Date: 10 July 2019
Town Hall, Penrith, Cumbria CA11 7QF Tel: 01768 817817 Email: [email protected]
Dear Sir/Madam
Planning Committee Agenda - 18 July 2019
Notice is hereby given that a meeting of the Planning Committee will be held at 9.30 am on Thursday, 18 July 2019 at the Council Chamber, Town Hall, Penrith.
1 Apologies for Absence
2 Minutes
To sign the minutes Pla/14/06/19 to Pla/26/06/19 of the meeting of this Committee held on 20 June 2019 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 Appeal Decision Letters (Pages 5 - 16)
To receive report PP14/19 from the Assistant Director Planning and Economic Development which is attached and which lists decision letters from the Planning Inspectorate received since the last meeting:
Application Applicant/Appeal Appeal Decision No. 18/0829 Mr Ray King The appeal is Skirsgill Lane, Eamont Bridge, dismissed. Penrith, CA10 2BQ
The appeal is made under section 78 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 against a refusal to grant planning permission.
The development proposed is erection of single dwelling intended for local occupancy.
Rose Rouse Chief Executive www.eden.gov.uk
Mr Ray King The application for Skirsgill Lane, Eamont Bridge, an award of cost is Penrith, CA10 2BQ refused.
The application is made under the Town and Country Planning Act 1990, Sections 78, 322 and Schedule 6, and the Local Government Act 1972, section 250(5).
The appeal was against the refusal of planning permissions for erection of single dwelling intended for local occupancy. 18/0251 Messrs Simpson and Fishwick The appeal is Land adjacent to ‘Kiln House’, Keld dismissed. Lane, Keld, Shap
The appeal is made under section 78 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 against a refusal to grant outline planning permission.
The development proposed is the erection of two detached local occupancy dwellings.
5 Planning Issues (Pages 17 - 24)
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 2019 b) Reasons for refusal on delegated decisions for the month of June 2019
6 Planning Issues - Applications for Debate (Green Papers) (Pages 25 - 44)
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: 19/0243 Recommended to:
Outline planning permission for a REFUSE residential development with all matters With Reasons reserved 27
Hunter Hall Farm, Great Salkeld
C/O Addis Town Planning Ltd www.eden.gov.uk 2
2 Planning Application No: 19/0220 Recommended to:
Variation of Condition 2 (Plans APPROVE Compliance) for amendments to design Subject to Conditions and discharge of Condition 3 (Surface Water Drainage), 4 (Visibility Splays), 6 36 (Parking) and 7 (Window Details) attached to approval 18/0327
Ingle Neuk, Lazonby, Penrith
Mr Wilkinson
7 Quarterly Planning Performance Report - 2019/20 Quarter 1 (Pages 45 - 48)
To receive report PP15/19 from Assistant Director Planning and Economic Development which outlines the ongoing performance of the Council’s Planning Services in relation to Key Performance Indicators and Planning Enforcement matters.
8 Confirmation of Site Visits (if any)
To confirm the date and location of any site visits that may have been agreed.
9 Any Other Items which the Chairman decides are urgent
10 Date of Next Meeting
The date of the next scheduled meeting be confirmed as 15 August 2019.
Yours faithfully
R Rouse Chief Executive
Democratic Services Contact: Vivien Little
Encs
For Attention All members of the Council
Chairman – Councillor W Patterson (Independent Group) Vice Chairman – Councillor I Chambers (Conservative Group)
www.eden.gov.uk 3
Councillors M Clark, Independent Group A Ross, Green Group M Eyles, Liberal Democrat Group H Sawrey-Cookson, Independent Group D Holden, Liberal Democrat Group G Simpkins, Liberal Democrat Group J C Lynch, Conservative Group J G Thompson, Conservative Group G Nicolson OBE, Conservative Group
Standing Deputies P G Baker, Liberal Democrat Group A Meadowcroft, Conservative Group D Banks, Independent Group J Owen MBE, Conservative Group L Harker, Liberal Democrat Group D Smith, Liberal Democrat Group S Lancaster, Independent Group D Wicks, Conservative Group
Please Note: 1. Access to the internet in the Council Chamber and Committee room is available via the guest wi-fi – no password is required 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 4 Agenda Item 4
Report No: PP14/19
Eden District Council
Planning Committee 18 July 2019
Appeal Decision Letters
Report of the Assistant Director Planning and Economic Development
Attached for Members’ information is a list of Decision Letters received since the last meeting:
Application Applicant Appeal Decision Number(s)
18/0829 Mr Ray King The appeal is Skirsgill Lane, Eamont Bridge, Penrith, CA10 dismissed. 2BQ
The appeal is made under section 78 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 against a refusal to grant planning permission.
The development proposed is erection of single dwelling intended for local occupancy.
Mr Ray King The application Skirsgill Lane, Eamont Bridge, Penrith, CA10 for an award of 2BQ costs is refused.
The application is made under the Town and Country Planning Act 1990, sections 78, 322 and Schedule 6, and the Local Government Act 1972, section 250(5).
The appeal was against the refusal of planning permission for erection of single dwelling intended for local occupancy.
Page 5 Application Applicant Appeal Decision Number(s)
18/0251 Messrs Simpson and Fishwick The appeal is Land adjacent to ‘Kiln House’, Keld Lane, Keld, dismissed. Shap
The appeal is made under section 78 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 against a refusal to grant outline planning permission.
The development proposed is the erection of two detached local occupancy dwellings.
Oliver Shimell Assistant Director Planning and Economic Development
Page 6
Appeal Decision Site visit made on 13 May 2019 by Felicity Thompson BA(Hons) MCD MRTPI an Inspector appointed by the Secretary of State Decision date: 10th June 2019
Appeal Ref: APP/H0928/W/19/3222726 Skirsgill Lane, Eamont Bridge, Penrith, UK, CA10 2BQ • The appeal is made under section 78 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 against a refusal to grant planning permission. • The appeal is made by Mr Ray King against the decision of Eden District Council. • The application Ref 18/0829, dated 3 October 2018, was refused by notice dated 20 December 2018. • The development proposed is erection of single dwelling intended for local occupancy.
Decision
1. The appeal is dismissed. Application for costs
2. An application for costs was made by Mr Ray King against Eden District Council. This application is the subject of a separate Decision.
Main Issue
3. The main issue is whether the site would be a suitable location for the proposed development having regard to the risk of flooding.
Reasons
4. Policy DEV 2 of the Eden District Local Plan 2014 – 2032 (the Local Plan) relates to Water Management and Flood Risk and sets out criteria in respect of the location of new development which must be met, including that it meets the sequential approach to development in flood risk areas. It states that inappropriate development will not be permitted in Flood Zones 2 and 3, critical drainage areas or areas which have a history of groundwater flooding, or where it would increase flood risk elsewhere unless there is an overriding need and a clear absence of a suitable alternative site. Further, if sites, as an exception, need to be developed in areas at risk of flooding, suitable flood protection measures will be required.
5. Paragraph 155 of the National Planning Policy Framework (the Framework) states 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.
https://www.gov.uk/planning-inspectorate Page 7 Appeal Decision APP/H0928/W/19/3222726
6. Paragraph 158 of the Framework states that 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.
7. The appeal site is located adjacent to Skirsgill Lane and is an island within flood zones, the site itself being within Flood Zone 2 (medium probability of flooding) and the surrounding land Flood Zone 3 (high probability of flooding). Whilst the site is located within Flood Zone 2 and in their decision notice the Council refer to Flood Zone 3, in their consultation response in respect of this proposal, the Environment Agency (EA) stated that following completion of further hydraulic modelling of the River Eamont the proposed site is highly likely to be re- classified as Flood Zone 3. Given the EAs’ role in flood risk management I attach significant weight to this.
8. The appellant submitted a Flood Risk Assessment (FRA) with their planning application which identifies that the risk of flooding from groundwater is low, contrary to the Council’s contention. Nevertheless, it confirms that the site is at high risk of flooding from main rivers/watercourses.
9. In their response the EA confirmed that they were satisfied that the FRA demonstrates that the proposed development would not be at an unacceptable risk of flooding or exacerbate flood risk elsewhere. Whilst they went on to consider the proposal satisfies the second element of the exception test set out in Paragraph 160 of the Framework, they highlighted that if the local planning authority (LPA) determined that the sequential test had not been met then the application would not be in compliance with the Framework and they would not support it.
10. The Planning Practice Guidance (PPG) advises that the aim of the sequential test is to steer new development to Flood Zone 1 (areas with a low probability of river or sea flooding). This general approach is designed to ensure that areas at little or no risk of flooding from any source are developed in preference to areas at higher risk. The aim should be to keep development out of medium and high flood risk areas (Flood Zones 2 and 3) and other areas affected by other sources of flooding where possible.
11. The sequential test must be passed before the exception test can be applied. While the EA commented in respect of the exception test, and the appellant may rely on this, their response does not mean they endorse the appellant’s consideration of any sequential test. The responsibility for deciding on this rests with the decision maker. In the appeal decision referred to by the Council, albeit in a different part of the country, the Inspector referenced the EAs’ comments in respect of another proposal where they stated ‘The lack of technical objections to the scheme, however, does not override the primacy of steering developments to areas of lower probability of flooding, in this case to sites located within Floodzone 1’.1
12. The appellant has undertaken a sequential test which I acknowledge was accepted by the planning officer who dealt with the application. Nevertheless, the PPG states that in the first place it is the LPAs responsibility to consider if the sequential test has been satisfied, informed by evidence provided by the developer.
1 APP/E12210/W/17/3175948
https://www.gov.uk/planning-inspectorate 2 Page 8 Appeal Decision APP/H0928/W/19/3222726
13. The PPG advises that the area to apply the sequential test across will be defined by local circumstances relating to the catchment area for the type of development proposed. For housing, the extent of the test should not be constrained by land ownership and realistically will often extend across a town or district area. The planning officer considered the catchment area of the proposed development to be the settlement of Eamont Bridge however, this seems to me to be a narrow search area particularly given that the site is within the Parish of Penrith and the town of Penrith is only a short distance from the site.
14. Given the scale and nature of the proposed development, a proportionate approach to the sequential test is appropriate. However, the appellants sequential test is very limited, whilst it is stated that they searched within an area of 10 miles distance utilising local estate agencies and the internet, and all searches have presented no equivalent sites within that location, only limited details have been provided of a small number of sites considered with little analysis or explanation. In my view it does not provide robust evidence to demonstrate that there are no reasonably alternative equivalent sites where the proposal could be developed.
15. The Council state that there are many allocated sites within Penrith. Whilst they have provided no details of alternative sites, as the Inspector in the appeal decision provided by the Council stated, ‘there is no necessity for the Council to demonstrate the availability of sites of exactly equivalent size, or sites which are available to the Appellant, to show the availability of sites in areas of lower flood risk than the appeal site’. Furthermore, I note that the Council can demonstrate a supply of housing land equivalent to 6.8 years. On this basis it seems likely to me that there may be alternative sites capable of accommodating the development.
16. Given the above, in my judgement, the sequential test has not demonstrated that there are no reasonably available sites appropriate for the proposed development in areas with a lower probability of flooding. The proposal therefore fails the sequential test and would not be an acceptable form of development with regard to flood risk and would be contrary to Policy DEV 2 of the Local Plan and the Framework.
17. As the sequential test is not passed there is no need to apply the exception test.
Other Matters
18. I have had regard to the planning permission granted by the Council last year for the erection of a dwelling and garage on land approximately 25m away from the appeal site within Flood Zone 3. I acknowledge the apparent similarities with this case albeit this proposal would deliver a local occupancy dwelling. I note that this was granted under delegated powers and that the Committee were made aware of this decision. However, I have considered this appeal on the basis of the evidence before me and on my understanding of the advice in the Framework and the PPG.
19. That the proposal would not result in any material harm to other interests of acknowledged importance, including visual amenity, highway safety, or the living conditions of neighbouring occupants, and that with the exception of the qualified response from the EA, there were no objections from statutory
https://www.gov.uk/planning-inspectorate 3 Page 9 Appeal Decision APP/H0928/W/19/3222726
consultees other than the Parish Council, are neutral matters which cannot outweigh my findings.
20. I acknowledge that the appellant sought pre-application advice from the Council and the EA however, these are informal opinions which have no bearing on the planning merits of the proposal.
21. That the planning officer recommended approval and this was overturned by a small margin at the Planning Committee, that they may have been influenced by the images provided by an objector taken during Storm Desmond, a 1:1000 year flood event, and the Council’s motivations for approving planning permission reference 18/0188, are matters which have no bearing on my assessment of the planning merits of the proposal.
22. I agree that application 17/0792, 45 metres to the north of the appeal site which relates to a variation of a condition is not relevant or comparable to the proposal before me and weighs neither for nor against the proposal.
Conclusion
23. For the reasons given above and having regard to all matters raised, the appeal is dismissed. Felicity Thompson
INSPECTOR
https://www.gov.uk/planning-inspectorate 4 Page 10
Costs Decision Site visit made on 13 May 2019 by Felicity Thompson BA(Hons) MCD MRTPI an Inspector appointed by the Secretary of State Decision date: 10th June 2019
Costs application in relation to Appeal Ref: APP/H0928/W/19/3222726 Skirsgill Lane, Eamont Bridge, Penrith, UK, CA10 2BQ • The application is made under the Town and Country Planning Act 1990, sections 78, 322 and Schedule 6, and the Local Government Act 1972, section 250(5). • The application is made by Mr Ray King for a full award of costs against Eden District Council. • The appeal was against the refusal of planning permission for erection of single dwelling intended for local occupancy.
Decision
1. The application for an award of costs is refused. Reasons
2. Planning Policy Guidance (PPG) advises that, irrespective of the outcome of the appeal, costs may only be awarded against a party who has behaved unreasonably and caused the party applying for costs to incur unnecessary or wasted expense in the appeal process.
3. The basis of this costs claim is that, in the view of the applicant, the Council acted unreasonably in substantive matters relating to the application, in failing to substantiate its reasons for refusing the application and preventing development which should have been permitted.
4. The PPG makes it clear that a local planning authority is at risk of an award of costs if it fails to produce evidence to substantiate each reason for refusal on appeal and/or makes vague, generalised or inaccurate assertions about a proposal’s impact which are unsupported by any objective analysis.
5. While the Council is not duty bound to follow the advice of its professional officers, if a different decision is reached the Council has to clearly demonstrate on planning grounds why a proposal is unacceptable and provide clear evidence to substantiate that reasoning.
6. The decision was made contrary to officer recommendation and by a small margin at the Planning Committee. Whilst images were provided by an objector which depicted a 1:1000 year flood event and it is likely that some images may have provoked an emotive response, there is no substantive evidence before me to demonstrate that the decision was made solely on this basis.
7. In their consultation response the Environment Agency (EA) confirmed that they were satisfied that the submitted Flood Risk Assessment demonstrates
https://www.gov.uk/planning-inspectorate Page 11 Costs Decision APP/H0928/W/19/3222726
that the proposed development would not be at an unacceptable risk of flooding or exacerbate flood risk elsewhere. Whilst they went on to consider the proposal satisfies the second element of the Exception Test set out in Paragraph 160 of the National Planning Policy Framework (the Framework), they highlighted that if the local planning authority determined that the sequential test had not been met then the application would not be in compliance with the Framework and they would not support it. This is not unqualified support for the proposal.
8. The Councils appeal statement addresses the applicant’s sequential test and why they consider it had not been passed. It is evident from my decision that I agree with the Council and that having regard to the provisions of the development plan, national planning policy and other material considerations, the development proposed should not have been permitted.
9. I consider the Council were unreasonable to refer to groundwater flooding in their decision notice without any substantive evidence, and to the site being within Flood Zone 3. However, given my above findings, I am not persuaded that this has led to the applicant incurring unnecessary or wasted expense in the appeal process so as to justify an award of costs.
10. Therefore, the application for an award of costs is refused. Felicity Thompson
INSPECTOR
https://www.gov.uk/planning-inspectorate 2 Page 12
Appeal Decision Site visit made on 28 May 2019
by Laura Renaudon LLM LARTPI Solicitor
an Inspector appointed by the Secretary of State Decision date: 19 June 2019
Appeal Ref: APP/H0928/W/19/3224668 Land adjacent to ‘Kiln House’, Keld Lane, Keld, Shap • The appeal is made under section 78 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 against a refusal to grant outline planning permission. • The appeal is made by Messrs Simpson and Fishwick against the decision of Eden District Council. • The application Ref 18/0251, dated 26 March 2018, was refused by notice dated 16 November 2018. • The development proposed is the erection of two detached local occupancy dwellings.
Decision
1. The appeal is dismissed. Procedural Matter
2. The development proposal was submitted in outline form, with the proposed access and layout for consideration at this stage but all other matters reserved. The proposed access arrangements were revised during the course of the application and there is no objection to these from the local highway authority or any other party.
Main Issue
3. The main issue arising in the appeal is the effect of the proposed development on the character and appearance of the hamlet of Keld and the surrounding landscape.
Reasons
4. The recently-adopted Eden Local Plan of 2014–2032 supports the provision of housing in the ‘Smaller Villages and Hamlets’, including Keld, subject to compliance with several criteria. Policy HS2 supports development of an appropriate scale, which reflects the built form of adjoining and neighbouring development to the site and the service function of the settlement, where a dwelling would be limited in floorspace, be restricted by legal mechanism to occupation by persons meeting local connection criteria, and be either ‘infilling’ or ‘rounding off’ development in accordance with Policy LS1. Policy LS1 sets out the district’s locational housing strategy, permitting development in the Smaller Villages and Hamlets that is of a high quality design and is restricted to infilling, rounding off, or re-use of existing buildings.
https://www.gov.uk/planning-inspectorate Page 13 Appeal Decision APP/H0928/W/19/3224668
5. The Smaller Villages and Hamlets to which policy LS1 is applicable are those listed in the policy, consisting of at least 10 well-related dwellings in close proximity to each other. Policy ENV2 permits new development only where it conserves and enhances distinctive elements of landscape character and function, and which should account for the distribution and form of settlements and building within their landscape setting. Policy DEV5 requires new development to be appropriate to form and character and to reflect the existing street scene.
6. The parties consider that a local occupancy restriction may be obtained by the imposition of a planning condition, and, although ‘scale’ is a reserved matter, the parties to the appeal are agreed that the floorspace of the proposed new dwellings could be appropriately restricted by a planning condition. These elements of policy HS2 could therefore be satisfied. It is common ground that the proposed development would not amount to ‘infilling’, but the parties disagree on whether it would constitute ‘rounding off’.
7. Policy LS1 refers to “rounding off, which provides a modest extension beyond the limit of the settlement to a logical, defensible boundary” and, although it is not explicit that this is an exhaustive definition, the Council’s case is that “rounding off” is so defined (Appeal Statement paragraph 7.9).
8. Keld is a rural hamlet consisting of some 21 dwellings lying close to the boundary of the Lake District National Park, which is a World Heritage Site and thus a designated heritage asset for the purposes of Chapter 16 of the National Planning Policy Framework, and about a mile (by road) south west of the village of Shap, where shops, services and facilities are to be found. Keld lies in a bowl at around 240m AOD with generally rising land on all sides, most notably to the fells of the Lake District to the south, and otherwise to well- defined agricultural fields bounded by drystone walls. Keld Lane descends to the hamlet from Shap. The River Lowther flows to the west.
9. The appeal proposal is to erect two detached dwellings to the (approximately) northern side of Keld Lane as it leaves the hamlet to the north east, on an existing area of undeveloped pasture. These dwellings would be bounded to Keld Lane to their (approximately) southern front, to the ‘Miller’s Way’ public footpath to the west, to ‘Roughley Lane’ to the east, and by a new drystone wall to their northern rear. Beyond those immediate boundaries, the dwellings would lie alongside agricultural fields to three sides, and the curtilage of the south westernmost dwelling would lie adjacent to the existing ‘Kiln House’ to its south west.
10. ‘Kiln House’ and its south western neighbour ‘Rivendell’ are relatively recent additions to the hamlet. Like other more modern dwellings to the other, south western, end of the hamlet, also on the same northern side of the road, they are set back from the road frontage with some land to their sides. The historic core of the hamlet, in between, is more compact and clustered, with buildings more immediately abutting the road and lying in very close proximity to each other.
11. The present eastern boundary of the hamlet is the ‘Miller’s Way’ public footpath that passes through the eastern side garden of Kiln House. It is marked by a finger post pointing to Shap Abbey, and otherwise by a drystone wall to its eastern side. As a public footpath recorded on the Definitive Map, it is a very durable boundary although not particularly discernible physically. Roughley
https://www.gov.uk/planning-inspectorate 2 Page 14 Appeal Decision APP/H0928/W/19/3224668
Lane, by contrast, is a well-defined physical feature that, although not appearing to have the status of a highway, has appeared on maps for over 120 years and the permanence of it is not questioned by either party. It would be a defensible boundary. I also accept the appellants’ contention that the existing development pattern of the hamlet could serve to restrict development to the rear of the site, although the particular rear site boundary chosen by the appeal proposals is not set as far back from the road as those of some other properties in the hamlet, including the adjoining Kiln House whose rear curtilage extends to around the same depth from the road as the point where Roughley Lane bends 90° to the north east.
12. Nevertheless, although defensible, the proposed eastern boundary of Roughley Lane would neither be logical nor result in a modest extension to the settlement. Additionally, the proposed development would not accord with the requirements of policies HS2, DEV5 and ENV1 to reflect the distribution of settlements within their landscape setting and the built form of adjoining and neighbouring developments.
13. An additional 2 dwellings, amounting to around a 10% increase, would not of themselves necessarily be an immodest extension. The hamlet currently has no apparent service function beyond the attraction of the National Trust Chapel, reliant as it is on the settlements at Shap and beyond, and this would not change as a result of the proposed development. However, the development of the appeal site would not represent a modest extension of the settlement but rather a substantial incursion into the countryside. The frontage of the appeal site is approximately 70m wide, which would represent a substantial linear extension to this small hamlet of the order of around 20%. The adjoining houses, Kiln House and Rivendell, have site frontages of around 25m each, which are themselves more substantial than those generally found in the historic core of the settlement. The proposed significantly more generous curtilage frontages here would not relate well to the existing close-knit settlement pattern, but would be rather disparate.
14. Kiln House and the ‘Miller’s Way’ footpath lie almost opposite Thornship Lane, and the settlement is largely clustered below this road junction at present. The first building on the opposite side of the road lies below Thornship Lane, to the south west. Thornship Lane leads to another small hamlet and, like the road out of Keld to the west, connects into the public footpath network at its end. At present the hamlet is enclosed by the Miller’s Way and by Thornship Lane to its eastern end. The provision of houses on the appeal site, lying well above the road junction and on rising ground away from the ‘bowl’ of the settlement, would not relate well to the existing settlement, but would be perceived as a rather incongruous and prominent addition rather than as a modest extension. Roughley Lane provides the gateway to a number of field entrances, and has no obvious direct connection with the hamlet itself. Rather, it is a farm track that happens to be located fairly close to the hamlet. Building up to it would not provide a logical boundary to the settlement.
15. The hamlet and the surrounding countryside, although lying close to the Lake District National Park, are not the subject of any particular landscape designations, and I do not consider that the proposed development would result in harm to the designated heritage asset. Nevertheless policy ENV2 requires new development proposals to complement the distribution and form of settlements, and local styles of buildings within settlements. Impacts are to
https://www.gov.uk/planning-inspectorate 3 Page 15 Appeal Decision APP/H0928/W/19/3224668
be assessed against the Cumbrian Landscape Assessment Toolkit. The site lies within Type 12, “Higher Limestone”. The Toolkit describes the local building vernacular as a mixture of discrete nucleated villages and dispersed farms, and identifies small traditional villages as sensitive to expansion. Its guidelines include protecting settlement fringes from unsympathetic development, and ensuring new development respects the scale, form and distinctive character of villages.
16. Although, again, scale is a reserved matter, the application drawings show the proposed dwellings to be single-storey, and the appellants have indicated that a planning condition restricting the ridge height of the dwellings to no higher than that of Kiln House (suggested by the indicative road frontage drawing to mean the AOD height) would be acceptable, in the interests of visual amenity and out of respect for the appearance and character of the settlement, referring to policy DEV5. However, although limiting the height of the dwellings would limit the prominence of their appearance in the landscape, single-storey dwellings in the proposed rather spacious plots would not reflect the existing built form or character of the settlement, whose existing houses consist of 2 or 3 storeys in closer proximity to each other. The proposed layout would be unsympathetic to the settlement fringe and would be inappropriate to the existing form of the hamlet.
17. For these reasons the proposed development would not amount to “rounding off” the settlement, and the layout would preclude a high quality design in this context, so conflicting overall with policy LS1. Because the development would not reflect the adjoining built form, it would also conflict with policy HS2. By failing to account adequately for the distribution and form of the settlement and the buildings within its landscape setting, or to be appropriate to the existing form and character of the hamlet, the proposed development would also conflict with policies ENV2 and DEV5.
18. There are no insurmountable matters arising in respect of highway safety, flooding or neighbouring amenity concerns, subject to the imposition of appropriate conditions, and the provision of housing that is restricted to those meeting local occupancy criteria would be an undoubted benefit of the development. Nevertheless I have been provided with no evidence of any pressing need for the development that might outweigh the harm I have identified, or justify overriding the provisions of the recently-adopted development plan. Overall the appeal proposals conflict with the provisions of the development plan for the area, and so the appeal is dismissed. Laura Renaudon
INSPECTOR
https://www.gov.uk/planning-inspectorate 4 Page 16 PLANNING COMMITTEE Agenda Item No. APPLICATIONS DETERMINED UNDER OFFICER DELEGATED POWERS FOR THE MONTH OF JUNE 2019
App No App Type Parish Description Location Applicant Decision
19/0074 Full Application Hartley Variation of condition 2 (plans compliance) to include BARN SOUTH OF BRAITHWAITE, Mr T Dixon APPROVED amendments to design and layout of dwelling HARTLEY, KIRKBY STEPHEN, CA17 attached to approval 16/0818. 4JH
19/0111 Full Application Dufton Extension to rear of property and alterations to FOUNTAIN VIEW, DUFTON, L Simpson APPROVED existing adjoining building. APPLEBY-IN-WESTMORLAND, CA16 6DB
19/0164 Change of Use Clifton Change of use of agricultural building to CLIFTON HALL FARM, CLIFTON, Lowther Estate Trust - APPROVED PD/PN dwellinghouse. PENRITH, CA10 2EA Mr D Bliss
19/0183 Full Application Penrith Change of use of building from restaurant (Class A3) 11/11A BURROWGATE, PENRITH, MNB Properties - Mr M APPROVED to Gym (Class D2). CA11 7TE Berger
19/0184 Full Application Great Salkeld Additional office space, workshop and maintenance STONERAISE QUARRY, SALKELD APK Construction APPROVED bays with associated parking bays. ROAD, GREAT SALKELD, PENRITH, Services UK Ltd - Mr A CA11 9NF Kirkbride
19/0186 Full Application Appleby Proposed studio extension. 3 STATION ROAD, APPLEBY-IN- Wittwoo - Mr P Witterick APPROVED WESTMORLAND, CA16 6TX
19/0232 Full Application Penrith Remove existing entrance doors, and replace with WHSmith, 4 ANGEL SQUARE, WHSmith Mr G Johnson APPROVED automatic bi-fold doors. PENRITH, CA11 7BT
19/0240 Full Application Kirkoswald Change of use of agricultural land to erect garage. LAND OPP BUSK RIGG FARM, Mr G Brooks APPROVED BUSK, RENWICK, PENRITH, CA10 1LA
19/0244 Full Application Greystoke EXTENSION AND ALTERATION OF EXISTING 1 HOWARD PARK, GREYSTOKE, Mr & Mrs Yerkess APPROVED DWELLING, AND DIVISION OF EXISTING PENRITH, CA11 0TU DWELLING
19/0246 Full Application Sockbridge & Proposed garages to units 1 and 2 and minor design LAND ADJACENT TO WALMAR, Mr Wilkinson - JIW APPROVED Agenda Item 5 Tirril amendments. CROFT HEAD, SOCKBRIDGE, Properties Ltd PENRITH,
19/0249 Full Application Skelton PROPOSED EXTENSION, SINGLE STOREY KNIGHTS LODGE, IVEGILL, Mr J BAINBRIDGE APPROVED CARLISLE, CA4 0PL
19/0250 Full Application Alston Replacement of existing agricultural building with LAMBSGATE FARM, ALSTON, CA9 Mr & Mrs R Tebbs APPROVED General Purpose agricultural building 3LD Page 17 Page
05 July 2019 Page 1 of 5 Page 18 Page App No App Type Parish Description Location Applicant Decision
19/0255 Full Application Catterlen Demolition of existing lean-to extension, construction MAINS COTTAGE, NEWTON Mr & Mrs J Jones APPROVED of new kitchen extension and internal alterations REIGNY, PENRITH, CA11 0AY
19/0257 Full Application Bandleyside Proposed silage clamp storage building and access TERRYS FARM, ORMSIDE, Messrs G Sowerby APPROVED track area. APPLEBY-IN-WESTMORLAND, CA16 6EJ
19/0258 Full Application Winton Replacement of conservatory with sun room EWBANK HOUSE, WINTON, KIRKBY Mr & Mrs K Taylor APPROVED extension. STEPHEN, CA17 4HL
19/0259 Full Application Hutton Change of use of land to allow the siting of six LAND AT WHITBARROW FARM, Mr & Mrs Huddleston APPROVED camping pods with associated infrastructure BERRIER, PENRITH, CA11 0XB including plinths, a parking and turning area, footpaths, a package treatment plant and a soakaway.
19/0260 Full Application Ousby Erection of replacement agricultural building. MELMERBY MILL, MELMERBY, Messers James APPROVED (Livestock) PENRITH, CA10 1HA
19/0261 Full Application Mungrisdale Extension and alterations to dwelling GILL COMBON VIEW, HUTTON Mr M Sewell APPROVED ROOF, PENRITH, CA11 0XU
19/0262 Full Application Penrith Permanent siting of 15 storage containers for UNIT 29 BOWERBANK WAY, Mr S B Thompson APPROVED domestic and general storage. GILWILLY INDUSTRIAL ESTATE, PENRITH, CA11 9BQ
19/0263 Full Application Kirkby Stephen Demolition of existing extension and erection of ROCKCLIFFE, 44 SOUTH ROAD, Mr & Mrs Patrick Webb APPROVED replacement two storey extension KIRKBY STEPHEN, CA17 4SN
19/0264 Full Application Lazonby Existing conservatory roof replacement. 4 SCAUR CLOSE, LAZONBY, Mrs J Wilson APPROVED PENRITH, CA10 1BT
19/0267 Full Application Penrith Proposed extensions and new access for off street 14 HUTTON HILL, PENRITH, CA11 Mr & Mrs J Kernan APPROVED parking driveway. 8DU
19/0268 Full Application Bandleyside Proposed covered muck store portal building. TERRYS FARM, LITTLE ORMSIDE, Messrs G Sowerby APPROVED APPLEBY-IN-WESTMORLAND, CA16 6EJ
19/0270 Full Application Glassonby Replacement garden building. 2 THE LANE, GLASSONBY, Ms R Ashley APPROVED PENRITH, CA10 1DS
19/0275 Listed Building Penrith Listed Building consent for the removal of wet dash 13 FOSTER STREET, PENRITH, Mrs M Dixon APPROVED on front elevation. CA11 7PD
19/0277 Listed Building Sockbridge & Listed Building Consent for internal alterations and THWAITE COTTAGE, TIRRIL, Mrs C Tremayne APPROVED Tirril new rooflights. Retention of roof timbers. PENRITH, CA10 2JF
05 July 2019 Page 2 of 5 App No App Type Parish Description Location Applicant Decision
19/0279 Full Application Sockbridge & Erection of two storey rear extension, demolition and EAST VIEW, TIRRIL, PENRITH, Mr Ian Cleasby APPROVED Tirril rebuilding of existing single storey extension, CA10 2JE additional windows and alterations to access.
19/0280 Full Application Great Strickland Creation of access. 4 COTTAGE ROW, GREAT Mr D Henderson APPROVED STRICKLAND, PENRITH, CA10 3DR
19/0282 Full Application Skelton Roofing over existing livestock gathering yard for MUSGRAVE HALL FARM, SKELTON, Messrs Grierson APPROVED animal welfare purposes. PENRITH, CA11 9SE
19/0283 Full Application Brough Sowerby Roofing over existing livestock gathering yard. BROOK FARM, BROUGH Mr D Hayllar APPROVED SOWERBY, KIRKBY STEPHEN, CA17 4EG
19/0287 Full Application Clifton Proposed extension. 1 TOWN END CROFT, CLIFTON, Mr Nichol APPROVED PENRITH, CA10 2EP
19/0288 Reserved by Kings Meaburn Discharge of condition 6 (verification report on 1 LARCH HOUSE, KINGS Willan Trading Ltd - Mr APPROVED Cond contaminated land) attached to approval 16/0960. MEABURN, PENRITH, CA10 3BU J Willan
19/0289 Householder Hesket Erection of rear extension. 5 COOPERS CLOSE, HIGH Mr J Hope APPROVED PD/PN HESKET, CARLISLE, CA4 0JD
19/0295 Listed Building Penrith Listed building consent for replacement rear 19 ARTHUR STREET, PENRITH, Ms M Todd APPROVED elevation windows. CA11 7TU
19/0296 Listed Building Penrith Listed building consent for replacement rear 20 ARTHUR STREET, PENRITH, Dr S Davies APPROVED elevation windows. CA11 7TU
19/0301 Full Application Penrith Demolition of detached garage and erection of two 42 MAYBURGH AVENUE, PENRITH, Mr & Mrs Lamb APPROVED storey gable extension. CA11 8PA
19/0302 Tree Works (CA) Appleby Yew to remove; Appleby Conservation Area. NORTH LODGE, BOROUGHGATE, Mr G Middleton APPROVED APPLEBY-IN-WESTMORLAND, CA16 6XH
19/0305 Non-Material Penrith Non material amendment comprising of alterations to LAND ADJACENT TO SALKELD Story Homes - Mrs J APPROVED Amend elevation and boundary treatments attached to ROAD, PENRITH, Taylor approval 17/1040.
19/0308 Outline Lazonby Outline application for residential development with LAND SOUTHWEST OF BANK TOP Mr & Mrs Carlyle APPROVED Application approval sought for access. HOUSE, LAZONBY, PENRITH, CA10 1AQ
19/0310 Permission in Dacre Permission in Principle application for residential LAND AT NEWBIGGIN, STAINTON, Inglewood Properties REFUSED Principle development. Resubmission of 19/0042. PENRITH, Ltd - Mr N Harrison Page 19 Page
05 July 2019 Page 3 of 5 Page 20 Page App No App Type Parish Description Location Applicant Decision
19/0316 Non-Material Hesket Non material amendment comprosing of materials MANOR HOUSE, PLUMPTON, Mr L Holiday APPROVED Amend and removal of rear door attached to approval PENRITH, CA11 9NS 18/0668.
19/0318 Tree Works (CA) Penrith H1 Holly: Crown reduction to achieve a balanced YEW TREES, LOWTHER STREET, Mr Philip Jelf APPROVED shape of approx. 5m in height and 2.5m width; H2 PENRITH, CA11 7UW Holly: Crown reduction to achieve height of 5m and 3m width; Penrith New Streets Conservation Area.
19/0320 Tree Works Penrith T1 Yew tree: Prune to create a clear distance YEW TREES, LOWTHER STREET, Mr Philip Jelf APPROVED (TPO) between the tree and the roof; Tree Preservation PENRITH, CA11 7UW Order No 126, 2006, Yew Trees, Lowther Street, Penrith.
19/0330 Full Application Catterlen Single storey front extension to provide conservatory. THE WOODLANDS, CATTERLEN, Mr GP Bush APPROVED PENRITH, CA11 0BQ
19/0341 Tree Works (CA) Penrith T1 Remove multi-stemmed Beech 2m from gable; T2 28 LOWTHER STREET, PENRITH, Mr N Waller APPROVED Remove 2 Beech trees from rear garden; T3 Norway CA11 7UW Maple - Remove lowest whorl of branches and 3-4 smaller branches overhanging neighbouring property; Penrith New Streets Conservation Area.
19/0345 Tree Works (CA) Hesket Remove tree on highway verge near Armathwaite ROADSIDE VERGE NEAR 1 Tony Burns - Senior APPROVED station; Settle-Carlisle Conservation Area. PENNINE VIEW, ARMATHWAITE, Highway Netwwork CARLISLE, CA4 9PN Technician - CCC
19/0347 Notice of Intention Skelton Roof over existing silage pit. THE HOWES, CALTHWAITE, Mr Messenger APPROVED PENRITH, CA11 9QG
19/0370 Tree Works (CA) Temple Sowerby T1 Apple: Fell due to poor form and root damage to ST JAMES CHURCH, TEMPLE Mrs H Morgan - APPROVED wall; T2 Hawthorn: Fell due to damage to adjacent SOWERBY, PENRITH, CA10 1RZ Treasurer to Parochial grave; T3 Cherry: Fell due to major branch weakness Church Council and potential damage to graves; T4/T5 Cherries: Crown raise various trees to 3m height to facilitate maintenance works; T6/T7/T8 Red Oaks: Remove epicormic shoots from lower stems and branches; T9 Lime: Annual removal of epicormic shoots from lower stem and crown raise to 3m; Temple Sowerby Conservation Area.
19/0373 Tree Works (CA) Langwathby Cherry: Remove limb protruding into garden and QUINCE COTTAGE, 3 Chris Henderson APPROVED blocking light from neighbours; clear saplings and BEACONSFIELD TERRACE, brush that crowd base of tree, to improve its overall EDENHALL, PENRITH, CA11 8SX health; Carry out minimum pruning in order to preserve the pleasing shape of the main crown and to achieve a balanced result; Yew: Remove one tree from 7ft Yew hedge (leave others in place); All work as shown in photographs provided; Edenhall Conservation Area.
05 July 2019 Page 4 of 5 App No App Type Parish Description Location Applicant Decision
19/0374 Notice of Intention Castle Sowerby Proposed extension to existing agricultural building. HIGH BUILDINGS, SEBERGHAM, Messrs T I Wetherell & APPROVED CA5 7EB Son - Mr and Mrs Wetherell
19/0375 Notice of Intention Castle Sowerby Proposed agricultural building. RYE HILL, SEBERGHAM, CA5 7DX T A Foster - Mr Foster APPROVED
19/0395 Non-Material Penrith Non material amendment comprising of conversion 17 MANOR PARK, PENRITH, CA11 Cumbrian Homes APPROVED Amend of garage to bedroom attached to approval 08/0295. 8AL
19/0401 Non-Material Lazonby Non Material Amendment comprising of placing solar BARN DYKE, LAZONBY, PENRITH, Dr G Sharpe APPROVED Amend panels on garage roof attached to approval 19/0126. CA10 1BA
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 21 Page
05 July 2019 Page 5 of 5 This page is intentionally left blank
Notice of Decision
Carriage Return
To: Burnetts - Mr B Armstrong-Payne Mansion House, Penrith, Cumbria CA11 7YG Unit 6 Hobson Court Tel: 01768 817817 Gillan Way Penrith CA11 9GQ
Town and Country Planning Act 1990 Town and Country Planning (Permission in Principle) (Amendment) Order 2017
Application No: 19/0310 On Behalf Of: Inglewood Properties Ltd - Mr N Harrison
In pursuance of their powers under the above Act and Order, Eden District Council, as local planning authority, hereby REFUSE planning in principle for the development described in your application and on the plans and drawings attached thereto, viz:
Application Type: Permission in Principle Proposal: Permission in Principle application for residential development. Resubmission of 19/0042. Location: LAND AT NEWBIGGIN STAINTON PENRITH
The reasons for this decision are:
The development by virtue of its location, siting and not representing an infill or rounding off site, would have a significant impact on the character of the village and thereby does not accord with the aims and criteria of Policies LS1 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 2019
Signed:
Oliver Shimell LLB Assistant Director Planning and Economic Development
www.eden.gov.uk Oliver Shimell LLB Assistant Director Planning and Economic Development Page 23
This page is intentionally left blank Agenda Item 6 Agenda Index REPORTS FOR DEBATE
Eden District Council Planning Committee Agenda Committee Date: 18 July 2019 INDEX
Item Officer Application Details No Recommendation
1 Planning Application No: 19/0243 Recommended to: Outline planning permission for a residential development with all matters reserved REFUSE With Reasons Hunter Hall Farm, Great Salkeld C/O Addis Town Planning Ltd
2 Planning Application No: 19/0220 Recommended to: Variation of Condition 2 (Plans Compliance) for amendments to design and discharge of Condition 3 (Surface Water APPROVE Drainage), 4 (Visibility Splays), 6 (Parking) and 7 (Window Subject to Conditions Details) attached to approval 18/0327 Ingle Neuk, Lazonby, Penrith Mr Wilkinson
Page 25 Agenda Index REPORTS FOR DEBATE
Page 26 Agenda Item 1 REPORTS FOR DEBATE Date of Committee: 18 July 2019
Planning Application No: 19/0243 Date Received: 2 April 2019
OS Grid Ref: 355067 536788 Expiry Date: 30 May 2019
Parish: Great Salkeld Ward: Lazonby
Application Type: Outline
Proposal: Outline planning permission for a residential development with all matters reserved
Location: Hunter Hall Farm, Great Salkeld
Applicant: C/O Addis Town Planning Ltd
Agent: Mr Daniel Addis, Addis Town Planning Ltd
Case Officer: Karen Thompson
Reason for Referral: The application has been called in by a Member of the Planning Committee on the basis that they consider the proposal is compliant with Policy LS1 of the Eden Local Plan 2014 - 2032
Page 27 Agenda Item 1 REPORTS FOR DEBATE
Page 28 Agenda Item 1 REPORTS FOR DEBATE 1. Recommendation
It is recommended that planning permission be refused for the following reasons: The proposed development would have an unacceptable harm on the character of the local landscape and the village in that it cannot be regarded as an infill development site, contrary to Policy LS1 and Policy HS2 of the Eden Local Plan 2014 – 2032.
2. Proposal and Site Description 2.1 Proposal 2.1.1 The application seeks outline planning permission for residential development on land at the rear of Hunter Hall Farm, Great Salkeld, with all matters reserved. 2.1.2 An indicative plan has been submitted which shows the footprints of two houses – one on either side (north and south) of a shared access road that leads through the site. The purpose of the indicative plan is to provide an idea of a possible layout and the possible number of properties that could be accommodated on the site. 2.1.3 The submitted indicative plans also show that the site would be accessed off the village road and through the former farmstead on a track which leads to, and would retain access to the agricultural fields immediately to the rear/west of the application site. 2.1.4 As the current proposal is for outline planning permission, at this stage, matters relating to the site layout, form, design, scale and appearance of the buildings, drainage and access would be subject to a further reserved matters application should planning permission be granted. Notwithstanding the indicative plans submitted, the current outline application seeks approval for the principle of residential development only at this site. 2.2 Site Description 2.2.1 The application relates to land approximately 18 metres x 47 metres (just under 0.1 ha), at the rear side of, and within the curtilage of Hunter Hall Farm, Great Salkeld. The application site is partly occupied by a more modern, open sided agricultural building with a black corrugated roof with the remaining site being mostly open with some small stone buildings. The site is bounded on three sides by dry stone walls. 2.2.2 Immediately to the west, beyond the dry stone boundary wall are agricultural fields; to the north, on slightly higher land is the rear garden of ‘Jerdan Croft’; and to the south is the rear garden of ‘Hunter Hall’. 2.2.3 The application site is within Great Salkeld Conservation Area. Nearby Hunter Hall and former stables is a grade II listed building adjacent to the proposed development site. Salkeld House is a grade II listed building to the north of the proposed development site. To the east of Hunter Hall, there are a number of listed buildings including the Church of St Cuthbert (II*). 3. Consultees 3.1 Statutory Consultees Consultee Response Highway Authority No objection but a recommend condition that dwellings shall not be occupied until vehicular access and turning
Page 29 Agenda Item 1 REPORTS FOR DEBATE requirements have been constructed in accordance with the approved plan and brought into use and thereafter retained and capable of use at all times. Lead Local Flood Authority No records of flooding on this site and the Environment Agency surface water maps do not indicated that the site is in an area of risk. 3.2 Discretionary Consultees Consultee Response Parish Council No comment United Utilities No comments received Conservation Officer The development site has low evidential, historic, aesthetic and communal heritage value. Its significance is on a local scale in relation to the agricultural development of the village and its location within the setting of listed buildings. For this latter reason the site has a small contribution to the special interest of Great Salkeld conservation area. County Archaeologist Recommends that in the event that planning consent is granted, the construction ground works of the development should be subject to a programme of archaeological recording/watching brief. Minerals and Waste CCC No objections 4. Parish Council/Meeting Response Please Tick as Appropriate Parish No View Object Support No Response Council/Meeting Expressed Great Salkeld Parish Council 4.1 Great Salkeld Parish Councillors have now looked at the application in detail and wish to submit ‘No Comment’. 5. Representations 5.1 Letters of consultation were sent to nearby neighbours and a site notice was posted on 18 April 2019. No of Neighbours Consulted 7 No of letters of support 0 No of Representations Received 0 No of neutral representations 0 No of objection letters 0 6. Relevant Planning History Application No Description Outcome 16/1041 Conversion of barns to create three Approved 30 March dwellings and the erection of a garage 2017
Page 30 Agenda Item 1 REPORTS FOR DEBATE 18/0824 Redevelopment of existing farmhouse Approved 7 and the conversion of barns to create two December 2018 new dwellings including associated works. 18/0206 Outline proposed residential development Refused 17 May (resubmission of application no 17/0944) 2018 – site to the rear of the application site 17/0944 Proposed residential development – site Refused 2 February to rear of the application site 2018 7. Policy Context 7.1 Development Plan Eden Local Plan 2014 – 2032 Policy LS1 – Locational Strategy Policy HS2 – Housing in the Smaller Villages and Hamlets Policy DEV1 – General Approach to New Development Policy DEV5 – Design of New Development Policy ENV10 – Historic Environment Supplementary Planning Documents: Housing (2010) 7.2 Other Material Considerations National Planning Policy Framework (2019): Section 5 - Delivering a sufficient supply of homes Section 12 – Achieving well designed places Section 16 - Conserving and enhancing the historic environment 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 and acceptability of development in this location. Landscape and Visual Impact. Residential Amenity. Infrastructure. Built Environment. 8.2 Principle 8.2.1 The Eden Local Plan 2014 - 2032 was accepted by the Government's Planning Inspectorate in September 2018 and was adopted at the full Council meeting on the 11th October 2018. The plan replaces the previous Development Plan documents, these being the saved policies from the Eden Local Plan (1996) and the Core Strategy (2010) and is now the formal Development Plan for Eden District Council. This means that the Eden Local Plan 2014 - 2032 (‘the Local Plan’) now carries full weight in the planning decision process and that the Council is able to demonstrate a five-year housing land supply.
Page 31 Agenda Item 1 REPORTS FOR DEBATE 8.2.2 Great Salkeld is listed as a Smaller Villages and Hamlet within Policy LS1 ‘Locational Strategy’ of the Local Plan 2014 – 2032, where development of an appropriate scale, which reflects the existing built form of the settlement, adjoining and neighbouring development to the site, and the service function of the settlement, will be permitted within Smaller Villages and Hamlets, to support the development of diverse and sustainable communities. Development in these locations will be permitted in the following circumstances: Where it reuses previously-developed land (PDL) (defined in Appendix 2 of the Local Plan). Where it delivers new housing on Greenfield sites only, in accordance with the local connection criteria defined in Appendix 6 of the Local Plan. 8.2.3 Within Smaller Villages and Hamlets all development must be of a high quality design and will be restricted to infill sites, which fill a modest gap between existing buildings within the settlement; or rounding off, which provides a modest extension beyond the limit of the settlement to a logical, defensible boundary; and the re-use of traditional rural buildings and structures, subject to the criteria set out in Policy RUR3 (Re-use of Redundant Buildings in Rural Area) of the Local Plan. Villages have been identified on the basis that they contain a coherent and close knit group of ten or more dwellings, which are well related and in close proximity to each other, or clustered around a central element or feature, as opposed to area of scattered and poorly related development. 8.2.4 Policy HS2 – Housing in the Smaller Villages and Hamlets supports housing of an appropriate scale, which reflects the built form of adjoining and neighbouring development to the site and the service function of the settlement (including sub- division of existing housing) where it meets all of the following criteria: where development is restricted to infilling and rounding off of the current village settlement pattern, in accordance with Policy LS1. The building does not have more than 150 sqm internal floorspace (gross). In the case of Greenfield sites a condition or legal agreement restricting occupancy to only those meeting local connection criteria. 8.2.5 New dwellings within the village of Great Salkeld are considered acceptable providing that they comply with the above policies. However, in this particular case, it is considered that the application site does not satisfy the definition of an infill site and therefore is contrary to the requirements of Policy HS2. This issue is expanded on below in Section 8.3 of this report. 8.2.6 The application site is within the Great Salkeld Conservation Area. Policy ENV10 – The Historic Environment of the Local Plan acknowledges the importance of the conservation and enhancement of the historic environment, heritage assets and their setting. The Council supports schemes that conserve and where appropriate, enhance the significance of the area’s heritage assets and their settings. 8.2.7 The National Planning Policy Framework advocates that the purpose of the planning system is to contribute to the achievement of sustainable development where there are three overarching objectives which are interdependent and mutually reliant – economic; social; and environmental – but they are not criteria against which every decision can or should be judged. However, planning decisions should play an active role in guiding development towards sustainable solutions and local circumstances should be taken into account, to reflect the character, needs and opportunities of each area.
Page 32 Agenda Item 1 REPORTS FOR DEBATE 8.2.8 In assessing the principle of the proposed development against the sustainability objectives, consideration can, in this case, be given to the status of the land; the location of the development; and its contribution to the local community and services – all of which are relevant material planning considerations. 8.2.9 Although agricultural land (including farmsteads) are considered ‘green field’ rather than ‘brown field’ land, in this case, the proposal is for the redevelopment of a previously developed site which is supported under sustainability principles. Also, the proposal is within an existing settlement (a Smaller Village and Hamlet) where the proposed scheme would support the development of diverse and sustainable communities and support existing services. 8.2.10 Notwithstanding the above, the proposal is not in-compliance with Policy LS1 of the Eden Local Plan, which would result in a degree of harm to the character of the area. Therefore, the principle of the proposal is not considered to be acceptable or established in this instance. 8.3 Landscape and Visual Impacts 8.3.1 Within Smaller Villages and Hamlets, development is to be ‘restricted to infill and rounding off of the current village’. The application site is not considered as a ‘rounding off’ as although there is a dry stone boundary wall along the rear boundary, a stone wall is not considered to be ‘logical, defensible boundary’ under the terms of Policy LS1 or the Draft Housing SPD and therefore, in this case, an assessment is required as to whether it can be defined as an infill site. 8.3.2 Policy LS1 stipulates that infill development ‘will be restricted to infill sites, which fill a modest gap between existing buildings within the settlement’. 8.3.3 The application site relates to the rear side part (approximately 18 m x 47 metres – just under 1ha) of a redundant farmstead, which is located within the centre of the village of Great Salkeld and is set back from the village road by 40 metres, behind both the existing farm house, together with a traditional stone barn which front the village road and other traditional stone buildings which lie within the site. 8.3.4 As shown on the above location plans, and immediately north and south of the application site are gardens/domestic curtilages to the rear of Jerdan Croft and Hunter Hall. There are no buildings that exist at either side of the application site. 8.3.5 By reason of the location of the site, and not being between existing buildings within the settlement, the application site cannot be considered to be one that “…fills a modest gap between existing buildings”, as required by Policy LS1. 8.3.6 The proposed development therefore conflicts with Policy LS1 of the Local Plan because the site cannot be construed to be an infill development, not least because the application site does not have a strong defensible boundary nor does it fill a modest gap within the settlement of Great Salkeld. 8.4 Residential Amenity 8.4.1 The proposed development would be positioned to the rear of the site behind Hunter Hall Farm and adjacent to a site where permission has been granted for two new dwellings - comprising a conversion of a traditional stone barn and conversion and extension of a traditional stone barn (development of which has not yet commenced). It is considered that the implementation of these permissions for either of these properties would not have an adverse impact on the amenity or privacy of the occupiers of the neighbouring property, nor vice versa.
Page 33 Agenda Item 1 REPORTS FOR DEBATE 8.4.2 It is considered that the permissions that have already been granted, and not implemented, at Hunter Hall Farm, and the proposed development, would not have an adverse impact on each other in terms of residential amenity. 8.5 Infrastructure 8.5.1 The Highway Authority and Lead Local Flood Authorities have raised no objections to the scheme. 8.5.2 No comments have been received from United Utilities. However, should the application be approved then a condition is recommended that the foul and surface water shall be drained on separate systems. 8.6 Built Environment 8.6.1 The application site is within the Great Salkeld Conservation Area. The application as submitted is in outline with only indicative plans showing a possible location for two dwelling houses. Detailed information to indicate the design and materials of the proposed residential development have not been provided and it is therefore not possible to determine the full impact of the development on the conservation area or the setting of nearby listed buildings. For this reason it is usually good practice not to approve outline applications in conservation areas, however, this it is the discretion of the local planning authority on a case by case basis. 8.6.2 The Council’s Conservation Officer considers that the proposal to redevelopment the site along with the farmhouse and historic barns has the potential to create a cumulative enhancement of the site and its contribution to the conservation area. Further, there is the potential public benefit of high quality designed residential accommodation and potential to be in accordance with the conservation policies within the Eden Local Plan. 8.6.3 The application site lies in an area of archaeological interest close to the centre of the medieval village of Great Salkeld and it is therefore considered that the construction of the proposed development has the potential to disturb buried archaeological assets. If the application was approved an appropriate pre-commencement condition would be imposed requiring a written scheme of investigation for an archaeological watching brief be submitted and approved. 8.6.4 For the reasons detailed above, it is considered that the proposed development would not likely result in any significant adverse impacts upon the local Built Environment. 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.
Page 34 Agenda Item 1 REPORTS FOR DEBATE 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 for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms 1950, as now embodied in UK law in the Human Rights Act 1998. 11. Conclusion 11.1 It is considered that the proposal does not accord with the Development Plan for the following reasons which are not outweighed by material considerations: The proposal for residential development would not comply with Policies LS1 and HS2 of the Eden Local Plan by reason that it cannot be regarded as an infill development site, on the basis that it does not fill a modest gap between buildings. 11.2 Whilst finely balanced to some degree, the limited benefits of the scheme does not outweigh the harm that would be caused and the proposals lack of compliance with the Development Plan.
Oliver Shimell Assistant Director Planning & Economic Development
Checked by or on behalf of the Monitoring Officer
Background Papers: Planning File
Page 35 Agenda Item 2 REPORTS FOR DEBATE Date of Committee: 18 July 2019
Planning Application No: 19/0220 Date Received: 26 March 2019
OS Grid Ref: NY 354404, Expiry Date: 22 May 2019 539313
Parish: Lazonby Ward: Lazonby
Application Type: Removal/ Variation of Condition
Proposal: Variation of Condition 2 (Plans Compliance) for amendments to design and discharge of Condition 3 (Surface Water Drainage), 4 (Visibility Splays), 6 (Parking) and 7 (Window Details) attached to approval 18/0327
Location: Ingle Neuk, Lazonby, Penrith
Applicant: Mr Wilkinson
Agent: NA
Case Officer: Nicholas Unwin
Reason for Referral: The application was called in by a member of Planning Committee for material planning reasons.
© Crown Copyright and Database Rights (2016) Grid Ref: NY
Page 36 Agenda Item 2 REPORTS FOR DEBATE
© Crown Copyright and Database Rights (2016) Grid Ref: NY
Page 37 Agenda Item 2 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 22 June 2021. Reason: In order to comply with Section 91 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 and information hereby approved: i. Application Form, dated 25 March 2019; ii. Site Location and Proposed Block Plan, dated 5 May 2019; iii. Balcony Balustrade, dated 2 December 2018; iv. Soakaway Calculations, date stamped 26 March 2019 ; v. Drainage Plan, dated 30 June 2018; vi. Proposed Elevations (104), dated 23 March 2019; vii. Proposed Elevations (105), dated 23 March 2019; viii. Proposed Roof Plan (101), dated 23 March 2019; ix. Window Details, date stamped 22 March 2019; x. Email to the case officer confirming obscure glazing and attic windows, dated 24 April 2019. Reason: To ensure a satisfactory development and to avoid any ambiguity as to what constitutes the permission. Ongoing Conditions 4. Notwithstanding the provisions of the Town and Country Planning (General Permitted Development) (England) Order 2015 (or any Order revoking and re- enacting that Order with or without modification) 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 grow within the visibility splay which obstruct the visibility splays. Reason: In the interests of highway safety. 5. Foul and surface water shall be drained on separate systems. Reason: To secure proper drainage and to manage the risk of flooding and pollution. 6. 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
Page 38 Agenda Item 2 REPORTS FOR DEBATE Part 1 Classes A, B, C and D of Schedule 2 to the Order shall be carried out. Reason: In the interest of amenity.
2. Proposal and Site Description 2.1 Proposal 2.1.1 The proposal is for the variation of Condition 2 (Plans Compliance) for amendments to the design of the dwelling previously approved and also to discharge of Condition 3 (Surface Water Drainage), 4 (Visibility Splays), 6 (Parking) and 7 (Window Details) attached to approval 18/0327. 2.1.2 Approval 18/0327 was for a two storey dwelling was approved under delegated powers on 22 June 2018. The proposal seeks to vary condition 2 (plans compliance) through minor amendments to the design of the proposal. The East elevation will be primarily render instead of primarily sandstone, a second floor window is to be removed, a window will be inserted within the attic and a single roof light shall be installed. The North (front) elevation will remain unchanged aside from the introduction of solar panels. The West elevation will be primarily render instead of primarily sandstone and a window will be inserted in the attic. The South (rear) elevation will replace a large second floor window with a smaller window and insert three roof lights. 2.2 Site Description 2.2.1 The proposal is located within the South-West extent of the settlement of Lazonby. The site is adjacent to the North of the B6413 road. To the East of the site is Rose Bank, a traditional two storey dwelling with sandstone front (South) elevation and render blank Western Gable. To the West of the site is Ingle Neuk, a traditional two storey dwelling with a render front (South) elevation and sandstone blank Eastern gable. To the North of the site is the garden curtilage of Leigh Croft, screened by mature trees. 2.2.2 The site is accessed via a new access onto the C3007 road to the North of Ingle Neuk, adjacent to Ingle Neuk’s rear garden curtilage. Visibility splays were provided for outline approval 16/0174 for an access onto the C3007 road illustrating visibility splays of 124.4 metres to the South and 129.1 metres to the North. The Highway Authority raised no objections at the time of this approval. Outline approval 11/0667 for two dwellings on the proposed site with an access onto the C3007 road additionally received no objections from the Highway Authority. 3. Consultees 3.1 Statutory Consultees Consultee Response Highway Authority No objection, response received 13 May 2019 stating: “The access has clear visibility of the junction onto the B6413 and for at least 60m when turning North up Scarrows Lane. The Highway Authority have no objections to this proposal” Lead Local Flood Authority No objection, response received 13 May 2019
Page 39 Agenda Item 2 REPORTS FOR DEBATE
3.2 Discretionary Consultees Consultee Response United Utilities No objection, response received 23 April 2019 Environmental Health No objection, response received 2 April 2019 4. Parish Council Please Tick as Appropriate Parish Council No View Object Support No Response Expressed Lazonby Parish Council 5. Representations 5.1 A site notice was posted on 11 April 2019 and letters were sent to neighbouring residents. One public representation was received. 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 The following material planning reasons for objection were given by the single public letter of objection received: Amenity impact Impact on the character of the area Highways impact 6. Relevant Planning History Application No Description Outcome 11/0667 Outline application for 2 no. Outline approval 26 detached dwellings January 2012 16/0174 Outline planning application for a Outline approval 11 detached dwelling and garage October 2016 18/0327 Proposed 2 storey dwelling with Full approval 22 June double garage 2018 7. Policy Context 7.1 Development Plan Eden Local Plan 2014-2032: DEV1 General Approach to New Development DEV3 Transport, Accessibility and Rights of Way DEV5 Design of New Development
Page 40 Agenda Item 2 REPORTS FOR DEBATE
7.2 Other Material Considerations Housing Supplementary Planning Document 2010 National Planning Policy Framework 2019: Chapter 2 Achieving sustainable development Chapter 9 Promoting sustainable transport 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 Scale and Design Amenity Highways 8.2 Scale and Design 8.2.1 The proposal would result in elements of the walls of the dwelling being rendered instead of sandstone. The dwelling would however continue to have a mixture of render and sandstone walls with no changes proposed to the front (South) elevation which is to remain a mixture of sandstone and render. 8.2.2 The single objection to the proposal states that the proposed use of additional render would be out of character with the area. Whilst this comment is noted, this is not considered to be an accurate assessment or reflection of the surrounding built environment. The surrounding built environment and that of the wider Lazonby is characterised by the use of sandstone and render. The front elevation of Ingle Neuk to the West is currently render finished. The Western elevation of Rose Bank to the East is render finished. Standing Stones approximately 20 meters to the West of the proposed site boundary is render finished. Helm View adjacent to the East of Rose Bank is also render finished. It is therefore clear that there are several instances of render being used within the locality. 8.2.3 Despite the proposal increasing the use of render, the dwelling still retains a mix of render and sandstone. There is no change to the proportions of sandstone and render used on the front (South) elevation. The use of both sandstone and render is seen throughout the surrounding built environment and throughout the wider settlement of Lazonby. As such, it is considered that the building will continue to harmonise with the surrounding built environment. Therefore, the proposed alterations to the design and appearance of the dwelling are considered appropriate in planning terms. 8.3 Amenity 8.3.1 Policy DEV5 of the Eden Local Plan (‘Design of New Development’) states that development should “optimise the potential use of the site and avoids overlooking”, “protect the amenity of existing residents” and provide an “acceptable amenity for future occupiers”. This is supported by Chapter 12 entitled ‘Achieving well-designed places’, of the NPPF which states that new development should provide “a high standard of amenity for existing and future users”. 8.3.2 The additional windows that are being proposed in addition to the original approval (18/0327) are the single window in the attic and a single roof light in the East elevation,
Page 41 Agenda Item 2 REPORTS FOR DEBATE the single window in the attic of the Western elevation and the three roof lights in the North elevation. 8.3.3 The single objection to the proposal states that the proposed attic windows would result in overlooking. The proposed attic windows look onto the blank gables of Ingle Neuk and Rose Bank. Existing window openings of the original approval (18/0327) provide significantly greater views over the garden curtilage of Ingle Neuk, in particular such as the two first floor bedroom windows above the garage of the West elevation, and therefore, would result in a greater degree of overlooking than the currently proposal. Additionally the second floor window in the East elevation providing the most prominent views of the rear garden curtilage of Rose Bank has been removed, again reducing the degree of over-looking that would occur as a result of the previously approved development. 8.3.4 The additional windows proposed are considered to have less of an impact on the amenity of the neighbouring residents than those approved under 18/0327. The increased amenity impact of the proposed window in the Western elevation is considered negligible particularly in comparison with the windows approved under the original permission. The removal of the first floor window in the East elevation and insertion of a window in the second floor is considered to reduce the amenity impact of the proposal on Rose Bank. Therefore the proposal is considered acceptable in planning terms. 8.4 Highways 8.4.1 The single objection to the proposal maintains that there is limited parking on the site. The Site location and block plan submitted in support of the application clearly shows ample parking in addition to a turning circle adjacent to the West of the dwelling. The Highway Authority were consulted on the application and raised no objections. The Highway Authority additionally raised no objections to outline approvals 11/0667 and 16/0174 on the proposed site for residential development which involved a new access onto the C3007 road; therefore, this does not represent justification to warrant the refusal of this planning application. 8.4.2 Paragraph 109 of the NPPF states that “development should only be prevented or refused on highways grounds if there would be an unacceptable impact on highway safety”. The proposal illustrates adequate parking and visibility splays and raised no objection from the Highway Authority. Therefore the proposal is considered to remain acceptable in relation to highway safety. 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.
Page 42 Agenda Item 2 REPORTS FOR DEBATE 9.4 Crime and Disorder 9.4.1 Under the Crime and Disorder Act 1998, the Council must have regard to the need to reduce crime and disorder in exercising any of its functions. 9.5 Human Rights 9.5.1 In determining applications, the Council must ensure that all parties get a fair hearing in compliance with Article 6 of 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 When assessing the proposal only the additional render, solar panels and windows can be taken into consideration, as material planning considerations. All other elements have already been approved under approval 18/0327. The proposed additional use of render is not considered to harm the character of the area and any impact on amenity of the proposed windows will be negligible, particularly when compared to that of the window openings that are authorised by way of approval 18/0327 and reduce the amenity impact on Rose Bank to the East through the removal of the first floor window. 10.2 Sufficient information has been provided to discharge Conditions 3 (Surface Water Drainage), 6 (Parking) and 7 (Window Details) attached to approval 18/0327. The Highway Authority were consulted on the application raising no objections. 10.3 Based on the above, the proposal 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 19/0220
Page 43 This page is intentionally left blank Agenda Item 7
Report No: PP15/19 Eden District Council Planning Committee 18 July 2019 Quarterly Planning Performance Report – 2019/20 Quarter 1
Portfolio: Eden Development Report from: Assistant Director Planning and Economic Development Wards: All Wards save for those wards that are wholly within the Lake District or Yorkshire Dales National Park. OPEN PUBLIC ITEM 1. Purpose 1.1 To provide Members with an overview of the ongoing performance of the Council’s Planning Service in relation to Key Performance Indicators and Planning Enforcement matters. 2. Recommendation 2.1 That the report be noted. 3. Report Details 3.1.1 This report supplements the Annual Planning Performance Report produced in May each year for the Council’s Annual Meeting, relating to the Council’s performance against National Targets as set by the Government. The report provides members with a more regular overview and update in relation to Planning Performance. 3.1.2 The reporting period covered in this report includes quarter 1 of 2019-2020, up to 30 June 2019. Performance Statistics Development Management – Planning Applications
Table 1: Number of Planning Applications Received
Applications Received
Year Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4 Total
2017/2018 312 277 254 262 1105
2018/2019 280 264 196 240 980
1 Page 45 2019/2020 231 - - - -
Table 1 does not include all work received by the Planning Service such as applications for non-material amendments, Tree Preservation Order works, Discharge of Conditions or Certificates of Lawfulness.
Table 2: Major Planning Applications Determined (13 week determination period)
Major Development
Year Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4 Total
2017/2018 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% (9 of 9) (11 of 11) (7 of 7) (7 of 7) (34/34)
2018/2019 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% (7 of 7) (7 of 7) (5 of 5) (6 of 6) 25 of 25)
2019/2020 100% - - - - (5 of 5)
(National Target 60%)
Table 3: Minor Planning Applications Determined (8 week determination period)
Minor Development
Year Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4 Total
2017/2018 94.8% 95.6% 96% 94.4% 94.4% (74 of 78) (66 of 69) (94 of 98) (55 of 61) (289 of 306)
2018/2019 89% 89% 84.7% 92.8% 88.8% (73 of 82) (65 of 73) (50 of 59) (52 of 56) (240 of 270)
2019/2020 98% - - - - (51 of 52)
(National Target 70%)
Page 46 2 Table 4: Other Development Applications Determined (various determination periods)
Other Development
Year Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4 Total
2017/2018 100% 97% 99% 93.2% 97.3% (83 of 83) (100 of 103) (76 of 77) (69 of 74) (328 of 366)
2018/2019 87.5% 88.2% 97.1% 90.9% 91.1% (84 of 96) (83 of 96) (68 of 70) (60 of 66) (297 of 326)
2019/2020 97% - - - - (89 of 91)
(National Target 70%)
Table 5: Pre-Application Enquiries received (28 Day target turn around)
Pre-Application Enquiry
Year Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4 Total
2017/2018 49 Received 59 Received 38 Received 51 Received 197 Received £5,616 £5,610 £4,326 £6,000 £21,552
2018/2019 46 Received 57 Received 36 Received 46 Received 185 Received £4,836 £5,700 £4,320 £4,800 £19,656
2019/2020 59 - - - - £8,424
Development Management – Enforcement
Table 6: Enforcement Complaints Received
Enforcement Complaints Received
Year Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4 Total
2017/2018 40 32 29 29 130
3 Page 47 2018/2019 42 43 33 29 147
2019/2020 43 - - - -
Table 7: Enforcement Cases Closed
Enforcement Complaints Closed
Year Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4 Total
2017/2018 29 45 39 39 152
2018/2019 38 33 43 31 145
2019/2020 24 - - - -
Table 8: Enforcement and other Notices Served
Notices Served
Year Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4 Total
2017/2018 7 2 5 8 22
2018/2019 3 4 3 1 8
2019/2020 3 - - - -
Tracking Information Governance Check Date Considered Chief Finance Officer (or Deputy) 5 July 2019 Monitoring Officer (or Deputy) 7 July 2019 Relevant Assistant Director 8 July 2019
Background Papers: None Appendices: None Contact Officer: Nick Atkinson, Planning Services Development Manager Tel 01768 212362
Page 48 4