacts of granting permission, would significantly and demonstrably outweigh the benefits. 8.2.7 It is noted that numerous objections consider the development proposal to be unacceptable because it is extends the previously approved outline planning permission (ref. 17/0080). However, that is not an appropriate or fair assessment of this application. Whilst it is recognised that the two proposals are clearly linked, the application for the attenuation basin must be determined upon its own merits. This proposal is not a housing development and cannot be considered as such. Thus development plan policies related to housing do not apply in the determination of this application. 8.2.8 Accordingly then, the principal of the development is considered acceptable and accords with Policy DEV1 subject to the consideration of all relevant material considerations. 8.3 Landscape and Visual Impacts 8.3.1 A consideration in relation to this application is the Landscape and Visual Impact of the proposal. 8.3.2 Policy DEV5 of the Eden Local Plan, entitled ‘Design of New Development’ states ‘New development will be required to demonstrate that it meets each of the following criteria:  Shows a clear understanding of the form and character of the district’s built and natural environment, complementing and enhancing the existing area.  Protects and where possible enhances the district’s distinctive rural landscape, natural environment and biodiversity.  Reflects the existing street scene through use of appropriate scale, mass, form, layout, high quality architectural design and use of materials.  Optimises the potential use of the site and avoids overlooking.  Protects the amenity of the existing residents and business occupiers and provides an acceptable amenity for future occupiers.  Use quality materials which complement or enhance local surroundings.  Protects features and characteristics of local importance.

Page 61 Agenda Item 2 REPORTS FOR DEBATE  Provides adequate space for the storage, collection and recycling of waste.  Can be easily accessed and used by all, regardless of age and disability’. 8.3.3 Policy ENV2 entitled ‘Protection and Enhancements of Landscapes and Trees’ confirms that new development will only be permitted where it conserves and enhances distinctive elements of landscape character and function. 8.3.4 In assessing the visual impact of the proposed attenuation basin, consideration should be given to Paragraph 124 of the NPPF which advises ‘the creation of high quality buildings and places is fundamental to what the planning development process should achieve’. In addition, further consideration is given to paragraph 127 of the NPPF which confirms that ‘Planning Policies and decisions should ensure that developments: a) will function well and add to the overall quality of the area, not just for the short term but over the lifetime of the development; b) are visually attractive as a result of good architecture, layout and appropriate and effective landscaping; c) are sympathetic to local character and history, including the surrounding built environment and landscape setting, while not preventing or discouraging appropriate innovation or change (such as increased densities); d) establish or maintain a strong sense of place, using the arrangement of streets, spaces, building types and materials to create attractive, welcoming and distinctive places to live, work and visit; e) optimise the potential site to accommodate and sustain an appropriate amount and mix of development (including green and other public space) and support local facilities and transport networks; and f) create places that are safe, inclusive and accessible and which promote health and well-being, with a high standard of amenity for existing and future users and where crime and disorder, and the fear of crime, do not undermine the quality of life or community cohesion and resilience’. 8.3.5 The development proposed in this case is noted to be for an attenuation basin. As such, it would be effectively a landscaped hole in the ground, designed to capture surface water and be discharged at a rate the same it would have been had it run-off the field. 8.3.6 The attenuation basin would have the following dimensions, 32 metres long, 20.5 metres wide and 1.5 metres depth. There would be a 2 metre track around the perimeter of the proposed basin to allow adjacent residents to walk around it for recreational purposes. As such, the overall footprint of the proposed development would be 36 metres long by 24.5 metres in width. 8.3.7 How significant a landscape impact an attenutation basin of this scale could have is considered minimal. The proposal site would be enclosed by a stockproof fence and incorporate some landscaping, although the specific details of this are unknown and as such, a condition is recommended to be attached to any subsequent approval for such details to be submitted subsequently. The landscaping would soften any possible visual impact, reducing its landscape character impacts which is noted to be mitigated by the aforementioned dry stone wall in any event. 8.3.8 Some objectors consider the attenuation basin to be inappropriate because it would have a significantly detrimental impact on the landscape of the area. Others, in

Page 62 Agenda Item 2 REPORTS FOR DEBATE addition, consider it is located in an ‘other rural area’ and as such is contrary to Policies LS1 and HS2. 8.3.9 However, as has been established the basin is fundamentally a level or below ground feature. The stockproof fencing proposed to enclose it is not an unusual feature in an agricultural setting either. The landscaping detail is not provided but the applicant suggests wildflowers would be planted along with some additional landscaping at the sites edge – these details would be required to be submitted as part of a formal condition were the application approved. 8.3.10 In terms of the proposal being contrary to Policies LS1 and HS2, it has already been considered that Policy LS1 does not apply in this case. The development is not a residential, commercial or employment proposal. As such, this development cannot then be considered under the aforementioned policy. By virtue of that, Policy HS2 cannot apply either. Accordingly, whilst these concerns are therefore noted, the site cannot be refused for non-compliance with policies that do not apply to the applications determination. 8.3.11 The Lake District National Park Planning Authority were consulted on this application and confirmed that they noted the site would lack a strong landscape boundary and there would be no transition from the built environment to the countryside. 8.3.12 This response is identical to that they provided on the neighbouring site for the reserved matters application (ref. 20/0078). Whilst the comments are noted, they do not apply to the proposal as is, which is that of an attenutation basin. 8.3.13 It is further noted that the Lake District response adds ‘This aspect of development is likely to be visible from some vantage points, however we consider that, due to the landform, and tree cover in the area and the backdrop that the settlement provides to views from elevated land to the south and west, the development would still be unlikely to result in a significant adverse effect on the setting of the National Park’. In that context, even without what they consider to be a ‘strong’ landscape boundary the impacts on the National Park are considered unlikely to have a significant adverse effect. In any event, officers consider that a proposal for an attenuation basin in this location would have almost no landscape or visual impact on the Lake District National Park. 8.3.14 Accordingly, the proposal is considered to merit support and is compliant with Policies DEV5 and ENV2 of the Eden Local Plan as well as the NPPF. 8.4 Drainage 8.4.1 Policy DEV2 of the Local Plan, entitled ‘Water Management and Flood Risk’ confirms that ‘new development’ should ‘meet the sequential approach to development in flood risk areas’. 8.4.2 The Policy confirms that ‘new development must incorporate sustainable drainage systems (SUDs), where practicable, to manage surface water run-off. All applications for major development, defined in Appendix 2, will be subject to review by the Lead Local Flood Authority. Surface water should be discharged in the following order of priority: 1. To an adequate soakaway or some other form of infiltration system. 2. By an attenuated discharge to a watercourse. 3. By an attenuated discharge to a public surface water sewer.

Page 63 Agenda Item 2 REPORTS FOR DEBATE 4. By an attenuated discharge to a public combined sewer. Applicants will need to submit clear evidence demonstrating why there is no alternative option but to discharge surface water to the public sewerage system and that the additional discharge can be accommodated. The presumption will be against the discharge of surface water to the public sewerage network’. 8.4.3 Chapter 14 of the NPPF entitled ‘Planning for Climate Change’ confirms in paragraph 155 that, ‘Inappropriate development in areas at risk of flooding should be avoided by directing development away from areas at highest risk (whether existing or future). Where development is necessary in such areas, the development should be made safe for its lifetime without increasing flood risk elsewhere’. 8.4.4 Paragraph 158 of the NPPF states that, ‘The aim of the sequential test is to steer new development to areas with the lowest risk of flooding. Development should not be allocated or permitted if there are reasonably available sites appropriate for the proposed development in areas with a lower risk of flooding. The strategic flood risk assessment will provide the basis for applying this test. The sequential approach should be used in areas known to be at risk now or in the future from any form of flooding’. 8.4.5 Paragraph 163 states that, ‘When determining any planning applications, local planning authorities should ensure that flood risk is not increased elsewhere. Where appropriate, applications should be supported by a site-specific flood-risk assessment. Development should only be allowed in areas at risk of flooding where, in the light of this assessment (and the sequential and exception tests, as applicable) it can be demonstrated that: a) within the site, the most vulnerable development is located in areas of lowest flood risk, unless there are overriding reasons to prefer a different location; b) the development is appropriately flood resistant and resilient; c) it incorporates sustainable drainage systems, unless there is clear evidence that this would be inappropriate; d) any residual risk can be safely managed; and e) safe access and escape routes are included where appropriate, as part of an agreed emergency plan’. 8.4.6 As has been established, this application must be considered on its own merits. Whilst it is recognised that there is a link between this site and the adjacent site (the applicants own description of development indicates such), approved for a residential development, this site is, in its own right for an attenuation basin. As such, much of the policy direction does not entirely apply as it relates to drainage systems incorporated into housing developments. This set of circumstances is more unusual, as although it would serve a housing development, it must be judged upon its own merits as a stand- alone planning application as it would only become incorporated into the aforementioned residential development if planning permission was granted for this proposal. Even then, this application would be governed by its own permission clearly demonstrating that it, in its own right, was a single entity in planning terms within its own planning ‘unit’. 8.4.7 Nevertheless, the aims of the scheme will be considered (that it provide appropriate drainage for the nearby residential development) but the key test for this proposal is whether it, in itself, would be contrary to the extant development plan. A number of

Page 64 Agenda Item 2 REPORTS FOR DEBATE objectors have, understandably related their concerns of this proposal as if it were already integrated into the development site adjacent. Officers do appreciate this, but, it is not considered reasonable to refuse the proposal on grounds or policies that do not directly apply to the proposal as is. 8.4.8 The applicant has advised that ‘The residential development was approved in principle under planning application reference 17/0080. During the design of the reserved matters application, including detailed site investigations, it became clear that the ground conditions were not suitable for surface water to infiltrate into the ground. In circumstances where surface water cannot infiltrate, the next rung in the surface water drainage hierarchy ladder, is for the surface to be attenuated i.e. held and released at an agreed rate, prior to it discharging to a nearby watercourse’. 8.4.9 United Utilies, the Environment Agency and the Lead Local Flood Authority have all been consulted upon this application. United Utilies have confirmed that ‘‘the drainage strategy proposing surface water discharging into watercourse is acceptable to us in principle’. 8.4.10 The Lead Local Flood Authority (LLFA) confirmed that the principle of the proposal would be acceptable but required further information to assist in their assessment of the scheme. As such, discussions between the applicant and the LLFA took place and this resulted in the submission of some updated and additional information to support the application. 8.4.11 The updated response confirms that the drainage strategy proposed is appropriate and that an attenuated drainage scheme is appropriate. Furthermore, they accept that the size of the basin is also appropriate. This needs to be able to accommodate a 1 in 100 plus 40% climate change event. Given this assessment, it is noted that the LLFA have confirmed they support the proposed scheme. 8.4.12 It is recognised that some objectors have raised concerns that there was little information available to determine how the scheme would actually work. The applicant has clearly sought to satisfy the technical consultees but have recognised that some additional clarity would assist in giving interested parties an appreciation of the technical specification of the attenuation basin. 8.4.13 The dimensions of the proposed basin are detailed earlier in this report. However, from a technical perspective, the basin would provide capacity for not just 100 year storm events (+40%). This equates to 330 metre cube of capacity. One of the additional fail- safes is that the basin would have an additional 150 metre cube capacity meaning that when full, the basin would be 1.5 metres deep. 8.4.14 The applicant has also confirmed that there will be a high level emergency overflow/bypass pipe incorporated into the scheme should the outlet from the basin become blocked. Regular maintenance checks are also proposed to manage the basin (although this is not directly a planning consideration) and finally, exceedance routes, should any flooding ever occur would be plotted to ensure no properties would be adversely affected from run-off from the site. 8.4.15 As such, the scheme has been considered acceptable by the Lead Local Flood Authority to achieve its intended aim, namely an appropriate surface water drainage scheme associated with the development site adjacent. 8.4.16 However, in its own right, there are also no concerns that the scheme in itself would be contrary to Policy DEV2 and the NPPF. Concerns raised by objectors are noted and

Page 65 Agenda Item 2 REPORTS FOR DEBATE understood but the technical assessments do not align with these concerns and as such, would not be justifiable reasons to refuse the proposal. 8.4.17 On that basis, the scheme is considered to be compliant with Policy DEV2 of the Local Plan and the NPPF and should be supported. 8.5 Natural Environment 8.5.1 Policy ENV1 of the Local Plan, entitled ‘Protection and Enhancement of the Natural Environment, Biodiversity and Geodiversity’ confirms that ‘new development will be required to avoid any net loss of biodiversity, and where possible enhance existing assets. Should emerging proposals identify potential impacts upon designated sites, regard should be given to the objectives for each of the hierarchy of sites’. 8.5.2 Chapter 15 of the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) entitled ‘Conserving and enhancing the natural environment’ confirms the national guidance on such matters. Paragraph 170 of the NPPF states that ‘Planning policies and decisions should contribute to and enhance the natural and local environment by: a) protecting and enhancing valued landscapes, sites of biodiversity or geological value and soils (in a manner commensurate with their statutory status or identified quality in the development plan); b) recognising the intrinsic character and beauty of the countryside, and the wider benefits from natural capital and ecosystem services – including the economic and other benefits of the best and most versatile agricultural land, and of trees and woodland; c) maintaining the character of the undeveloped coast, while improving public access to it where appropriate; d) minimising impacts on and providing net gains for biodiversity, including by establishing coherent ecological networks that are more resilient to current and future pressures; e) preventing new and existing development from contributing to, being put at unacceptable risk from, or being adversely affected by, unacceptable levels of soil, air, water or noise pollution or land instability. Development should, wherever possible, help to improve local environmental conditions such as air and water quality, taking into account relevant information such as river basin management plans; and f) remediating and mitigating despoiled, degraded, derelict, contaminated and unstable land, where appropriate’. 8.5.3 As a stand-alone application, the proposal must accord, in its own right with the aforementioned policies and objectives. It is noted that Natural England sought some additional clarity on how the proposal would prevent pollution (via spoil) of nearby watercourses. The applicant duly responded by providing some additional detail and information, namely a construction phase plan and also a preliminary ecological survey. 8.5.4 Natural England considered this additional information and confirmed that the applicants plans for a construction phase plan to ensure pollution was prevented from entering Lady Beck and then subsequently the River Eden SSSI and SAC was agreeable.

Page 66 Agenda Item 2 REPORTS FOR DEBATE 8.5.5 The preliminary ecological appraisal is a helpful assessment as it confirms that the site is an area of improved grassland with narrow field margins and partially defunct hedgerow at some boundaries. 8.5.6 The site was considered to be of low value in relation to habitat and that given the works to create the attentation basin were relatively limited in scale, there would be no need for significant mitigation measures. Nevertheless, recommendations in relation to some mitigation measures were proposed. 8.5.7 These were as follows:  Vegetation clearance will be undertaken outside of the bird nesting season (March to August inclusive) unless a checking survey by a suitably qualified ornithologist confirms the absence of active nests.  Any excavations left open overnight will have a means of escape for mammals that may become trapped in the form of a ramp at least 300mm in width and angled no greater than 45°.  A Construction Method Statement will include details of the measures to protect Lady Beck and surface water drains from sediment and pollution. 8.5.8 In addition to these mitigation measures, the proposal also was considered to offer opportunities for enhancement. These were confirmed to be;  Landscaping around the SuDS should aim to enhance structural diversity and utilise native species of local provenance. Nectar, fruit and seed bearing species of shrubs should be incorporated to provide a foraging resource for wildlife. In addition good horticultural practices will be adopted (e.g. no, or low, use of residual pesticides).  The SuDS area will be planted with a meadow mix suitable for wetlands, such as Emorsgate EM8. 8.5.9 Officers concur with these recommendations and as such a condition is proposed related to landscaping which will be expected to take account of these recommendations attached to the draft conditions within this report. 8.5.10 A condition related to the excavations being open overnight with means of escape is also attached too in order to ensure that any mammals that accidentally fall into the basin whilst it is constructed can leave the site area. 8.5.11 On the basis of the assessment provided it is considered that the site is of limited ecological value but there is opportunity to enhance the site and its ecological value with appropriate conditions attached to secure appropriate landscaping. This is considered consistent with the aims of Policy ENV1 which seeks to see new development avoid any net loss of biodiversity and geodiversity. 8.5.12 It is therefore considered that the proposal is compliant with Policy ENV1 of the Eden Local Plan as well as the NPPF and can be supported on the basis that appropriate condition(s) are imposed upon any subsequent grant of planning permission. 8.6 Residential Amenity 8.6.1 Within the Eden Local Plan, through Policy DEV5, it is noted that the Policy requires development protect the amenity of existing residents and provides an acceptable amenity for future occupiers of any potential development.

Page 67 Agenda Item 2 REPORTS FOR DEBATE 8.6.2 In this instance, the proposal is noted to be for an attenuation basin and as such would have almost no impact in terms of visual amenity as it will be barely visible if at all. Whilst there would be some noise during construction, this is a temporary matter which is mitigated through the use of conditions restricting construction hours, and is in no way a justified reason to refuse the scheme as a whole. 8.6.3 Beyond that, operationally, apart from the proposed maintenance visits there would be nobody occupying the site other than perhaps some people walking around it for recreational purposes. The existing dwellings located opposite the site then would not in the view of officers be subject to any unacceptable amenity impacts as a consequence of this application being approved and subsequently implemented. 8.6.4 Accordingly, the scheme is considered to comply with Policy DEV5 of the Eden Local Plan and merits support. 8.7 Highways 8.7.1 Policy DEV3 of the Eden Local Plan, entitled ‘Transport, Accessibility and Rights of Way’ states that ‘development will be refused if it will result in a severe impact in terms of road safety and increased traffic congestion. Development should provide safe and convenient access for pedestrians, cyclists and disabled people’. 8.7.2 Paragraph 109 of the NPPF affirms that ‘development should only be prevented or refused on highways grounds if there would be an unacceptable impact on highway safety, or the residual cumulative impacts on the road network would be severe’. 8.7.3 The site would have no dedicated highway access created for it and as such it is not considered that the application, if implemented, would have any highways impacts contrary to Policy DEV3 and the NPPF to merit its refusal. 8.7.4 Accordingly, it is considered that the proposal is compliant with Policy DEV3 and the NPPF and merits support. 8.8 Historic Environment 8.8.1 Within the Local Plan, Policy ENV10, entitled ‘The Historic Environment’ states that ‘where a development proposal affecting an archaeological site is acceptable in principle, the council will ensure preservation of the remains in situ as a preferred solution. Where in situ preservation is not justified, the development will be required to make adequate provision fort excavation and recording before or during development’. 8.8.2 The Policy continues, ‘Development proposal that would result in substantial harm to or total loss of significance of a designated heritage asset or its setting will only be permitted where it can be clearly demonstrated that the public benefits of the proposal would outweigh the harm or loss, and that the harm or loss is necessary to achieve those benefits. The Council will require proposals to protect and where appropriate, enhance the significance and setting of Eden’s non-designated heritage assets, including buildings, archaeological sites, parks, landscapes and gardens. Where the harm is outweighed by the public benefits of the proposals, the Council will require an appropriate level of survey and recording, the results of which should be deposited with the Cumbria Historic Environment Record’. 8.8.3 This is further supported by paragraph 192 of the National Planning Policy Framework which notes that, ‘In determining applications, local planning authorities should take account of:

Page 68 Agenda Item 2 REPORTS FOR DEBATE a) the desirability of sustaining and enhancing the significance of heritage assets and putting them to viable uses consistent with their conservation; b) the positive contribution that conservation of heritage assets can make to sustainable communities including their economic vitality; and c) the desirability of new development making a positive contribution to local character and distinctiveness.’ 8.8.4 The application was subject to consideration of the County Council’s Historic Environment Officer who confirmed that they had no objection to the proposal nor any recommendations or comments to make upon it. 8.8.5 On this basis it is considered that the scheme would have no significant detrimental impacts on the historic environment and as such can be considered compliant with Policy ENV10 of the Eden Local Plan and the NPPF. 9. Implications 9.1 Legal Implications 9.1.1 The following matters have been considered but no issues are judged to arise. 9.2 Equality and Diversity 9.2.1 The Council must have regard to the elimination of unlawful discrimination and harassment, and the promotion of equality under the Equality Act 2010. 9.3 Environment 9.3.1 The Council must have due regard to conserving bio-diversity under the Natural Environment and Rural Communities Act 2006. 9.4 Crime and Disorder 9.4.1 Under the Crime and Disorder Act 1998, the Council must have regard to the need to reduce crime and disorder in exercising any of its functions. 9.5 Children 9.5.1 Under the Children Act 2004, the Council has a duty to safeguard and promote the welfare of children in the exercise of any of its functions. 9.6 Human Rights 9.6.1 In determining applications, the Council must ensure that all parties get a fair hearing in compliance with the provisions of Article 6 under the European Convention on Human Rights, as now embodied in UK law in the Human Rights Act 1998. 10. Conclusion 10.1 This scheme is for an attenuation basin. The basin is recognised to be associated with a neighbouring residential development. However, it is proposed within its own application site, its own planning unit and must be determined upon its own merits. 10.2 In that regard, whilst its intended use (in terms of its association with that development on neighbouring land) is recognised this scheme has to be considered as to whether it is an acceptable land use. 10.3 In terms of amenity and landscape impacts, there will be very limited impacts in relation to these issues. As such, there are no concerns with the scheme in this regard. Equally, there are no concerns in relation to highways or the natural environment.

Page 69 Agenda Item 2 REPORTS FOR DEBATE Indeed in relation to the latter issue, the scheme affords the opportunity to improve the variety of habitat and that is a welcome benefit of any proposed development. 10.4 The critical issue is whether the scheme will be suitable from a drainage perspective and not exacerbate flooding in the area. Understandably, local people have concerns over the way Lady Beck can flood and there are concerns that this would exacerbate flooding problems experienced in the area. 10.5 However, the intention of such a scheme is to ensure that rather than the rainwater flow off an empty green field (which from what the objectors suggest can lead to flooding), this proposal would manage that rainwater in a more engineered way. Water would be captured into the basin and then released in a managed way into Ladybeck. In that respect, given objectors concerns, this basin would likely improve the management of rain water running off the site by capturing it within an engineered solution thus improving the local circumstances as opposed to exacerbating them. 10.6 The Local Planning Authority takes advice from a variety of consultees when determining applications and in relation to drainage and flooding, one of the key consultees is the Lead Local Flood Authority. 10.7 They have reviewed the details submitted and confirmed that they support the scheme as it has demonstrated the drainage technics proposed are suitable and appropriate for the site. In addition, the capacity of the basin is such that it can accommodate a 1 in 100 year (plus 40%) climate change event. Indeed, the basin has even greater capacity than that. 10.8 There are numerous concerns regarding flooding, from objectors. However, for the reasons given in the report, the technical assessment of the Lead Local Flood Authority has been conducted and they are satisfied with the attenuation basin, its technical rationale and how its operation. As such, the Local Planning Authority is satisfied with the details submitted in relation to drainage and supports the scheme. 10.9 The details submitted as a whole, are, for the reasons articulated throughout this report acceptable and merit support. Accordingly, the proposal is recommended for approval.

Oliver Shimell Assistant Director Planning and Economic Development

Checked by or on behalf of the Monitoring Officer 30.06.2020

Background Papers: Planning File 20/0077

Page 70 Agenda Item 3 REPORTS FOR DEBATE Date of Committee: 16 July 2020

Planning Application No: 20/0078 Date Received: 3 February 2020

OS Grid Ref: 349867 526573 Expiry Date: 6 May 2020 extension of time agreed until 20 July 2020

Parish: Sockbridge and Ward: Eamont Tirril

Application Type: Reserved Matters

Proposal: Reserved matters application for access, appearance, landscaping, layout and scale attached to approval ref. 17/0080

Location: Land west of Thorpefield, Sockbridge

Applicant: Stoneswood Developments Ltd

Agent: Mr Daniel Addis

Case Officer: Mr Ian Irwin

Reason for Referral: The recommendation is contrary to that of the Parish Council

Page 71 Agenda Item 3 REPORTS FOR DEBATE

Page 72 Agenda Item 3 REPORTS FOR DEBATE 1. Recommendation

It is recommended that permission is granted subject to the following conditions: Approved Plans 1. The development hereby granted shall be carried out strictly in accordance with the application form dated 3 February 2020, email dated 6 July 2020 and the following details and plans hereby approved; i. Design and Access Statement, ref. 317/02/(02) Planning, dated 28 November 2019; ii. Proposed site plan, ref. 317/02 (02) 003 Rev. B, dated 15 June 2020; iii. Existing Site Plan, ref. 317/02 Dwg No. (02) 002, dated November 2019; iv. Proposed House Type 1, ref. 317/02 Dwg No. (02) 100, dated November 2019; v. Proposed House Type 2, ref. 317/02 (02 101, DATED November 2019; vi. Proposed House Type 2 Alternative – Plots 10 and 12 , ref. 317/02 (02) 102 Rev. A, dated November 2019; vii. Proposed House Type 3 – ref. 317/02 (02) 103, dated November 2019; viii. Proposed House Type 3 Alternative – Plot 24, ref. 317/02 (02) 104, dated November 2019; ix. Proposed House Type 4, ref. 317/02 (02) 105, dated November 2019; x. Proposed House Type 5, ref. 317/02 (02) 106 Rev. A, dated November 2019; xi. Proposed House Type 6, ref. 317/02 (02) 107, dated November 2019; xii. Site Location Plan, ref. 317/02 (02) 003 Rev. B, dated November 2019; xiii. Sustainability Statement, ref. 317/02, dated 31 March 2020; xiv. Proposed Hard and Soft Landscaping Plan, ref. 317/02 (02) 004 Rev. B, dated February 2020; xv. Proposed Renewables Location, ref. 317/02 (02) 006 Rev. A, dated May 2020; xvi. Proposed Site Sections, ref. 317/02 (02) 007 Rev. B, dated May 2020; xvii. Figure Ground and Principal Elevation Site Plan, ref. 317/02 (02) 005 Rev. A, dated May 2020. Reason: To ensure a satisfactory development and to avoid any ambiguity as to what constitutes the approved details. Prior to commencement 2. Prior to the commencement of the construction of any of the hereby approved dwellings, samples of external finishes for walls, roofs, windows, doors and hard surfaces shall be submitted to the Local Planning Authority for written approval. Once approved, these materials shall be utilised in the construction of the site. Reason: In the interests of the character and amenity of the area.

Page 73 Agenda Item 3 REPORTS FOR DEBATE Ongoing Conditions 3. Within 3 months of the date of this permission, details of soft landscaping, including species, number, arrangement, aftercare and management as well as appropriate tree protection measures will be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. Any trees or other plants which die or are removed within the first five years following the implementation of the approved scheme shall be replaced during the next planting season. Reason: In the interests of protecting the visual character and appearance of the area.

2. Proposal and Site Description 2.1 Proposal 2.1.1 This application is related to an earlier grant of planning permission for this site, ref. 17/0080. That permission granted outline planning approval for a residential development. Indicative plans provided by the applicant at the time suggested 25 houses would be constructed upon the site. This Reserved Matters submission seeks approval for 24 dwellings. 2.1.2 As part of the development the applicant proposed 7 of these houses to be affordable units with access to envisage to be primarily from the adjacent B5320. Given that the principle of developing this site for housing is established by the granting of permission via the previously referred to appeal, the specifics of this application relate only to the reserved matters that form the application. Namely, access, appearance, landscaping, layout and scale. 2.1.3 The applicant is formally proposing to access the site from the south, off the B5320 as was indicated at the outline stage. Further access points are proposed for three dwellings on the sites eastern boundary. These accesses would individually serve plots, 5, 9 and 10 independently of one another onto the adjacent Thorpe Field. The proposals confirm the intention to construct 24 homes. A central area of the site would be turned into amenity space for the site, involving the construction of a play area. The total amount of amenity space being proposed by the applicant is 200 metres sq. 2.1.4 The composition of the properties proposed by this development are coursed stone, ashlar stone quoins, window and door heards, string courses and coped gables. Those larger properties proposed on the western boundary of the site would feature glazed extensions to take advantage of the views further west of the Lake District. Render and brick are also proposed materials along with black uPVC guttering and downpipes. Roofs are proposed to be finished with slate tiles in order to compliment the local vernacular. 2.1.5 Boundary treatments would involve existing hedgerow with any existing gaps to be filled with native species. A further new native hedgerow would be planted along the western boundary of the site. Close board wooden fencing would be utilised to demark garden areas for each dwelling. Metal, post and rail ‘style’ fencing would be constructed to the front of dwellings. 2.1.6 The 24 houses proposed would comprise x 9, 3 bed houses, x 5, 3 bed bungalows, x 10,t 5 bed houses. Each property is to be provided with a minimum of 2 car parking spaces apart from plots 3, 4, 14 and 15 which would each have one car parking space.

Page 74 Agenda Item 3 REPORTS FOR DEBATE 17 of the dwellings would also have garages which would further increase their parking capacity. 2.1.7 The applicant has confirmed that each house type would be of the following dimensions;  House Type 1 – Size - 5.525m x 8.950m (WxD) Height - 7.045m (height above ground floor)  House Type 2 – Size - 5.525m x 8.950m (WxD) Height - 7.045m (height above ground floor)  House Type 3 – Size - 12.0m x 8.6m (WxD) Height - 9.625m (height above ground floor)  House Type 4 – Size - 6.880m x 8.950m (WxD) Height - 7.945m (height above ground floor)  House Type 5 – Size - 12.00m x 13.0m (WxD) Height - 9.625m (height above ground floor)  House Type 6 – Size - 16.21m x 8.6m (WxD) Height - 9.625m (height above ground floor)  Single Garage – Size - 3.345m x 6.270m (WxD) Height - 4.325m (height above ground floor)  Double Garage – Size - 6.45m x 6.30m (WxD) Height - 4.760m (height above ground floor) 2.1.8 The House types therefore would have the following floor space areas;  House Type 1 – 84.7 sq. metres (units 3, 4, 6, 7, 8, 14 and 15);  House Type 2 – 111.5 sq. metres (units 5, 9, 10, 12 and 13);  House Type 3 – 239.2 sq. metres (units 11 and 24);  House Type 4 – 107.2 sq. metres (units 1 and 2);  House Type 5 – 276.7 sq. metres (units 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21 and 22);  House Type 6 – 263.8 (Unit 23). 2.1.9 In terms of car parking, the following spaces are allocated for each house type;  House Type 1 – 1 space (units 6, 7 and 8 proposed for 2 spaces);  House Type 2 – 2 spaces (including garage);  House Type 3 – 3 spaces (including garage);  House Type 4 – 2 spaces (including garage);  House Type 5 – 4 spaces (including garage);  House Type 6 – 3 spaces (including garage);  With an addition 5 ‘visitor’ spaces within the site.

Page 75 Agenda Item 3 REPORTS FOR DEBATE 2.1.10 Landscaping on the site would comprise part of the development but specific details in terms of the species proposed are currently unknown and would be dealt with by dealing with the condition attached to the outline planning permission (ref. 17/0080). Much of the landscaping plan submitted relates to hard landscaping. In any event, for reasons given in the report below, a condition related to landscaping is attached to section 1 of this report in order to ensure that soft landscaping details are acceptable. 2.2 Site Description 2.2.1 The application site is an agricultural field of approximately 1.15 hectares in size. It is located on the western edge of the village of Sockbridge and Tirril beyond Thorpefield Road. An existing, modern housing estate is located to the east of the site, on the opposite side of the aforementioned Thorpe Field Road. The settlement of Sockbridge and Tirril contains approximately 234 dwellings. 2.2.2 The site is bordered to the south by the B5320. To the west is further agricultural land and beyond that, approximately 330 metres from the boundary of the Lake District National Park. A public bridleway, (no. 364006) and a public footpath (no. 364007) are located approximately 150 metres north of the application site. 2.2.3 As has been mentioned, an existing development, Thorpefield, is located opposite the site to the East. No’s 31, 32 and 33 are located here, along with no’s 1, 2 and 3. To the South and also opposite the site are further residential dwellings, Greenkiln, Greenkiln Cottage and Cedar Cottage. All of these residential dwellings are located opposite the site, beyond existing highway. 2.2.4 The site is noted to be undulating, incorporating a slope that means the eastern and southern elements of the site are at a more elevated position relative to other parts of the site and neighbouring land. Currently, the site is bound by a mix of dry stone wall, post and rail fencing and intermittent hedgerow along with some trees. Much of the existing dry stone wall will be retained although some will be lost in creating the main access to the site. 2.2.5 The site is not located in an area subject to any ‘special’ designation in terms of landscape or heritage zones. There are no other constraints considered relevant to the determination of this application. 3. Consultees 3.1 Consultees Consultee Response Cumbria County Council - Responded on the 21 April 2020 and raised some Local Highway Authority concerns on the proposals as submitted. It was confirmed that the proposed ‘primary’ access would be acceptable but that plots 5, 9 and 10 had independent accesses of their own and that further information in relation to how these could be created safely was required. In addition, it was noted that a condition requiring footways to link the site to the nearest pedestrian footway was secured by condition on the outline permission (ref. 17/0080). However, the submitted drawings provided no such connectivity and this

Page 76 Agenda Item 3 REPORTS FOR DEBATE matter required further consideration. The applicant liaised with the County Council (as Local Highways Authority) on these issues and provided updated details which were subsequently considered. On the 23 June 2020 the Highway Authority responded and confirmed that ‘The proposed access to the site had been agreed in the Outline planning application reference No 17/0080, and the same information has been provided to support the Reserved Matter application and in terms of the primary access would be acceptable, the updated plan/drawing No (02)003 Rev B indicates the required visibility splays for plots 5, 9 and 10. The requested pedestrian access has also be re- configured to a more suitable location and as such Cumbria County Council be a position to support the footway connection also proposed on drawing No (02)003 Rev B, The footway will now link the site with the existing section of footway at Thorpe Field’. Environment Agency Were consulted on the 11 February 2020. No response has been received. Natural England Responded on the 3 March 2020 and confirmed that they had no comments to make on the reserved matters application. United Utilities Were consulted on the 11 February 2020. No response has been received. Environmental Health Responded on the 13 February 2020 and confirmed ‘I have no comments to make myself over these reserved matters. The Lead Flood Authority (CCC) will oversee the discharge of conditions relating to surface water drainage’. Policy Were consulted on the 11 February 2020. No response has been received. Historic Environment Responded on the 13 February 2020 and confirmed no objection to the proposal. Arboriculturalist Officer Responded on the 26 March 2020 and stated that at this stage, ‘This application contains insufficient detail to be able to discharge the landscaping as it claims to do. There are no protection measures shown for the roadside trees and hedges and there are no landscaping details’. Whilst the applicant had submitted landscaping details, it has not been possible to engage with the Arboriculturalist due to him being placed on furlough due to the Covid-19 Pandemic. As such, no further discussions in relation to this application have been

Page 77 Agenda Item 3 REPORTS FOR DEBATE undertaken with the Arboricultural Officer. Lake District National Park Responded on the 11 March 2020 and confirmed that they noted that a ‘strong landscape boundary would be highly beneficial. The development lacks such a boundary and as such there will be no transition from the rather formal built form of the development to the countryside, the result being a little abrupt. This aspect of development is likely to be visible from some vantage points, however we consider that, due to the landform, and tree cover in the area and the backdrop that the settlement provides to views from elevated land to the south and west, the development would still be unlikely to result in a significant adverse effect on the setting of the National Park’. Housing Responded on the 12 March 2020 and they noted the extant s.106 agreement requiring 30% affordable housing (rounded down to equate to 7 affordable units). It was noted that the affordable units meet and exceed minimum space standards which was supported. The Housing Officer added that, ‘With the above needs data in mind I’m supportive of the provision for 3 bedroom affordable properties on this site, however I note the market housing element is made up of a mix of both two storey properties and bungalows, my preference would be to extend this mix to secure an affordable bungalow within the scheme. I appreciate this may come at a cost in terms of the schemes viability and in acceptance of this I would be open to the potential loss of 1 affordable unit on the site if this could facilitate an affordable bungalow within the offer’. 4. Parish Council/Meeting Response Parish Object Support No Response Comments Council/Meeting Sockbridge and   Tirril 4.1 The Parish Council responded on the 12 March 2020 and confirmed: ‘Sockbridge and Tirril Parish Council discussed this application at their meeting on the 4th of March 2020. Residents of the Parish attended the meeting to offer comment. The Parish Council resolved to object to this application and respectfully request you consider the following reasons in your decision. 1. The application is deficient in providing details of existing and proposed ground and floor levels, which are vital on an undulating site; without this information, including cross-sections with accurate heights shown, it is not possible to comment fully on the application. Neither the scale nor layout information in the Design and Access statement are complete. Although some information is available through a separate application (20/0077) which shows spot heights and finished floor levels,

Page 78 Agenda Item 3 REPORTS FOR DEBATE it is unacceptable to expect consultees to marry up information from two separate applications. 2. The design of the buildings is not in accordance with Local Plan Policy DEV5. It fails to show a clear understanding of the form and character of the district’s built and natural environment, complementing and enhancing the existing area. The design is unsympathetic to the vernacular architecture of the village; there are no mock-Georgian structures of the proposed type in Sockbridge and Tirril. 3. The outline application’s Design and Access Statement states in para 1.2: The site lies on the eastern approach to Sockbridge and Tirril where land falls away, allowing the development to nestle around the junction of Thorpe Lane and the B5320. Existing stone walling and mature trees further support the integration of the site (see Village Analysis diagram). Analysis of the development and character of the village highlight a number of building morphologies (see Historic Development diagram). The Tirril village core is a distinctive arrangement around a village green and junction including L and T shaped buildings and villas. To the south of the site is a characteristic arrangement of terraced cottages and extended farmstead-type courtyard buildings incorporating stone walls. Para 4.2 of the Design and Access Statement states that the indicative plan for the site has taken cues from the above distinctive local character – farmstead-type courtyards and terraced cottages focused around a village green set within stone wall and hedge boundaries. In contrast to the aspiration of the outline application, this reserved matters application ignores the distinctive qualities of the village and makes no attempt to ensure that dwellings nestle around the junction of Thorpe Field and the B5320. 4. The visual impact of the proposal would be severe. The uniform row of eight three- storey houses facing the open countryside and the B5320 to the south-west would be a prominent, discordant, suburban feature, and would be very apparent to people travelling towards the village from the National Park, for a considerable distance, from Margate Cross onwards. Again, this is not in accordance with The Local Plan Policies DEV5 or LS2. 5. There is no landscaping along the western boundary of the site, to create a logical, defensible boundary to the village, as envisaged in the outline application. 6. The proposed houses are too close to homes nearby and are overshadowing and overbearing, especially as they would be considerably higher than the existing houses. This is true of both the houses on Thorpefield and those opposite the proposed development on the B5320. Using information extrapolated from application 20/0077, the level difference between No 12 (FFL 175.100) and 1 Thorpefield boundary (spot height 172.282) is 2.818m. The height difference between No 2 (FFL 171.75) and Greenkiln Cottage on the B5320 (167.956 nearest road spot height) is 3.974m. These figures evidence the significant overbearing nature of the proposed houses, but without the full details of existing levels and cross sections, it is impossible to identify the overall height difference. 7. There is inadequate provision for drainage on the site. The need for attenuation of floodwater, recognised as vital by the applicant and Eden District Council, should be dealt with on the site which was granted outline permission (17/0080), as clearly stated in the conditions attached to that permission. The flood survey submitted

Page 79 Agenda Item 3 REPORTS FOR DEBATE with the outline application stated that there is room on the approved site for an appropriate attenuation system. 8. The system involving the Aco Drain appears to be somewhat contradictory in that the surface water collected at this point (168.05m) will drain UPHILL to the Detention Basin (170.468m), before being collected and released downhill. There appears to be a realistic prospect of the Aco drain failing to collect all the access road runoff and it therefore overflowing onto the B5320. 9. The application provides no explanation of how the attenuation system would work. 10. There is risk of increased flooding along the B5320 and adjoining properties, by adding to the flow of Ladybeck, which frequently floods from near the development site to the junction with Quaker Lane. This is contrary to Local Plan Policy DEV2. 11. The drainage of sewage to Thorpe Field would put 70% additional load on a system designed for the existing group of 34 houses. There is an additional concern that the use of a gravity only mechanism could increase the risk of blockages. It is noted that plots 23 and 24 need to use a foul water pump chamber(situated outside the permitted outline planning site) in order to gain sufficient height to then join the development’s gravitational system. It is also noted that these 2 houses sit where the Detention Basin should sit (based on the original outline permission and drainage strategy findings – Dec 2016 version 2 (There is space available on the site to utilise wide surface features such as swales, basins, ponds.) If the Drainage Basin was positioned here, there would be no need for 2 houses to have a complicated sewerage system. 12. Damage would be caused to the ancient wall and hedge along the B5320 caused by the amended visibility splays at the main access to the development. This is not in accordance with The Local Plan Policy ENV2. 13. The three new accesses onto Thorpe Field, which were not part of the outline application, are not acceptable and would cause more disturbance to the homes opposite, with noise due to vehicles climbing the sloping drives and headlights streaming through neighbours’ windows. Danger would be caused by traffic emerging from the driveways onto a road where there is restricted visibility and frequent farm traffic, as well as traffic from Thorpe Field houses. Two of the proposed accesses have no room for vehicles to turn, so they would have to reverse in or out, increasing the risk of accidents. As there is no pedestrian access to Nos 5, 6 and 10, from the visitor parking spaces within the proposed development, visitors and residents at these dwellings would be tempted to park on Thorpe Field, which is too narrow. These accesses would also increase traffic emerging from Thorpe Field onto the B5320, where visibility is restricted. 14. The three accesses onto Thorpe Field would remove parts of the ancient hedgerow and would cause additional harm to the rural character of the lane to Thorpe, which is a local amenity. 15. There are no pavements for safe pedestrian access along the B5320 and the narrow lane to Thorpe, which carries frequent farm and residents’ traffic. The proposed site plan refers to an existing pavement on the south side of the B5320, but that does not exist; if pedestrians were to cross the road to utilise a narrow fragment of pavement, they would have to cross back almost immediately to take the existing pavement on the north side of the road, east of Thorpe Field. The

Page 80 Agenda Item 3 REPORTS FOR DEBATE pedestrian access onto Thorpe Lane is neither safe nor convenient. Neither the vehicle nor pedestrian access is in accordance with The Local Plan Policy DEV3: Developments should provide safe and convenient access for pedestrians, cyclists and disabled people. We request that the application should go before planning committee and that the Parish Council should speak at the meeting. Given the sensitivity of the location, we request that the committee consider a site visit before determining the application’. A second response was provided by the Parish Council on the 1 July 2020. It stated; ‘As the Parish Council for Sockbridge and Tirril, we are concerned that, having requested the opportunity to speak at the Planning Meeting where the above application will be discussed, we have not been notified of the amended plans or given the opportunity to respond accordingly.  Three driveways for houses on the proposed development remain on Thorpefield even though the Decision Notice for Outline Planning (17/0080) stated: 2.2.4 The field is currently accessed via a gateway to the north east corner of the site off Thorpe Field Road. Although at outline stage, indicative access details have been provided which indicate that the application site would be accessed via a new access point off the B5320 public highway to the south. EDC Planning (Decision Notice August 2017) specifically stated the requirements for visual splays and gradients for this access and it is clear that there is no intention of any vehicular access from Thorpe Field. Stuart Taylor makes the same point in his response to the February 2020 consultation: “The proposed access to the site had been agreed in the Outline planning application reference No 17/0080, and the same information has been provided to support the Reserved Matter application and in terms of the primary access would be acceptable, however it is noted that plots 5,9, and 10 now have independent access onto Thorpe Field and there is no information within the application to demonstrate that the 3 access points can be safely made onto the public highway, the access associated with plot 10 is also directly onto a junction.” Originally, the only access on Thorpefield was the pedestrian access. It is strange that this has been reinstated, presumably for safety reasons, yet 3 driveways remain. The boundary on Thorpefield has been moved back so that a clearer visual splay is possible, but there is no detail regarding the gradient of the verge/land on the external side of the boundary (Highways?) and how this will be adjusted in order to ensure safe entry and exit from the properties. Presumably the lowering of verges not belonging to the development company is a legal question? The lack of any references to levels on the new plans means that it is impossible to envisage how these drives will look. The height of the field from the road where the drive for N0 10 is proposed is 1m10. There are no facilities for turning on the properties (5, 9 and 10), therefore there is an assumption that cars will reverse onto the road. Property 10 is on a junction at the narrowest part of the road (3m20) and cannot be deemed safe, especially in light of the potential for 3-way traffic at this point, some of which will be large tractors and trailers. The double drive for 5 and 9 is now opposite one bungalow. The residents bought this house knowing that outline planning was in place for the field opposite. However, the Decision Notice clearly indicated access from the main road; not a double driveway directly opposite. This should have been taken into consideration.

Page 81 Agenda Item 3 REPORTS FOR DEBATE  All references to levels have been removed from the new plans. There are no heights showing on the cross sections. The cross sections do not show the impact of the driveways on Thorpe Field, nor do they show the heights of new houses against existing houses. The lack of heights, levels and finished floor levels still makes it impossible to comment fully on these proposals. The failure to provide a longitudinal cross section of the houses on the south/western boundary remains contentious – especially in light of the LDNP identifying the need for strong landscaping. “It was noted however, that a strong landscaping boundary to the south western edge of the application site would be highly beneficial.” Taking into consideration all of the above points, we would ask that these plans are not recommended for approval’. 5. Representations 5.1 Letters of consultation were sent to nearby neighbours and a site notice was posted on site on the 19 February 2020. A press notice was also published in the Herald on the 15 February 2020. No of Neighbours Consulted 29 No of letters of support 0 No of Representations Received 37 No of neutral representations 0 No of objection letters 37 5.2 It is not possible to convey, ‘word for word’ each of the objectors’ comments, but the following confirms the basis of the objections received;  Plans don’t follow the outline application;  There is not sufficient detail provided in terms of the levels within the application to consider the impacts on neighbouring properties;  Cross sections are not of any value as no heights are provided;  The design of the houses is mock Georgian and would have a detrimental impact on the ‘unique identity and character of the area’;  Visual impacts of the scheme would be significant in terms of how it would detrimentally impact the open countryside;  Foul water drainage systems won’t be able to cope with these extra properties;  No drainage provision on site is provided;  Concerns over highways flooding due to the development;  Not enough landscaping along the western boundary of the site to mitigate landscape impacts;  Proposal will potentially damage roman aqueducts in the area which could lead to flooding of nearby gardens and property. As such, de-watering must take place;  Any access or egress onto Thorpe Lane would require permission from the landowner;  Surface water drainage scheme should apply for the red line applied for and thus be within the application site;

Page 82 Agenda Item 3 REPORTS FOR DEBATE  The houses incorporating a three storey design bear no relevance to the vernacular of the area;  The development would ‘overpower’ neighbouring property, Thorpe House;  Development would lead to overlooking, overshadowing and be overbearing;  The proposed three access points along Thorpefield will be dangerous;  No footpaths linking the site to the wider area;  There is not sufficient visitor car parking provided;  Access would be unsafe onto the B5320;  Number of dwellings proposed results in a layout that is too dense;  All dwellings should be passive and carbon neutral;  The plans are misleading and suggest the site is flat;  The scheme involves new accesses which would be steep and involve the removal of existing hedgerow;  The access onto Thorpefield are unsafe; 6. Relevant Planning History Application No Description Outcome 17/0080 Outline application for residential Approved development with all matters reserved 20/0100 Discharge of conditions 3 (construction Ongoing method statement), 4 (carriageway, footways, footpaths, cycle ways etc.), 8 (surface water discharge), 9 (surface water drainage), 11 (parking, turning, loading and unloading of vehicles), 12 (surface water drainage - national planning practice guidance), 13 (hard and soft landscaping) and 14 (tree protection measures) attached to approval 17/0080 Other applications considered relevant on adjacent land:

20/0077 Formation of a drainage basin to Ongoing attenuate surface water associated with residential development

7. Policy Context 7.1 Development Plan Eden Local Plan 2014-2032: The specific policies considered relevant in the determination of this particular application are as follows;  Policy LS1: Locational Strategy;  Policy DEV1: General Approach to New Development;

Page 83 Agenda Item 3 REPORTS FOR DEBATE  Policy DEV2: Water Management and Flood Risk;  Policy DEV3: Transport, Accessibility and Rights of Way;  Policy DEV5: Design of New Development;  Policy ENV1: Protection and Enhancement of the Natural Environment, Biodiversity and Geodiversity;  ENV5: Environmentally Sustainable design;  Policy HS5: Accessible and Adaptable Homes;  Policy COM3: Provision of New Open Space. 7.2 Other Material Considerations National Planning Policy Framework February 2019:  Achieving sustainable development  Decision-making  Delivering a sufficient supply of homes  Making effective use of land  Achieving well designed places  Meeting the challenge of climate change, flooding and coastal change  Conserving and enhancing the natural environment 7.3 Supplementary Planning Documents:  Housing (2010)  Housing (2020) The policies detailed above are the most relevant policies relating to this application. 8. Planning Assessment 8.1 Key/Main Planning Issues  Principle of development  Landscape and Visual Impacts  Character and appearance of the settlement and locality  Residential Amenity  Highway Safety  Drainage  Provision of Open Space  Historic Environment  Other matters 8.2 Principle 8.2.1 In terms of the principle of housing development, consideration is given to the Development Plan. This consists of the adopted Eden Local Plan (2014-2032) and the policies which it contains. 8.2.2 This proposal seeks approval for reserved matter, specifically for access, appearance, landscaping, layout and scale attached to approval ref. 17/0080. That permission granted outline approval for a residential development. At the time of that permission it was suggested that 25 dwellings would be constructed on site. It should be noted that the permission did not limit the number of dwellings that should comprise any subsequent reserved matters proposal. 8.2.3 Accordingly, the principle of development has been established for this site and housing is approved to be constructed upon it. This application has been subject to a

Page 84 Agenda Item 3 REPORTS FOR DEBATE number of objections. A number of which have raised the ‘principle’ of development as part of their objection or that the proposals now, do not reflect what the outline application suggested. These comments are not relevant to the determination of this application. 8.2.4 Outline planning permission only permits the principal of development (unless the applicant requests to deal with a specific additional issue as part of that application), or if the Local Planning Authority insist upon it. However, in this instance, such comments cannot be considered in relation to this proposal for the reasons given above – the principle of a residential development being constructed on this site is already accepted and was approved by the Planning Authority via Planning Committee. 8.2.5 Accordingly, outline planning permission does not commit the applicant to any subsequent approach thus nobody could be ‘misled’ by indicative outline plans. It is for the reserved matters application to provide additional detail in terms of design, access, etc. and for that detail to be considered by the Local Planning Authority subsequently. 8.2.6 Within the Development Management Procedure Order 2015 (http://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/2015/595/article/2/made), very specific guidance is provided relative to the regulations and those considerations upon which can and cannot be considered under a Reserved Matters application. Those aspects of a proposal that can be considered at the Reserved Matters stage are as follows;  Access;  Appearance;  Landscaping;  Layout; and  Scale. 8.2.7 Therefore, the principle of development has been established notwithstanding all other relevant considerations in relation to this reserved matters application. 8.3 Landscape and Visual Impacts 8.3.1 A consideration in relation to this application is the Landscape and Visual Impact of the proposal. Although the principle of permission is established, this reserved matters application allows the actual details of how the physical development will look in relation to the locality. 8.3.2 Policy DEV5 of the Eden Local Plan, entitled ‘Design of New Development’ states ‘New development will be required to demonstrate that it meets each of the following criteria:  Shows a clear understanding of the form and character of the district’s built and natural environment, complementing and enhancing the existing area.  Protects and where possible enhances the district’s distinctive rural landscape, natural environment and biodiversity.  Reflects the existing street scene through use of appropriate scale, mass, form, layout, high quality architectural design and use of materials.  Optimises the potential use of the site and avoids overlooking.  Protects the amenity of the existing residents and business occupiers and provides an acceptable amenity for future occupiers.  Use quality materials which complement or enhance local surroundings.

Page 85 Agenda Item 3 REPORTS FOR DEBATE  Protects features and characteristics of local importance.  Provides adequate space for the storage, collection and recycling of waste.  Can be easily accessed and used by all, regardless of age and disability’. 8.3.3 Policy ENV2 entitled ‘Protection and Enhancements of Landscapes and Trees’ confirms that new development will only be permitted where it conserves and enhances distinctive elements of landscape character and function. 8.3.4 In assessing the visual impact of the proposed dwellings, consideration should be given to Paragraph 124 of the NPPF which advises ‘the creation of high quality buildings and places is fundamental to what the planning development process should achieve’. In addition, further consideration is given to paragraph 127 of the NPPF which confirms that ‘Planning Policies and decisions should ensure that developments: a) will function well and add to the overall quality of the area, not just for the short term but over the lifetime of the development; b) are visually attractive as a result of good architecture, layout and appropriate and effective landscaping; c) are sympathetic to local character and history, including the surrounding built environment and landscape setting, while not preventing or discouraging appropriate innovation or change (such as increased densities); d) establish or maintain a strong sense of place, using the arrangement of streets, spaces, building types and materials to create attractive, welcoming and distinctive places to live, work and visit; e) optimise the potential site to accommodate and sustain an appropriate amount and mix of development (including green and other public space) and support local facilities and transport networks; and f) create places that are safe, inclusive and accessible and which promote health and well-being, with a high standard of amenity for existing and future users and where crime and disorder, and the fear of crime, do not undermine the quality of life or community cohesion and resilience’. 8.3.5 The applicant has provided a layout plan which illustrates how the site will appear once the development is completed. The layout plan provided confirms the intention to construct 24 dwellings on the site. In addition, there would be various additional planting to ‘plug’ gaps in existing hedgerow, whilst a new hedgerow is proposed on the western boundary of the site. Unfortunately, specific details of the exact types of planting are not provided at this stage. Whilst disappointing, the full details of landscaping are reserved by condition (no. 13) attached to the outline application. Such specific detail will be provided then. At this stage, the proposed intent to provide further landscaping in that vein, is supported. 8.3.6 It is acknowledged that the site is a ‘gateway’ location but the notion of housing being constructed upon this site is already accepted. As such, the landscape and visual impact was already understood by Members when Planning Committee approved the principle of the scheme. A different consideration is how the proposed development would relate in terms of the character of the settlement (essentially, the proposed design of the properties) and that is considered in the next section of this report. 8.3.7 Nevertheless, the scale and type of housing proposed is noted which are indicated by the site section plans. The applicant contends a mainly ‘Georgian’ themed approach to

Page 86 Agenda Item 3 REPORTS FOR DEBATE the all of the houses (except the bungalows). Some of the properties proposed within the site, particularly those on the western edge, are recognised to be large homes. 8.3.8 It is acknowledged that a number of objectors have raised concern over this intention. Many consider this approach, in terms of the scale of some of the houses to be at odds with the local vernacular. There is little doubt that the approach is different, in part, to the existing mixed residential development styles already in place in the settlement in that some of the dwellings proposed would be larger than most in the area. However, it would still deliver a mixed residential development, like many of the others in the settlement. In that context then, how significantly different it really is, is very limited in the view of officers. 8.3.9 Ultimately, the site would deliver an already approved residential scheme. That scheme is proposing a varied housing type. It is not clear what some objectors would prefer (accepting that some would prefer to see no development of the site at all) but it is not necessarily considered acceptable or a requirement of this development to simply replicate the existing development style in the immediate area. 8.3.10 This is primarily because that style is not considered to be particularly unique or of significant architectural merit that should demand it is replicated. The Local Planning Authority will support good design and enhance the local vernacular. In that respect, given that it is considered that there is a range of styles in the settlement and not one single architectural style, it would be difficult to replicate one and not, therefore, be consistent with another. In this instance, the Georgian ‘style’ of some of the houses is noted and in itself is not considered a cause for disquiet from an Officers perspective. It is considered that they still represent good design for the aforementioned reasons already given, that no particular style or design dominates the locality. 8.3.11 The concerns of objectors in relation to this issue are understood. However, the visual impact of a two storey building as opposed to a three storey building is not considered significantly detrimental. Any undeveloped plot of land will look different if 24 houses were constructed upon it and whilst some are noted to be of a scale different too much of what exists in the settlement, this in itself is not considered a strong enough justification to refuse the proposal. It should be noted that the scheme involves a mix of house type, some larger than others and that the inclusion of bungalows in the scheme is a benefit given the demographics of the district and demand for such housing. The Housing Officer has confirmed that across the district there is a demand for such property type which reaffirms the benefits of such a provision would be. 8.3.12 The Lake District National Park Planning Authority were consulted on this application and confirmed that they noted the site would lack a strong landscape boundary and there would be no transition from the built environment to the countryside. This is accepted, however, the western boundary hedge planting proposed will take time to form a more definitive boundary. 8.3.13 Beyond that, it is unreasonable to expect the development to be anything other than different from the undeveloped agricultural farmland further west of the site. There will be an inevitable, swift transition from the residential development to the undeveloped land. In itself, the sort of ‘strong’ landscape boundary that would be the preference of the National Park would have some form of landscape impact and this impact is not necessarily considered likely be positive. Such is already considered to exist in any event. How different this would be then, in that context, is not considered harmful. Such landscaping would potentially appear alien and to not do so would need to be part of a much more significant landscaping scheme. Notwithstanding all of the above, the

Page 87 Agenda Item 3 REPORTS FOR DEBATE applicant does not control all of this land and in any event would be outside of the red line boundary of the application. 8.3.14 It is further noted that the Lake District response adds ‘This aspect of development is likely to be visible from some vantage points, however we consider that, due to the landform, and tree cover in the area and the backdrop that the settlement provides to views from elevated land to the south and west, the development would still be unlikely to result in a significant adverse effect on the setting of the National Park’. In that context, even without what they consider to be a ‘strong’ landscape boundary the impacts on the National Park are considered unlikely to have a significant adverse effect. 8.3.15 The layout proposed is generally considered appropriate for its location and whilst some have noted that the layout is too dense, it appears no denser in layout than the neighbouring residential development on Thorpefield. Fundamentally, in terms of landscape, the site would look different and have some form of landscape impact given it is currently an undeveloped site. However, the key consideration is whether or not the landscape impact, as a result of the design and layout proposed, would be so significantly detrimental as to warrant the refusal of the application. 8.3.16 The comments of the Arboricultural Officer are also noted. The comments provided felt more detail was necessary. However, it should be noted that the outline planning permission has a dedicated condition related to landscaping attached to it, which is being processed under a separate application (discharge of condition). It should also be noted that the same officer has been furloughed due to the Covid-19 Pandemic and it has not been possible to engage in further discussions with him about the level of extra detail, beyond that which the applicant has provided thus far, he requires. Nevertheless, the applicant still has to comply with the extant landscaping condition. In that sense, the objective at this stage is to ensure that both the reserved matters and discharge applications align. 8.3.17 Because of the unpresented circumstances surrounding the Covid-19 Pandemic, it has been considered that the most sensible and reasonable approach is to acknowledge the landscaping plans submitted thus far but to impose a condition to mimic the intention of the outline permission. That way, the landscaping can be confirmed on the arboricultural officer’s return and then only be approved when it is considered acceptable to do so. 8.3.18 The concerns of some objectors that existing ownership of Thorpe Lane would prevent the pedestrian access points being achieved as per the site layout are noted. However, these are private legal matters between the developer and the land owner and do not form material considerations of this application. 8.3.19 Given the aforementioned principle of development being established and thus housing was acceptable it is difficult to reconcile how this proposal would be considered as detrimental as to justify and warrant the refusal of the application. Yes, it is accepted that the proposals are not aligned with every dwelling on Thorpefield, or even the entire wider settlement. But it would be impossible for any development proposal to accord with every style that exists in the settlement now due to the incremental changes in terms of design and materials utilised in the construction of buildings in the village over the years. This has effectively diluted the settlements built environment over this time and the result is that there is no dominant theme or style present in the settlement. It is also noted that some objectors have suggested that the development would be at odds with the ‘unique identity and character of the area’. It is noted the Parish Council also

Page 88 Agenda Item 3 REPORTS FOR DEBATE feel that the development is at odds with what they also perceive to be ‘unsympathetic’ to the vernacular of the area. 8.3.20 However, in the view of officers, it would be very difficult to replicate the wide variety of the local vernacular in one site such as this. In the absence of any one singular style or theme in play, it is considered unreasonable to ask the applicant to achieve such. The hinterland location of this site in relation to the Lake District National Park is noted, but the Park Authority themselves consider the proposal to be unlikely to have any significantly detrimental impacts upon it. As such, for the reasons given above, this proposal is not considered to be significantly harmful in terms of landscape and visual impact. 8.3.21 Accordingly, the proposal is considered to merit support and is compliant with Policies DEV5 and ENV2 of the Eden Local Plan as well as the NPPF. 8.4 Character and appearance of the settlement and locality 8.4.1 Policy DEV5 as referred to in section 8.3 also applies to this aspect of consideration. The policy specifically requires development proposals to ‘reflects the existing street scene through use of appropriate scale, mass, form, layout, high quality architectural design and use of materials. 8.4.2 Chapter 12 of the NPPF, entitled ‘Achieving well-designed places’ states that, ‘good design is a key aspect of sustainable development’. Paragraph 127 stats that ‘Planning policies and decisions should ensure that developments: a) will function well and add to the overall quality of the area, not just for the short terms but over the lifetime of the development; b) are visually attractive as a result of good architecture, layout and appropriate an effective landscaping; c) are sympathetic to local character and history, including the surrounding built environment and landscape setting, while not preventing or discouraging appropriate innovation or change (such as increased densities); d) establish or maintain a strong sense of place, using the arrangement of streets, spaces, building types and materials to create attractive, welcoming and distinctive places to live, work and visit; e) optimise the potential of the site to accommodate and sustain an appropriate amount and mix of development (including green and other public space) and support local facilities and transport networks; and f) create places that are safe, inclusive and accessible and which promote health and well-being, with a high standard of amenity for existing and future users and where crime and disorder, and the fear of crime, do not undermine the quality of life or community cohesion and resilience’. 8.4.3 Paragraph 130 says that ‘permission should be refused for development of poor design that fails to take the opportunities available for improving the character and quality of an area and the way it functions’. 8.4.4 Paragraph 131 states that ‘in determining applications, great weight should be given to outstanding or innovative designs which promote high levels of sustainability, or help raise the standard of design more generally in an area, so long as they fit in with the overall form and layout of their surroundings’.

Page 89 Agenda Item 3 REPORTS FOR DEBATE 8.4.5 It is also noted that Policy ENV5 of the Eden Local Plan, entitled, ‘Environmentally Sustainable Design’ states that proposals for ‘commercial development and for major residential development…should demonstrate, where it is practical for them to do so, that they have considered each of the following criteria’. 8.4.6 This proposal is as such, classed as a major residential development. Policy ENV5 has several criterion, and it is recognised that the applicant has helpfully provided a ‘sustainability statement’ to illustrate what measures are proposed to comply with Policy ENV5. 8.4.7 The applicant proposes a ‘fabric first’ approach to the development, endeavouring to create well insulated and airtight houses to reduce energy usage of each proposed dwelling. It is recognised that Building regulations exist to ensure that minimum standards are achieved on all new development to ensure that they are efficient. However, Policy ENV5 seeks additional measures where appropriate and as the Policy itself puts it, they should be ‘practical’. 8.4.8 It is noted that some objectors have considered that the scheme should be carbon neutral and passive – however, this is not a requirement of either the building regulations nor extant Planning Policy. Whilst these beliefs are understood, officers work to the parameters of the development plan and encourage developers to provide beyond policy minimums. However, they are under no obligation to do so and not providing beyond such minimums is not a basis upon which to refuse a proposal. 8.4.9 The air tightness of the dwellings have been confirmed as follows (in comparison to existing building regulation requirements;

Element Part L1A Proposed

Wall 0.30W/m2K 0.15W/m2K

Flat Roof 0.20W/m2K 0.15W/m2K

Sloping Roof 0.20W/m2K 0.18W/m2K

Floor 0.25W/m2K 0.15W/m2K

Windows 2.00W/m2K 1.40W/m2K

Doors 2.00W/m2K 1.40W/m2K

Air Permeability 10m3/(h.m2) @ 50Pa 5m3/(h.m2) @ 50Pa

8.4.10 These figures show proposed air tightness performance in excess of extant building regulation standards. Beyond this, the proposals incorporate air source heat pumps for the dwellings. The applicant also proposes to incorporate solar photovoltaic panels on roofs for the provision of electricity. These are intended to pre-heat hot water using solar thermal panels reducing the ‘heating load’. 8.4.11 The applicant, however, did not originally indicate where these solar panels would be located on site. Updated plans, illustrating their inclusion have now been provided. These additions are welcome and in combination, produce a scheme that does offer aspects that can be considered environmentally sustainable, in accordance with Policy ENV5.

Page 90 Agenda Item 3 REPORTS FOR DEBATE 8.4.12 It is recognised that the Policy states ‘should’ demonstrate, rather than ‘must’ but despite this, it is considered important that development endeavours to provide as strong an environmentally sustainable design as possible. Notwithstanding, the requirements of the policy must be recognised in the consideration of this application. In this instance, the proposal is therefore considered to accord with Policy ENV5. 8.4.13 As has been already acknowledged within this report, Sockbridge and Tirril is noted to be a village which has varying architectural styles. There are some examples of much older buildings in more central areas of the settlement. Beyond that, the mix is much more significant, with far more modern development located in the wider area and within close proximity to the application site. One such, more modern housing development is located to the east of the site on Thorpefield. This housing development is constructed of a composition of brick and render, with some stone detailing in places. In general terms, much of this housing, whilst functional, is of limited architectural merit. The applicant has advised of its intended materials which would be stone, brick, render and tile roofs. These are considered consistent with the types of material already prevalent in the village and accordingly would be acceptable for use in this instance. How this development cannot then be considered to be acceptable because it does not reflect this approach, given it is considered of limited merit, is difficult to reconcile. 8.4.14 It is acknowledged that the site is located in a ‘gateway’ location in the village, at its effective entrance when travelling north to south. This means the site is prominent and any development upon it would have a visual impact on the immediate area. However, at the time that outline planning permission was granted for the site to be developed, committee members appreciated that and took such into consideration in their decision making. 8.4.15 Officers agree with objectors that the Georgian ‘style’ does differ to the locality. But as is established, that locality lacks any over-arching theme and it is therefore difficult to see how a development could conform to such when no such dominating style or form exists. In circumstances such as this, the consideration must be whether or not the design proposed is so poor as to merit its refusal rather than it not conforming to some supposed theme that represents the character of the local area. Officers remain of the view that no such overarching theme and style is present in the settlement. 8.4.16 The proposed houses would have a rather traditional appearance in terms of materials, with materials such as stone, brick and render being employed on various elevations of each of the dwellings proposed, these materials are considered suitable for the village and their presence found elsewhere throughout the settlement. Whilst the principle of these materials is considered acceptable, it is considered necessary that exact samples of the final materials are submitted to the Local Planning Authority for approval prior to works commencing on site. 8.4.17 The design is noted to differ throughout the site. On the eastern boundary the applicant proposes bungalows in order to alleviate potential amenity impacts to those dwellings located opposite off Thorpefield. These bungalows are welcome additions to the development and improve the housing mix and type the development would yield, consistent with the aims and intentions of the Local Plan. In addition, the detailing is closer to that of Thorpefield, with a result that is considered an improvement to the entrance of the village than those properties already in place adjacent to the site. 8.4.18 Other house types rely on a similarity in terms of proposed materials (predominately stone and slate) but vary in their scale. The larger houses proposed on site (the

Page 91 Agenda Item 3 REPORTS FOR DEBATE majority forming a line along the western boundary) are, as many objectors rightly suggest, significant in scale. Other large dwellings are also proposed in the site too with a mix of good sized houses but of a lesser scale. 8.4.19 Some of the proposed dwellings are large, three storey homes and provide executive level accommodation for future occupants. These are primarily located on the western edge of the site, away from existing residential dwellings. Whilst these are large homes, they again offer a differing house type and whilst they would be 276 sq. metres in size, they are considered to employ good quality materials, beyond that of much in the locality. It is recognised that housing in such locations is expected to be limited to 150 sq. metres in size. However, in the context of a wider development, with a mix of house types such is considered acceptable in this instance. There are examples of large dwellings in the settlement and in that regard, in the context of the development as a whole, officers do not feel the size of these particular dwellings or any of the others proposed would be inappropriate. 8.4.20 Those proposed dwellings of a more modest scale retain the use of good quality materials which enhance their visual appearance. The larger houses incorporate much ‘busier’ rear elevations with varying numbers of windows. These could be considered a little more challenging on the eye and could be considered to lack some finesse but not to an extent which would justify a refusal of the entire scheme when viewed as a whole. The proposed garages to the front of these dwellings is also a shame as they too detract a little from the street scene but not to such an extent that is considered to be significantly harmful. Nevertheless, the inclusion of garages is considered useful overall as it provides future occupants additional space for covered car parking. 8.4.21 However, overall, taken as a whole the design proposed is considered good. The dwellings proposed offer a variety of house types and that housing mix is welcomed. The inclusion of bungalows is a particularly welcome addition given there is a noted need for such house types in the district. The overarching theme is the quality of materials proposed. These are considered strong, offer an improvement to the locality. Without any dominating style or material in the settlement, the aim is to ensure that those materials implemented on any development in a location such as this are good. Given that is considered to be the case the design of the proposed dwellings is considered acceptable. 8.4.22 Accordingly, due the considerations above, these proposals are considered compliant with the NPPF, Policy DEV5 and ENV5 and are worthy of support. 8.5 Residential Amenity 8.5.1 The proposal is subject to a number of objections from members of the public as well as the Parish Council in specific relation to amenity. It is accepted that the Local Plan seeks to avoid development that creates ‘overlooking’ but it should also be noted that the Housing Supplementary Planning Document (SPD) provides guidance in relation to how close it is preferable for newly constructed buildings to be to existing development. 8.5.2 Within the Eden Local Plan, through Policy DEV5, it is noted that the Policy requires development protect the amenity of existing residents and provides an acceptable amenity for future occupiers of any potential development. 8.5.3 It is noted that a number of objectors consider the proposal to be overbearing and would result in a loss of amenity as well as resulting in overshadowing. A number of objectors have noted the applicant has intended to deal with potential amenity issues

Page 92 Agenda Item 3 REPORTS FOR DEBATE by proposing bungalows on the eastern boundary of the site. Despite this, the objections remain. 8.5.4 The intent of the Local Plan in terms of amenity has been set out above. In addition to the policy aims, the Local Development Framework incorporates two housing SPD’s (supplementary planning design) guidance documents. The 2010 iteration recommends minimum separation distances be achieved between dwellings to assist in protecting amenity. These distances are 21 metres between principal windows and 13 metres between a main elevation and a blank gable wall. 8.5.5 The objectors also cite a lack of ground floor information in order to be able to determine the height of the dwellings relative to those closest to the site. The applicant has provided site section plans to demonstrate the relationship of the proposed development alongside that of the existing built environment. The separation distances the development would achieve are noted to be beyond these recommended distances on the eastern boundary and indeed on the southern boundary of the site. 8.5.6 Further mitigation of these difference in levels of approximately 2 metres, beyond the provision of the separation distances, is orientation, which endeavours to prevent as much overlooking as possible. The separation distances proposed have been are confirmed as follows;  No. 2 Thorpefield to proposed unit no.12 – 22 metres;  No. 1 Thorpefield to proposed unit no.10 – 18 metres (part of existing gable faces out onto site);  No. 33 Thorpefield to proposed unit no.9 – 25 metres;  No. 32 Thorpefield to proposed unit no. 5 – 21 metres;  No. 31 Thorpefield to proposed unit no’s 3 and 4 – 26.75 metres. 8.5.7 To the south, the separation distances between proposed unit no’s 1 and 2 and no. 2 Greenkiln Cottage would be 22.35 metres with proposed unit 24 and Cedar Cottage 23.5 metres apart. 8.5.8 Such separation distances are aimed at ensuring that amenity is preserved for all parties. As has been noted there are topographical differences between the site and those properties on Thorpefield which could accentuate any potential impacts, but the separation distances proposed and recommended under the Housing SPD takes this into account and so continues to preserve neighbouring amenity. Whilst the topographical differences are noted and the interconnectivity between proposed and existing dwellings are cause for concern, officers do not consider this justification to refuse the scheme. Such interaction between dwellings located on Thorpefield already occur with windows overlooking neighbouring properties and garden areas. In that regard then, the differences between these and existing dwellings is not considered to be so significantly harmful as to merit the refusal of the scheme. 8.5.9 In this instance, given those separation distances would be achieved and indeed the applicants intentions to construct bungalows on the eastern boundary of the site, the scheme is considered to ensure that existing and future amenity will be achieved without significantly detrimental impacts in relation to overlooking, loss of light, privacy or without being overly dominant. It is also recognised that the Environmental Health Officer responded on the proposal and offered no comments. It should also be noted

Page 93 Agenda Item 3 REPORTS FOR DEBATE that the applicant has confirmed that they intend to reduce land levels by 800mm to reduce further, any potential impacts in terms of amenity. 8.5.10 The intent to utilise bungalows and the compliance with the recommended distances of the Housing SPD are considered to ensure that the impacts in terms of residential amenity are acceptable, compliant with Policy DEV5 and should be supported. 8.6 Highway Safety 8.6.1 Policy DEV3 of the Eden Local Plan, entitled ‘Transport, Accessibility and Rights of Way’ states that ‘development will be refused if it will result in a severe impact in terms of road safety and increased traffic congestion. Development should provide safe and convenient access for pedestrians, cyclists and disabled people’. 8.6.2 Paragraph 109 of the NPPF affirms that ‘development should only be prevented or refused on highways grounds if there would be an unacceptable impact on highway safety, or the residual cumulative impacts on the road network would be severe’. 8.6.3 The comments of a number of objectors are noted in terms of their assertion that the ‘original’ plans have changed and now incorporate additionally proposed access points to individual plots on the eastern part of the site. As has been noted, the outline provided only indicative plans and no formal access proposals were made as part of that application. As such, no change has taken place. 8.6.4 The concerns of a number of objectors relate to the feeling that the access would be taken onto an unsafe road (the B5320). Some even note that they believe people regularly speed along this road, which makes it even more dangerous. Such activity should be reported to the Police. However, in planning terms, the potential illegal activity or some road users, is not a material planning consideration or reason to refuse a planning application or submission. 8.6.5 Indeed, the development proposes to access the site from the B5320 and this aspect of the development proposal has been considered by the Highway Authority. Where the Highway Authority sought further detail related to an issue raised by several objectors including the Parish Council. Specifically, the proposed independent accesses for three dwellings of Thorpefield. These access points are of concern to objectors who feel that that these will lead to unsafe highway conditions. 8.6.6 The applicant produced additional information following liaison with the Highway Authority and this was scrutinised by County Council Officers. The plan now provided is considered to demonstrate safe and appropriate visibility splays for all accesses proposed. Whilst the concerns of the objectors are noted, the Highway Authority do not concur with their concerns. In addition, officers remain of the view that as long as the proposed accesses are safe, they are all being proposed onto public highway. Which part of that highway is not in itself a concern, so long as the aforementioned road safety can be achieved. 8.6.7 The other concerns related to highways are also noted. These relate to the proposed intention to include a small footpath along the proposed site entrance onto the B5320. This was considered inadequate by a number of objectors along with officers of the Local Planning Authority as well as the County Council. 8.6.8 To resolve this issue, a footpath link was suggested as being integrated into the site itself, with egress onto Thorpefield. The County Council were agreeable to this approach and it is noted that these minor changes have been incorporated into the updated site plan. The further details of this footpath would be approved under the

Page 94 Agenda Item 3 REPORTS FOR DEBATE terms of the extant condition attached to the outline planning permission (ref. 17/0080). However, the principle of this is considered acceptable and now forms part of the proposed layout of the site. 8.6.9 Whilst concerns of the objectors and Parish Council in relation to the highway network are therefore noted, the comments from the Highway Authority are clear. No such unacceptable or severe impacts are considered to apply in this case, contrary to Policy DEV3 and the NPPF. On that basis then, it is simply not reasonable to base a refusal on such highway grounds. 8.6.10 Accordingly, on the basis of the Highway Authority response it is considered that the proposed accesses onto the site is acceptable and the proposal is therefore considered compliant with Policy DEV3 and the NPPF and merits support. 8.7 Drainage 8.7.1 The application site has been noted to be for the ‘reserved matters’ of the outline permission (ref. 17/0080). Drainage does not represent a ‘reserved matter’ and as such is not a consideration of this application. Concerns of objectors and the Parish Council are noted in terms of drainage, but those concerns were considered as part of the outline application and do not form material considerations in relation to this reserved matters proposal. 8.8 Provision of Open Space 8.8.1 Under the requirements of the Eden Local Plan, new major housing developments are required to provide sufficient open space provision in any new development. Policy COM3 of the Eden Local Plan entitled ‘Provision of New Open Space’, would require the provision of appropriate levels of open space for future residents to enjoy. It is noted that some objectors have queried why such space is required given some already exists in the settlement, whilst others have suggested there is a lack of infrastructure within the settlement to support the occupants of the development. As has been confirmed, the Local Plan requires the provision of amenity space on sites where it can be delivered. Accordingly, the applicant has sought to comply with the requirements of the development plan. 8.8.2 The applicant has advised that they would provide a total of two amenity areas. However, only one of these can be considered as part of this application as the other relates to a separate application, related to a proposed drainage attenuation pond on land adjacent to the site. It would be inappropriate to consider the potential provision of amenity space that scheme would provide (albeit it would comprise an area of attenuation land – if approved) which has more limited benefits as amenity space in general terms. 8.8.3 As such, the provision of amenity space can only be considered to relate to the single area, denoted centrally within the site and which is illustrated to comprise a play area. Policy COM3 requires a development of this scale to provide at least one type of amenity space from the five it lists. In this case, the development would provide a total of 200 sq. metres of amenity space. 8.8.4 The Policy, as has been suggested, has five differing amenity space types that it seeks development to achieve. These include informal recreation space (amenity open space), urban parks and gardens, playgrounds, outdoor sport facilities and allotments. 8.8.5 The Local Planning Authority, as with all policies, seeks to encourage developers to provide beyond minimum policy requirements where they can. In this case, the

Page 95 Agenda Item 3 REPORTS FOR DEBATE minimum playground space a development yielding these house types would be 200 sq. metres. Accordingly, the development does comply with Policy COM3. 8.8.6 It is acknowledged that this is the minimum requirement but this is not a reason to refuse a scheme which has been confirmed to be policy compliant. It should be added that in terms of amenity space and the layout proposed, it would be far more preferable if a centralised amenity area was also included, not only for an area of play, but to enhance the feel and appearance of the site. It is noted that in this instance, the site is a windfall development and an element of pragmatism should apply given to seek such a centralised area, would reduce the number of dwellings the site could deliver. As the outline suggested 25 dwellings, the scheme is already proposing less than was suggested at that stage. 8.8.7 Regardless of this officer preference, the scheme must be considered as proposed. Whilst it is always welcome when applicants offer beyond Policy minimums, the scheme as proposed would still deliver a scheme that would comply with Policy COM3 and in that respect, it should be supported. 8.8.8 It is noted that the exact specification of playground equipment to be provided is not detailed as part of the application. As such, a condition requiring the submission of these details has been recommended to be imposed were permission granted. 8.8.9 Under the Local Plan, Policy COM3, as previously referred to, is the Policy to consider. In considering this Policy, were every bed occupied at all times (a total of 174 people) would occupy the site. Policy COM3 would require a minimum provision of 200 sq. metres playground amenity space for the site. The applicant is proposing 200 sq. metres of playground amenity space. As such the proposal is considered to comply with the requirements of Policy COM3 in this instance and merits support. 8.9 Historic Environment 8.9.1 It is noted that some objectors have raised concerns related to the Historic Environment and Roman aqueducts being located on site. Such matters are not material considerations at the reserved matters stage. Matters related to the historic environment and drainage were considered at the outline stage and the scheme considered to be acceptable in this regard. As such, the impact of the development upon the Historic Environment should not and cannot be re-visited at this point of a Reserved Matters application. 8.10 Other matters 8.10.1 It is noted that one objector raised the issue that the agent for this application is a former employee of Eden District Council and that they hoped that ‘this fact does not influence the decision making process’. Applicants and agents are treated equally, regardless of their background and previous employment. All planning applications are determined based upon their own merits, compliance with the Development Plan and National Policy, and other material considerations relevant to them. Whilst any party is entitled to their own personal views on the outcome of a planning application and the planning judgement that is made, for the purpose of absolute clarity, no other factors come into play. 8.10.2 Finally, it is noted that the Parish Council have requested a site visit be undertaken in relation to this reserved matters application. Officers do not recommend such is necessary in this instance. The outline application was subject to a Members site visit but at this stage a visit for a reserved matters application is considered unnecessary, particularly in that context.

Page 96 Agenda Item 3 REPORTS FOR DEBATE 9. Implications 9.1 Legal Implications 9.1.1 The following matters have been considered but no issues are judged to arise. 9.2 Equality and Diversity 9.2.1 The Council must have regard to the elimination of unlawful discrimination and harassment, and the promotion of equality under the Equality Act 2010. 9.3 Environment 9.3.1 The Council must have due regard to conserving bio-diversity under the Natural Environment and Rural Communities Act 2006. 9.4 Crime and Disorder 9.4.1 Under the Crime and Disorder Act 1998, the Council must have regard to the need to reduce crime and disorder in exercising any of its functions. 9.5 Children 9.5.1 Under the Children Act 2004, the Council has a duty to safeguard and promote the welfare of children in the exercise of any of its functions. 9.6 Human Rights 9.6.1 In determining applications, the Council must ensure that all parties get a fair hearing in compliance with the provisions of Article 6 under the European Convention on Human Rights, as now embodied in UK law in the Human Rights Act 1998. 10. Conclusion 10.1 This, as a reserved matters application, seeks the approval for the details of the development, rather than the development itself. This residential development these details relate to was approved at the outline stage under planning permission ref. 17/0080. 10.2 It is recognised that there are a number of objectors to this application but many refer to concerns which do not directly relate to the ‘reserved matters’. In such circumstances, those objections must be disregarded as they do not form material considerations in this proposal. 10.3 However, many of the concerns raised do directly relate to reserved matters, such as the proposed layout, scale and design of the development. These concerns have been considered within this report and officers acknowledge that the site would inevitably have a landscape impact were it developed. Such was considered at the outline stage and thus a residential development was considered acceptable. That fundamental assessment has not changed. 10.4 Now though, we have more detailed design to consider. Whilst some objectors still feel there is a lack of detail to determine the application, officers are satisfied that the applicant has provided sufficient detail to allow the proposal to be properly assessed. 10.5 There are some objectors that feel that the proposals, if implemented, would undermine the character of the area and even its ‘unique’ character. The village is perfectly charming, like many in the district but officers do not consider it to be so unique that the proposed reserved matters application should be refused.

Page 97 Agenda Item 3 REPORTS FOR DEBATE 10.6 There are a number of differing architectural styles and materials utilised in the village and whilst some can be considered more aesthetically pleasing than others, some could be considered less so. This is not to say all of these buildings don’t offer the same level of comfort and feelings of home, but they are clearly not all of the same architectural merit. 10.7 In such circumstances it becomes difficult for an application like this to conform to one particular ‘style’ as what partly makes the settlements we live in what they are, is that to some degree they are subject to diversity. That variation in materials used, design and scale are inherently factors that make villages and towns of the district what they are. 10.8 There are, of course, some settlements with greater elements of one particular, dominating style or material but nevertheless, this is not the case in Sockbridge and Tirril and the fundamental principle is to try and ensure that development proposed improves the area, rather than simply trying to replicate more tired examples in the locality. 10.9 In this regard, the applicant is unlikely to be able to satisfy everyone’s particular preferences. Despite that, the Georgian ‘theme’ of several of the houses is considered by many to ‘jar’ with the locality to such a significant degree that it merits refusing these proposals. 10.10 Officers do not concur with this opinion for the reasons given within this report. Whilst there are elements to the design, particularly the rear elevations that could be considered too busy for some preferences, the determination is not whether the scheme is preferable to anyone’s personal taste or not, but whether it complies with the development plan. It is apparent that whilst Policy DEV5 seeks development to ‘reflect the existing street scene’ as well as a number of other objectives, to insist upon that in this case would be inappropriate. The same Policy also seeks to see development use ‘quality materials which complement or enhance local surroundings’. It is therefore difficult for development to always meet such competing objectives and falls to officers to balance those competing aims when applying policy. 10.11 It is on those grounds that this development, in terms of design is considered acceptable. The quality of the materials proposed are considered to be an enhancement of the area and would make a positive impression on the street scene. As such, in terms of design the proposals are supported. Whilst the design of the dwellings proposed on the western boundary of the site are recognised to differ in some respects, to the design of many of the dwellings in the wider village, for the reasons given above, namely, there is a wide variance in design style already in the village, it is considered unreasonable to seek this development to conform to some unknown preference of architecture that objectors perceive the village to be dominated by. 10.12 Concerns related to highways are also noted. However, the test in such circumstances is whether or not the development would result in significant road safety and/or congestion impacts. It is clear from the response received from the Local Highway Authority that no such significantly severe impacts are considered likely in this case. On that basis, the proposals are supported. 10.13 The amenity of existing residents is also noted as a significant concern of objectors. This is understandable as such issues can cause distress. Officers very much recognise this. The development has been created to limit such impacts by proposing

Page 98 Agenda Item 3 REPORTS FOR DEBATE mainly bungalows along the western boundary of the site. The Local Plan seeks to protect existing and future amenity for residents and in addition the 2010 Housing SPD recommends specific separation distances be achieved. These are achieved an ultimately, whilst there would be some differences in levels, these are not so significantly different as to merit the refusal of the scheme. The recommended separation distances being met, are there to assist in mitigation of such issues and given that they are achieved, this affords confidence that such amenity concerns have been addressed sufficiently to permit officer support. 10.14 The application details provided indicate that the separation distances that would be achieved are beyond minimums the Housing SPD recommends and the Environmental Health Officer has offered no comments upon the proposal. As such, the scheme is considered able to achieve and maintain existing amenity and would not cause any impacts so significantly demonstrable that would merit the refusal of the scheme. 10.15 Accordingly then, the scheme is considered to be acceptable and merits support and as such the application is recommended for approval.

Oliver Shimell Assistant Director Planning and Economic Development

Checked by or on behalf of the Monitoring Officer 30.06.2020

Background Papers: Planning File 20/0078

Page 99 Agenda Item 4 REPORTS FOR DEBATE Date of Committee: 16 July 2020

Planning Application No: 19/0418 Date Received: 13/06/19

OS Grid Ref: 6642 2031 Expiry Date: 24/08/19 Extension of time agreed to 17/07/20

Parish: Bandleyside Ward: Warcop

Application Type: Full

Proposal: Change of use of land to mixed agricultural/keeping of horses and proposed general purpose agricultural horse-culture building

Location: Field at Kings Meaburn Road, Colby

Applicant: Mr D Birkett

Agent: Alastair Davis

Case Officer: Mat Wilson

Reason for Referral: The recommendation is contrary to the views of the Parish Council

Page 100 Agenda Item 4 REPORTS FOR DEBATE

Page 101 Agenda Item 4 REPORTS FOR DEBATE 1. Recommendation

That planning permission be granted subject to the following conditions: 1. The development permitted shall be begun before the expiration of three years from the date of this permission. Reason: In order to comply with the provisions of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 as amended by Section 51 of the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004. Approved Plans 2. The development hereby granted shall be carried out in accordance with the application form and drawings hereby approved: i. Location plan ref L3/19/0706 ii. Site plan ref L2/19/0606 rev B dated 20.05.20 iii. Site layout plan ref 6/20/1706 submitted by email 16.06.20 iv. Elevations plan ref L1/19/0506 rev B dated 20.05.20 v. Gable end elevation plan rev B dated 20.05.20 Reason: To ensure a satisfactory development and to avoid any ambiguity as to what constitutes the permission. Before any other development commences 3. The visibility splays and access improvements shown in the site plan ref L2/19/0606 rev B dated 20.05.20 shall be provided in full before any other part of the development is commenced. No obstuctions greater than 1m in height shall be permitted within the area forward of the splays. The development shall then be retained in accordance with the approved scheme. Reason: To provide a safe means of access to the development. Before the first use of the development 4. Prior to the first use of the equestrian building, the section of hedgerow removed from the verge to the east of the field access shall be replanted with a native species mix hedgerow. Any trees or other plants which die or are removed within the first five years following the implementation of the hedgerow replanting shall be replaced during the next planting season. Reason: To maintain the rural character of the area and to provide adequate screening to the development. Ongoing Conditions 5. The hedgerow along the north roadside boundary of the site shall be maintained at a height between 2m and 3m, and shall be kept clear of the visibility splays as shown on the site plan ref L2/19/0606 rev B dated 20.05.20. Reason: To maintain the rural character of the area, to provide screening to the development and to provide a safe means of access to the development. 6. The development hereby approved shall not be used for commercial livery. Reason: To minimise vehicular movements to the site in the best interests of

Page 102 Agenda Item 4 REPORTS FOR DEBATE highway safety.

2. Proposal and Site Description 2.1 Proposal 2.1.1 The application seeks to provide an equestrian building comprising stables, implement store and hay storage, within a field approximately 150m west of Colby. The building would be 10m x 18m in footprint, 3.4m high to the eaves and 4.8m to the ridge. Externally the building would be clad in Plastisol sheeting in juniper green, over concrete panels 1.2m high, and the roof is to be fibre cement sheets. 2.1.2 The building will be set just behind the existing high hedge fronting the road into Colby. An existing access into the field will be improved through the setting back of the immediately adjacent sections of hedge to either side behind an enhanced visibility splay, and setting back the gated entrance 6m into the field. The building will stand on a permeable gravel-surfaced area for parking and turning. 2.1.3 The existing use of the field is stated to be as a grazing field/paddock and the use proposed is stated as for the applicant’s own use. The application also seeks permission for the change of use of land for mixed agriculture and the keeping of horses. The use is stated as a mixed use due to the applicant’s intentions to return the use of the site to sheep grazing and winter housing at a later date; in fact this would not require planning permission and so for the purposes of the development proposed, it shall be regarded simply as an equestrian development. 2.2 Site Description 2.2.1 The field is irregular in shape and is a little under 0.5ha in area. It is gently undulating and is enclosed by hedgerows to the south, west and north (roadside) boundaries, with stock-proof fencing to the east and southwest boundaries. 2.2.2 The only property in the vicinity is Kangaroo House, some 120m from the proposed building with a separate field owned by the applicant on the intervening land. 2.2.3 There are no specific planning constraints which apply to the land. 3. Consultees 3.1 Statutory Consultees Consultee Response Highway Authority Following the receipt of amended plans the Highway Authority commented as follows: Speed survey results carried out previously were submitted allowing the 85%ile to be used, the revised plan provided Drawing No. L2/19/0606 Rev B shows visibility splays and additional drainage information. The adjoining hedges should be maintained to prevent any obstructions of the visibility splays. The layout details shown on the submitted plan are considered satisfactory from a highway perspective. I can therefore confirm that the Highway Authority has no objection to the proposed development for the applicants use only, but we would recommend that

Page 103 Agenda Item 4 REPORTS FOR DEBATE the following conditions are included in any consent you might grant: The development shall not commence until visibility splays providing clear visibility as Drawing No. L2/19/0606 Rev B. Notwithstanding the provisions of the Town and Country Planning (General Permitted Development) (England) Order 2015 (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. The whole of the access area bounded by the carriageway edge, entrance gates and the splays shall be constructed and drained to the specification of the Local Planning Authority in consultation with the Highway Authority. Local Lead Flood Authority The Lead Local Flood Authority (LLFA) have records of minor surface water flooding to the site which indicate a 0.1 percent (1 in 1000) chance of occurring each year and the Environment Agency (EA) surface water maps do not indicate that the site is in an area of risk. The surface water drainage should not be greater than the already existing, if installing a soakaway we would advise not be positioned in close proximity to the highway – which should be at least 5m from the highway and building. 3.2 Discretionary Consultees Consultee Response Cumbria County Council It is anticipated that additional sand and gravel Minerals and Waste resources will be required before the end of the Plan period (2030), especially in the south and west of the county. Although away from the settlement, the application site is adjacent the road and the safeguarding area extends across a significant area of surrounding open land so the proposal will not prevent access to this mineral resource for extraction in the future. I consider that criterion 4 of Policy DC15 (Minerals Safeguarding) in the adopted Cumbria Minerals and Waste Local Plan is satisfied. Cumbria County Council as minerals planning

Page 104 Agenda Item 4 REPORTS FOR DEBATE authority therefore does not object to this application. 4. Parish Council/Meeting Response Please Tick as Appropriate Parish Object Support No Response No Objection Council/Meeting Bandleyside Parish  Council 4.1 The Parish Council responded as follows: First response received 06/08/2020: The parish council object to the application due to highways issues, and that a change of use of the land is required, which has not been applied for. Second response received 12/09/2020: BPC wish to reiterate our objection. There are highways concerns with this planning application, which have been demonstrated since the land has been used commercially recently. This issues include parked cars on narrow lanes, the road being blocked whilst horses being loaded. Third response received 19/06/2020: The statement that he is only keeping "his own horses" is not credible. A field of 2.25 acres will not permanently support even the four horses currently in the field, let alone the dozen or more that could be accommodated in the proposed hangar building. The horses in the field change regularly, so he is clearly buying and selling them. The horses are of course "his own" for the short duration of his ownership, but that cannot disguise the fact that he is a horse dealer. So our opposition to a "commercial" development must stand. If the DC can't refuse permission then we should insist that they apply a restriction on the field of no more than 2 horses at any time, which would pose no problem to someone who genuinely wanted to use the field for "their own horses". Improving the splay of the entrance cannot be done without ripping out part of the centuries old hedgerow; the avoidance of this damage to the hedgerow formed part of the original objections to the proposed housing development, and I don't see why it should be any different for this application. We hope this is helpful in framing our continued opposition to this commercial development. 5. Representations 5.1 Letters of consultation were sent to nearby neighbours and a site notice was posted on 19 July 2020.

No of Neighbours Consulted 3 No of letters of support 0 No of Representations Received 0 No of neutral representations 0 No of objection letters 0

Page 105 Agenda Item 4 REPORTS FOR DEBATE 6. Relevant Planning History None for this site Adjacent field to the east: 18/0553 - Outline Application for residential development: Refused for the following reasons: ‘1) The proposed development by virtue of its location, scale, siting would have significant and adverse impact on the character of the village and thereby does not accord with Policy CS9 of the Core Strategy and Policy LS1 of the emerging Eden Local Plan (2014-2032). 2) The proposed development would have an unacceptable and demonstrably harmful impact on the character of the local landscape and the village contrary to CS16 and CS18 of the adopted Core Strategy and Proposed Policy DEV5 and ENV2 of the Eden Local Plan (2014-2032).’ 7. Policy Context 7.1 Development Plan Local Plan 2014-2032 Relevant Policies  LS1 Locational Strategy  DEV1 General Approach to New Development  DEV3 Transport, Accessibility and Rights of Way  DEV5 Design of New Development  ENV2 Protection and Enhancement of Landscapes and Trees 7.2 Other Material Considerations National Planning Policy Framework:  Chapter 2 - Achieving sustainable development;  Chapter 12 - Achieving well designed places;  Chapter 15 - Conserving and enhancing the natural environment. The policies detailed above are the most relevant policies relating to this application. 8. Planning Assessment 8.1 Key/Main Planning Issues  Principle  Built Environment  Residential amenity  Streetscene/Landscape Impact  Infrastructure/Flood Risk/Drainage  Natural Environment 8.2 Principle

Page 106 Agenda Item 4 REPORTS FOR DEBATE 8.2.1 There are no directly relevant policies relating to equestrian development in the Local Plan. Policy DEV1 however does state that: ‘Where there are no policies relevant to the application or relevant policies are out of date at the time of making the decision then the Council will grant permissions unless material considerations indicate otherwise – taking into account whether:  Any adverse impacts of granting permission would significantly and demonstrably outweigh the benefits, when assessed against the policies in the National Planning Policy Framework taken as a whole; or  Specific policies in that Framework indicate that development should be restricted.’ 8.2.2 Policies DEV3, DEV5 and ENV2 are appropriate to assess the specific design, landscape and highways impacts of the proposal, the impacts of which are considered in the following sections of this report; however equestrian development is an appropriate use of land in the open countryside and the principle is considered acceptable. 8.2.3 The site is alleged by the Parish Council to be in use as a commercial development, the applicant keeping horses only to sell on. The use of the land to keep horses bought until they are sold on would not in itself be an inappropriate use of land in the countryside. There will be no particular increase in activity, no visitors’ comings and goings, and other than the proposed barn, no built development. It is only the applicant himself visiting the site to oversee the horses and to change the stock. The use of the land solely by the applicant for keeping horses, whether that is for his own horses or to trade them, would be restricted and secured through the imposition of a condition prohibiting any other use and would be enforceable should this be breached. Limiting the number of horses to 2 as requested by the Parish is unreasonable; there is no reason in planning terms why this field should be so restricted. 8.3 Landscape and Visual Impacts 8.3.1 Local Plan Policy DEV5 requires, amongst other criteria, that development:  Shows a clear understanding of the form and character of the district’s built and natural environment, complementing and enhancing the existing area.  Protects and where possible enhances the district’s distinctive rural landscape, natural environment and biodiversity.  Uses quality materials which complement or enhance local surroundings. 8.3.2 The equestrian building proposed is not the small scale timber-clad structure one might readily expect in the District; rather it is a more utilitarian, multi-functional building, the type of building one might more readily associate with agriculture. It allows a flexible use of the land with the applicant’s stated intention to return to grazing and over- wintering sheep at a later date. With a simple dual pitch roof and finished in Plastisol cladding in green over concrete base panels and a fibre cement roof, the building will respect the form of rural development, although admittedly it represents something of a departure for equestrian development. Its design and appearance are however in keeping with the rural vernacular, using materials which complement the countryside setting. 8.3.3 The building is respectfully sited at the edge of the field, immediately behind the substantial hedgerow where it can benefit from natural screening. The building can’t be concealed entirely, but its visual impact is expected to be modest and softened by the

Page 107 Agenda Item 4 REPORTS FOR DEBATE retention of the existing boundary hedgerow. The building would be seen fleetingly in passing through the field entrance, and only the upper part of the building up to the eaves level at 3.4m being seen above the hedge. The proposal does not involve any further reduction of the hedgerow beyond the short section already removed adjacent to the access. Due to its length any future removal would fall under the Hedgerow Removal Regulations which adds further protection in securing its retention. 8.3.4 The proposal is considered to be appropriately designed, restrained in its proportions and external materials, in keeping with rural development and to have only limited landscape impact. As such, the proposal in deemed to be in accordance with Policy DEV5 in respect of its design and appearance. 8.4 Residential Amenity 8.4.1 Policy DEV5 of the Eden Local Plan supports schemes that protect the amenity of existing residents and provides an acceptable amenity for future occupiers. Paragraph 127 of the National Planning Policy Framework requires that planning decisions on development should ensure a high standard of amenity for existing and future users. 8.4.2 The only property in the vicinity is Kangaroo House, situated 120m from the site of the proposed building. This property is further segregated from the application site by a 60m wide field, which is within the ownership of the applicant but is not included within the proposal. It is not considered that the development of the equestrian building and the keeping of horses on the wider field would bring about any detriment to the amenities of the occupants of this property. Indeed the land could revert to a more intensive agricultural grazing use which could lawfully take place irrespective of this application, which would arguably have a greater impact on neighbouring amenity. There are no objections to the proposal from any neighbouring properties. 8.4.3 The development is therefore in accordance with Policy DEV5 in respect of ensuring the amenity of neighbouring residents. 8.5 Infrastructure 8.5.1 Policy DEV2 of the Local Plan states that new development should avoid compromising flood defences, should incorporate Sustainable Drainage Systems (SuDS) where practicable, and should discharge surface water in accordance with the hierarchy of sustainable drainage. The National Planning Policy Framework advises that, when determining any planning applications, local planning authorities should ensure that flood risk is not increased elsewhere (Paragraph 163). Highway impacts of new developments are addressed under Policy DEV3, stating that proposals will be refused where they would result in a severe impact in terms of road safety and increased traffic congestion. 8.5.2 The building will develop an area of pasture for the building footprint of 10m x 18m and will be set within a wider area of permeable gravel. Surface water is to drain into two soakaways. The land inclines slightly away from the highway, and the field is drained by a small stream along its western edge. The land is not within an area known to flood, and it is not considered the development will increase the risk of flooding elsewhere. 8.5.3 The development will utilise the existing field access onto the highway, and the applicant has already implemented improvements to enhance exit visibility from the access, which was compromised due to the road alignment and the field hedgerows impeding sightlines in both directions. A short section of hedgerow immediately east of the access has been removed, and to the west the hedgerow has been thinned and

Page 108 Agenda Item 4 REPORTS FOR DEBATE pruned back away from the road, as the applicant is entitled to do. The access gate currently remains adjacent to the highway, and the concerns that have been raised about the road being temporarily blocked whilst the landowner enters and exits the site, having to pause on the road whilst opening and closing the gate, are acknowledged and understood. The applicant proposes to mitigate this situation by setting the access back into the site, 6m clear of the road. The development will therefore improve the access and reduce the danger and inconvenience to other road users. 8.5.4 The applicant refers to a speed survey which was carried out in 2018 on the adjacent field, when an application had been submitted for residential development and a new vehicular access was proposed (18/0553). That survey showed that average vehicular traffic speed on the road was considerably lower than the 60mph speed limit, as would be anticipated given the proximity to Colby village and its 30mph speed limit, and the nature of the road, a narrow twisting country lane enclosed by high hedgerows, which innately slows vehicles. That survey was conducted within 70m of the access into the current application site, and it is reasonable to transpose the results for the adjacent site to this, given the proximity and the similarities in the road alignment, whilst allowing that the current application is slightly further away from the village. The substantially reduced vehicular speeds as demonstrated by the speed survey allowed for a reduction in visibility splays down to 30m and 28m in the critical and non-critical directions respectively. Subsequently no objections were raised by the Highway Authority to the proposed residential development of the adjacent field. 8.5.5 Further to the submission of amended plans demonstrating equivalent visibility splays to those set out for the proposed access on the adjacent field, setting back the existing access into the field, and opening up the visibility to either side by managing the roadside hedgerows, the Highway Authority has commented that the layout details as now proposed are considered satisfactory from a highway perspective. They raise no objections to the proposed development for the applicant’s use only. 8.5.6 It is important to note that the current application proposes to utilise the existing field access, which the applicant could continue to use as often as they wish to carry out agricultural activities, without being obliged to make improvements. The concerns of the Parish Council in respect of the commercial use of the development and the consequences on the highway are acknowledged; however it is reasonable to take into account the use of the existing access, the improvements to visibility, the lower vehicle speeds owing to the narrow twisting nature of the lane as demonstrated by the speed survey for the adjacent field, and the lack of any objections to the development from the Highway Authority. 8.5.7 The access improvements already carried out are considered to constitute an engineering operation, in terms of excavating a section of the bank adjacent to the access on a classified road, and is not therefore a permitted development. The works to the access therefore constitute part and parcel of the development, and it is reasonable and necessary therefore to secure the access improvements and to maintain the visibility splays clear of obstructions through appropriate conditions. 8.5.8 Policy DEV3 requires that proposals will be refused where they would result in a severe impact in terms of road safety and increased traffic congestion. It is not considered that the proposal amounts to any severe impacts, or any intensification of the lawful use of this existing agricultural vehicular access, and will in fact reduce traffic congestion through allowing vehicles to wait clear of the highway whilst the re-located gates are opened and closed.

Page 109 Agenda Item 4 REPORTS FOR DEBATE 8.5.9 It is considered the proposal accords with the requirements of Policies DEV2 and DEV3 and the relevant paragraphs of the NPPF in terms of highway safety, flood risk and drainage, and is therefore acceptable in respect of infrastructure. 8.6 Natural Environment 8.6.1 Impacts on the natural environment are addressed under Policy ENV1 of the Local Plan, which requires that new development shall avoid any net loss of biodiversity and geodiversity, and where possible enhance existing assets. 8.6.2 The applicant has already reduced short sections of hedgerows either side of the access, as is their right as landowner, the lengths involved falling short of that which would require a Hedgerow Removal Notice. The layout plans show that the hedgerows will be maintained at approximately 2.4m in height behind the visibility splays, and that the section removed will be replanted. A grass verge will be created where the hedgerows have been set back behind the splays. 8.6.3 The remainder of the application site is a grazed pasture of no great value in terms of biodiversity. No protected species or valued habitats are affected, and as such the proposal is deemed to be acceptable in accordance with the terms of Policy ENV1. 8.7 Built Environment 8.7.1 No listed buildings, conservation areas or other undesignated heritage assets are affected by the proposal. 8.7.2 The equestrian building proposed is not a conventional timber stable. That said, it is in keeping with the scale and design of agricultural buildings in the rural area, and as such no concerns arise with the impact of this building on the character of the local rural built environment. 9. Implications 9.1 Legal Implications 9.1.1 The following matters have been considered but no issues are judged to arise. 9.2 Equality and Diversity 9.2.1 The Council must have regard to the elimination of unlawful discrimination and harassment, and the promotion of equality under the Equality Act 2010. 9.3 Environment 9.3.1 The Council must have due regard to conserving biodiversity under the Natural Environment and Rural Communities Act 2006. 9.4 Crime and Disorder 9.4.1 Under the Crime and Disorder Act 1998, the Council must have regard to the need to reduce crime and disorder in exercising any of its functions. 9.5 Children 9.5.1 Under the Children Act 2004, the Council has a duty to safeguard and promote the welfare of children in the exercise of any of its functions. 9.6 Human Rights 9.6.1 In determining applications, the Council must ensure that all parties get a fair hearing in compliance with the provisions of Article 6 under the European Convention on Human Rights, as now embodied in UK law in the Human Rights Act 1998.

Page 110 Agenda Item 4 REPORTS FOR DEBATE 10. Conclusion 10.1 It is considered that the proposal accords with the Development Plan for the following reasons which are not outweighed by material considerations: 10.2 The mixed use agricultural and equestrian building is appropriately sited to maximise screening, its design is in keeping with agricultural built development and the proposal will result in improvements to the existing field access. The development will be seen in the context of its rural surroundings without impacting on neighbours, heritage assets or the wider landscape. 10.3 The scheme is therefore considered to be in accordance with the development plan without material considerations indicating otherwise and as such the application is recommended for approval.

Oliver Shimell Assistant Director Planning and Economic Development

Checked by or on behalf of the Monitoring Officer 29.06.2020

Background Papers: Planning File 19/0418

Page 111 Agenda Item 5 REPORTS FOR DEBATE Date of Committee: 16 July 2020

Planning Application No: 20/0165 Date Received: 5 March 2020

OS Grid Ref: 352931 529732 Expiry Date: 20 July 2020

Parish: Penrith Ward: Penrith East

Application Type: Householder

Proposal: Proposed two storey extension to rear and front elevations, together with single storey extension to side, and new porch (as amended)

Location: 8 Frenchfield Way, Penrith

Applicant: Mr Martin Woodhall

Agent: Mr Chris Davidson (Concept)

Case Officer: Mr D Cox

Reason for Referral: There is a request by a neighbouring objector to the proposed development to have a hearing.

Page 112 Agenda Item 5 REPORTS FOR DEBATE

Page 113 Agenda Item 5 REPORTS FOR DEBATE 1. Recommendation

It is recommended that planning permission be granted subject to the following conditions: Time Limit for Commencement 1. The development permitted shall be begun before the expiration of three years from the date of this permission. Reason: In order to comply with the provisions of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 as amended by Section 51 of the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004. Approved Plans 2. The development hereby granted shall be carried out in accordance with the drawings, as amended and hereby approved : i) Application form and detail received 5 March 2020. ii) Location and Block plan, drawing Ref No. 1 as received 5 March 2020. iii) Proposed floor plan and elevations, as amended, drawing Ref No. 20-03-02 Rev B as dated received 4 June 2020. Reason: To ensure a satisfactory development and to avoid any ambiguity as to what constitutes the permission.

2. Proposal and Site Description 2.1 Proposal 2.1.1 The proposal, as originally submitted was for a two storey extension to rear and front elevations, together with single storey extension to side, and new porch. 2.1.2 As subsequently amended and in part retrospective, the submission is now as follows: - Wrap around extension to the gable (eastern) and front/principle (southern) elevations, comprising two storey projecting gable pitched roof element and single storey mono-pitch roof element, with juliet balcony and cladding materials (natural slate grey tiles and sand/grey facing brickwork) all to match existing. - Single storey porch to rear (north) elevation. - two storey pitched roof extension to existing (west) gable end, again with cladding materials (Natural slate grey tiles and sand/grey facing brickwork) all to match existing. - New detached single storey and single bay pitched roof garage and storeroom (south-west corner) existing garden curtilage. (with existing garage to be demolished). - New garden and site boundary security and amenity wall and fence sandstone (with quoins) and vertical timber panel, to south-east boundary (in situ and fronting existing highway and junction). 2.2 Site Description 2.2.1 The application relates to an early to mid 1970s detached two storey dwelling, in a large semi-corner plot, positioned and with access off Frenchfield Way, Penrith. The

Page 114 Agenda Item 5 REPORTS FOR DEBATE dwelling, in its siting is notable, being also set up in a reasonably elevated plot on, and visible (along with other such similar modern and neighbouring residential properties) on the northern side of the Carleton Road/(A686) Langwathby Road junction at the Carleton Avenue/Cross Keys, Carleton Village. The area is predominantly residential, and has seen and is to expect significant new residential development, with varied theme and character in the last few decades. 2.2.2 The dwelling is built on an elevated slope and is both visible from and has views, predominantly to the south and east and extending over the adjacent highways, green spaces and beyond. There are similar aged properties lying adjacent to the site, and Close (Frenchfield Way, Winters Park) some of which single and two storey, with evidence of further extension/s having been undertaken since original construction The application site and dwelling is not untypical of development overall in this peripheral part of the Town (Penrith). 2.2.3 The two nearest related detached two storey residential properties are No 6 Frenchfield Way (to the west) and No 10 Frenchfield Way (to the north). 2.2.4 The property is not a listed building and it is not within a Conservation area. 3. Consultees 3.1 Statutory Consultees Consultee Response Highway Authority Confirm that the Highway Authority and Lead Local Flood Authority has no objection to the proposed development as it is considered that the proposal does not affect the highway nor does it increase the flood Risk on the site or elsewhere. Lead Local Flood Authority Confirm that the Highway Authority and Lead Local Flood Authority has no objection to the proposed development as it is considered that the proposal does not affect the highway nor does it increase the flood Risk on the site or elsewhere. 4. Town Council Response Please Tick as Appropriate Parish No Objection Object Support No Response Council/Meeting in Principle Penrith Town  Council 4.1 No objection in principle to the application if the separation distances which are understood to be 22m (ie 72’) between windows have been observed however (PTC) would like to add the following comments which relate to material considerations : • This two storey extension may well feel overbearing to No10 as that house is south facing and the extension will cause loss of sunlight going into the patio windows, especially during the winter months when the sun is lower in the sky and daylight hours are reduced.

Page 115 Agenda Item 5 REPORTS FOR DEBATE • There may be an issue of overlooking and loss of privacy from the proposed balcony in the extension. 5. Representations 5.1 Letters of consultation were sent to nearby neighbours and a site notice was posted on 20 March 2020. No of Neighbours Consulted 2 No of letters of support 0 No of Representations Received 1 No of neutral representations 0 No of objection letters 1 5.2 Letters of maintained objection from the neighbouring owner occupier (No 10 Frenchfield Way) following both original and amended plan consultation have raised the following material considerations to the application:  The proposed rear extension is too close, too large and too high to our main living area and bedroom above.  Our living area and the bedroom above are South facing, the proposed rear extension would block sunlight and natural light to these areas impacting on our heating and lighting energy usage along with our well-being. Other than at the height of summer any sunlight will be obscured.  If the proposed rear extension is built as planned our main living area would look onto a large solid wall two storeys high extending well beyond the end of our living area, impacting on our well-being.  The proposed rear extension would also overshadow our main patio area which we use regularly.  The Juliet balcony of proposed bedroom 2 would look down onto our outdoor seating and eating area.  The proposed porch moves the main entrance closer to our main living area impacting upon privacy.  The proposed side elevation shows a bathroom window on the first floor, currently all houses in the row have no windows on the first floor facing main living areas for privacy reasons.  The plans do not show a true reflection of the closeness of the rear extension to our property and the outlook from our main living area on to it.  We (therefore) would like the opportunity to speak at any relevant planning meeting regarding the above. 6. Relevant Planning History There is no relevant planning history. 7. Policy Context 7.1 Development Plan Eden Local Plan 2014 – 2032:  Policy DEV5 “Design of New Development” 7.2 Other Material Considerations

Page 116 Agenda Item 5 REPORTS FOR DEBATE National Planning Policy Framework:  Chapter 2 - Achieving sustainable development  Chapter 4 - Decision making  Chapter 12 - Achieving well designed places 7.3 The policies detailed above are the most relevant policies relating to this application. Supplementary Planning Documents:  “Housing” (2010 & 2020) – Appendix H : Residential Extensions 8. Planning Assessment 8.1 Key/Main Planning Issues 8.1.1 Design Impact of the development on the privacy and amenity of the adjacent residential occupiers:  Principle  Landscape and Visual Impact  Residential Amenity  Infrastructure  Built Environment 8.2 Principle 8.2.1 This application is for a combination of extensions (single, two storey, curtilage and boundary) to an existing, detached family residential property in Frenchfield Way, in the designated Main Town of Penrith. 8.2.2 The principle of residential extensions are acceptable providing they reasonably comply with the aims and objectives of Policy DEV5 – Design of New Development - which supports high quality design that reflects local distinctiveness and shows a clear understanding of the form and character of the District’s building environment. Such extensions to residential properties are expected to reflect the existing street scene through the use of appropriate scale, mass, form, layout, high quality architectural design and use of materials. 8.2.3 Furthermore, under Policy DEV5, the Council tends to support any scheme that protects the amenity of existing residents and business occupiers and provide an acceptable amenity for future occupiers. 8.2.4 Overall, the principle of extending residential properties in this area, and on this type of property is considered acceptable. 8.2.5 There are certain elements of the proposal, in terms single storey extension on the side of the dwellings, such as porches, which would not require planning permission, due to rights of permitted development. The current application, as amended, is however submitted as a whole, and it is to be noted that the boundary wall and fence (to the south-east) have already been erected. 8.3 Landscape and Visual Impacts 8.3.1 Adopted Eden Local Plan Policy DEV5 addresses the design considerations for proposals, requiring that development shall be high quality design reflecting local distinctiveness, avoid overlooking, protect neighbouring amenity and use quality materials.

Page 117 Agenda Item 5 REPORTS FOR DEBATE 8.3.2 The application property, a relatively modern two storey detached dwelling, set on an elevated site and within a sizeable corner plot, is on the whole like most in this part of Frenchfield Way, and neighbouring property, although there are also single storey detached bungalows in the vicinity. Some of the existing properties have taken advantage of the varied views to the south and east, and from this part of Penrith and Carleton by constructing bay windows and/or conservatories to the sides and/or rear of the properties. Consideration of the amended development detail as proposed is set against the backdrop of the above and the aims and criteria concerns of the above relevant adopted Plan Policy. 8.3.3 It is accepted that the amended proposal/s will result in a not insignificant change in the profile of the existing dwelling, the outlined aim, in doing so, being to secure a five bedroom “family” dwelling for the applicant. It is to be noted that the aims and criteria concerns of adopted Plan Policy, including Policy DEV5, do not preclude the possibility of that occurring, especially when the relevant property is set within its own sizeable corner plot. 8.3.4 The design of the amended detail extensions proposed are of a contemporary nature, and are designed to achieve such a family home with updated and better usable space and circulation than the existing dated dwelling, which do not adversely affect the character of the host dwelling and remain subservient to it. For reference to contemporary and more recent design and development, it is interesting to note the relationship with newer similar such scale residential development to the south of the application site at Winters Park. As a design (including that of the boundary wall and fence which in detail and materials almost mirror that of the above development opposite) it is considered that it would not have an adverse impact on the character and appearance of the building or its broader character setting and would therefore, in that context comply with the aims of Policy DEV5 of the Eden Local Plan. 8.4 Residential Amenity 8.4.1 This has been and remains of significant concern to the neighbouring owner occupiers of No 10 Frenchfield Way (to the north of the application site) and their particular amenity concerns are itemised and identified above. Although not objecting in principle, the Town Council have also identified similar issues of concern in terms of possible impacts on that neighbouring amenity. 8.4.2 Policy DEV5 of the Eden Local Plan addresses the design considerations for proposals, requiring that development shall be high quality design reflecting local distinctiveness, avoid overlooking, protect neighbouring amenity and use quality materials. 8.4.3 The “Housing” SPD 2010 guideline support again is supportive of schemes that protect the reasonable amenity of existing residents and provides an acceptable amenity for future occupiers. 8.4.4 Objections have been raised by the owner/occupier of the adjacent dwelling at No 10 Frenchfield Way. They are concerned that the proposal (being sited to their south) would be oppressive and overbearing in scale, result in overshadowing and loss of sunlight and a loss of privacy due to overlooking of both their house, certain windows and its surrounding associated garden area. 8.4.5 In consideration, it is noted that the objectors dwelling, No 10, again a two storey detached dwelling with access off Frenchfield Way, and also with a plot facing Carleton Avenue, a wide adjacent public verge (and the A686) shares many of the design

Page 118 Agenda Item 5 REPORTS FOR DEBATE characteristics of the applicants existing dwelling at No 8, although the layout emphasis, on the whole with No 10, appears more east west than north south. It is however the case that the two sites share a common fenced boundary, kinked to the eastern end, an existing off set separation (flank wall to wall) of approx. 10m (33ft), with the existing eastern two storey gable end of No 10 (to the north-east) being approx 4m forward of the applicants existing two storey eastern gable end. No 10 has a ground floor wrap around lounge sitting room, with windows on both southern and eastern (bay window) gable elevations. There is also a bedroom and landing window at first floor level on the southern elevation. Outside (No 10) is a combination of patio seating area and grassed garden with shed. 8.4.6 The neighbours objections and concerns have been fully considered and as a result an amended scheme has been submitted by the applicant whereby the proposed two storey (gable end) eastern elevation extension, though maintaining the same final ridge height as the existing two storey dwelling, would be stepped back (recessed) from the existing northern face and plane (of No 8) by a further 1.125m, resulting in an overall separation distance (flank wall to flank wall) of that extended element of approx. 11.125m between the two properties. The applicants intention is that such measure is designed to reasonably minimise and limit any possible significant additional adverse amenity impact (to that already existing given present relationship) of the proposed new extension on the neighbouring property, No 10 (given their concerns) and thereby broadly to be in line with the Authorities “Housing” SPD guideline in such relationship. It is to be noted here that the relevant “Housing” SPD (Appendix H “Residential Extensions/Privacy/Separation Distances) for blank gable wall extension and their relationship to the (main) face of a (neighbouring) dwelling should be at least 13 metres. This however is only a guideline and not a rigid tolerance. Present separation between the flanks of the two properties (No 8 and 10) is approx. 10m, and so is already below this guidance distance. 8.4.7 In consideration, and accepting that the applicants dwelling is to the south of the objectors dwelling, and a siting, separation and an orientation that will remain overall fundamentally the same, the amended proposals in this aspect now propose a south eastern gable end extension (of No 8) which would secure an increased degree of separation of approx. 11.125m with the proposed new stepped, parallel extended (approx. 4.9m) element, and separation (between the relevant flanks of Nos 8 and 10.) In terms of first floor windows, the north facing bathroom window (to No 8) is to be obscure glazed, and therefore will present no overlooking or loss of privacy issue. In terms of the applicants proposed first floor, east facing, gable end recessed Juliet balcony feature, again the combination of existing fenestration and resulting oblique relationship of that new window to the objectors garden and patio area will result in minimal amenity impact, in terms of overlooking and possible loss to privacy, and arguably might represent an improvement in terms of neighbouring privacy, in this aspect, given the (4.9m) depth of the new extension from the existing gable end. Again it should be noted that the present separation between the two properties (No 8 and 10) is approx. 10m, and is already below the Housing SPD guidance. The proposed extensions do not lessen or reduce that degree of existing relationship between the two neighbouring properties.

Page 119 Agenda Item 5 REPORTS FOR DEBATE 8.4.8 The objectors have expressed concern that the development will result in a relatively bland, and unattractive flank wall feature close to their boundary. Many such features and relationships exist within the town and locality, and consideration is given to the general east west orientation of the design of No 10, the presence of wrap around glazing to their ground floor lounge/sitting room (with the dominant bay window eastern gable end feature) and the secondary nature of the first floor bedroom window to which they also refer. In a Town there is always going to be an element of mutual overlooking from any residential property across neighbouring/adjacent land. However, the overall minimal use of glazing detail on the northern elevation, and in addition the use of obscure glazing to the bathroom in the side elevation will further significantly mitigate much of this impact, though bland to a degree, upon the neighbouring residential property No 10. 8.4.9 The applicants proposed new north facing porch would be at ground level to the rear when seen from the neighbour’s property and viewpoint. Such position would neither be over-powering or over dominant and has been fully considered as such. Its relatively small scale and position behind the rear building line, would again not be intrusive or dominant enough to warrant a refusal of planning permission. Whilst the development will change the character of the relationship between Nos 8 and 10, on balance and despite the concerns raised, these are not considered sufficient, based on amended plans submitted, to justify a recommendation to refuse. 8.4.10 The new sandstone boundary wall and topping wooden slat fence fronting the highway junction is now completed and in place. It is certainly different from the original low wall and open gently sloping garden which it replaced. However, it is almost a mirror image of the boundary walls and wood fence toppings to be found opposite on and within the new properties on Winters Park. To that end, the proposal is not considered at odds with previously accepted themes, materials and surrounding character and is therefore considered in accord with the aims and concerns of relevant adopted Plan Policy DEV5. There are no objections to the development proposed by the Highway Authority. 8.4.11 The detached single bay pitched roof garage and store, again clad in materials to match the main dwelling and accessed via Frenchfield Way is considered acceptable and not dissimilar in theme, scale and character to similar structures again found in the neighbourhood. 8.5 Infrastructure 8.5.1 There are no infrastructure implications associated with the proposed development. 8.6 Built Environment 8.6.1 It is considered that the proposed development would not have an adverse impact on either the Frenchfield Way/Carleton Drive/A686 streetscene. 8.6.2 The proposed extensions and associated developments, given the overall plot size would not result in an cramped form of development, or ‘terracing effect’ on the street scene given its contemporary design, set back position and partially lower roofline (facing south east) and therefore again is considered would be compliant with the Council’s “Housing” Supplementary Planning Document. 8.6.3 Though resulting in a larger property, the overall relationship and degree of separation between adjacent properties Nos 8 and 10 Frenchfield Way will remain the same, and

Page 120 Agenda Item 5 REPORTS FOR DEBATE in character not dissimilar with many other property relationships to be found in Carleton village and other existing residential development found in the vicinity. 8.6.4 Overall, the proposed development as amended shows a reasonably clear and sensitive understanding of the form and character of the District’s building environment, especially with regard to its particular locality and therefore complies with Policy DEV5 of the Eden Local Plan. 9. Implications 9.1 Legal Implications 9.1.1 The following matters have been considered but no issues are judged to arise. 9.2 Equality and Diversity 9.2.1 The Council must have regard to the elimination of unlawful discrimination and harassment, and the promotion of equality under the Equality Act 2010. 9.3 Environment 9.3.1 The Council must have due regard to conserving bio-diversity under the Natural Environment and Rural Communities Act 2006. 9.4 Crime and Disorder 9.4.1 Under the Crime and Disorder Act 1998, the Council must have regard to the need to reduce crime and disorder in exercising any of its functions. 9.5 Children 9.5.1 Under the Children Act 2004, the Council has a duty to safeguard and promote the welfare of children in the exercise of any of its functions. 9.6 Human Rights 9.6.1 In determining applications, the Council must ensure that all parties get a fair hearing in compliance with the provisions of Article 6 under the European Convention on Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms 1950, as now embodied in UK law in the Human Rights Act 1998. 10. Conclusion 10.1 It is considered that the proposal accords with the Development Plan for the following reasons which are not outweighed by material considerations. 10.2 The proposal for the new extensions on the sides, rear and front of the existing residential property, set in a sizeable plot and within and on its boundary curtilage are considered acceptable in terms of their suitably amended design, details, cladding materials, appearance, selective use of obscure glazing and would not have a significant or overall unreasonably adverse impact on the privacy and continued reasonable amenity of the adjacent residential occupiers, given proposed design, existing and maintained degree of separation. For these reasons, the proposal is considered to reasonably accord with the aims and concerns of relevant adopted [Plan Policy DEV5 and the concerns of Housing SPD guideline, and is therefore to be recommended to Members for approval.

Oliver Shimell Assistant Director Planning and Economic Development

Page 121 Agenda Item 5 REPORTS FOR DEBATE

Checked by or on behalf of the Monitoring Officer 30.06.2020

Background Papers: Planning File - 20/0165

Page 122 Agenda Item 6 REPORTS FOR DEBATE Date of Committee: 16 July 2020

Planning Application No: 19/0869 Date Received: 5 December 2019

OS Grid Ref: NY 363672, Expiry Date: 20 July 2020 523256

Parish: Bolton Ward: Crosby Ravensworth

Application Type: Full

Proposal: Full detail retrospective application for the ongoing retention of external toilet facility

Location: Bolton Methodist Church, Chapel Street, Bolton

Applicant: Mr J B Thornborrow

Agent: Mr J B Thornborrow

Case Officer: Mr D Cox

Reason for Referral: The recommendation is contrary to the view expressed by the Parish Council

Page 123 Agenda Item 6 REPORTS FOR DEBATE

Page 124 Agenda Item 6 REPORTS FOR DEBATE 1. Recommendation

It is recommended that planning permission be granted subject to the following conditions: Approved Plans 1. The development hereby granted shall be carried out in accordance with the application form detail and drawings hereby approved: i. Location Plan, Drawing Ref No 1 as dated received by the Local Planning Authority on the 25 July 2017. ii. Proposal Drawings – Plans and Elevations, Drawing Ref No BMC-pl-01 Rev B, as dated received by the Local Planning Authority on the 5 December 2019. Reason: To ensure a satisfactory development and to avoid any ambiguity as to what constitutes the permission. Other Stage Conditions: 2. The building permitted shall be removed and the land restored to its former condition on or before the 15 July 2023. Reason: In order to comply with the provisions of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990. 3. The hereby approved development will be maintained to a good standard throughout its retention on site. Reason: In order to reasonably protect the amenity of the area.

2. Proposal and Site Description 2.1 Proposal 2.1.1 The application seeks retrospective planning approval for the further retention of an external toilet facility at Bolton Methodist Church. The “porta-loo” structure is located to the western elevation of the building, approximately 0.5 metres from the shared boundary. The existing “portaloo” measures 2.4 metres in height, by 1.04 metres in width and 1.04 metres in length. It is currently a medium grey in colour, with moulded cream/white coloured translucent roof/ceiling. An installed A Rail boarded wooden fence measuring 2.4 metres in height by 1.5 metres in width, to screen the portaloo from the roadside viewpoint is also present. 2.1.2 The facility and portaloo was the subject of previous application and consideration under application Ref No 17/0713, and originally submitted by the Parish Council, with temporary approval, being secured under delegated powers, on the 17 October 2017 with the following relevant condition No 2 being attached: No 2. The building permitted shall be removed and the land restored to its former condition on or before the 17 October 2019. Reason: In order to comply with the provisions of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990. 2.2 Site Description 2.2.1 The application site is Bolton Methodist Church, which is centrally located within the village of Bolton, which is designated in the adopted Eden Local Plan as a Smaller

Page 125 Agenda Item 6 REPORTS FOR DEBATE Village and Hamlet. The Methodist Church (built in 1818) sits within a small compact walled site, and with its limited curtilage located to the front and western side of the building. The religious building, as an existing local facility, is still in use, and is located within a mixed but predominantly low density residential area. 3. Consultees 3.1 Statutory Consultees Consultee Response Cumbria County Council - Confirm that the Highway and LLF Authority has no Highway and LLF Authority objection to the proposed development as it is considered that the proposal does not affect the highway. 4. Parish Council Please Tick as Appropriate Parish Council No View Object Support No Response Expressed Bolton  4.1 The Bolton Parish Council most recently responded on the 16 March 2020, with their objection and confirmed a request to be heard by a representative at Committee, being based on the following reasons: Four out of seven parish councillors do not support this application on the grounds that a) local neighbours object, and b) it was meant to be a temporary facility but there does not appear to be any plan to replace it with a permanent facility. 5. Representations 5.1 Neighbour notification letters were sent out in January 2020. 5.2 There were five letters/e-mails of response received to this proposal, objecting on the summarised grounds: - Its’ presence does not enhance the view and is considered an “eyesore”. - unsightly, inappropriately painted and insufficiently and/or ineffectively screened. - poor hygiene use presents a broader amenity and possible vermin issue. - should be the subject of a better planned or located permanent solution, possibly within the Chapel proper. - other alternative provision (Bolton Public House/Petrol Station at Kirkby Thore) exists. 6. Relevant Planning History 6.1 Application Ref No 17/0713 – Retrospective application for retention of external toilet facility. Approved with conditions – 17 October 2017. 7. Policy Context 7.1 Development Plan

Page 126 Agenda Item 6 REPORTS FOR DEBATE Eden Local Plan (2014-2032):  Policy DEV5 – “Design of New Development”  Policy COM1 – “Principles for Services and Facilities” 7.2 Other Material Considerations National Planning Policy Framework:  Ensuring the vitality of (town) centres  Chapter 8 “Promoting healthy and safe communities” 7.3 The policies and documents detailed above are the most relevant policies relating to the determination of this application. 8. Planning Assessment 8.1 Key/Main Planning Issues  Scale and Design  Promoting healthy and safe communities  Retention of Village services and facilities  Residential Amenity 8.2 Principle 8.2.1 The application seeks further approval (following the original, but temporary approval granted under application Ref No 17/0713) for the retention of the portaloo toilet facility, within the grounds of Bolton Methodist Church. The installation of such a facility was, not the Council’s preferred option, and this remains the case, however importantly it is recognised that (if the Church is to remain) such a facility is needed for that Church, and that the absence of such facility is likely to jeopardise its’ long term viability and retention as a religious facility in the village. Whilst it has been suggested that other facilities exist within the village i.e. at the Village Hall or Pub, or even services on the A66, these are not considered to be reasonable or practical alternatives for those using the Methodist Church “and in need”. 8.2.2 Within the Eden Local Plan, Policy COM1 provides support for development or extensions to community services and cultural facilities, including any proposals that will assist in their retention, as is the case for the current proposal, in instances where: • ‘The scale and design is suited to the location; • It respects the local built environment, character and conservation interests; • It is compatible with residential amenity; • Appropriate parking and servicing arrangements can be made; • The use of the buildings for multiple community functions will be encourage and supported.’ 8.2.3 The siting of the portaloo is considered to be ancillary to the use of the Methodist Church, which is a cultural facility, and therefore no change of use has occurred. The portaloo can be easily removed and the land restored to its former appearance. It remains important in consideration that ordinarily such a facility would be classed as a temporary structure, de-minimus in nature and not require planning permission. However, the Parish Council has indicated within its submissions that the portaloo will sited for longer than could “reasonably” constitute a temporary period of time. As such,

Page 127 Agenda Item 6 REPORTS FOR DEBATE planning permission has been deemed to be required both for the installation, and now its further retention. The current submission effectively seeks an extension of that original “temporary” period of time. 8.2.4 The planning balance therefore involves consideration of the above and weight to be attached to: - The very limited scale and nature of the “development” sought to be retained, - The potential loss of the religious facility in the absence of the provision, and - The degree of adverse amenity impact through its’ retention, both short and long term. 8.2.5 Ordinarily such a facility would normally be classed as a temporary structure, de- minimus in nature and in the majority of cases not require planning permission. The Authority has however sought to formally regularise this particular development and its’ extended but still fundamentally “temporary” intended presence (through application), and this is a matter of record. 8.2.6 An ongoing, albeit extended “temporary” presence of such a practical facility does, and would allow for and contribute to the ongoing use and retention of a religious facility and building which is part of the valued social and historic fabric of the village and settlement. Were practical alternative solutions available within or in the vicinity, then no doubt they would be used. There are none, and alternatives identified and suggested by objectors are not as such considered practical. In addition, the Authority is advised that, for the present, financially “alternative solutions” within the body of the church would severely compromise its’ very ongoing operational existence as a Church. It is accepted that the facility has been in existence and on site for in the region of three years already, and that to concerned parties, this is already long enough. However, on balance of consideration and though perhaps not ideal to all, it is considered that pragmatism would therefore still appear to be the watchword in this particular case, and for this very site specific use, its very limited scale, usage and extended but still “temporary” situation being sought. 8.2.7 That objections have been received is acknowledged is a matter of record. However, the very limited scale, degree of separation (involving the highway public realm), and degree of very limited usage, in consideration all point again to the continued view that there is still a very limited degree of adverse amenity impact in this aspect. In light of the above, and again in the light of the fine balance of concerns here, it is considered that planning permission should again be granted for a further “extended” temporary period, both pragmatically to cater for the small scale site specific use and need, and again to finally allow for further consideration, and achievement of more suitable and permanent solutions to the present lack of facilities within the Methodist Church. 8.2.8 The present objection and concerns of the Parish Council are noted, as was their original support for the earlier and original submission under application Ref No 17/0713. 8.2.9 Policy DEV5 ‘Design of New Development’ looks (inter alia) for proposals to show a clear understanding of the form and character of the District’s built and natural environment, complementing and enhancing the existing area. It also requires proposals to reflect the existing street scene and protect the amenity of existing and future residents.

Page 128 Agenda Item 6 REPORTS FOR DEBATE 8.2.10 The Church has character, and is notable in the street scene. It is not listed, nor is it located within a designated Conservation Area. A wooden screen has been erected to provide and limit visual impact and/or awareness of its existence. The success or otherwise of this screen, and the appearance of the painted portaloo are the source of the majority of objection to its present siting and retention. At the time of visit, it was however noted that (in this village and with many other similar across the District) there are many such similar examples of small scale limited “visual clutter” both within and closely related to the curtilage of many of the buildings found with the settlement. As such, the ongoing level of visual impact of the principle of development sought to be retained is very, very limited against the reality of the backdrop overall consideration. 8.2.11 Therefore, on balance the principle if the continued retention of the toilet for a further temporary period is considered to be acceptable in line with Policies COM1 and DEV5 of the Eden Local Plan, subject to further consideration of the impact of the development upon local amenity and the impacts upon the visual amenity of the Church and the wider area. 8.3 Landscape and Visual Impacts 8.3.1 Local Plan Policy DEV5 “Design of New Development” addresses the design considerations for proposals, requiring that development shall be high quality design reflecting local distinctiveness, avoid overlooking, protect neighbouring amenity and use quality materials. 8.3.2 Letters of objection which have been received raise concerns in relation to the visual appearance of the facility, which, together with its wooden screen is currently visible from Chapel Street. It is considered that the installation of a 2.4 metre high fence/planter does on the whole screen the porta-loo from view from the public realm and high street. It is also accepted that oblique elements of the structure can to a lesser or greater part be seen from private residences on the opposite side of the road and public realm. 8.3.3 The degree of separation, and the existence of the public realm in between is considered however to limit the visual impact and compromise to such reasonable levels of neighbouring amenity expectation. 8.3.4 Therefore, whilst the retention of the toilet would result in some visual impact, it is considered that the extent of that impact is not considered to be significant or adverse in line with the above Policy DEV5 of the Eden Local Plan, and does not warrant the refusal of this planning application. 8.4 Scale and Design 8.4.1 Portaloos in themselves acceptably are not necessarily the most pleasing of aesthetic features, being fundamentally more basic and functional. The nature of the facility, a small, painted portaloo, is such that ultimately it can be easily removed from the site, and as such it is not considered that the “structures” as such will ultimately have a long-term visual impact on the character of the area. The addition of the 2.4 metre fence/planter does help further minimise and mitigate its (albeit still limited visual) impact and I am satisfied that the proposed development, in these particular circumstances, accords with Local Plan Policy DEV5, and should be allowed for a further temporary period, given overall balanced consideration, until a permanent solution can be established, or as may be the case, the need for the facility is lost, as the Church closes through lack or significant decline in attendance, as may unfortunately be the case.

Page 129 Agenda Item 6 REPORTS FOR DEBATE 8.5 Residential Amenity 8.5.1 The Methodist Church is situated on a small site and such does not benefit from a substantial curtilage, the closest residential property is situated approximately 5 metres from the portable toilet. The Methodist Church is not regularly used other than for a weekly service, and occasional other events throughout the year. It is not considered that, despite concerns raised, the continued siting and retention of the portable toilet will cause any significant or unreasonable adverse impact to the amenity or living conditions of neighbouring residents. 8.5.2 The Council does however recognise that this solution is perhaps not ideal, and ultimately provision could and should be made for a permanent facility to be located within the existing building or within an extension to the existing building. A further temporary period of time is a pragmatic approach to allow for this to occur in the circumstance. It must also be noted by the applicants that although the Authority seeks to be pragmatic on this occasion, the continued use of temporary planning permissions to afford that opportunity to provide a longer term replacement is not something we would advocate. 8.5.3 As such, it is not considered that this proposal would fundamentally, unreasonably alter or significantly compromise the amenity of existing nearby residents, and is therefore in accordance with policy DEV5 ‘Design of New Development’. 8.6 Access 8.6.1 Access remains as existing, and the Highways Authority has confirmed that it has no objection to the proposal. As such the application is again considered to be in reasonable accordance with the aims and criteria concerns policy DEV5 ‘Design of New Development’. 9. Implications 9.1 Legal Implications 9.1.1 The following matters have been considered but no issues are judged to arise. Each application is considered on the particular planning merits. 9.2 Equality and Diversity 9.2.1 The Council must have regard to the elimination of unlawful discrimination and harassment, and the promotion of equality under the Equality Act 2010. 9.3 Environment 9.3.1 The Council must have due regard to conserving bio-diversity under the Natural Environment and Rural Communities Act 2006. 9.4 Crime and Disorder 9.4.1 Under the Crime and Disorder Act 1998, the Council must have regard to the need to reduce crime and disorder in exercising any of its functions. 9.5 Children 9.5.1 Under the Children Act 2004, the Council has a duty to safeguard and promote the welfare of children in the exercise of any of its functions. 9.6 Human Rights

Page 130 Agenda Item 6 REPORTS FOR DEBATE 9.6.1 In determining applications, the Council must ensure that all parties get a fair hearing in compliance with the provisions of Article 6 under the European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms 1950, as now embodied in UK law in the Human Rights Act 1998. 10. Conclusion 10.1 It is considered that the proposal accords with the Development Plan for the following reasons which are not outweighed by material considerations: 10.2 The marginal and limited scale of the “development” sought to be retained for a further temporary period. The associated and acknowledged benefits of its retention in terms of an identified and long standing village facility, and the limited nature of any possible adverse neighbouring amenity impacts, given the above, and the small scale nature of its operation and reasonably screened siting. 10.3 The objection and concerns of both the Parish Council and certain neighbouring owner occupiers are noted. However whilst the present use of the church building, as a facility and religious asset of long standing has been and remains of benefit to the community, the small size, and limited scale of impact of the “facility” to be retained, notwithstanding those concerns, is on balance of considerations considered to still reasonably comply with the overall aims of the adopted Eden Local Plan Policies COM1 and DEV5.

Oliver Shimell Assistant Director Planning and Economic Development

Checked by or on behalf of the Monitoring Officer 01.07.2020

Background Papers: Planning Files 19/0869 and 17/0713

Page 131 Agenda Item 7 REPORTS FOR DEBATE Date of Committee: 16 July 2020

Planning Application No: 20/0235 Date Received: 24/04/20

OS Grid Ref: 6283 2843 Expiry Date: 20/06/20 Extension of time agreed to 17/07/20

Parish: Newbiggin Ward: Kirkby Thore

Application Type: Full

Proposal: Removal or variation of condition 11 (removal of permitted development rights) attached to outline approval 17/0032

Location: Land at Station Road, Newbiggin, Temple Sowerby

Applicant: Messrs Alderson and Chapman

Agent: Addis Town Planning Ltd – Mr Daniel Addis

Case Officer: Mat Wilson

Reason for Referral: The recommendation is contrary to the views of the Parish Council

Page 132 Agenda Item 7 REPORTS FOR DEBATE

Page 133 Agenda Item 7 REPORTS FOR DEBATE 1. Recommendation

That planning permission be granted subject to the following conditions: Approved Plans 1. The development hereby granted shall be retained in accordance with the application form and drawings hereby approved: i. Location Plan dated 15 June 2012 submitted with planning application 17/0032 ii. Retained Trees plan AMS TPP dated 9 January 2017 submitted with planning application 17/0032 iii. Visibility Splay plan ref N81:2543 dated 16/03/17 submitted with planning application 17/0032 iv. Amended site plan ref ps1257.03 rev b dated mar19 submitted with planning application 19/0080 v. Amended plans and elevations ref ps1257.01 rev c dated feb19 submitted with planning application 19/0080 Reason: To ensure a satisfactory development and to avoid any ambiguity as to what constitutes the permission. Prior to the occupation of the development 2. The entire root system of trees to be retained, as shown on the approved drawings, indicated by the spread of their branches, shall be protected by exclusion fencing until completion of the development. Reason: To prevent damage to the trees in the interest of the visual character and appearance of the area. 3. No part of the development shall be occupied until the drainage scheme has been constructed in accordance with the details approved under application 19/0271. The development shall be completed, maintained and managed in accordance with the approved details. Reason: In order to ensure a satisfactory drainage system for the site. 4. The approved parking and turning areas shall be constructed before the associated dwelling is occupied and shall be kept available for those purposes at all times thereafter. Reason: To ensure an appropriate level of car parking is provided. Ongoing Conditions 5. Foul and surface water shall be drained on a separate system and shall be carried out in accordance with the plans approved under application 19/0271. Reason: In order to ensure a satisfactory drainage system for the site. 6. The new access shall be retained in accordance with the approved plan. The area in advance of the visibility splays shall be maintained clear of obstructions, and no trees, bushes or other plants shall be planted or be permitted to grow to exceed 1m in height within the visibility splay.

Page 134 Agenda Item 7 REPORTS FOR DEBATE Reason: In the interests of highway safety

2. Proposal and Site Description 2.1 Proposal 2.1.1 Outline planning permission was granted under application 17/0032 for residential development of this parcel of land in Newbiggin, Temple Sowerby. Reserved matters approval was granted under 19/0080 and the two detached dwellings have recently been completed. 2.1.2 Condition 11 of the outline permission states: Notwithstanding the provisions of the Town and Country Planning (General Permitted Development) Order 2015 (or any order revoking, re-enacting or modifying that Order with or without modification), no development permitted by Part 1 of Schedule 2 to the Order shall be carried out without the express permission of the Council in writing. 2.1.3 The effect of the condition is that it removes permitted development rights for any extensions, roof alterations, outbuildings, hard surfaces or any other material alterations of the two dwellings, the reason given being ‘to prevent the overdevelopment of the site’. 2.1.4 This application seeks the removal of the condition. The supporting statement contends that ‘the blanket ban of all permitted development rights for the residential development is neither reasonable or necessary. We also submit that the reason provided for the condition does not justify it when considering the range of permitted development rights that have been removed.’ 2.2 Site Description 2.2.1 The application site comprises a parcel of land measuring 54m along the road frontage and 55m deep, accommodating two very recently completed new-build detached properties. The land slopes up away from the road. Residential properties bound the site to each side, the dwellings to the south having being constructed in 2005 in place of a range of barns. 2.2.2 There are no specific planning constraints which apply to the land. 3. Consultees 3.1 Statutory Consultees Consultee Response Highway Authority Re-stated their comments in relation to the Outline and Reserved Matters applications, where no objections were raised subject to inclusion of conditions requiring provision of access, turning space, surfacing of access, drainage and lowering of walls, and any gates to open inwards only. Local Lead Flood Authority The Lead Local Flood Authority (LLFA) have records of minor surface water flooding to the site which indicate a 0.1 percent (1 in 1000) chance of occurring each year and the Environment Agency (EA) surface water maps do not indicate that the site is in an area of risk.

Page 135 Agenda Item 7 REPORTS FOR DEBATE Re-stated their previous recommendations, when a surface water drainage scheme was required. 3.2 Discretionary Consultees Consultee Response Cumbria County Council No objections. Historic Environment Officer 4. Parish Council/Meeting Response Please Tick as Appropriate Parish Object Support No Response No Objection Council/Meeting Newbiggin Parish  Meeting 4.1 The Parish Council responded as follows: First response received 22/05/2020: ‘The Parish Meeting is strongly opposed to the removal of this condition as it prevents overdevelopment of the site and effectively gives the Council control over any future development. The two properties and the plots on which they are situated are already of substantial proportions and any further development would have an overbearing and detrimental impact on adjacent properties. Notwithstanding the above, if the condition was to be varied rather than removed the Parish Meeting would insist that the restriction is still applied to any outbuildings for the reasons mentioned. This should not be taken as an indication that the Parish Meeting supports any variation as its overall position is that the restriction should be retained and challenges the applicant’s assertion that the restriction is ‘neither reasonable nor necessary’. Second response received 12/06/2020: ‘The Parish Meeting has now been re-consulted on these applications and at this juncture it is important to point out that its position has not changed and the contents of the letter dated 22 May 2020 remain entirely relevant. This condition states, inter-alia, ‘no development shall be carried out without the express permission of the Council in writing’. Clearly, this does not prevent any future development but simply and effectively gives the Council control over such development. The Parish Meeting feels that this is important given the substantial proportions of the properties and the plots on which they are situated and it is for this reason that it opposes its removal. It is not clear why its retention should have a significant impact on the sale of these properties.’ 5. Representations 5.1 Letters of consultation were sent to nearby neighbours and a site notice was posted on 19 May 2020.

No of Neighbours Consulted 3 No of letters of support 0 No of Representations Received 0 No of neutral representations 0 No of objection letters 0

Page 136 Agenda Item 7 REPORTS FOR DEBATE 6. Relevant Planning History  17/0032 Outline residential development with all matters reserved – Granted.  19/0080 Approval of Reserved Matters of outline application 17/0032 for construction of two dwellings – Granted.  19/0271 Discharge of condition 5 (surface water drainage), 6 (surface water and foul water drainage) and 9 (archaeological work) attached to approval 17/0032 and condition 3 (materials) – Details for all prior approval conditions approved. 6.1 A concurrent application 20/0262 to vary the approved designs of the dwellings is the subject of a separate report on this Committee agenda. 7. Policy Context 7.1 Development Plan Local Plan 2014-2032 Relevant Policies  DEV1 General Approach to New Development  DEV5 Design of New Development  HS2 Housing in the Smaller Villages and Hamlets 7.2 Other Material Considerations National Planning Policy Framework  Chapter 12 - Achieving well designed places National Planning Policy Guidance  Use of Planning Conditions 7.3 The policies detailed above are the most relevant policies relating to the determination of this application. 8. Planning Assessment 8.1 Key/Main Planning Issues  Landscape and Visual Impacts  Residential amenity 8.2 Landscape and Visual Impacts 8.2.1 Local Plan Policy DEV5 requires, amongst other criteria, that development:  Shows a clear understanding of the form and character of the district’s built and natural environment, complementing and enhancing the existing area.  Protects and where possible enhances the district’s distinctive rural landscape, natural environment and biodiversity.  Uses quality materials which complement or enhance local surroundings. 8.2.2 Planning permission was granted for the development of this site through the Outline permission 17/0032. Condition 11 of the approval removed permitted development rights for any development within the curtilage of the dwellings.

Page 137 Agenda Item 7 REPORTS FOR DEBATE 8.2.3 The wholesale removal of householder permitted development for the two properties means that the future occupiers will need to submit planning applications for any proposed extension or alteration, hard surfacing or outbuildings. 8.2.4 There is no discussion within the Planning Committee report for the original application on the perceived need to restrict permitted development rights, the reason given for the condition simply stating ‘To prevent the overdevelopment of the site’, although it does replicate the imposition of a similar condition on the granting of permission of the adjacent site to the south in 2004 (refs 04/0605 and 05/0561). It should be noted that the current application site had been designated an Amenity Open Space in the 1996 Local Plan. This designation was for ‘areas of land within settlements which make so significant a contribution to their character and to the amenity and enjoyment of nearby residents and the public as to warrant long term retention as open space.’ As such this was clearly a sensitive location within the village and its continued protection from inappropriate development of extensions or outbuildings ordinarily permitted under the General Permitted Development Order was considered warranted at the time of determining the outline application. Protection of open spaces within settlements was retained as a policy in the 2010 Core Strategy, although the policy did not designate specific sites. No equivalent policy was carried forward to the current Local Plan adopted in 2018. 8.2.5 It must be recognised that the character of the site, formerly a grazing field sloping up away from the highway, has fundamentally changed with the development of two detached dwellings, which are considered high quality designs, but obviously displaces any notion of Amenity Open Space. Any reason to maintain control over the site by restricting the extensions and alterations the occupiers would otherwise be allowed through permitted development, on the basis that it would be to preserve some facet of the former open character of the site, is considered to be flawed. 8.2.6 The removal of permitted development rights does also allow the Authority to retain control over extensions, alterations or outbuildings which may impinge on the amenity of neighbours (discussed in the following section), have the potential to adversely affect the character of the dwellings, or result in overdevelopment. The parameters for permitted development however prevent those alterations which would have a damaging effect on the design of the dwellings and on the character of the village: extensions cannot be finished in materials which do not match the property; no extensions are permitted forward of the principle elevations; roof dormers are not permitted in the front roof slope facing the road; and size restrictions apply to all elements. 8.2.7 The validity of the condition restricting the future use of permitted development rights on the grounds of maintaining the character of the area is not considered to meet the tests of reasonableness and necessity. The extensions and alterations which would be allowed under the General Permitted Development Order would need to comply with the conditions and criteria set out in the Order, which ensures such developments shall not have adverse visual impacts or adversely affect the streetscene. As such, it is considered the removal of this condition would be in accordance with Policy DEV5 in respect of ensuring future use of permitted development rights will not compromise the character of the district’s built environment. 8.3 Residential Amenity 8.3.1 Policy DEV5 of the Eden Local Plan demands that new development shall protect the amenity of existing residents and provide an acceptable amenity for future occupiers.

Page 138 Agenda Item 7 REPORTS FOR DEBATE Paragraph 127 of the National Planning Policy Framework requires that planning decisions on development should ensure a high standard of amenity for existing and future users. 8.3.2 The removal of permitted development rights may be seen as a means of protecting the privacy and amenity of neighbouring occupants. It can provide the Local Planning Authority with the safeguard of managing the future implementation of all development at a sensitive site, where perhaps the housing density or the topography could lead to the placement of extensions or outbuildings resulting in adverse impacts where they might be overbearing, overshadowing or overlooking neighbouring property. 8.3.3 This is not however deemed to be a sensitive site. Whilst the land levels do rise sharply toward the rear of this site, the same is true of the properties to either side. Any outbuildings erected on the higher land at the rear could provide views down into the neighbouring gardens and windows, but such views could be reciprocated or screened by boundary planting. The pair of dwellings are relatively well separated from the properties on the adjacent plots, with a gap of at least 10m. A 1.5m wall/fence steps up with the rising land on the side boundaries. Any extensions or alterations carried out as permitted developments would be required to comply with the legislation, specifically that upper-floor side windows must be obscure glazed and non-opening. As such, there is no reasonable or necessary justification for the restriction of permitted development rights on grounds of protecting neighbouring amenity. 8.3.4 The fact that permitted development rights within the curtilage of the adjacent property to the south remains restricted is immaterial to the current application. The right for limited extensions and alterations within the domestic curtilage is enacted at the national level through the General Permitted Development Order, and the restriction of such rights should only be considered where such a measure can meet the tests of reasonableness and necessity. The tests cannot be said to be met in this case. 8.3.5 The reinstatement of permitted development rights would be in accordance with Policy DEV5 in so far as there are not considered to be any potentially adverse impacts arising on the amenity of neighbouring residents. 9. Implications 9.1 Legal Implications 9.1.1 The following matters have been considered but no issues are judged to arise. 9.2 Equality and Diversity 9.2.1 The Council must have regard to the elimination of unlawful discrimination and harassment, and the promotion of equality under the Equality Act 2010. 9.3 Environment 9.3.1 The Council must have due regard to conserving biodiversity under the Natural Environment and Rural Communities Act 2006. 9.4 Crime and Disorder 9.4.1 Under the Crime and Disorder Act 1998, the Council must have regard to the need to reduce crime and disorder in exercising any of its functions. 9.5 Children

Page 139 Agenda Item 7 REPORTS FOR DEBATE 9.5.1 Under the Children Act 2004, the Council has a duty to safeguard and promote the welfare of children in the exercise of any of its functions. 9.6 Human Rights 9.6.1 In determining applications, the Council must ensure that all parties get a fair hearing in compliance with the provisions of Article 6 under the European Convention on Human Rights, as now embodied in UK law in the Human Rights Act 1998. 10. Conclusion 10.1 It is considered that the proposal accords with the Development Plan for the following reasons which are not outweighed by material considerations. 10.2 The reason given for the removal of permitted development rights, to prevent the overdevelopment of the site, and beyond this the potential impacts on the character of the village and on the privacy and amenity of neighbours, are no longer considered to be valid or justified given the now-developed nature of the former field. Further, the checks and balances that are part and parcel of the permitted development legislation serve to protect the built environment and neighbouring residents from inappropriate constructions. Condition 11 of the outline approval, removing all permitted development rights for development within the curtilage of the dwelling houses, is neither reasonable or necessary, and it is appropriate therefore to remove this condition.

Oliver Shimell Assistant Director Planning and Economic Development

Checked by or on behalf of the Monitoring Officer 30.06.2020

Background Papers: Planning Files 20/0235, 17/0032 and 19/0080

Page 140 Agenda Item 8 REPORTS FOR DEBATE Date of Committee: 16 July 2020

Planning Application No: 20/0262 Date Received: 24/04/20

OS Grid Ref: 6283 2843 Expiry Date: 20/06/20 Extension of time agreed to 17/07/20

Parish: Newbiggin Ward: Kirkby Thore

Application Type: Full

Proposal: Variation of conditions 2 (approved plans) and 7 (timber garage doors) attached to reserved matters approval 19/0080

Location: Land at Station Road, Newbiggin, Temple Sowerby

Applicant: Messrs Alderson and Chapman

Agent: Addis Town Planning Ltd – Mr Daniel Addis

Case Officer: Mat Wilson

Reason for Referral: The recommendation is contrary to the views of the Parish Council

Page 141 Agenda Item 8 REPORTS FOR DEBATE

Page 142 Agenda Item 8 REPORTS FOR DEBATE 1. Recommendation

That the application is granted subject to the following conditions: Approved Plans 1. The development hereby granted shall be carried out in accordance with the drawings hereby approved: i. Site Location Plan submitted with application 19/0080. ii. Site plan unreferenced and undated submitted with application 20/0262. iii. Existing and proposed elevations plan, titled Proposed open oak porch front elevation plan, ref L6/20/2304 Rev A dated 04/06/2020. iv. Porch close-up detail plan ref L6/20/2305 submitted with application 20/0262. v. Proposed greenhouse plan ref L8/20/2904 dated April 2020. vii. Summerhouse specifications plan submitted with application 20/0262. Reason: To ensure a satisfactory development and to avoid any ambiguity as to what constitutes the permission. Before the first occupation of each dwelling 2. Prior to the occupation of each dwelling, the parking and turning areas for that dwelling shall be completed in accordance with Amended site plan ref ps1257.03 rev b, and shall be retained free from obstruction for their intended use thereafter. Reason: In the interests of highway safety. Ongoing Conditions 3. Windows shall be sliding sashes, and shall be retained as such thereafter. Reason: So that the development harmonises with the built environment. 4. Garage doors shall be timber-effect and shall be retained as such thereafter. Reason: So that the development harmonises with the built environment. 5. Any gates provided across the access shall open inwards into the site only. Reason: In the interests of highway safety. Informative This approval must be read in conjunction with outline planning permission ref. 17/0032 and the conditions attached thereto.

2. Proposal and Site Description 2.1 Proposal 2.1.1 Outline planning permission was granted under application 17/0032 for residential development of this parcel of land in Newbiggin, Temple Sowerby. Reserved matters approval was granted under 19/0080 and the two detached dwellings have recently been completed. 2.1.2 This application seeks to vary the approved plans submitted under the reserved matters application, to allow a number of changes to the approved scheme in respect of the southern of the two dwellings at Plot A. These changes comprise the addition of

Page 143 Agenda Item 8 REPORTS FOR DEBATE an oak porch to the front elevation; a hexagonal timber summer house at the rear of the plot near its southwest corner; and a timber-framed greenhouse also at the rear of the plot nearer the north boundary. 2.1.3 The plans had included the addition of two windows on the south elevation; these have been removed from the scheme due to concerns over the impact on the neighbouring property. 2.1.4 It is also proposed to vary condition 7 of the reserved matters approval which states: ‘Garage doors shall be stained timber and shall be retained as such thereafter.’ The application seeks to allow instead timber-effect garage doors, as already fitted, and this element applies to both properties. 2.2 Site Description 2.2.1 The application site comprises a parcel of land measuring 54m along the road frontage and 55m deep, accommodating two new-build detached properties very recently completed. The land slopes up away from the road. Residential properties bound the site to each side, the dwellings to the south having being constructed in 2005 in place of a range of barns. 2.2.2 There are no specific planning constraints which apply to the land. 3. Consultees 3.1 Statutory Consultees Consultee Response Highway Authority The layout details shown on the submitted plan are considered satisfactory from a highway perspective. The Highway Authority has no objection to Variation of conditions 2 (plans compliance) and 7 (garage doors) for the addition of front porch, 2no windows in South gable, summer house, garden shed and a change in garage door material of the southern plot, attached to Reserved Matters approval 19/0080. The Highway Authority re-state their previous recommendations in relation to the Outline and Reserved Matters applications, where no objections were raised subject to inclusion of conditions requiring provision of access, turning space, surfacing of access, drainage and lowering of walls, and any gates to open inwards only Local Lead Flood Authority The Lead Local Flood Authority (LLFA) have records of minor surface water flooding to the site which indicate a 0.1 percent (1 in 1000) chance of occurring each year and the Environment Agency (EA) surface water maps do not indicate that the site is in an area of risk. Re-stated their previous recommendations, when a surface water drainage scheme was required.

Page 144 Agenda Item 8 REPORTS FOR DEBATE

3.2 Discretionary Consultees Consultee Response Cumbria County Council No objections. Historic Environment Officer 4. Parish Council/Meeting Response Please Tick as Appropriate Parish Object Support No Response No Objection Council/Meeting Newbiggin Parish  Meeting 4.1 The Parish Council responded as follows: First response received 22/05/2020: ‘The Parish Meeting has no objection to the addition of a front porch, summer house or garden shed to the southern plot. However, the provision of two windows in the south gable of this plot is opposed on the grounds that the design and size of the two windows would create an unnecessary loss of privacy to the occupants of the adjacent property Acorn House. Of significance is the fact that the windows are to be fitted to what will be the dining area of the property, not a secondary room such as a hall or store thus adding to the loss of privacy between the two properties. The occupants of Acorn House accept that the boundary wall between the two properties and the floor level of the property being built on the southern plot restricts the view into their ground floor window but the same cannot be applied to the bedroom window on the first floor of their property. Attached is a photograph taken from the first floor window of Acorn House showing the unrestricted view to the position on the south gable of the southern plot where the two windows are proposed to be fitted. The applicant accepts that there is a view but contends that this would be ‘up and into the room (as opposed to through the room)’ and claims that this is not an ‘unacceptable level of overlooking between the properties’. The Parish Meeting does not agree and in furtherance of their opposition would add that if the application is approved it could create an unwarranted precedent as prospective buyers of the property being built on the northern plot could be influenced to make a similar application which would also have a bearing on the privacy currently enjoyed by properties adjacent to this plot. When the Parish Meeting was considering the reserved matters application (19/0080) its overriding concern was that the general appearance of the two new properties and the material used should be in keeping with the built environment of a traditional Fellside village. Consequently, we specified that the garage doors should be stained timber and this was included as a condition (7) when approval was granted. The double garage door on the southern plot is a significant feature of the property and is clearly visible from Station Road. The application to vary this condition to allow the fitting of a ‘high quality, wood effect door’ comprising ‘four, horizontal wood-effect sections finished in a dark-oak colour’ does not harmonise with the built environment, is more in keeping with an urban setting and is strongly opposed by the Parish Meeting. The applicant’s agent presents a lengthy submission on the legal position relating to the procedure to vary conditions in a planning decision in an attempt to influence the outcome. This has no bearing on the Parish Meeting’s decision. Its

Page 145 Agenda Item 8 REPORTS FOR DEBATE position is quite clear. It was consulted on the reserved matters. It asked specifically that the garage doors be timber stained and was pleased to note that a condition to this effect was attached to the approval of the reserved matters application. So it goes without saying that the Parish Meeting expects this condition to be complied with and to do otherwise would question the efficacy of the whole planning consultation process.’ Second response received 12/06/2020: ‘The Parish Meeting has now been re-consulted on these applications and at this juncture it is important to point out that its position has not changed and the contents of the letter dated 22 May 2020 remain entirely relevant. However, it is pleased to note that the application to install two windows in the southern gable of the southern plot has been removed. In relation to the other points raised in the re-consultation the Parish Meeting makes the following comments – When outline approval for residential development of this plot was sought (17/0032) the applicant was keen to draw comparison with the last two new builds in Newbiggin (Acorn House and Oak Tree House built circa 2005/6 and situated immediately to the south of the proposed development) in order to influence the outcome. When the Parish Meeting was consulted on the reserved matters application (19/0080) its overriding concern was that the two properties were in keeping with the built environment and used the last two new builds as examples to support its position. The two properties currently being built occupy a similar position to Acorn House and Oak Tree House. They are on the west side of Station Road with their frontages facing onto Station Road. Both Acorn House and Oak Tree House were required to have stained timber garage doors and it was on this basis that the Parish Meeting requested the same for the two new properties and welcomed this condition being applied to the approval of the reserved matters. In the latest submission the applicant states ‘From the public road it would be nigh impossible to work out whether the doors were timber’. The Parish Meeting’s response to this is – From the public road they are clearly not stained timber and would add that the plans submitted with the reserved matters application show a style of door that would be acceptable as they match the ones fitted to Acorn house and Oak Tree House. The ones proposed clearly do not match the plans, are not in keeping with the built environment and are more suited to an urban setting. It is for this reason that the Parish Meeting seeks compliance with the condition and refutes the allegation that the applicant is being singled out for non-material reasons.’ 5. Representations 5.1 Letters of consultation were sent to nearby neighbours and a site notice was posted on 19 May 2020.

No of Neighbours Consulted 3 No of letters of support 0 No of Representations Received 2 No of neutral representations 0 No of objection letters 2 5.2 Two residents submitted letters of objection raising the following concerns:  The insertion of windows in the southern gable will result in overlooking and will reduce privacy.

Page 146 Agenda Item 8 REPORTS FOR DEBATE 6. Relevant Planning History  17/0032 Outline residential development with all matters reserved – Granted.  19/0080 Approval of Reserved Matters of outline application 17/0032 for construction of two dwellings – Granted.  19/0271 Discharge of condition 5 (surface water drainage), 6 (surface water and foul water drainage) and 9 (archaeological work) attached to approval 17/0032 and condition 3 (materials) – Details for all prior approval conditions approved. 6.1 A concurrent application 20/0235 to remove condition 11 of outline approval 17/0032 regarding permitted development rights is the subject of a separate report on this Committee agenda. 7. Policy Context 7.1 Development Plan Local Plan 2014-2032 Relevant Policies  DEV1 General Approach to New Development  DEV5 Design of New Development  HS2 Housing in the Smaller Villages and Hamlets 7.2 Other Material Considerations National Planning Policy Framework:  Chapter 12 - Achieving well designed places National Planning Policy Guidance  Use of Planning Conditions 7.3 The policies detailed above are the most relevant policies relating to the determination of this application. 8. Planning Assessment 8.1 Key/Main Planning Issues  Landscape and Visual Impacts  Residential amenity 8.2 Landscape and Visual Impacts 8.2.1 The design criteria by which all new developments are assessed is laid down in Local Plan Policy DEV5. This states that new development will be required to demonstrate that it meets the following criteria in respect of design and the built environment:  Shows a clear understanding of the form and character of the district’s built and natural environment, complementing and enhancing the existing area.  Protects and where possible enhances the district’s distinctive rural landscape, natural environment and biodiversity.  Uses quality materials which complement or enhance local surroundings.

Page 147 Agenda Item 8 REPORTS FOR DEBATE 8.2.2 Planning permission was granted for the development of this site through the Outline permission 17/0032 and the scale, appearance and layout of the development, comprising two detached dwellings, were approved under the reserved matters application 19/0080. This application seeks the addition of numerous elements to Plot A, and for the substitution of timber-effect garage doors in lieu of stained timber doors to both properties. 8.2.3 There are no concerns with the open oak porch proposed on Plot A; this will add some interest to the front elevation and its design and proportions are appropriate to the dwelling. 8.2.4 The summerhouse and the greenhouse will be sited at the rear of the plot, on the upslope of the land and so set above the dwellings, but having no particular prominence due to their small scale and distance set back from the road. The greenhouse will be concealed behind the dwelling whereas the summerhouse adjacent to the south boundary will be seen in public view from the road. 8.2.5 The design, proportions and materials of the outbuildings are considered to be of a high standard and will be in keeping with the traditional vernacular of Newbiggin village. The greenhouse will be cedar-framed built off stone plinth walls, whilst the summerhouse will be comparable to a similar outbuilding the adjacent property to the south has erected at the rear of their plot. 8.2.6 The developer has fitted timber-effect garage doors in lieu of stained timber doors as required by condition 7 of the reserved matters approval, and consequently seeks to retrospectively vary this condition. The doors are steel core with a composite sealed coating, finished in timber grain-effect dark oak, and comprise four horizontal wood- effect sections. 8.2.7 The imposition of this condition was in response to a request from the Parish Meeting for the garage doors to be stained timber and the applicant agreed to the condition in the interests of expediency, not wishing to delay the granting of the reserved matters. 8.2.8 It is relevant to consider the similar development of a pair of dwellings on the plot to the immediate south, built in 2005. Whilst no specific condition of the planning permissions for this site stipulated garage doors to be timber, prior approval was required for the external materials, and in a letter to the developer dated 7 December 2005 this approval was given on the basis of the garage doors being constructed of wooden vertical panels. 8.2.9 It is equally relevant to consider the wider context in which the site of the current application is seen. Newbiggin is a characteristic Fellside village containing several listed buildings, in particular its 14th Century Parish Church and the Grade II* Newbiggin Hall, and is bookended by the former station, the station master’s house and the railway cottages built in the distinguishing Midland style of the Settle-Carlisle railway. The village is not however a Conservation Area and there are examples of metal garage doors elsewhere in the village, most significantly to the flat-roofed garage directly opposite the site at Beech House. 8.2.10 Examples of a different design quality in the locality should not be used to legitimise an acceptance of lower quality materials in new development. Nor however should the opposite be true; the design and materials of one development should not dictate those of another. This is a location without any status as a heritage asset. Timber garage doors would be preferable but they are not a necessity.

Page 148 Agenda Item 8 REPORTS FOR DEBATE 8.2.11 The National Planning Policy Guidance states: ‘When used properly, conditions can enhance the quality of development and enable development to proceed where it would otherwise have been necessary to refuse planning permission, by mitigating the adverse effects’. The residential development palpably would not have been considered unacceptable simply on the basis of incorporating timber-effect garage doors, and as such it is acknowledged that the condition failed to meet all the tests; it is not a condition that is necessary in order for the development to be made acceptable. The timber-effect garage doors now installed are of lesser visual appeal than those on the pair of dwellings to the south; they are however more appealing than the steel door on the garage opposite. They achieve a balance between very high quality on one side and lower value, urban-type development on the other. They do not draw the eye as one passes; they do not stand out as inappropriate features or reduce the design aesthetic of the houses. There is no sound basis on which to oppose their retention. 8.2.12 The revisions to the approved plan and substitution of timber-effect garage doors will have no significant adverse visual impacts in terms of design or the appearance of the wider streetscene. As such, it is considered the variation of the approved plans and the allowance of timber-effect doors would be in accordance with Policy DEV5 in respect of maintaining the character of the district’s built environment. 8.3 Residential Amenity 8.3.1 Policy DEV5 of the Eden Local Plan demands that new development shall protect the amenity of existing residents and provide an acceptable amenity for future occupiers. Paragraph 127 of the National Planning Policy Framework requires that planning decisions on development should ensure a high standard of amenity for existing and future users. 8.3.2 The addition of two side-facing windows in the south elevation initially proposed was objected to by neighbouring residents, and these additional windows have now been removed from the scheme. 8.3.3 The porch, greenhouse and the garage door materials are not considered to be of any consequence to neighbouring amenity. The siting of the summerhouse was raised as a potential issue, being so close (approximately 3.5m) to the similar outbuilding at the adjacent property, and set above it, where the neighbours may feel the new structure to be somewhat overbearing. The applicant has declined the suggestion to swap the positions of the greenhouse and the summerhouse. It is acknowledged though that any overlooking would be entirely mutual and reciprocated by the neighbour’s own summerhouse. Communal overlooking is an accepted consequence of the significant upslope of the rear gardens, rising to some 6m above the level of the dwellings; any fence on the shared boundary to completely screen the properties would be impracticably high and would in itself adversely affect amenity by its sheer height. The siting of this proposed outbuilding is not considered to give rise to an unacceptable harmful impact on the living conditions of the adjacent property. The additional outbuildings are regarded as acceptable in terms of their impact on neighbouring amenity. 8.3.4 The variation of the approved plans, to allow for the additions of a porch, a greenhouse and a summerhouse, and for the retention of timber-effect garage doors, would be in accordance with Policy DEV5 since there are not considered to be any potentially significant adverse impacts arising on the amenity of neighbouring residents.

Page 149 Agenda Item 8 REPORTS FOR DEBATE 9. Implications 9.1 Legal Implications 9.1.1 The following matters have been considered but no issues are judged to arise. 9.2 Equality and Diversity 9.2.1 The Council must have regard to the elimination of unlawful discrimination and harassment, and the promotion of equality under the Equality Act 2010. 9.3 Environment 9.3.1 The Council must have due regard to conserving biodiversity under the Natural Environment and Rural Communities Act 2006. 9.4 Crime and Disorder 9.4.1 Under the Crime and Disorder Act 1998, the Council must have regard to the need to reduce crime and disorder in exercising any of its functions. 9.5 Children 9.5.1 Under the Children Act 2004, the Council has a duty to safeguard and promote the welfare of children in the exercise of any of its functions. 9.6 Human Rights 9.6.1 In determining applications, the Council must ensure that all parties get a fair hearing in compliance with the provisions of Article 6 under the European Convention on Human Rights, as now embodied in UK law in the Human Rights Act 1998. 10. Conclusion 10.1 It is considered that the proposal accords with the Development Plan for the following reasons which are not outweighed by material considerations: 10.2 The proposed variations to the approved plans, to allow for the addition of a porch, a summerhouse and a greenhouse, are in keeping with the appearance of the dwellings and the wider streetscene and are not considered to detract from neighbouring amenity. 10.3 The substitution of timber-effect garage doors in lieu of the stained timber doors as required by condition 7 of the reserved matters approval is considered to be acceptable, in the context of the wider built environment and the absence of any protected heritage status of the application site. 10.4 It is therefore recommended that permission be granted for the proposed variations of conditions 2 (approved plans) and 7 (timber garage doors) of the reserved matters approval 19/0080. Oliver Shimell Assistant Director Planning and Economic Development

Checked by or on behalf of the Monitoring Officer 30.06.20

Background Papers: Planning Files 20/0262, 17/0032 and 19/0080

Page 150 Agenda Item 9 REPORTS FOR DEBATE Date of Committee: 16 July 2020

Planning Application No: 20/0133 Date Received: 20/02/20

OS Grid Ref: 3566 5228 Expiry Date: 17/04/20

Parish: Great Strickland Ward: Morland

Application Type: Full

Proposal: Construction of live/work unit comprising 2 storey dwelling, single storey link and work unit with remote secure storage

Location: Land adj. to Fernbank, Great Strickland

Applicant: Applegarth Foods – Mrs K. Twentyman

Agent: Ian Carrick Designs

Case Officer: Mat Wilson

Reason for Referral: To seek Members’ agreement on the wording of a condition requested by the Planning Committee

Page 151 Agenda Item 9 REPORTS FOR DEBATE

Page 152 Agenda Item 9 REPORTS FOR DEBATE 1. Recommendation

It is recommended that planning permission be granted subject to the following conditions: 1) The development permitted shall be begun before the expiration of three years from the date of this permission. Reason: In order to comply with the provisions of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 as amended by Section 51 of the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004. 2) The development hereby granted shall be carried out strictly in accordance with the application form and following details and plans hereby approved:  Proposed location plan Rev V5 01 dated 12 12 2019  Proposed site plan Rev V5 01 dated 12 12 2019  Ground floor plan rev V5.1 Rev04 dated 10 2 2020  Dwelling first floor and elevations rev V5.1 Rev04 dated 10 2 2020  Work unit elevations rev V5.1 Rev04 dated 10 2 2020  Garage and timber shed rev V5.1 Rev04 dated 10 2 2020  Design and Access Statement date-stamped 20 Feb 2020  Business Plan May 2020 Reason: To ensure a satisfactory development and to avoid any ambiguity as to what constitutes the permission. Prior to Construction 3) Prior to any other development commencing, a surface water drainage scheme, based on the hierarchy of drainage options in the National Planning Practice Guidance with evidence of an assessment of the site conditions shall be submitted to and agreed in writing with the Local Planning Authority. The scheme shall include a plan which demonstrates how the development will achieve a neutral or positive impact in permeability of surface water drainage. The approved surface water drainage scheme shall then be implemented in full before the occupation of the development. The surface water drainage scheme must be in accordance with the Non- Statutory Technical Standards for Sustainable Drainage Systems (March 2015) or any subsequent replacement national standards. Reason: To promote sustainable development, secure proper drainage and to manage the risk of flooding. The condition is considered necessary to be complied with prior to development as compliance with the requirements of the condition at a later time could result in unacceptable harm contrary to the policies of the Development Plan. 4) Before any other operations are commenced, a plan demonstrating visibility splays for each access shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The visibility splays shall then be implemented in accordance with the approved plan, and shall be retained for their intended use thereafter free of any obstruction exceeding 1m in height. The visibility splays shall be

Page 153 Agenda Item 9 REPORTS FOR DEBATE constructed before general development of the site commences so that construction traffic is safeguarded. Reason: In the interests of highway safety. The condition is considered necessary to be complied with prior to development as compliance with the requirements of the condition at a later time could result in unacceptable harm contrary to the policies of the Development Plan. Before construction works above foundation level commence 5) Samples or full details of all external materials proposed for the development shall be submitted to and approved by the Local Planning Authority in writing prior to their use on site. Development shall be carried out in accordance with the approved details. Reason: To ensure that the materials are acceptable and in keeping with this sensitive location. The condition is considered necessary to be complied with prior to occupation as compliance with the requirements of the condition at a later time could result in unacceptable harm contrary to the policies of the Development Plan. 6) Prior to construction commencing above foundations level, a landscaping plan including boundary treatments shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The plan shall demonstrate all hedges and trees to be retained together with enhancement of the west boundary to ensure the gap in the hedge is sealed. The approved scheme shall then be implemented in full and shall be retained as such thereafter. Reason: In the interests of the privacy and amenity of neighbouring occupiers. Before the first use or occupation of the development 7) The live/work unit shall not be occupied until the vehicular access and turning requirements have been constructed in accordance with the approved plan and have been brought into use. The vehicular access turning provisions shall be retained and capable of use at all times thereafter. Reason: In the interests of highway safety. 8) Any vehicular access gates installed shall open inwards only. Reason: In the interests of highway safety. Ongoing Conditions 9) Construction works shall be carried out only between 0800 – 1800 hours Mondays – Fridays; 0900 – 1300 hours on Saturdays and there shall be no building operations on Sundays and Bank Holidays. Reason: In the interests of the amenity of neighbouring occupiers. 10) No deliveries to the site in connection with the catering business shall take place outside the hours of 0800 – 1800 hours on any day of the week, except on up to 10 occasions per year, when deliveries may take place between 0700 and 0800. A register shall be kept and made available to the Local Planning Authority on request detailing each occasion on which deliveries are made before 0800. Reason: In the interests of the amenity of neighbouring occupiers and providing for the infrequent occasions when deliveries are required slightly earlier than

Page 154 Agenda Item 9 REPORTS FOR DEBATE usual. 11) The business floorspace of the live/work unit hereby approved shall not be used for any purpose other than in connection with the catering business, or in any provision equivalent to its Class set out in the Town and Country Planning (Use Classes) Order 1987 (or any order revoking, re-enacting or modifying that Order with or without modification). Reason: To ensure the work element of the proposal is maintained ensuring that the development cannot become an unrestricted dwelling in the countryside which would otherwise be contrary to policy. 12) The work element floorspace of the live/work unit hereby permitted shall be occupied within three months of the residential element being occupied, and shall continue to be used only as a workspace. The balance of living area and working floor space shall be maintained in accordance with that shown on the approved plans. The residential floorspace of the live/work unit shall not be occupied other than by a person solely or mainly employed, or last employed in the business occupying the business floorspace of the associated unit, a widow or widower of such a person, or any resident dependants. Reason: To ensure the live/work unit operates as a cohesive development and so that either the live or work elements are not occupied independently of one another which would otherwise be contrary to policy. 13) There shall be no internal alterations which would lead to a reduction in the area of the building allocated on approved plans as being used for employment purposes. Reason: To ensure the work element of the proposal is maintained ensuring that the development cannot become an unrestricted dwelling in the countryside which would otherwise be contrary to policy. 14) The working hours for members of staff who are not resident at the site and are employed for the work unit shall be 8am – 6pm. Reason: In the interests of the amenity of neighbouring residents. 15) On up to 20 occasions each calendar year, members of staff not resident at the site may assist in the work unit up to 8pm to cater evening functions. A register shall be kept and made available to the Local Planning Authority on request detailing each occasion on which the work unit is operated beyond 6pm. Reason: In the interests of the amenity of neighbouring residents. Informative 1. This decision notice grants planning permission only. It does not override any existing legal agreement, covenant or ownership arrangement. It is the applicant’s responsibility to ensure all necessary agreements are in place prior to the commencement of development. 2. The live/work unit hereby granted is a mixed use development and as such the provisions of the Town and Country Planning (General Permitted Development) Order 2015 (or any order revoking, re-enacting or modifying that Order with or without modification) do not apply to this site.

Page 155 Agenda Item 9 REPORTS FOR DEBATE 2. Background 2.1 At the Planning Committee on 18 June 2020, Members voted to approve the application for a live-work unit on this site outside Great Strickland. The Committee deemed however that an additional condition of approval was required to set the business hours of the work-unit, so as to ensure the business would not operate at unsociable hours and adversely impact upon the amenity of the adjacent neighbouring property. The previous report to Committee, setting out all the planning considerations, is appended at the end of this report. 2.2 Officers have not been able to reach a consensus with the applicant over the wording of the condition, and as such it is deferred to the Planning Committee for their consideration. 3. Proposal and Site Description 3.1 Proposal 3.1.1 Members will recall that the application is for full planning permission for the construction of a two-storey dwelling and a linked agricultural-style building to serve as the new premises for an established catering business, which will relocate from the applicant’s existing property in Great Strickland. The full details of the proposal are set out in the previous Committee report appended to this document. 3.2 Site Description 3.2.1 The application relates to a field of approximately 2,300sq.m. to the south of the road into Great Strickland. The field is grazing land bounded to all sides by hedgerow. A gate provides access into the west side of the field. The two-storey property Fernbank fronts onto the road immediately to the west of the application site. To the south and east are separate fields. The application site is 400m east of St Barnabas Church on the edge of Great Strickland. 3.2.2 The site is open countryside and in terms of the Local Plan spatial strategy policy, it falls within the classification of Other Rural Areas outside the Key Hubs and Smaller Villages and Hamlets. The site has no other specific designation in terms of planning policies, i.e. it is not within a Conservation Area, an area at risk of flooding, etc. 4. Planning Assessment 4.1 Key/Main Planning Issues  Residential Amenity  The Tests of Conditions  Reasonableness, Precision and Enforceability 4.2 Residential Amenity 4.2.1 In determining the likely impacts of the live/work unit upon residential amenity, particularly that of the immediate adjacent neighbour at Fernbank, Officers had concluded that the impacts were likely to be acceptable given the nature of the catering business proposed within the work unit. The most significant possible impact was deemed by Officers to be the deliveries of produce and equipment to the premises, particularly early morning deliveries which are only occasionally required in order to cater for a morning event. It was recommended that, should permission be granted, it be subject to a condition addressing the potential impacts by limiting the frequency of deliveries before 8am, which are permitted on no more than 10 occasions per year.

Page 156 Agenda Item 9 REPORTS FOR DEBATE 4.2.2 In debating the proposal at the previous Committee on 16 June, Members considered that the operating hours of the business had not been addressed through the conditions, and that the neighbouring resident’s amenity would be more fully safeguarded through the inclusion of a condition relating to the hours of use of the business in addition to that limiting the vehicles movements as set out in Condition 9. As such, delegated approval was given to Officers to agree a suitable condition to safeguard the neighbour’s amenity. Such a condition is required to be reasonable to the applicant; to achieve a level of protection for the neighbour’s amenity; and to be precise enough to allow the Planning Authority to enforce against any breach of the condition. 4.3 The Tests of Conditions 4.3.1 The National Planning Policy Framework states at Paragraph 55 that planning conditions should be kept to a minimum, and only used where they satisfy the following tests: 1. necessary; 2. relevant to planning; 3. relevant to the development to be permitted; 4. enforceable; 5. precise; and 6. reasonable in all other respects. 4.3.2 The government’s National Planning Policy Guidance advises that each of the tests need to be satisfied for each condition. Any proposed condition that fails to meet one of the 6 tests should not be used. This applies even if the applicant suggests or agrees to it, or it is suggested by the members of a planning committee or a third party. 4.3.3 The applicant’s agent proposed the following condition:  The normal core hours of the business are 8-6pm. Staff vehicle movements should be kept to mainly within these times, except when a particular event warrants a journey outside of these times, when the number of movements shall be kept to a minimum and limited to only those directly associated with the event being catered for. 4.3.4 Due to concerns over the compliance of this condition with the required tests set out above, specifically in relation to precision and enforceability, Officers suggested the following conditions:  The working hours of the catering business shall be 8am – 6pm.  On up to 20 occasions each calendar year, the work unit may operate to 8pm to cater evening functions. A register shall be kept and made available to the Local Planning Authority on request detailing each occasion on which the work unit is operated beyond 1800 hours. 4.3.5 The applicant’s agent contends that this imposes an onerous restriction on the business, and would render it unviable. 4.4 Reasonableness, Precision and Enforceability 4.4.1 The hours of operation conditions must allow the business to operate in a sustainable way without unduly restricting its operation to an extent where it becomes unviable, as

Page 157 Agenda Item 9 REPORTS FOR DEBATE this would call into question the validity of the planning permission. Equally, the conditions must serve a planning purpose, they must afford a level of protection to the amenity of neighbouring occupiers. 4.4.2 Officers consider that the condition suggested by the applicant’s agent fails to meet the tests of precision or enforceability. Terms such as ‘normal core hours’, ‘kept mainly within these times’, ‘except when a particular event warrants a journey outside of these times’ and ‘movements shall be kept to a minimum’ are imprecise and vague, whilst limiting vehicular movements to ‘those directly associated with the event being catered for’ is unenforceable. It does not impart any ability on the Planning Authority to monitor the number of vehicular movements, the times at which they occur, or to determine which movements are associated with the operation of the business, from those which are simply the comings and goings of a dwelling. 4.4.3 More fundamentally, there is disagreement on the purpose of the actual condition, and what it would be trying to achieve. The condition proposed by the applicant seeks solely to limit the vehicular movements associated with the business beyond 6pm. Officers are of the view however that it is the operation of the work unit itself which would potentially have the greater impact on neighbouring amenity. The act of making a journey from the site, to deliver the prepared goods, will have negligible consequence on the neighbouring property, and Officers do not consider that the making of deliveries from the site warrants restricted hours. 4.4.4 The potential for a negative amenity impact on the neighbour arises from the business operating at unsociable hours, although it is acknowledged that, given the nature of the food preparation business, such impact is likely to be low level. If Members consider that the hours of operation ought to be restricted, it is submitted that the conditions suggested by Officers would allow the business to operate in a viable way, whilst affording the protection to the neighbour’s amenity. 4.4.5 Unfortunately the section of the planning application form providing the intended hours of opening for the non-residential use was left blank. The Design and Access Statement provides no detail on the hours of operation. Further information is detailed in the Business Plan submitted after the adoption of the new Housing Supplementary Planning Document. The Business Plan indicates that aside from infrequent early morning deliveries (from 7.30am) to prepare morning events (the allowance for which is set out in condition 10), the normal time of deliveries would be from 8.30am onwards. It further states that the working hours extend beyond the normal working day, but doesn’t clarify the actual hours or the frequency of working unsociable hours. 4.4.6 Officers had tried to build into the suggested condition the capacity for the applicant to occasionally work beyond 6pm, when a particular large event is catered for, and it is considered reasonable to allow up this on up to 20 occasions per year. From the information provided with the application, it is difficult to quantify the number of events that might be expected to require the work unit to operate at unsociable hours. In negotiations over the proposed condition since the previous Committee, the applicant’s agent has indicated that the core hours of the business activities are 8am-6pm, but there are occasions when the applicant might be catering for a larger function such as a wedding, which would require working outside this time. An example given is when meals are provided for guests on the Ullswater Steamer, which operates until 10pm. The agent states that it is not in the applicant’s interest to work late, and nor are they intending to do so, however to run the business successfully some flexibility is required. Officers consider however that there must be a reasonable limit either to the

Page 158 Agenda Item 9 REPORTS FOR DEBATE number of occasions on which the work unit can operate at unsociable hours, or to the level of intensity of use of the work unit beyond 6pm, in the interests of ensuring the neighbour’s amenity is not unduly compromised. 4.4.7 Members may consider that an alternative means of providing them with the assurance of protecting the amenity of neighbouring residents, whilst allowing the business of the live/work unit to operate in a viable and sustainable manner, would be to limit the working hours of other members of staff who do not reside at the live/work unit. This acknowledges that the preparation of buffet food by the applicant by herself within the work unit is unlikely to be a source of noise or disturbance to the neighbour, but gives the Council the means to regulate the intensity of use of the work unit and the frequency of comings and goings at potentially unsociable hours. 4.4.8 As such, the following conditions are suggested which, Officers submit, meets the test of reasonableness, precision and enforceability:  The working hours for members of staff who are not resident at the site and are employed for the work unit shall be 8am – 6pm.  On up to 20 occasions each calendar year, members of staff not resident at the site may assist in the work unit up to 8pm to cater evening functions. A register shall be kept and made available to the Local Planning Authority on request detailing each occasion on which the work unit is operated beyond 6pm. 4.4.9 These conditions would allow the applicant to continue to work in a way which sustains the business, whilst ensuring the level of impact on neighbouring amenity is managed, and allows for breaches of the conditions to be monitored, investigated, and if necessary, enforced against. 5. Implications 5.1 Legal Implications 5.1.1 The following matters have been considered but no issues are judged to arise. 5.2 Equality and Diversity 5.2.1 The Council must have regard to the elimination of unlawful discrimination and harassment, and the promotion of equality under the Equality Act 2010. 5.3 Environment 5.3.1 The Council must have due regard to conserving bio-diversity under the Natural Environment and Rural Communities Act 2006. 5.4 Crime and Disorder 5.4.1 Under the Crime and Disorder Act 1998, the Council must have regard to the need to reduce crime and disorder in exercising any of its functions. 5.5 Children 5.5.1 Under the Children Act 2004, the Council has a duty to safeguard and promote the welfare of children in the exercise of any of its functions. 5.6 Human Rights 5.6.1 In determining applications, the Council must ensure that all parties get a fair hearing in compliance with the provisions of Article 6 under the European Convention on Human Rights, as now embodied in UK law in the Human Rights Act 1998.

Page 159 Agenda Item 9 REPORTS FOR DEBATE 6. Conclusion 6.1 The proposed development of a live/work unit on this site was accepted by the Planning Committee but Members deemed that permission should be subject to a further condition restricting working hours of the work unit so as to safeguard the neighbour’s amenity. The Planning Officers and the applicant have not reached a consensus on the agreed wording of the condition. 6.2 The revised conditions now suggested are proposed as the most practicable means of achieving satisfaction for all parties. The conditions do not compromise the normal working practices of the applicant or affect the viability of the business. They do allow for restrictions to be placed upon the frequency of comings and goings of other staff members, thereby limiting the impact upon the neighbouring residents and upholding their amenity. Finally they provide the Planning Authority with a means of monitoring the extent of commercial activity and the security of a means to enforce against breaches of the condition. As such it is recommended that permission be granted subject to the inclusion of the additional conditions.

Oliver Shimell Assistant Director Planning and Economic Development

Checked by or on behalf of the Monitoring Officer 01.07.2020

Background Papers: Planning File 20/0133

Page 160 Agenda Item 9 REPORTS FOR DEBATE APPENDIX Date of Committee: 18 June 2020

Planning Application No: 20/0133 Date Received: 20/02/20

OS Grid Ref: 3566 5228 Expiry Date: 17/04/20

Parish: Great Strickland Ward: Morland

Application Type: Full

Proposal: Construction of live/work unit comprising 2 storey dwelling, single storey link and work unit with remote secure storage

Location: Land adj. to Fernbank, Great Strickland

Applicant: Applegarth Foods – Mrs K. Twentyman

Agent: Ian Carrick Designs

Case Officer: Mat Wilson

Reason for Referral: An objector wishes to speak against the application at Planning Committee

Page 161 Agenda Item 9 REPORTS FOR DEBATE

Page 162 Agenda Item 9 REPORTS FOR DEBATE 1. Recommendation

It is recommended that planning permission be granted subject to the following conditions: 1) The development permitted shall be begun before the expiration of three years from the date of this permission. Reason: In order to comply with the provisions of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 as amended by Section 51 of the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004. 2) The development hereby granted shall be carried out strictly in accordance with the application form and following details and plans hereby approved:  Proposed location plan Rev V5 01 dated 12 12 2019  Proposed site plan Rev V5 01 dated 12 12 2019  Ground floor plan rev V5.1 Rev04 dated 10 2 2020  Dwelling first floor and elevations rev V5.1 Rev04 dated 10 2 2020  Work unit elevations rev V5.1 Rev04 dated 10 2 2020  Garage and timber shed rev V5.1 Rev04 dated 10 2 2020  Design and Access Statement date-stamped 20 Feb 2020  Business Plan May 2020 Reason: To ensure a satisfactory development and to avoid any ambiguity as to what constitutes the permission. Prior to Construction 3) Prior to any other development commencing, a surface water drainage scheme, based on the hierarchy of drainage options in the National Planning Practice Guidance with evidence of an assessment of the site conditions shall be submitted to and agreed in writing with the Local Planning Authority. The scheme shall include a plan which demonstrates how the development will achieve a neutral or positive impact in permeability of surface water drainage. The approved surface water drainage scheme shall then be implemented in full before the occupation of the development. The surface water drainage scheme must be in accordance with the Non- Statutory Technical Standards for Sustainable Drainage Systems (March 2015) or any subsequent replacement national standards. Reason: To promote sustainable development, secure proper drainage and to manage the risk of flooding. The condition is considered necessary to be complied with prior to development as compliance with the requirements of the condition at a later time could result in unacceptable harm contrary to the policies of the Development Plan. 4) Before any other operations are commenced, a plan demonstrating visibility splays for each access shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The visibility splays shall then be implemented in accordance with the approved plan, and shall be retained for their intended use thereafter free of any obstruction exceeding 1m in height. The visibility splays shall be

Page 163 Agenda Item 9 REPORTS FOR DEBATE constructed before general development of the site commences so that construction traffic is safeguarded. Reason: In the interests of highway safety. The condition is considered necessary to be complied with prior to development as compliance with the requirements of the condition at a later time could result in unacceptable harm contrary to the policies of the Development Plan. Before construction works above foundation level commence 5) Samples or full details of all external materials proposed for the development shall be submitted to and approved by the Local Planning Authority in writing prior to their use on site. Development shall be carried out in accordance with the approved details. Reason: To ensure that the materials are acceptable and in keeping with this sensitive location. The condition is considered necessary to be complied with prior to occupation as compliance with the requirements of the condition at a later time could result in unacceptable harm contrary to the policies of the Development Plan. 6) Prior to construction commencing above foundations level, a landscaping plan including boundary treatments shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The plan shall demonstrate all hedges and trees to be retained together with enhancement of the west boundary to ensure the gap in the hedge is sealed. The approved scheme shall then be implemented in full and shall be retained as such thereafter. Reason: In the interests of the privacy and amenity of neighbouring occupiers. Before the first use or occupation of the development 7) The live/work unit shall not be occupied until the vehicular access and turning requirements have been constructed in accordance with the approved plan and have been brought into use. The vehicular access turning provisions shall be retained and capable of use at all times thereafter. Reason: In the interests of highway safety. 8) Any vehicular access gates installed shall open inwards only. Reason: In the interests of highway safety. Ongoing Conditions

9) Construction works shall be carried out only between 0800 – 1800 hours Mondays – Fridays; 0900 – 1300 hours on Saturdays and there shall be no building operations on Sundays and Bank Holidays. Reason: In the interests of the amenity of neighbouring occupiers. 10) No deliveries to the site in connection with the catering business shall take place outside the hours of 0800 – 1800 hours on any day of the week, except on up to 10 occasions per year, when deliveries may take place between 0700 and 0800. A register shall be kept and made available to the Local Planning Authority on request detailing each occasion on which deliveries are made before 0800. Reason: In the interests of the amenity of neighbouring occupiers and providing for the infrequent occasions when deliveries are required slightly earlier than

Page 164 Agenda Item 9 REPORTS FOR DEBATE usual. 11) The business floorspace of the live/work unit hereby approved shall not be used for any purpose other than in connection with the catering business, or in any provision equivalent to its Class set out in the Town and Country Planning (Use Classes) Order 1987 (or any order revoking, re-enacting or modifying that Order with or without modification). Reason: To ensure the work element of the proposal is maintained ensuring that the development cannot become an unrestricted dwelling in the countryside which would otherwise be contrary to policy. 12) The work element floorspace of the live/work unit hereby permitted shall be occupied within three months of the residential element being occupied, and shall continue to be used only as a workspace. The balance of living area and working floor space shall be maintained in accordance with that shown on the approved plans. The residential floorspace of the live/work unit shall not be occupied other than by a person solely or mainly employed, or last employed in the business occupying the business floorspace of the associated unit, a widow or widower of such a person, or any resident dependants. Reason: To ensure the live/work unit operates as a cohesive development and so that either the live or work elements are not occupied independently of one another which would otherwise be contrary to policy. 13) There shall be no internal alterations which would lead to a reduction in the area of the building allocated on approved plans as being used for employment purposes. Reason: To ensure the work element of the proposal is maintained ensuring that the development cannot become an unrestricted dwelling in the countryside which would otherwise be contrary to policy. Informative 1. This decision notice grants planning permission only. It does not override any existing legal agreement, covenant or ownership arrangement. It is the applicant’s responsibility to ensure all necessary agreements are in place prior to the commencement of development. 2. The live/work unit hereby granted is a mixed use development and as such the provisions of the Town and Country Planning (General Permitted Development) Order 2015 (or any order revoking, re-enacting or modifying that Order with or without modification) do not apply to this site.

2. Proposal and Site Description 2.1 Proposal 2.1.1 The application is for full planning permission for the construction of a two-storey dwelling and a linked agricultural-style building to serve as the new premises for an established catering business, which will relocate from the applicant’s existing property in Great Strickland. The proposal is submitted as a live/work unit and is a revised application following the refusal of planning permission for the original scheme 18/0917 in September 2019 by the Planning Committee.

Page 165 Agenda Item 9 REPORTS FOR DEBATE 2.1.2 The dwelling would have a broad frontage of 13.6m with twin gables projecting back from the main body of the building, extending to 9.3m front to rear at two storeys, with a single detached garage along the west boundary. The house would be rendered to all elevations except the stone frontage, with the roof finished in slate. 2.1.3 A dual-purpose sunroom/staff room off the rear elevation connects to a single-storey link wing accommodating an office, staff WC, pantry and plant room and food preparation area. The link provides access to the catering facility, incorporating kitchens and food preparation, storage of food and equipment, and space for one vehicle. Clad in Yorkshire boarding under a profiled roof cladding, the building would be 10m x 15m, 6m high. A secure storage shed for the catering trailer is also proposed at the rear of the site, finished in timber boarding, measuring 9.5m x 4.3m, 3m high. 2.1.4 For comparison, the previous scheme refused permission in September 2019 was for a dwelling 16.8m wide, 13.3m deep, with a single attached garage and a sunroom to the rear, and for a catering facility detached from and set behind the dwelling, 10m x 24.7m in footprint, with a timber field shelter also proposed at the rear of the site. It was considered that that scheme was unacceptable for the following reason: Eden Local Plan Policy RUR4 allows for live/work units of an appropriate scale in rural areas provided they meet certain criteria, including that they should be of a scale and type sympathetic to the area within which they are proposed, and respect and reinforce local landscape character. All development must meet the criteria of Eden Local Plan Policy DEV5, which include the requirement for development to protect the district’s distinctive rural landscape, and to reflect the existing streetscene through use of appropriate scale and mass. The proposed development would result in a new live/work unit of a size and scale that is considered inappropriate in this tranquil rural setting. The benefits to the rural economy, of allowing a local business to grow and to continue to support local suppliers, are in this case more than outweighed by the policy contradictions inherent in the proposal, in respect of the scale of both the dwelling and of the work unit, and the commercial appearance of the food production unit. The proposal would detract from the quiet and open character of the local rural area, and is therefore considered to be contrary to Policies RUR4 and DEV5 of the Eden Local Plan. 2.1.5 The existing catering business was established by the applicant in 2005, supplying catering for corporate events and private functions. The business provides buffet lunches and specific bespoke menus for private parties and wedding functions. No commercial baking for retail sale is undertaken. 2.1.6 The business currently operates from the applicant’s home in Great Strickland, with off- site storage in a lock-up garage nearby. 2.1.7 In a typical week the business would cater for 1-2 funerals, 2-3 business lunches and possibly a weekend wedding. The applicant has one or two staff members to assist in food preparation. 2.1.8 Larger functions require more staff, and up to 5 people will assist the applicant in catering for events of up to 200 guests. 2.1.9 Deliveries will typically number 2-3 per week, from local suppliers. Additional linen deliveries take place in the summer. On rare occasions when providing early morning funeral teas (before 11.00am), deliveries would need to be on site by 7.30/7.45 am to enable staff labours to commence food prep at 8am. The applicant states this is not a

Page 166 Agenda Item 9 REPORTS FOR DEBATE regular practice and the likelihood and indeed history of such deliveries would not be before 7.30am. 2.1.10 On days when functions are held, up to 4 additional staff vehicles attend the business. The applicant states that no customers visit the business except for returning borrowed items or prospective brides discussing wedding catering plans. 2.1.11 In order to sustain the existing business, it is proposed to create a live/work unit with onsite storage, coalescing all the storage requirements into one location. Whereas previously it was intended to offer a facility for customers to host private dinner parties, and to provide onsite workshops and cookery demonstrations as well as the potential to offer residential accommodation to customers, the business plan of the revised scheme focusses on the extant catering business. 2.2 Site Description 2.2.1 The application relates to a field of approximately 2,300sq.m. to the south of the road into Great Strickland. The field is grazing land bounded to all sides by hedgerow. A gate provides access into the west side of the field. The two-storey property Fernbank fronts onto the road immediately to the west of the application site. To the south and east are separate fields. The application site is 400m east of St Barnabas Church on the edge of Great Strickland. 2.2.2 The site is open countryside and in terms of the Local Plan spatial strategy policy, it falls within the classification of Other Rural Areas outside the Key Hubs and Smaller Villages and Hamlets. The site has no other specific designation in terms of planning policies, i.e. it is not within a Conservation Area, an area at risk of flooding, etc. 3. Consultees 3.1 Statutory Consultees Consultee Response Highway Authority The access [proposed is] from the C3050, a Highway maintainable at public expense, to the private site. The details provided have shown no visibility splays, however the previous application 18/0917 had a speed survey carried out and splays conditioned. Conditions are recommended addressing provision of access, surfacing, and providing parking and turning areas.

3.2 Discretionary Consultees Consultee Response Lead Local Flood Authority The Lead Local Flood Authority (LLFA) surface water map show no flooding to the site and the Environment Agency (EA) surface water maps do not indicate that the site is of in an area of risk. This is a minor development which is below the Lead Local Flood Authority (LLFA) threshold, for below 5 dwellings will be picked up by building control, the surface water drainage should not be greater than the

Page 167 Agenda Item 9 REPORTS FOR DEBATE already existing. If installing a soakaway we would advise not to be positioned in close proximity to the highway – which should be at least 5m away from the highway and property Drainage details should be provided for both foul and surface water drainage. The developer should demonstrate how they will deal with surface water discharge from the potential development site and measures taken to prevent surface water discharging onto the highway, public highway or onto neighbouring developments. The surface water drainage should not be greater than the already existing, if installing a soakaway we would advise should be at least 5m away from the highway and property. County Council Minerals and Cumbria County Council as minerals planning Waste authority does not object to this application. National Grid National Grid has No Objection to the above proposal which is in close proximity to a High-Pressure Gas Pipeline – Feeder. Housing As this application relates to a live/work unit and there is no associated affordable housing requirement, I can confirm I have no comments to make. 4. Parish Council/Meeting Response Please Tick as Appropriate Parish Qualified No View Object No Response Council/Meeting Support Expressed Great Strickland  Parish Council 4.1 The Parish Council responded as follows: The Parish Council has in line with many other public bodies been unable to meet to discuss the application, and the opinions given have been gathered from those councillors eligible to comment. The Parish Council has consistently supported applications for the small fields on The Moor which are no longer viable for agricultural purposes. They also support the employment opportunities the application offers. The previous application was refused on grounds that the scale and size were considered inappropriate in a tranquil and rural setting. Whilst steps have been taken to reduce the size of the development, it will still significantly fill the site and will have a huge impact on the neighbouring property. 5. Representations 5.1 Letters of consultation were sent to nearby neighbours and a site notice publicising the application was posted at the site on 20 March 2020.

No of Neighbours Consulted 10 No of letters of support 7

Page 168 Agenda Item 9 REPORTS FOR DEBATE No of Representations Received 11 No of neutral representations 0 No of objection letters 6 5.1.1 Seven letters in favour of the proposal raised the following material issues:  The business is well-established, supports local suppliers and would generate local employment.  The current premises - the applicant’s existing home – are no longer able to accommodate the business needs.  The business needs purpose-built premises designed to meet the current and future needs.  Eden should be supporting small local businesses in rural areas which keep the villages alive, rather than simply becoming bases for holidaymakers.  It would continue to provide employment opportunities in the community.  It is a business that serves its local community. 5.1.2 Six letters of objection have been submitted from local residents, raising the following material considerations: Landscape harm  This is clearly an industrial workshop and business on a green field site, an alien feature in the locality.  The proposal would dominate the landscape, having a greater landscape impact than the previous refusal for two dwellings on the adjacent site.  This is beautiful open countryside and always has been.  The proposal damages the distinct local character.  A proposal for two dwellings on the adjacent site was refused planning permission last year for a number of reasons, including that it was perceived to cause unacceptable landscape harm with a significant detrimental impact on the rural character. This application would have a much greater landscape impact than the previous refusal and surely the same considerations should apply to this site.  There is little material difference between this and the previously refused scheme so the Planning Department must be consistent in refusing this application. Impact on neighbouring amenity  The trade vehicles and employee cars entering and exiting the site would completely disturb the tranquil setting and diminish our quality of life.  The needs of the business should not come at the expense of those living near the application site. There is no fairness in allowing an industrial kitchen to impose on the neighbour’s environment of clean air and peaceful surroundings.  We live outside of the village because we like the peace and quiet. Doesn’t our quality of life count for anything here? Inappropriate location  It would have a detrimental impact on an existing holiday cottage next to the site and would threaten its viability.

Page 169 Agenda Item 9 REPORTS FOR DEBATE  The commercial aspects of the development would better to be sited in a more accessible location not in a rural area setting affecting those living nearby.  The proposal remains a commercial unit which belongs on a business park.  We should not be sacrificing open countryside in a peaceful rural environment. It cannot be right that we should lose that and have noise, smells and traffic from someone’s business affecting our lives. Highways Impact  Major impact on traffic and road safety on what is a National Cycle route.  Traffic will still need to travel through Great Strickland village; the re-siting of the business will not relieve existing traffic problems experienced by the village.  The large delivery lorries are likely to block the road or at least inconvenience other road users due to the narrowness of the road.  Significant concern is raised over the volume and type of traffic that will visit the site, where the road is narrower than the centre of Great Strickland. The approaches to the site include a blind crest and a sharp bend.  The carriageway is used by pedestrians, cyclists and horse-riders. Concerns that more traffic on this road puts their safety at risk. Scale and design  The revised plan to join the dwelling and the work unit together just creates an enormous development that will dwarf everything else in the hamlet.  The change to the scheme to join the house to the industrial kitchen makes the structure look forbidding.  Despite re-design the work unit is still not fit for the open countryside and a building like this is one that should be seen on an industrial estate in Penrith.  The development would not be in keeping with the area; Yorkshire boarding and an industrial-scale roll-top shutter are not common features of this part of Eden.  The building is squashed into a small field and would be an eyesore. Policy conflict  The application contravenes the criteria for policy RUR4:  It does not involve the re-use of existing redundant buildings  It does not help to diversify the rural economy  There will be a significant transport impact  The development will not be of scale and sympathetic to the area proposed Other matters  The work unit could be sectioned off and therefore sold at a future date should the need or desire arise. 6. Relevant Planning History  18/09717 Construction of live/work unit and field shelter - refused 20/9/19.  On the adjacent field: Outline application 18/0291 two dwellings - refused 14/6/18.

Page 170 Agenda Item 9 REPORTS FOR DEBATE 7. Policy Context 7.1 Development Plan Local Plan 2014-2032 Relevant Policies  LS1 Locational Strategy  LS2 Housing Targets and Distribution  DEV1 General Approach to New Development  DEV5 Design of New Development  RUR4 Employment Development and Farm Diversification in Rural Areas  ENV2 Protection and Enhancements of Landscapes and Trees Supplementary Planning Documents:  Housing (2020) 7.2 Other Material Considerations National Planning Policy Framework:  Paragraph 11: Presumption in favour of sustainable development  Chapter 14: Meeting the challenge of climate change and flooding  Paragraph 81: Policies should accommodate flexible working practices (eg live- work units) 7.2.1 The policies detailed above are the most relevant policies relating to this application. 8. Planning Assessment 8.1 Key/Main Planning Issues  Principle  Scale and Design  Built Environment/Heritage Assets  Residential Amenity  Streetscene/Landscape character  Infrastructure: Highways/Drainage  Natural Environment 8.2 Principle 8.2.1 The District’s locational strategy for development is defined at Policy LS1 of the Eden Local Plan which sets out the hierarchy of settlements where development should be focused in the most sustainable locations. 8.2.2 This application relates to a grazing field which, although not entirely isolated from other housing development, is definitively rural in character. Great Strickland village is 400m distant. In terms of spatial planning policy therefore, the site is considered to fall within the Other Rural Area outside the key hubs, villages and hamlets. 8.2.3 Development shall only be permitted outside the towns, villages and hamlets (termed the Other Rural Areas) where it involves the re-use of traditional buildings, the

Page 171 Agenda Item 9 REPORTS FOR DEBATE provision of affordable housing as an exception to policy only, or where proposals accord with other policies in the Local Plan. 8.2.4 The application is submitted as a live/work unit. The relevant policy of the Local Plan is RUR4 although this is now qualified by the detailed guidance provided in the Housing Supplementary Planning Document adopted in April 2020. Policy RUR4 itself states that proposals for employment developments of an appropriate scale (including new build and live/work units) will be supported in rural areas where they meet the following criteria:  Wherever possible they involve the re-use of suitable redundant traditional rural buildings.  Help towards the diversification of the rural economy.  Do not have a significant transport impact.  Are of a scale and type sympathetic to the area within which they are proposed.  Would respect and reinforce local landscape character, the historic environment and not cause harm to the natural environment, through the use of good design. 8.2.5 The National Planning Policy Framework is largely silent on live/work development. It simply states (at paragraph 81) that Planning Authorities should adopt policies that are flexible enough to accommodate needs not anticipated in the plan, and allow for new and flexible working practices (such as live/work accommodation). 8.2.6 In 2020 the Council has revised its Housing Supplementary Planning Document (SPD) which provides detailed guidance on the interpretation of housing policies in the adopted Local Plan. This sets out that, whilst Policy RUR4 seeks to support employment development in rural areas, there is a balance to be struck between supporting the economic sustainability of local communities and preventing inappropriate development in rural areas which may be contrary to other social and environmental objectives of the Local Plan. The SPD states that in determining applications the location of the live/work unit will be taken into account. New build live/work units sited outside of existing settlements are unlikely to be considered acceptable. Proposals for new live/work units should relate well in their form and context to an existing settlement or building group. Such a proposal should not have to depend on additional screening and landscaping to make the proposal acceptable, but should be seen as complementary to the immediate and existing built and natural environment. A proposed live/work unit outside an existing settlement or group of existing buildings should be justified. 8.2.7 The Housing SPD explains that live/work units are a means of meeting the employment needs of people in rural areas by way of accommodating a combination of employment and residential space in a single building. Combining living and employment space can provide a more affordable option for people living in rural areas and can stimulate entrepreneurial growth, which has the added benefit of reducing commuting over relatively long distances to the nearest town. 8.2.8 Live/work units are defined as a property that is specifically designed for dual use combining both residential and employment space, providing both the place of main residence of the person (and their family) and their workspace in the employment part of the unit. The live/work unit is ‘sui generis’ – in a class of their own - and thus different from a mixed-use development consisting of separate employment and residential elements which would respectively fall within Use Classes B and C3 within the Use Classes Order. The live/work unit also differs from a dwelling with ancillary

Page 172 Agenda Item 9 REPORTS FOR DEBATE office space where a person can ‘work from home’ either full time or part time, which is deemed to fall as a dwelling within class C3. 8.2.9 The live/work unit should comprise a dedicated employment element which is functionally separate but linked internally with the residential element and operated together. Both the employment and residential elements will also have separate independent accesses. The SPD goes on to describe a typical live/work unit as such: ‘The employment element will also include a small kitchenette and toilet facilities. Typically, the employment element is on ground level and faces the street with the residential element above. However residential element may also be alongside the employment element or behind it’. 8.2.10 A live/work unit is intended for use by one or more members of the resident household. Thus the business occupying the employment element should be owned and operated by a person whose main residence is the residential element of the live/work unit. 8.2.11 The employment element should be occupied within three months of the residential element being occupied and continued to be thus occupied. Expansion of the residential element into the employment space or the change of use of a live/work unit into wholly residential will not be acceptable and contrary to the purpose of the policy to encourage employment in rural areas. A temporary cessation of the use of the employment element may be appropriate for a limited period to allow for the sale of owner-occupied live/work units where a business has failed. 8.2.12 Finally, the Housing SPD states that proposals for live/work units should be supported and justified by a business plan, which should demonstrate the future viability of the business operation. The ratio between the employment and residential element should be at least 50:50. 8.2.13 It is recognised that the intention of the policy is to sustainably strengthen the rural economic base. The proposal will allow an existing local business to expand, continuing to provide services to local clients and to work with other local businesses; the proposal will thereby help towards the diversification of the rural economy. The application is considered to meet the definition of live/work units set out in the Housing SPD, being a genuine dual-use scheme were the live and the work elements are mutually dependant, and are physically linked but have separate independent access; the work element will be owned and operated by the applicant occupying the resident household; the proposal is supported by a business plan; and the ratio between the employment and residential elements is roughly equal. 8.2.14 The business plan sets out the need for the new premises and the reasons why this site is proposed rather than within an existing settlement. The plan states that the sustainability of the business is no longer viable at the current location. It has simply outgrown the existing space over 14 years. The business is cramped, it impacts on the day to day lives of the applicant and her family by sharing the living areas of the dwelling and incurs unnecessary time and movement of equipment between storage and base. It is not feasible to build on the existing site as there is limited space to both front and rear of the dwelling, furthermore the applicant owns the proposed location site which is approximately 0.5 miles away. 8.2.15 An alternative, a unit on an industrial estate, has been considered and found not to fit with the current business model on three fronts. The business portrays itself as a cottage industry, offering a personal service with attention to detail in a more relaxing environment. The working hours extend beyond the normal working day and as a

Page 173 Agenda Item 9 REPORTS FOR DEBATE single mother of two, the needs of the family still need to be addressed. Thirdly, the business is very much focussed on serving local clients within the Eden Valley. A location on an industrial estate would take it well outside the operating area and incur significant additional travel times and costs for both the business and for employees. 8.2.16 The rationale of this business operating as a cottage industry is accepted; however officers consider that grounds for the business to be located rurally substantiated on the needs of the family and travel time are less compelling, and should be given little weight in the planning balance. Officers are also mindful that existing dwellings in the district could perhaps provide the accommodation and ancillary work space requirements, without requiring the development of a greenfield site in the countryside with a large new house and workspace; that said, there is no sequential test required under Policy RUR4, and the Housing SPD requires only that live/work units in the rural area should be justified, and does not expect that other options should be considered first. The crux of the matter is, does the proposal justify the development of a new, substantial house and a workspace structure in this rural location? 8.2.17 The business plan asserts that the viability of the business can be best achieved with a purpose built live/work unit with on-site storage for ancillary equipment. The move to purpose-built premises is designed to consolidate and amalgamate the current business and its offsite equipment store rather than to expand the activity. The live/work proposal comprises a dedicated single storey work and storage unit which is functionally separate but linked internally with the two storey residential dwelling. The employment and residential elements both have separate independent accesses not only to the site but to their respective building entrance. They each have independent kitchen and toilet facilities and, the business plan asserts, show scale and type sympathetic to the area in which it is being proposed as per Policy RUR4. In keeping with the local architecture, the residential element is at the front of the live/work unit, with the employment element located behind. This proposal would enable the business to operate on one single site, become more efficient through time management, and would provide greater sustainability. Furthermore, the larger storage capacity of the proposed scheme will reduce the frequency of the delivery of materials, and eliminate the current need for travelling between the applicant’s home and the off-site storage. 8.2.18 The proposal does not meet the criteria of a ‘typical’ live/work unit as set out in the Housing SPD, which describes the typical premises as comprising the employment element on ground level, facing the street, with the residential element above, alongside or behind it, within a single building. The SPD describes a number of scenarios but it does not rule out other configurations. In this case the applicant contends there are good reasons why the work unit is behind the residential element. The dwelling has been designed in a traditional style, reflecting the vernacular style of the adjacent Fernbank. The applicant asserts that the development will make a positive contribution to the streetscene; that the work unit is not in itself unattractive, and it will be sympathetic to the character of the area. Notwithstanding the typical scenario for live/work units envisaged by the Housing SPD, the applicant considers this a better solution to have a dwelling providing continuity in the road frontage sitting alongside Fernbank, with the agricultural-styled work unit behind. 8.2.19 It is conceded that the proposal does not meet the configuration of live/work units described in the Housing SPD. Officers agree however with the applicant’s assertion that the SPD is only pointing to 'typical' configurations, it does not rule out others; and that there are justified reasons for the layout provided. The dwelling to the front of the site provides a visual association with the adjacent property Fernbank, and the

Page 174 Agenda Item 9 REPORTS FOR DEBATE workspace in a linked building behind the dwelling is indicative of farm developments, although it is accepted that the ‘live’ and the ‘work’ spaces are ostensibly separate functional spaces and not as cohesive or integrated as the typical live/work unit described by the SPD. It should also be recognised that the SPD is for guidance only and does not replace policy. That the configuration is not one that is specifically mentioned in the SPD does not make it a fundamentally different type of development and does not mean that it would necessarily be unsympathetic to the area. 8.2.20 The scale of a live/work unit must be sympathetic to the area in which it is proposed and should be ‘of an appropriate scale in the rural area’, but the scale is not quantified or prescribed, and it falls therefore that the size of a proposed live/work unit should be assessed in the context of its particular location. This proposal relates to a small enclosed pasture and the revised scheme, whilst certainly not dominating the space or amounting to overdevelopment as the previous scheme was deemed to, must still be recognised as a relatively substantial building group in the countryside. In terms of the context of the site however, the proportions of the residential element of the proposal are broadly similar to that of Fernbank, the adjacent property, albeit this property having been converted from a pair of cottages into one, with later single and two-storey extensions. Furthermore, the rear link and workspace element of the proposal relate to the backland development for what would have been buildings for ancillary uses of Bracken Hill and East View, on similar size plots to the east of this site. The workspace proposed as part of this scheme is not however ancillary, it is integral to the function of the live/work unit, albeit its size, reduced though it is from the previous scheme, is still significant. The Housing SPD describes that live/work units typically are used by professionals including accountants; architects; artists and designers; consultants; designers; hair stylists; one-on-one instructors; photographers and similar occupations. Such uses would require a much smaller workspace than that proposed here. Given the site context and how it would relate to surrounding development, the proposal is, very marginally, considered to be of a scale which is appropriate to its surroundings, although officers accept that the size is a significant factor. 8.2.21 In terms of location, the SPD states that new build live/work units sited outside of existing settlements are unlikely to be considered acceptable, although it does provide that proposed live/work units outside an existing settlement or group of existing buildings should be justified; that live/work units should relate well in their form and context to an existing settlement or building group, and should be of a scale and type sympathetic to the area within which it is proposed. As such, the SPD is clear that there are circumstances where a live/work unit can be granted permission outside an existing settlement. The applicant contends that in this case the live/work unit relates well to an existing building group, and that it does not require additional screen landscaping for it to be acceptable. It should also be noted the particular reasons for this development not to be located on a business park: that it would not suit the business model of this catering company, which trades on welcoming customers in to a cottage-industry type premises; and the business would be less efficient, less effective and would incur greater costs and more journeys for staff and customers on an industrial park. 8.2.22 The justification for a live/work unit is accepted; the need for it to be in this location is more finely balanced. Aside from offering prospective customers a hospitable home environment in which to sample buffet options, and to trade on the cottage-industry ethos, the business could equally operate from a place of business in a more sustainable urban location. The mooted gains arising from the reduction in trips for

Page 175 Agenda Item 9 REPORTS FOR DEBATE staff, customers and deliveries are of little material consequence, for whilst the applicant’s need to travel for work would of course be substantially diminished, they will still need to drive to other areas to access services and facilities; their customers and delivery drivers would still need to drive to the premises. That said, the development would relate well to an existing building group, being immediately adjacent to Fernbank in a self-contained parcel of land; the design has been substantially improved to reflect the building traditions of the area, and although the overall scale is a subjective and nuanced consideration, whilst accepting that the total volume of built mass proposed cannot necessarily be sympathetic to its area, its impact overall is not considered to be unduly harmful, the vernacular appearance of the buildings relating well to the built form of residential and agricultural development in the locality. 8.2.23 Matters of scale, transport impact and landscape impact are considered in subsequent paragraphs, but the principle of a rural live/work unit as a new-build development is supported by Policy RUR4 and that there is justification for this development in light of the recently adopted guidance set out in the Housing SPD. 8.3 Scale and Design 8.3.1 The proposal as previously submitted was refused permission as it was considered that the development would have resulted in a new live/work unit of a size and scale inappropriate in this tranquil rural setting. The benefits to the rural economy, of allowing a local business to grow and to continue to support local suppliers, were deemed to be more than outweighed by the policy contradictions inherent in the proposal, in respect of the scale of both the dwelling and of the work unit, and the commercial appearance of the food production unit. The proposal was deemed to detract from the quiet and open character of the local rural area. 8.3.2 Following the determination of the original scheme, the Council has worked with the applicant and agent to amend the proposal so that it might address the reasons for refusal. The proposals have gone through several design iterations to improve its scale and design, influenced by a simplified business case which focuses on the core catering business rather than allowing for hosting dinner parties and future expansion to cater for residential guests. This allows the scale of the dwelling element of the live/work unit to be pared back, and although it is still undeniably a considerably-sized dwelling it is substantially smaller than that previously proposed. Whereas that took the form of a terrace of cottages all amalgamated into one, the scheme is now designed in the simple form of a farmhouse. The triple-gable rear projection on the dwelling refused permission is significantly reduced, almost halved in depth, whilst the main element fronting the road is more appropriately proportioned for rural dwellings in the locality, its narrower gable and steeper roof pitch demonstrating an understanding of local vernacular. 8.3.3 The employment element of the live/work unit has similarly been comprehensively reduced in scale, with a new link unit accommodating staff facilities and the vehicle storage split between the main unit, a separate secure shed and outside parking. The building is taller but it will have the appearance of a farm barn typically found in the District, with Yorkshire boarding and profiled roof cladding. Only the roller-shutter access door gives away the commercial nature of the building, the applicant stipulating that the roller-shutter is necessary as opposed to sliding or opening barn doors as suggested for reasons of security and safety.

Page 176 Agenda Item 9 REPORTS FOR DEBATE 8.3.4 Notwithstanding the negotiated changes to both the residential and employment elements of the proposals, it is acknowledged that overall scale is still a concern and a significant consideration in the planning balance. Neither Policy RUR4 nor the revised guidance set out in the Housing SPD give an absolute size limit for live/work units; instead they require that schemes should be of a scale and type sympathetic to the area within which they are proposed. It is the officer’s view that changing direction on the design of the scheme to one more influenced by farm-related development gives the proposal a more appropriate, rural appearance and the capacity to allow larger buildings one would readily associate with agricultural steadings. The scale and appearance of the workspace building of the previous scheme, its substantial proportions and commercial appearance, and the outsized proportions of the residential space, was clearly an inappropriate development in the countryside for which no amount of support for rural employment live/work units would have justified the proposal. The revisions to the scheme have reduced the scale of the residential element to equate broadly to the proportions of the adjacent property Fernbank, and further afield to the pair of cottages now amalgamated to form East View in the cluster of dwellings to the east, set perpendicular to the road. The residential space is undeniably still a substantial building, but it relates well with its immediate neighbour in its scale and design; taken with the revised size and appearance of the work element, the scheme can be seen to respect its rural setting. It is considered that the more modest farm-style development proposed to provide the live/work unit is of a scale and design that could be more readily accepted in this rural location. 8.3.5 Proposed developments are judged against the Development Plan as a whole. Proposals should conform with all the relevant policies in the Local Plan, so the proposal must meet the requirements of both Policy RUR4 and the general design considerations expected of new development set out in policy DEV5. This requires, amongst other things, that development shall show a clear understanding of the form and character of the District’s built and natural environment; that it shall protect or enhance the District’s distinctive rural environment; and shall reflect the existing streetscene through use of appropriate scale, mass form and design. Whilst by no means suggesting that all development in the rural area should be granted regardless of size and use provided it replicated local building traditions, it is officer’s view that in this instance the proposal can marginally be considered to meet the requirements of policies RUR4 and DEV5, although it is finely balanced in this case due to the scale of the buildings. The development will be perceived in the manner of an agricultural development which respects local built vernacular in its scale and its overall appearance and critically it is permitted through RUR4 for rural employment developments, accepting that the proposal in a rural area is justified and has benefits which outweigh the harm. 8.4 Built Environment/Heritage Assets 8.4.1 The application site does not affect a Conservation Area or any Heritage Asset. The impact on the built historic environment is neutral. 8.5 Residential Amenity 8.5.1 Policy DEV5 requires that development shall protect the amenity of existing residents. There is one dwelling which would be directly impact by the proposal, this being Fernbank located immediately to the west of the application site. It provides an outlook over the site from a ground-floor side window, the side boundary at this part of the site being relatively open; this is however a secondary window, the main outlook from the

Page 177 Agenda Item 9 REPORTS FOR DEBATE room being into the back garden of the property. In the interests of the amenity both of the neighbour at Fernbank and for the applicant, boundary planting to fill the gap in the hedgerow would be required, since the residential element of the live/work unit proposes lounge windows facing the neighbour at 13m. 8.5.2 The hedge along the shared boundary becomes more substantial, interspersed with trees, further into the plot away from the road, and is considered to provide an adequate level of privacy for the neighbour and to screen the domestic garage proposed alongside the boundary, and the work unit and its associated comings and goings. All traffic to the catering unit would use the new additional entrance on the far side of the plot away from the neighbour. The applicant has requested that on a small number of occasions, deliveries before 8am be permitted, to allow for morning funeral buffets to be prepared, and it is considered reasonable to grant deliveries between 7am and 8am on up to 10 occasions per year. Together with the enhancement of the boundary hedge, restricting hours for deliveries to the site as a condition of approval would further protect the neighbour’s amenity to ensure deliveries do not occur at unsociable hours. 8.5.3 It is acknowledged that the proposal, if granted, would have an impact on the amenity of the immediate neighbour, particularly in view of the quiet, undeveloped and rural nature of the setting, which would clearly be affected through the proposal. What should be taken into account however, is that the commercial element of the proposal is essentially the preparation of buffets by the applicant and occasional assistance, with deliveries only made by Luton-sized vans since the business changed from being centred on baking for retail sale, to catering. The objector’s photos of HGVs delivering to site have not been relevant to the business for at least 4 years. At the new site, vans will enter and exit on the far side of the application site from the neighbour. As such it is considered that residential amenity is not significantly compromised and that the proposal meets the requirements of Policy DEV5 in respect of amenity. 8.6 Streetscene/Landscape Impact 8.6.1 The Housing SPD advises that in determining applications, the location of the live/work unit will be taken into account. New build developments sited outside of existing settlements are unlikely to be considered acceptable. Proposals for new live/work units should relate well in their form and context to an existing settlement or building group. Such a proposal should not have to depend on additional screening and landscaping to make the proposal acceptable, but should be seen as complementary to the immediate and existing built and natural environment. Proposed live/work units outside an existing settlement or group of existing buildings should be justified. It must be of a scale and type sympathetic to the area within which it is proposed. Policy RUR4 requires that development shall respect and reinforce local landscape character through the use of good design. 8.6.2 The adoption of the Housing SPD since the previous scheme was determined now provides context for the assessment of rural live/work unit schemes considered under Policy RUR4. The SPD now advises that such developments situated outside existing settlements may, exceptionally, be considered where they are well-related to building groups. The location is some distance from Great Strickland but is not isolated from other development, and it would be seen in the context of the sporadic housing in the locality, most obviously the adjacent Fernbank to which it would relate closely in terms of its scale and appearance, to Moorside Cottage behind Fernbank, and to the cluster of dwellings along the road between 60 and 100m to the west. The location would not

Page 178 Agenda Item 9 REPORTS FOR DEBATE be considered appropriate for market housing development but the surrounding dwellings provide a built environment context in which the proposal would be seen as a progression of the extant piecemeal rural development. 8.6.3 The design changes and the physical reduction in the proposals in terms of scaling back both the residential and the work elements of the live/work unit from the previously refused scheme have to a large degree addressed the landscape impact reasons for rejecting the initial proposal. The enclosed field would no longer have the sense of overdevelopment that would have resulted under the earlier proposal, with the coalescence of the larger, separate elements into a smaller linked design substantially reducing the built footprint of the proposal. The buildings, whilst admittedly still large, are now much more closely aligned to the built tradition of the local vernacular through their design. Whilst the open nature of the landscape will inescapably be compromised by development of this field, the loss of openness and impact on landscape character, on which the previous scheme failed, is here mitigated by the quality of the design which now pays much greater respect to its surroundings, by the layout changes to create a more compact unit, leaving a much greater part of the field open, and by the reduction in the scale of the buildings, which are significantly less imposing on the landscape. 8.6.4 The field is relatively well screened such that, even as the ground levels rise toward the back of the site, the existing hedge to the front boundary, and trees to the side boundaries, screen much of the field from public view. The work unit is to be discretely sited behind the dwelling unit, further up the field such that the existing trees and hedges on the field perimeter are likely to screen the development in summer, and break up the massing of the buildings after the leaves fall in winter. The landscape impact is not considered to be unduly significant. 8.7 Infrastructure: Highways/Drainage 8.7.1 The application proposes to create a new access at the east side of the plot for business-unit traffic, retaining the existing field access toward the west of the site for residential use. A speed survey conducted at the site and submitted with the previous scheme satisfied the County Council Highway Authority that reduced visibility splays of 62m in either direction are acceptable. It is appreciated that several residents have expressed concern over highway safety; however it has been demonstrated that average vehicle speeds are relatively low, and no further issues are raised by the Highway Officer at the County Council. Should permission be granted, it is appropriate to require a plan demonstrating the visibility splays as a condition of approval. 8.7.2 Foul water drainage is to be disposed of via the mains, with soakaways proposed for surface water. Since the site slopes down to the highway it is appropriate to include a prior-approval condition requiring approval of a drainage scheme, informed by onsite investigations, so as to ensure that the proposed method of drainage is appropriate. 8.7.3 In view of the above, it is not considered the proposal would result in any significant harm arising in respect of highway safety or drainage. 8.8 Natural Environment 8.8.1 Impacts on the natural environment are addressed under Policy ENV1 of the Local Plan, which requires that new development shall avoid any net loss of biodiversity and geodiversity, and where possible enhance existing assets. 8.8.2 Although the field itself is likely to be of a limited biodiversity value, the trees and hedgerows around its perimeter may provide habitat or roosting opportunities for

Page 179 Agenda Item 9 REPORTS FOR DEBATE protected species. A landscaping/boundary treatment plan should be agreed as a condition of approval, in order to demonstrate those trees and hedgerows to be retained and areas of additional planting, including enhancing the west hedgerow which has gaps. Should any significant felling be required (although it is not expected that any trees or hedgerows will need to be removed, other than across the site frontage) then approval of the landscaping scheme shall be dependent on an ecology survey conducted prior to development commencing, to ensure appropriate mitigation is factored-in. 9. New Homes Bonus 9.1 The prospect of receiving a Bonus is, in principle, capable of being taken into account as a ‘material consideration’ in determining a planning application. Whether potential Bonus payments are in fact a material consideration in relation to a particular application will depend on whether those payments would be used in a way which is connected to the application and to the use and development of land. For example, potential Bonus payments could be a material consideration if they were to be used to mitigate impacts resulting from development. But if the use to which the payments are to be put is unclear or is for purposes unrelated to the development concerned a decision maker would not be entitled to take them into account when making a decision on a planning application. In this particular case, there are no plans to use the New Homes Bonus arising from this application in connection with this development. 10. Implications 10.1 Legal Implications 10.1.1 The following matters have been considered but no issues are judged to arise. 10.2 Equality and Diversity 10.2.1 The Council must have regard to the elimination of unlawful discrimination and harassment, and the promotion of equality under the Equality Act 2010. 10.3 Environment 10.3.1 The Council must have due regard to conserving bio-diversity under the Natural Environment and Rural Communities Act 2006. 10.4 Crime and Disorder 10.4.1 Under the Crime and Disorder Act 1998, the Council must have regard to the need to reduce crime and disorder in exercising any of its functions. 10.5 Children 10.5.1 Under the Children Act 2004, the Council has a duty to safeguard and promote the welfare of children in the exercise of any of its functions. 10.6 Human Rights 10.6.1 In determining applications, the Council must ensure that all parties get a fair hearing in compliance with the provisions of Article 6 under the European Convention on Human Rights, as now embodied in UK law in the Human Rights Act 1998. 11. Conclusion 11.1 The principle of live/work unit development is supported by Local Plan Policy RUR4. The scheme as amended proposes a new live/work unit which it is conceded is of a large scale aggregating a not-inconsiderable new residential space with a catering unit

Page 180 Agenda Item 9 REPORTS FOR DEBATE and associated vehicle storage. The scheme has been designed such however that its appearance is respectful of its rural setting through appropriate design and finished materials reflective of agricultural development recognisable in the rural locality. 11.2 The recently adopted Housing SPD states that, whilst Policy RUR4 seeks to support employment development in rural areas, there is a balance to be struck between supporting the economic sustainability of local communities and preventing inappropriate development in rural areas which may be contrary to other social and environmental objectives of the Local Plan. With this scheme, the matters are considered to be very finely balanced. 11.3 The development would benefit the rural economy, allowing a local business to grow and to continue to support local suppliers. With the further benefits of efficiencies in reducing vehicle movements, removing the need for off-site storage, uniting the storage in one place, and with a larger storage capacity reducing the frequency of deliveries, it is considered that, very marginally, the scale of the business forming the work element of the proposal can in this instance be justified. The proposal has been substantially redesigned since it was previously assessed and through changes to the scale, proportions, materials, layout and to the business plan itself, its impact on landscape character has been reduced to an extent whereby it can be considered that the consequences of developing this greenfield site, with the scheme as now proposed, do not result in substantial adverse harm to the character of the local rural area. 11.4 The applicant has provided a business case describing an existing, viable home-run enterprise which has outgrown its surroundings, and which trades on a cottage- industry, ‘made-at-home’ ethos which would not be attained on a commercial business estate. The Housing SPD describes live/work units as a way of meeting the employment needs of people in rural areas by way of accommodating a combination of employment and residential space in a single building. Combining living and employment space in a single building can provide a more affordable option for people living in rural areas and can stimulate entrepreneurial growth. The justification for the live/work unit to be in this rural location is not wholly compelling, but it is acknowledged that Policy RUR4 allows, exceptionally, for such development in the rural area and it is considered that, on this occasion, the benefits to the rural economy together with the design changes to reduce the scale and massing, to reflect local built traditions, and to provide a scheme which respects the character of the area, have marginally tipped the planning balance in favour of the proposal. 11.5 Local Plan Policy RUR4 allows the development of live/work units where they can be justified, are of a scale and type sympathetic to their locality, and where they respect the local landscape character. The scheme is furthermore considered acceptable in respect of neighbouring amenity, highway safety, and the natural environment. 11.6 The inherent challenge in deliberating the acceptance of development in the countryside is not undertaken without due very careful consideration. The benefits of sustaining the rural economy must be balanced against the impact of development on the open landscape, on the loss of openness and tranquillity, and the remoteness of this location from the services, shops and facilities of urban areas, access to which relies on private cars, all of which are acknowledged to weigh against the proposal. However, Policy RUR4 specifically accommodates for new build live/work units in rural areas and, though the matter is very finely balanced, it is considered that the proposal as revised has some justification for being located in the rural area, is appropriately

Page 181 Agenda Item 9 REPORTS FOR DEBATE designed to respect its surroundings, and mitigates its landscape impact through its appearance, layout, and vernacular materials, and as such meets the criteria set out in this Policy, and complies with the guidance set out in the Housing SPD. It is conceded however that there are significant reservations with this scale of development in this rural location. A compelling argument could be made for rejecting the scheme; however for the reasons stated above the planning balance is considered to tip, and very closely, in favour of the scheme. The proposal is otherwise considered to comply with Policies LS1, DEV1, and DEV5 of the Eden Local Plan, and the NPPF 2019. As such the application is recommended for approval.

Oliver Shimell Assistant Director Planning and Economic Development

Checked by or on behalf of the Monitoring Officer 

Background Papers: Planning File 20/0133

Page 182 Agenda Item 10 REPORTS FOR DEBATE Date of Committee: 16 July 2020

Planning Application No: 20/0248 Date Received: 20 April 2020

OS Grid Ref: NY 350634, Expiry Date: 16 June 2020 (time 546142 extension agreed to the 20 July 2020)

Parish: Hesket Ward: Hesket

Application Type: Householder Application

Proposal: Creation of gated area with hard standing and erection of timber car port

Location: 2 The Faulds, Front Street, Armathwaite

Applicant: Mrs J Dutton

Agent: None

Case Officer: Caroline Brier

Reason for Referral: Proposal has been called in on material planning grounds by the Parish Council

Page 183 Agenda Item 10 REPORTS FOR DEBATE

Page 184 Agenda Item 10 REPORTS FOR DEBATE 1. Recommendation

It is recommended that planning permission be granted subject to the following conditions: Time limit for commencement 1. The development permitted shall be begun before the expiration of three years from the date of this permission. Reason: In order to comply with the provisions of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 as amended by Section 51 of the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004. Approved Plans 2. The development hereby granted shall be carried out in accordance with the drawings hereby approved: i. Application Form received 20 April 2020 ii. Site Plan received 20 April 2020 iii. New Car Port and Off Street Parking Bay (19-145-01B Rev B) received 29 April 2020 Reason: To ensure a satisfactory development and to avoid any ambiguity as to what constitutes the permission. Before the development is commenced 3. The development shall not commence until visibility splays indicated on drawing No. 19-145-01B Rev B has been physically provided on site with evidence that the vegetation has been removed and or reduced in height. Notwithstanding the provisions of the Town and Country Planning (General Permitted Development) (England) Order 2015 (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 would obstruct the visibility splays. Reason: In the interests of highway safety. It is necessary for the condition to be on the basis that “No development shall commence until” as compliance with the requirements of the condition at a later time could result in unacceptable harm contrary to the policies of the Development Plan.

2. Proposal and Site Description 2.1 Proposal 2.1.1 This proposal is a householder planning application for the creation of an access with a gated area, hard standing and erection of timber car port to provide off street parking for the property known as 2 The Faulds, Front Street, Armathwaite. 2.1.2 The proposal is located in the back garden area and would include the removal of an approximate 6.7 metre section of wall to gain access to the site. 2.1.3 The proposed car port would measure 5.5 metres x 6.1 metres and be 4.5 metres in height. It would be constructed with a Douglas Fir beam and post assembly, with the

Page 185 Agenda Item 10 REPORTS FOR DEBATE posts measuring 2.2 metres in height. A lightweight cedar shingle tiled roof is proposed. Two side hinged folding metal gates at approximately 900mm in height are proposed to the road side elevation. 2.2 Site Description 2.2.1 The site is located to the north eastern side of the village of Armathwaite on a side road that leads from Front Street to the road over Armathwaite Bridge. 2.2.2 The area of land which would site the proposed car port is a flat garden area, with potted plants and a summer house beyond. The garden area is bound by stone walls no higher than 900mm. There are mature trees next to the north west boundary. 2.2.3 The proposal site is not and does not affect any listed buildings or conservation areas and is in a Flood Zone 1. 3. Consultees 3.1 Statutory Consultees Consultee Response Highway Authority A response was received on the 18 May 2020 which advised that ‘Cumbria County Council as Highway Authority would have no objection to the creation of an off road parking area as it is noted that the current parking arrangement in this area is over sub-scribed and the proposal has been reviewed in pre-application advise. The plans which have been provided indicate that the access will be made on to a section of public highway and as such the applicant or approved contractors would need to apply to CCC highways for the required permits associated by the works (See Note). It is also noted that the garden area has established planting which could impair visibility Drawing No 19-145-01B RevB and discussions with the applicant it is understood that the planting arrangement will be modified and maintained into the future to avoid impairment of the required visibility splays and as such CCC would request the inclusion of a condition to see that the visibility splays are secure before the works commencing and should remain maintained and clear of visual obstructions thereafter’. Lead Local Flood Authority A response was received on the 18 May 2020 which advised that the Environment Agency may need to be contacted regarding a flood risk assessment due to the site being close to a Flood Zone 2. The proposal does not meet the criteria to consult with the Environment Agency due to its minor nature.

4. Parish Council Response Please Tick as Appropriate Parish Council Object Support No Response No View

Page 186 Agenda Item 10 REPORTS FOR DEBATE Expressed Hesket  4.1 The Parish Council provided comments on the 25 May 2020 advising that they object to the application on the following material planning ground: ‘Highways issues – the proposed access is on a tight corner that already has issues with access and visibility, with junctions either side. With regard to stipulations that vegetation should be kept to a minimum height to aid visibility, the Parish Council would have ongoing concerns as to how this would be ‘policed’ – similar issues have arisen in other areas of the Parish, where road access from properties has been granted, but subsequently vegetation has not been maintained, creating further danger to road users. Additionally, the Parish Council does not feel these stipulations adequately alleviate road safety concerns’. 4.2 The Parish Council were provided with a copy of Highways comments, including the proposed condition which looks to address visibility and vegetation concerns and advising that if approval was granted and the condition not complied with it would constitute a breach in planning control. 4.3 A response was received on the 1 June 2020 confirming that ‘Councillors read the Highways response, and felt that this did not adequately address their concerns regarding visibility and access at the proposed location. Therefore, the Parish would still like to object to this application on Highways issues’. 5. Representations 5.1 Letters of consultation were sent to nearby neighbours on the 30 April 2020 and a site notice was posted on 4 May 2020. No of Neighbours Consulted 9 No of letters of support 1 No of Representations Received 0 No of neutral representations 0 No of objection letters 0 5.2 A letter of support was received from Cllr Ryland stating ‘happy to support this which will take vehicles off-road where the village is congested, this will also help to ease local tensions regarding access at the start of the c1038 road’. 6. Relevant Planning History 6.1 There is no relevant planning history. 7. Policy Context 7.1 Development Plan Eden Local Plan (2014-32)  DEV3 – Transport, Accessibility and Rights of Way  DEV5 - Design of New Development 7.2 Other Material Considerations National Planning Policy Framework:  Chapter 2 - Achieving sustainable development  Chapter 4 - Decision-making

Page 187 Agenda Item 10 REPORTS FOR DEBATE  Chapter 12 - Achieving well-designed places 7.3 The policies detailed above are the most relevant policies relating to this application. 8. Planning Assessment 8.1 Key/Main Planning Issues  Principle  Landscape and Visual Impacts  Residential Amenity  Scale and Design  Infrastructure - Highways 8.2 Principle 8.2.1 This proposal seeks approval for the creation an access with a gated area and hard standing and erection of timber car port to provide off street parking. 8.2.2 Policy DEV3 – ‘Transport, Accessibility and Rights of Way’ advises that development will be refused if it will result in a severe impact in terms of road safety and increased traffic congestion. 8.2.3 Policy DEV5 – ‘Design of New Development’ requires developments (inter alia) to show a clear understanding of the form and character of the districts built and natural environment, complementing and enhancing the existing area. It also looks for proposals to reflect the existing street scene through use of appropriate scale, mass, form, layout, high quality architectural design and use of material. 8.2.4 It is considered that the proposal meets the aims and requirements of the above mentioned policies in principle due to Cumbria County Council’s support from a Highways perspective and the sympathetic design of the car port, subject to further consideration on the impact on landscape, neighbouring amenities, scale and design and infrastructure which are discussed in the following sections of this report. 8.3 Landscape and Visual Impacts 8.3.1 Policy DEV5 (inter alia) looks for proposals to show a clear understanding of the form and character of the district’s built and natural environment. 8.3.2 The proposed car port would be erected at the bottom end of the rear garden area and would be visible within the immediate street scene. However, it is considered to be designed in a sympathetic manner and constructed of neutral timber materials which would be seen within a domestic context resulting in no discernible or adverse impact upon the character and appearance of the host property or the character of the area. 8.3.3 The site is shielded by mature trees when approaching it in a north westerly direction. It is also shielded by buildings close to the site meaning that neither the proposed car port or the access would be visible in the wider landscape. 8.3.4 The proposal is considered to show a clear understanding of the form and character of the area, without causing harm to the distinctive character of the area. It also reflects the existing street scene through the use of appropriate scale, mass form and layout. As such the proposal is considered to meet the aims and requirements of policy DEV5 in terms of impacts on the landscape and visual amenity. 8.4 Residential Amenity

Page 188 Agenda Item 10 REPORTS FOR DEBATE 8.4.1 Policy DEV5 requires that (inter alia) development shall protect the amenity of existing residents and provide an acceptable amenity for future occupiers. 8.4.2 The closest neighbouring properties are Pine Cottage and Fern House, located approximately 10 to 12 metres to the south west of the proposed car port on the opposite side of the road. Garth Close Fauld is located approximately 19 metres to the north east, a row of properties just over 20 metres away to the north west side of Front Street and Low Flatts approximately 55 metres to the east. 8.4.3 Given the nature of the proposed development, for an open sided car port to park two vehicles, it is not considered that it would cause any adverse impacts on the amenity to any neighbouring properties resulting from loss of privacy, loss of light and neither would it appear overbearing due to its positioning. As such, this meets the aims and requirements of policy DEV5. 8.5 Scale and Design 8.5.1 Policy DEV5 requires (inter alia) developments to reflect the existing street scene through the use of appropriate scale, mass, form, layout, high quality architectural design and use of materials. 8.5.2 The proposed car port would measure 5.5 metres x 6.1 metres and be 4.5 metres in height. It would be constructed with a Douglas Fir beam and post assembly, with the posts measuring 2.2 metres in height. A lightweight cedar shingle tiled roof is proposed. Two side hinged folding metal gates at approximately 900mm in height are proposed to the road side elevation. The proposed access is considered to be in- keeping with a residential curtilage and would not appear as an incongruous development. 8.5.3 It is considered that high quality materials and relatively neutral materials are being proposed which are in-keeping with this type of development and would reflect the existing street scene as a development in a rear garden. 8.5.4 The proposal is considered to be of a scale and design that is acceptable and is in accordance with policy DEV5. 8.6 Infrastructure – Highways 8.6.1 Policy DEV3 advises that development will be refused if it will result in a severe impact in terms of road safety and increased traffic congestion. 8.6.2 The Parish Council are objecting to the application as they consider it to be on a tight corner that they refer to as having issues with access and visibility, with junctions either side. They are also concerned that vegetation may not be maintained as per the plans provided, as similar issues have arisen in other area of the Parish, where road access from properties has been granted, but subsequently vegetation has not been maintained, creating further danger to road users 8.6.3 Cumbria County Council have advised that they ‘would have no objection to the creation of an off road parking area as it is noted that the current parking arrangement in this area is over sub-scribed and the proposal has been reviewed in pre-application advise’. They note that there is established planting that could impair visibility and request a condition be attached to any approval granted to ensure the visibility splays are maintained and clear of visual obstructions. 8.6.4 The strip of road in which the proposal site is located is approximately 16 metres in length with ‘give way’ junctions at each end. It is not anticipated that vehicles would be

Page 189 Agenda Item 10 REPORTS FOR DEBATE able to travel quickly along it due to its narrow nature and short length, requiring them to stop at either end, before pulling out onto other roads. The proposed access would be located approximately 10 metres from the corner. 8.6.5 Located immediately to the south east of the proposal site, just inside the junction is an existing access. 8.6.6 Given the nature of the narrow road that the access would be created off in a location where vehicles would be unable to travel quickly and given Cumbria County Council’s comments, it is not considered that this proposal would result in a severe impact to road safety or increased traffic congestion. The requirement of visibility splays and the low height of the existing wall is considered to provide acceptable views in a north westerly direction to see any vehicle turning off Front Street close to the proposed access and there are good long views in a south easterly direction. It is considered that the provision of off-street parking for the property, in an area where the village is congested will result in positive impacts on the highway network and therefore considered to be in accordance with policy DEV3. 9. Implications 9.1 Legal Implications 9.1.1 The following matters have been considered but no issues are judged to arise. 9.2 Equality and Diversity 9.2.1 The Council must have regard to the elimination of unlawful discrimination and harassment, and the promotion of equality under the Equality Act 2010. 9.3 Environment 9.3.1 The Council must have due regard to conserving bio-diversity under the Natural Environment and Rural Communities Act 2006. 9.4 Crime and Disorder 9.4.1 Under the Crime and Disorder Act 1998, the Council must have regard to the need to reduce crime and disorder in exercising any of its functions. 9.5 Children 9.5.1 Under the Children Act 2004, the Council has a duty to safeguard and promote the welfare of children in the exercise of any of its functions. 9.6 Human Rights 9.6.1 In determining applications, the Council must ensure that all parties get a fair hearing in compliance with the provisions of Article 6 under the European Convention on Human Rights, as now embodied in UK law in the Human Rights Act 1998. 10. Conclusion 10.1 It is considered that the proposal accords with the Development Plan for the following reasons which are not outweighed by material considerations: 10.2 The proposal for the creation of an access with a gated area and hard standing and the erection of timber car port to provide off-street parking has been designed and located to make the best use of the land available without adversely impacting on any neighbouring properties which is in accordance with policy DEV5.

Page 190 Agenda Item 10 REPORTS FOR DEBATE 10.3 The provision of off-street parking in an area advised to be oversubscribed is considered to be of benefit to the area. Satisfactory measures are proposed to ensure that maximum visibility is provided for the location of the proposal which is acceptable to Cumbria County Council’s Highways department. The proposal would therefore not have any demonstrably congestion or road safety impacts and as such meets the aims and requirements of policy DEV3. 10.4 It is concluded that the proposals are acceptable and compliant with policies DEV3 and DEV5 and as such is considered to be supportable. Oliver Shimell Assistant Director Planning and Economic Development

Checked by or on behalf of the Monitoring Officer 29.06.2020

Background Papers: Planning File 20/0248

Page 191 This page is intentionally left blank