7 Bideford Gardens, Barrow-In-Furness

PLANNING COMMITTEE 1st February 2011

PLAN NUMBER: APPLICANT: AGENT:

2010/1444 Mr William March

WARD/PARISH: CASE OFFICER: DATE RECEIVED:

Hawcoat Ian Sim 12/10/2010 01229 876384 STATUTORY DATE: 06/12/2010

LOCATION:

7 Bideford Gardens, Barrow-in-Furness

PROPOSAL:

Replacement of an attached single garage with a double garage.

SAVED POLICIES OF THE FORMER LOCAL PLAN:

POLICY B17

Visually dominating side extensions on corner plots or which otherwise intrude unacceptably on the streetscene will be refused if they are considered to be detrimental to the character or spaciousness of the area. If, however, this effect can be overcome by their re-design with a pitched roof or more matching materials the Authority will require the proposal to be amended accordingly. POLICY B20

Applications for garages will be refused unless the proposed garage is located a minimum distance of six metres from the highway. Exceptions to this policy will be allowed only where the safety of people using the highway will not be unduly diminished such as along back streets.

POLICY D21

In determining all applications submitted to it the local planning authority will have regard to the General Design Code set out in paragraph 5.4.27 of this plan.

In towns and villages, proposals shall relate to the context provided by buildings, street and plot patterns, building frontages, topography, established public views, landmark buildings and other townscape elements. Proposals that do not respect the local context and street pattern or the scale, height, proportions and materials of surrounding buildings and development which constitutes over development of the site by virtue of scale, height or bulk will not be permitted, unless there is specific justification, such as interests of sustainability, energy efficiency or crime prevention.

of 72 PLANNING COMMITTEE 1st February 2011 Development proposals in the countryside shall respect the diversity and distinctiveness of local landscape character. New farm buildings will, in general, be required to be sited within or adjacent to an existing farm building complex or in other well screened locations and to be subject to a complementary design and use of materials, with, where necessary, a ‘planting’ scheme.

SUMMARY OF MAIN ISSUES:

The proposal, in close proximity to the side garden boundary of an adjoining property, would not impact to such an extent upon the amenities of these properties due to design, location and existing boundary treatment and the construction of a double garage should enhance off-road parking provision.

NON MATERIAL CONSIDERATIONS:

Boundary issues.

REPRESENTATIONS:

The Occupiers of 5, 7, 8, 9 Bideford Gardens, 131 & 135 Hawcoat Lane, Barrow-in- Furness all informed.

The Occupiers, 131 Hawcoat Lane, Barrow.

“Having received notification of the proposed replacement of an attached single garage with a double garage at No 7 Bideford Gardens and then viewing the application documents via the search servlet PKID=33435. I now have several concerns over the proposal.

Firstly on viewing the “Existing Plan “ I have noticed several inaccuracies’ 1. The boundary identification is wrong. 2. The Hedgerow doesn’t belong to No 7 Bideford Gardens, its planted in my garden and the boundary of the properties are divided by a panelled fence running parallel with my Hedge.

When looking at the “Proposed Plan” you will note the Hedge has disappeared and been replaced by and I quote “New boundary Fence” which I hasten to add is in the wrong place. I have already told the occupier (David) of No 7 Bideford Gardens when he knocked my door and told me he intended to erect a brick wall and remove the hedge so he could put a walk way down the side of his proposed double garage and the dividing boundary of our properties The answer to him then, as it is now, is no. The hedge is an integral part of my garden within my boundaries and viewing will confirm that.

“Description of Proposed Works” Section 7. Trees and Hedges, Two very relevant questions to which the applicant as answered NO to. Section 5 of the aforementioned document also concerns me, the proposal there is to “Enlarge vehicle access from Bideford Gardens across pavement”. Does that mean they want to widen there Driveway/Entrance? Again I question that proposal and want assurances that upon the proposed widening for vehicular access, this again doesn’t infringe on my hedge or boundaries.

of 72 PLANNING COMMITTEE 1st February 2011 I strongly recommend you view the site of the proposed application along with the plans and feel sure with adjustment and re- scaling of measurements the double garage and walk way could be achieved with in the boundaries of No 7 Bideford Gardens with out trespass to my land.”

CONSULTATIONS:

Cumbria Highways

“I refer to the above consultation received here on 24/12/2010 and would inform you that there are no objections to the proposal from a highway point of view, subject to the following recommended conditions being included in any Notice of Consent which may be issued:-

1. The vehicular crossing onto the highway, including the provision of kerbs, shall be carried out to the specification of the Local Planning Authority in consultation with the Highway Authority.

Reason: To ensure a suitable standard of crossing for pedestrian safety. To support Local Transport Plan Policies: LD5, LD7, LD8.”

OFFICERS REPORT:

The application site is a semi-detached property on the northern side of Bideford Gardens facing the turning head with the land form sloping from north to south and west to east. The character of the area has a uniformity of design and plot size consisting of semi- detached properties with the immediate area having modest front and rear garden areas. Parking provision is generally provided through hard surfaced areas, driveways and/or garages.

The scheme involves the demolition of the existing garage which is attached to the side elevation of the applicants' house and in close proximity to the rear garden boundary of No.131 Hawcoat Lane. In essence, there is little difference to the position of the existing garage and the proposal, although the extension will be closer to the boundary with No.131 Hawcoat Lane by approximately 3 metres and Members will have noted the representation received. The proposed double garage has an indicated overall footprint of roughly 6.9 metres x 5.7 metres with a mono-pitched roof design giving a height of almost 3.2 metres to the extension. A window is proposed in the rear elevation which would allow views into the applicants’ own rear garden. The eastern elevation in close proximity to the above mentioned property’s boundary would consist of a solid wall. The external materials are shown to match the property.

Development invariably has an impact on neighbouring properties and the effect the proposed development will have on adjacent properties is a matter which is taken into consideration when coming to a decision on the acceptability of the application.

In this instance an objection was received on 28 October 2010 from the occupier of 131 Hawcoat Lane, which is at a lower level and to the side and (west) of the application site. The representation raises matter which primarily relate to the boundary. This is defined by a garden hedge with the applicant proposing to reduce its width by approximately half to create a path down the side of the extended garage.

of 72 PLANNING COMMITTEE 1st February 2011 The representations express the view that the whole of the hedge forms part of 131 Hawcoat Lane. This matter has been raised with the applicant and while he has provided further clarification by way of updated plans he remains of the view that the boundary runs through the middle of the hedge. I have notified the neighbour of this and received no further comment.

It is not however the Council’s role to act as the arbiter in such issues as this is a civil matter between the parties concerned. Any grant of planning permission does not alter the ownership of land. I have explained this to the neighbour.

RECOMMENDATION:

I recommend that planning permission be GRANTED subject to the Standard Duration Limit and the following conditions:

Condition No. 2

The development must be carried out in accordance with the application dated 4 October 2010 and the plans (Drawing Ref: DM\1 to DM\3 inclusive) hereby approved as amended on 22/12/2010 as varied by the attached condition(s).

Reason

To ensure that the development is carried out only as indicated on the drawings approved by the Planning Authority.

Condition No. 3

Notwithstanding the Town and Country Planning (General Permitted Development0 (Amendment) (No.2) (England) Order 2008 (or any Order revoking or re-enacting that Order with or without modifications) the 0.5 metre set back of the garage doorway as indicated on Drawing Nos. DM/1and DM/2 shall remain clear and unobstructed at all times and no development or enclosure of the indicated set back shall be carried out without the prior written consent of the Planning Authority.

Reason

In the interests of pedestrian and highway safety and to ensure a suitable level of off-road parking provision for the property exists.

Condition No. 4

The garage and access thereto must be reserved for the parking of private motor vehicles and no permanent development, whether permitted by the Town and Country Planning (General Permitted Development) Order, 1995 (or any Order revoking and re-enacting that Order with or without modifications) or not, shall be carried out on that area of land or in such position as to preclude vehicular access to the development hereby permitted.

Reason

of 72 PLANNING COMMITTEE 1st February 2011

To ensure that proper access and parking provision is made and retained for use associated with No.7 Bideford Gardens, thereby, complying with saved policy B20 of the former Barrow-in-Furness Borough Council Local Plan Review 1996-2006

Condition No. 5

The driveway(s) shall be as indicated on drawing no. DM/2 shall not be reduced to any other length without the prior written consent of the Planning Authority prior to any change.

Reason

In the interests of pedestrian and highway safety and to ensure a suitable level of off-road parking provision for the property exist.

Reason for Approval

That having regard to the provisions of Section 38(6) of the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act and all other material considerations, and subject to the proposed conditions, the development as proposed by reason of its location, design and orientation, will not have a detrimental impact upon the neighbouring properties, highway safety or the visual amenities of the area. As such, the proposal complies with the Development Plan policies B17 and D21.

2010/0914 Mr G Dobson Mr D Newby Datum Design Company WARD/PARISH: CASE OFFICER: DATE RECEIVED:

Dalton North Lindal and Charles Wilton 28/06/2010 Marton Parish Council 01229 876553 STATUTORY DATE: 22/08/2010

LOCATION:

Marton Hall, Moor Road, Marton

PROPOSAL:

Conversion of attached barn to dependent relatives accommodation and a 4 bedroomed dwelling, and demolition of existing single storey kitchen and rebuilding with an extended kitchen area.

POLICY B11

In the following villages, residential development and the conversion of existing buildings for residential purposes will be allowable within the residential cordon, especially if it contributes to the maintenance of that community, subject to conformity with the criteria of Policy B2:

Askam North Scale Rampside Lindal Roa Island Ireleth Biggar Village Newton Marton

POLICY B12

Within the existing settlements of Barrow and Dalton and the residential cordons outlined in Policy B11 above, the conversion of buildings to residential accommodation will be permitted where the following criteria can be met: a) The building is structurally sound and capable of conversion without major rebuilding, extensions or modifications to the existing structure, as demonstrated by the submission of a satisfactory structural survey; b) The building is served by a satisfactory access; c) Services are readily available on site; and d) The scale of the conversion, both in terms of the number of units and their size and in terms of architectural detailing is appropriate to the buildings, their character and their location;

Scheme makes re use of an existing building situated within the village envelope.

REPRESENTATIONS:

Development advertised on site and in the local press

The Occupiers of 41, 44, 45, 48, 49 Moor Road, Gate Farm, Glebe Farm, High Farm, High Farm Cottage, Moor Road, Marton all informed.

The Occupier, High Farm, Moor Road, Marton

“I am writing regarding the planning application B13/2010/0914 at Marton Hall, Marton.

As we live at the neighbouring property, I would like the following points to be taken into consideration in respect of the conversion of the attached barn to a single dwelling.

As the barn backs on to our yard, we do not want any windows looking into our yard as this will have a huge impact on our family’s privacy. Also there is a safety issue as we at times have animals loose in the yard.

On the plans the external view shows no windows, but on the internal plan there appears to be a window in the WC into our yard. See attached sheet.

Regarding the three sky lights facing our property, at present they are fixed and do not open and we would like them to remain like this. This would help maintain privacy on both sides, eg noise, smells.”

The Occupier: High farm, Moor Road, Marton

“I live in the neighbouring property and the barn which is for conversion into a single dwelling backs on to my property. Therefore I do not want any windows in the wall that faces my property, this will maintain my property’s privacy.

Also, I want the three sky lights to remain closed units. This again will help maintain privacy and will reduce the chance of the dwellings residence being disturbed by farm noise and smells, etc from my property.”

CONSULTATIONS:

Natural England

“Natural England is a non-departmental public body. Our statutory purpose is to ensure that the natural environment is conserved, enhanced, and managed for the benefit of present and future generations, thereby contributing to sustainable development. We are working towards the delivery of four strategic outcomes:

of 72 PLANNING COMMITTEE 1st February 2011 1 A healthy natural environment; 2 People are inspired to value and conserve the natural environment; 3 Sustainable use of the natural environment; 4 A secure environmental future.

We have considered the proposal against the full range of Natural England’s interests in the natural environment but our comments are focussed on the following specific matters:

We are not aware of any nationally designated landscapes or any statutorily designated areas of nature conservation importance that would be significantly affected by the proposed planning application.

We are also satisfied that the proposal does not have any significant impacts upon Natural England’s other interests, including National Trails, Access Land, or the areas of search for new national landscape designations.

Protected Species The proposal may affect statutory protected species in particular bats and breeding birds. Natural England advises that there is insufficient information accompanying the planning application from which to ascertain the possible impact of this development on protected species. Such protected species are a material consideration in planning terms as stated in Part IV paragraphs 98 and 99 of Circular 06/2005 which accompanies PPS9, „Biodiversity and Geological Conservation‟. It is essential that the presence or otherwise of protected species, and the extent that they may be affected by the proposed development, is established before the planning permission is granted, otherwise all relevant material considerations may not have been addressed in making the decision. Natural England therefore advises local planning authorities to direct developers to commission an ecological survey of the proposal site prior to submission of an application so this material consideration is fully addressed in making a decision. Your council may wish to note the implications of the case of R v Cornwall County Council ex parte Jill Hardy with respect to protected species as a planning consideration.

All surveys should be carried out at an appropriate time of year, employ methods that are suited to the local circumstances and be compliant with published guidance and best practice. It is essential this work is undertaken by a reputable, experienced and suitably licensed ecological consultant. Surveys should aim to identify the following information:

Description of the proposal – details of the type, scale, location, timing and methodology of the proposed works, including relevant plans, diagrams and schedules;

Survey for protected species – thorough and robust survey of the development site and any other areas likely to be affected by the proposals for protected species;

Impact assessment – clear assessment of the likely impacts of the proposal upon protected species;

Mitigation strategy – to clarify how the likely impact will be addressed in order to ensure no detriment to the maintenance of the population at a favourable conservation status of the protected species. This should be proportionate to perceived impacts and must include clear site-specific prescriptions rather than vague, general or indicative possibilities and be feasible and deliverable.

of 72 PLANNING COMMITTEE 1st February 2011 It is the responsibility of the developer to provide this information to enable Natural England to make a substantive response and for the local planning authority to fully assess the proposal. Please note that it is the duty of the applicant to suggest suitable mitigation and not Natural England, and we are unable to provide detailed advice on mitigation.

Circular 08/2005 states that the 21 day consultation period for statutory consultees will not start until receipt of adequate information to make a substantive response.

Where a development affects a species protected under the Conservation of Habitats and Species Regulations 2010, a licence from Natural England would be required in order to allow prohibited activities, such as damaging breeding sites or resting places, for the purpose of development. The following criteria, as set out under Regulation 53, must be satisfied for such a licence to be granted:

1 the purpose of the actions authorised must be for “preserving public health or public safety or other imperative reasons of overriding public interest including those of a social or economic nature and beneficial consequences of primary importance for the environment”; and 2 3 there must be “no satisfactory alternative” to the actions authorised; and the actions authorised “will not be detrimental to the maintenance of the population of the species concerned at a favourable conservation status in their natural range”.

In summary, taking into account the nature of the application, we advise that surveys for the presence of protected species be carried out prior to planning permission being considered.

The developer should be made aware that if construction begins and the species are subsequently found to be present, all work must stop immediately and they may be subject to a criminal prosecution given that the possibility of them being present was suspected.

Where a licence from Natural England is required for any operations that affect protected species; this is irrespective of any planning permission that has been granted. Development works cannot be undertaken unless a licence is issued and failure to comply can result in a fine or custodial sentence.

You may find the following protected species information useful.

Bats Bats are protected under Schedule 5 of the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981 (as amended) and under the Conservation of Habitats and Species Regulations 2010. These statutory instruments protect both the species themselves and their associated habitats. Please note that places which bats utilise for shelter are protected regardless of whether they are present or not. For further information please refer to Natural England’s Bat Mitigation Guidelines, which can be downloaded from the website via the link below: http://naturalengland.etraderstores.com/NaturalEnglandShop/product.aspx? ProductID=77002188-97f9-45a5-86a6-326a7ea3cd69

We note that a survey was conducted by Hilary Lange of the World Owl Trust in relation to barn owls. The survey indicated that bats may be present within the vicinity of the site,

of 72 PLANNING COMMITTEE 1st February 2011 therefore due to the nature of the proposal we would recommend that a full bat survey is undertaken by a suitably licensed ecologist.

Breeding Birds All wild birds, their nests, eggs and young are protected under the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981 (as amended) during the nesting season. Work must not begin if nesting birds are present on site and should occur outside of the bird nesting season (March through to August, although weather dependant). If building works are undertaken during the bird breeding season, a check for any active nest sites should be undertaken by a suitably qualified ecologist. If breeding birds are found during this survey, the nest should not be disturbed and works should be delayed until nesting is complete and any young birds have fledged.

Provision of artificial nest sites at selected points within the development should be made to provide alternative nesting sites and to compensate for the loss of nesting sites. Further guidance as to the type and location of the artificial nests should be sought from any suitably qualified ecologist.

Barn Owls Barn owls are protected under Schedule 1 of the Wildlife & Countryside Act 1981 (as amended). Under the act it is an offence to intentionally kill, injure or take (handle) any wild barn owl. It is also an offence to intentionally take damage or destroy any wild barn owl nest whilst being constructed or in use. Licences cannot be issued for the removal of barn owls in order to facilitate development. Therefore if the presence of barn owls is suspected (barn owls often roost in barns for example), Natural England would recommend that development should be avoided during the breeding season. We also recommend that if a development affects a barn then a barn owl survey would be needed to assess the impact on these species.

Barn owl nests are often situated in hidden cavities within old buildings or trees, it is not uncommon for the presence of an occupied nest to remain undetected until development of the site commences.

Barn owls often stay faithful to sites, remaining from one year to the next. This site fidelity has survival value as birds which know their home ranges intimately are more likely to survive and are likely to produce more young.

Natural England would also recommend that consideration is made of provision for barn owls within any loft areas in the converted building.

A guide on Barn owls on site - A guide for developers and planners can be downloaded from Natural England’s website via the link below: http://naturalengland.etraderstores.com/NaturalEnglandShop/Product.aspx? ProductID=0626883c-37ff-4ab7-a094-c9e2ea655ede

We acknowledge that no evidence of the presence of barn owls was found during the survey. However, the developer should be aware that if evidence of barn owls is identified during the construction process then all work should cease until further surveys are carried out by a suitably licensed ecologist.

You may also find the following useful.

Biodiversity Duty

Biodiversity is a core component of sustainable development, underpinning economic development and prosperity, and has an important role to play in developing locally distinctive and sustainable communities. All local authorities and other public authorities in England and Wales have a Duty to have regard to the conservation of biodiversity in exercising their functions. The Duty aims to raise the profile and visibility of biodiversity, to clarify existing commitments with regard to biodiversity and to make it a natural and integral part of policy and decision making.

The Duty is set out in Section 40 of the Natural Environment and Communities Act (NERC) 2006 and states that:

“Every public authority must, in exercising its functions, have regard, so far as is consistent with the proper exercise of those functions, to the purpose of conserving biodiversity”.

Natural England recommends that the Council takes this into consideration when determining planning applications. Guidance is available in the Defra publication, Guidance for Local Authorities in Implementing the Biodiversity Duty: http://www.defra.gov.uk/environment/quality/biodiversity/documents/la-guid-english.pdf

Sustainable Design Natural England believes in encouraging the adoption of the principles of sustainability in all plans and projects. We support the implementation of standards such as; The Code for Sustainable Homes (information at: http://www.communities.gov.uk/planningandbuilding/theenvironment/codesustainable1) and BREAAM (information from: http://www.breeam.org/ ), both of which are concerned with a range of measures from building design to water and energy use.

However, sustainable design and construction entails a wider range of considerations, including development which conserves and enhances the distinctive landscape and townscape character, and conserves and enhances biodiversity, amongst other points.

In relation to biodiversity, a useful guide „Biodiversity by Design‟ has been produced by the TCPA and can be accessed through the following link: http://www.tcpa.org.uk/pages/biodiversity-by-design.html

The advice given by Natural England in this letter is made for the purpose of the present consultation only. In accordance with Section 4 of the Natural Environment and Rural Communities Act 2006, Natural England expects to be included as a consultee in relation to any additional matters to be determined by the Local Authority that may arise as a result of, or are related to, the present proposal. Natural England retains its statutory discretion to modify its present advice or opinion in view of any and all such additional matters or any additional information related to this consultation that may come to our attention”.

Cumbria Highways

of 72 PLANNING COMMITTEE 1st February 2011 “I can confirm that the Highway Authority has no objection to the proposed development as it is considered that the existing driveway provides an adequate incurtilage parking facility.”

United Utilities

“This response is based on the details submitted on the planning application form; any changes to the planning application will invalidate this response.

I will have no objection to the proposal provided that the following conditions are met: -

 In accordance with PPS25 surface water should not be allowed to discharge to foul/combined sewer. This prevents foul flooding and pollution of the environment. This site must be drained on a separate system, with only foul drainage connected into the foul sewer. Surface water should discharge to the soakaway/watercourse/surface water sewer and may require the consent of the Environment Agency. If surface water is allowed to be discharged to the public surface water sewerage system we may require the flow to be attenuated to a maximum discharge rate determined by United Utilities.“

County Archaeologist

“Marton Hall and attached barn are of historic interest as they are listed grade II and apparently date to the mid 18th century. No detailed description of the significance of the buildings is included with the application, nor has an assessment of the impact of the proposed development on that significance been undertaken, both of which are required by policy HE6 in Planning Policy Statement 5. Nevertheless, it is clear from the drawings submitted with the application that, at the very least, the proposed conversion of the barn will alter its character, appearance and some of its historic fabric.

Consequently, I recommend that an archaeological building recording programme of the barn be undertaken in advance of development. This recording should be in accordance with a Level 3 survey as described by English Heritage Understanding Historic Buildings A Guide to Good Recording Practice, 2006. I advise that this be secured by attaching a negative condition to any planning consent you may otherwise be minded to grant. I suggest the following form of words:

“Prior to the carrying out of any construction works the existing barn affected by the proposed development shall be recorded in accordance with a Level 3 survey as described by English Heritage’s document Understanding Historic Buildings A Guide to Good Recording Practice, 2006. Within 2 months of the commencement of construction works 3 copies of the resultant level 3 survey report shall be furnished to the Local Planning Authority.”

Reason: to ensure that a permanent record is made of the building of architectural and historic interest prior to its alteration as part of the proposed development

I trust this recommendation is acceptable.”

Lindal & Marton Parish Council

of 72 PLANNING COMMITTEE 1st February 2011 “The applicant, from the floor, gave details as to what was he was planning, including demolition of some redundant (although not historical) parts of the Hall and conversion of others. Reference was made to already-approved developments at the rear of the Hall, with four new houses to be built, and it was noted that the Parish Council had not been approached by any residents living near to the Hall with any objections to this latest initiative. It was, therefore, PROPOSED by Councillor Lord and SECONDED by Councillor Howarth that the Council express “no comment” to both the application for listed building consent and to the application for planning consent. Carried unanimously.”

OFFICERS REPORT:

This is one of two applications reported to you today in relation to this development. The other relates to the application for listed building consent while this report deals with the planning application.

Marton Hall is a grade II listed farmhouse with the listing description making reference to a mid 18th Century origin. Attached to the house and also listed is a barn. The proposal involves converting the barn into two residential units. One would be a 4 bedroomed house, the other a two bedroomed unit. The smaller is described as self contained accommodation for a dependent relative. It is in effect a dwelling being self contained and there being only a single doorway providing an internal link (at ground floor level).

Saved policies B11 and B12 are material planning considerations. B11 defines development cordons around a number of villages including Marton. B12 gives a presumption in favour of residential conversion subject to four criteria namely the building is structurally sound, served via a satisfactory access, services are available and the scale of development and detailing are appropriate.

The applicant has submitted a structural appraisal which concludes that the building is sound. Access is via a recently constructed private road approved as part of a new build development of four houses to the rear (ref 2006/0085).

Marton is also served by a mains system of sewage, which is also on the separate system. The conversion can therefore be connected in the same way as proposed with the new build development referred to. Scale appears appropriate and issues of detailing are dealt with below with regard to the listed building consent application.

Other issues raised include privacy and amenity considerations in relation to the adjacent High Farm, and nature conservation matters.

The north elevation of the barn (side elevation) adjoins the yard to High Farm. There are two existing window openings in this elevation both at ground floor level. One is proposed to serve a wc compartment the other a second window to a lounge. Both windows could potentially be removed but in the context of the listing it would be more appropriate for them to be retained. Provided the windows are obscure glazed the issue of privacy should be adequately resolved.

Three roof lights are also shown in this elevation. However these stand well above normal head height and again should not affect the neighbours privacy regardless of whether they are openable.

of 72 PLANNING COMMITTEE 1st February 2011 With regard to nature conservation matters Natural England have stated that there was insufficient information accompanying the application. A protected species report was however submitted at the time and I have contacted Natural England to clarify the situation. It would appear that further work is required. As an initial assessment failed to find any bats I feel it is appropriate to require further assessment by condition.

Finally unless a condition is imposed limiting the use of the dependent relatives accommodation it could be occupied at a later date as an independent dwelling. However I see no reason for limiting its use in this way.

RECOMMENDATION:

I recommend planning permission be GRANTED subject to the Standard Duration Limit and the following conditions:

Condition No. 2

The development shall be carried out in accordance with the application dated 18/04/10 and the hereby approved plans reference 554/02, 554/03, 554/05.

Reason

To keep the development within the terms of the permission.

Condition No. 3

Drainage must be on the separate system with all foul drainage connected to the foul sewers and only uncontaminated surface water connected to the surface water system.

Reason

In order to ensure that the site is adequately drained and in order to control the potential for pollution of the water environment.

Condition No. 4

Any re-pointing work shall be carried out in such a way that access to voids within the wall structure are provided as per detail 5 attached to the ‘Barn Owl Survey’ accompanying the planning application.

Reason

In the interest of promoting bio diversity.

Condition No. 5

Prior to the beneficial occupation of the 4 bedroomed unit hereby approved, obscure glazing must have been installed to the window openings in the buildings north elevation which with respect to the secondary lounge window may be by secondary glazing and which shall be done in accordance with a scheme which must have first been agreed in writing with the Planning Authority.

of 72 PLANNING COMMITTEE 1st February 2011 Reason

To protect the Privacy of the adjacent property.

Condition No. 6

Prior to the beneficial occupation of either residential unit provision shall be made for barn owls in accordance with the attached to the Barn Owl Survey forming part of the planning application and headed ‘Provision for Barn Owls’ unless a variation is otherwise agreed in writing with the Planning Authority.

Reason

In the interests of promoting bio diversity.

Condition No. 7

No development shall commence until a survey for the presence of any bats or nesting birds at the site has been carried out and submitted to and approved in writing by the Planning Authority. The survey shall only take place outside of the hibernation period recognised for bats (May to September) and shall be carried out by a suitably licensed person. If any evidence of any bats or nesting birds is found, then the report shall include measures for their protection during development and for the retention of existing or provision of alternative habitat. These approved measures shall be implemented in strict accordance with the approved details, unless the Planning Authority gives prior written approval for any variation. Reason In the interests of nature conservation so as to safeguard recognised protected species of wildlife.

Reason for Approval

That having regard to the provisions of Section 38(6) of the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act and all other material considerations, and subject to the proposed conditions, the development as proposed by reason of its location, design and orientation, will not have a detrimental impact upon the neighbouring properties or the visual amenities of the area. As such, the proposal complies with the Development Plan for the area, specifically policies B11 and B12.

______

2010/0915 Mr G Dobson Mr D Newby Datum Design Company WARD/PARISH: CASE OFFICER: DATE RECEIVED:

Dalton North Lindal and Charles Wilton 28/06/2010 Marton Parish Council 01229 876553 STATUTORY DATE: 22/08/2010

LOCATION:

Marton Hall, Moor Road Marton

PROPOSAL:

Listed building consent for works involved in conversion to residential units

POLICY D17

Applications for the re-use of empty Listed Buildings or prominent buildings in Conservation Areas will be given favourable consideration provided the redevelopment will not result in the significant loss of the property’s special architectural details or its historic fabric.

REPRESENTATIONS:

Development Advertised on site and in local press

Representations received, reported as part of planning application 2010/0914.

CONSULTATIONS:

English Heritage

“Our specialist staff have considered the information received and we do not wish to offer any comments on this occasion.

Recommendation

This application should be determined in accordance with national and local policy guidance, and on the basis of your expert conservation advice.”

Historic Environment Officer

“Marton Hall and attached barn are of historic interest as they are listed grade II and apparently date to the mid 18th century. No detailed description of the significance of the buildings is included with the application, nor has an assessment of the impact of the proposed development on that significance been undertaken, both of which are required by policy HE6 in Planning Policy Statement 5. Nevertheless, it is clear from the drawings submitted with the application that, at the very least, the proposed conversion of the barn will alter its character, appearance and some of its historic fabric.

Consequently, I recommend that an archaeological building recording programme of the barn be undertaken in advance of development. This recording should be in accordance with a Level 3 survey as described by English Heritage Understanding Historic Buildings A Guide to Good Recording Practice, 2006. I advise that this be secured by attaching a negative condition to any planning consent you may otherwise be minded to grant. I suggest the following form of words:

“Prior to the carrying out of any construction works the existing barn affected by the proposed development shall be recorded in accordance with a Level 3 survey as described by English Heritage’s document Understanding Historic Buildings A Guide to Good Recording Practice, 2006. Within 2 months of the commencement of construction works 3 copies of the resultant level 3 survey report shall be furnished to the Local Planning Authority.”

Reason: to ensure that a permanent record is made of the building of architectural and historic interest prior to its alteration as part of the proposed development

I trust this recommendation is acceptable.”

OFFICERS REPORT:

The planning issues raised by this proposal are dealt with separately under ref: 2010/0915. This report deals with the application for listed building consent.

New national policy guidance (PPS5) was issued in March 2010. This requires all applications effecting heritage assets (includes listed buildings) to assess the significance of the part of the asset to be altered and how this impacts on the significance of the asset as a whole. Section 66 of the Act also places a statutory duty on planning authorities to pay special attention to preserving the setting of a listed building and any features of importance it possesses.

The listing description for Marton Hall only makes passing reference to the barns commenting that they have been included for group value. It therefore appears that the primary reason for their inclusion in the list is in terms of protecting the setting of Marton Hall.

of 72 PLANNING COMMITTEE 1st February 2011 The barn forms/adds significantly to the setting of the rear of Marton Hall forming a U shaped courtyard open to Moor Road. Originally a number of new openings were proposed in the barn’s Moor Road elevation including a new garage door. These would have created an overly domestic façade detracting from the relationship it has with the Hall. New openings in the courtyard elevations have been significantly reduced and the setting of Marton Hall should be preserved/enhanced.

Also involved in the demolition of a small corrugated roof lean to which is relatively modern and of functional appearance.

While changes to the barn’s courtyard elevation are now modest that cannot be said of the rear or west facing elevation of the barn. There are a significant number of new openings proposed and which will affect the character of this elevation.

Much of this elevation was hidden until recently by modern agricultural buildings. These are in the process of demolition. This elevation is a non public elevation looking away from the highway. It faces land under the applicant’s ownership and which is in the process of being re-developed for housing (four units). Providing openings in this elevation help minimise alterations to more sensitive elevations. The elevation is not important in terms of the setting of Marton Hall.

The northern elevation faces onto the yard of High Farm. No new windows are proposed in this elevation though two existing window openings are to be retained. Three roof lights are proposed at high level.

Internally the main features of interest are the large king post roof trusses which appear to be of mid to late 19th Century. The scheme has been amended to show more clearly how these will be retained, though further information is still required and which can be dealt with via a conditional approval.

Finally there are changes to Marton Hall itself. A lean to kitchen extension has been added to its side (Moor Road) elevation. It is proposed to be replaced by a large extension with a gable elevation. The existing extension is of little historic or architectural merit with the proposed gable design more in keeping with the existing building.

An internal doorway will be formed linking the house to the nearest unit.

Marton Hall’s main elevation faces south. It has a symmetrical arrangement of windows centred around the front door. The proportions reflect Marton Hall’s Georgian origins. The elevation is not entirely symmetrical as the back of the barn runs through to from a continuation of the main house façade. Into this blind section the applicant proposes to replicate one of the first floor window openings. A doorway would be formed beneath. This is a particularly sensitive part of the development given its relationship to the principle elevation of Marton Hall. To some extent these alterations will compete with the current symmetrical arrangement of door and windows but on balance the effect should not detract from the buildings special character. Marton Hall has had upvc windows for many years (referred to in the listing description). The proposed window to the main façade will be a true sliding sash window. The applicant is also considering changing the existing windows to match. This will have a positive effect on the buildings special character.

of 72 PLANNING COMMITTEE 1st February 2011 RECOMMENDATION:

I recommend that Listed Building consent be GRANTED subject to the Standard Duration Limit and the following conditions:

Condition No. 2

Prior to the commencement of any works permitted by this consent the barn subject to this application shall be recorded in accordance with a level 3 survey as described by English Heritage’s document ‘Understanding Historic Buildings A Guide to Good Recording Practice, 2006’. Three copies of the resulted level 3 survey report shall have been submitted to and approved by the Local Planning Authority prior to the commencement of the works hereby approved.

Reason

To ensure that a permanent record is made of the building prior to its alterations as part of the development.

Condition No. 3

The building shall only be re-pointed in lime mortar to which no cement has been added in accordance with a sample panel and specification which must have first been agreed in writing with the Planning Authority.

Reason

To protect the special character of the building.

Condition No. 4

Areas of the barn proposed to be rendered shall only be rendered with a lime render to which no cement has been added and in accordance with a specification and sample panel which must have first been agreed in writing with the Planning Authority.

Reason

To protect the special character of the building.

Condition No. 5

No work permitted by this consent shall be carried out until a detailed specification including sample sections of joinery work (glazing bars, sills etc.) or working drawings (scale 1:20, 1:10, 1:5, half or full size etc.) fully detailing the new / or replacement windows (cross sections for full glazing bars, sills, heads etc.) have been submitted to and approved in writing by the Planning Authority. The development shall be carried out using the approved specification and retained thereafter.

of 72 PLANNING COMMITTEE 1st February 2011 Reason

To ensure that the proposed works can be effected without detriment to the special architectural and historic interest of the listed building.

Condition No. 6

All external joinery shall be permanently maintained in a gloss paint finish.

Reason

In order to safeguard the special architectural or historic interest of the building.

Condition No. 7

All new rain water goods shall be of cast iron unless a variation is agreed in writing with the Planning Authority.

Reason

Condition No. 8

Prior to the formation of any new opening a method statement shall have been submitted to and approved in writing for the means of forming the opening and the work shall then proceed inaccordance with the approved statement.

Reason

To minimise the loss of historic fabric.

Condition No. 9

Notwithstanding plans forming part of this consent the roof trusses shall be retained insitu as free standing units in accordance with further details which must have first been submitted to and approved in writing with the Planning Authority.

Reason

Condition No. 10

The south elevation of the barn (forming an extension of the house elevation) and the gable to west elevation shall be retained in matching render to Marton Hall.

Reason

of 72 PLANNING COMMITTEE 1st February 2011 Condition No. 11

All new doors shall be of timber

Reason

Condition No. 12

The south facing roof slope of the barn if required to be reroofed shall be roofed in material salvaged from the other roofs of the barn. Unless a variation is agreed in writing with the Planning Authority.

Reason

Condition No. 13

With the exception of the roof referred to under condition No. 12 above all other roofs if reroofed in material other than that salvaged from the barn subject of this application shall be roofed in Burlington Slate laid to diminishing courses.

Reason

Condition No. 14

The means of forming any inner leaf shall be carried out in accordance with a scheme which must have been submitted to and approved in writing by the Planning Authority.

Reason

To assess the impact that it may have on any features of interest in particular the roof trusses and door and window openings.

Summary of Reasons for Granting Listed Building Consent

In reaching the decision to grant Listed Building Consent subject to conditions, the Borough Council have paid special regard to the desirability of preserving the building or its setting or any features of special architectural or historic interest it possesses and have concluded that the decision accords with the development plan and national guidance. ______

2010/0575 Mrs H Thompson Craig & Green Architects

Hawcoat Ian Sim 19/04/2010 01229 876384 STATUTORY DATE: 13/06/2010

LOCATION:

24 Baldwin Street, Barrow-in-Furness

PROPOSAL:

Erection of a detached dwelling in garden (outline with all matters reserved)

POLICY B3

Applications for residential development on unallocated sites will be permitted where they accord with the sequential approach of the Structure Plan and also satisfy the following criteria: i) The site is located within the built up area of existing settlements or the development cordons identified in Policy B13; and ii) The siting, scale, layout and design (in the materials and form of the buildings) of the development is sensitive to the local environment, it promotes the principles of ‘Secure by Design’ and adequate parking provision is made; and iii) Adequate access arrangements can be provided, including servicing the site by the public transport and by cycle routes; and iv) The development is laid out in a way that maximises energy efficiency; and v) The development will not result in the loss of land which has a recognised or established nature conservation interest; and vi) The development must not cause an undue increase in traffic passing through existing residential areas such as to be detrimental to residential amenity or highway safety; and vii) Adequate water supplies, foul and surface water sewers and sewerage treatment facilities exist or can be provided; and

of 72 PLANNING COMMITTEE 1st February 2011 viii) 'A risk-based approach will be adopted for development in or affecting flood risk areas to minimise the risk of flooding associated with the site and the potential effect development of the site might have elsewhere through increased run off or a reduction in the capacity of flood plains. This shall be in accordance with the sequential characterisation of flood risk set out in Table 1 of Planning Policy Guidance Note 25 'Development and Flood Risk; and ix) Where contamination is suspected, a desk study is undertaken and if necessary a site investigation is undertaken and remediation strategy submitted.

POLICY B5

Within the urban boundaries of Barrow and Dalton applications for new dwellings or conversions of existing buildings on suitable brownfield sites in residential areas or on the peripheries thereof will be permitted provided the design, siting, layout and access arrangements are satisfactory. This means that the development must also satisfy the criteria of Policy B3. This Policy will also apply to land currently or last used for employment purposes or with planning permission for employment use where the proposal involves the provision of housing for which a specific need has been identified and where the location is considered suitable by the Authority, or such housing is mixed with employment uses, or the existing use is an un-neighbourly or non-conforming one by reason of excessive traffic generation, noise or disturbance to local amenity.

REPRESENTATIONS:

Development advertised on site

Occupiers of 16, 18, 20, Baldwin Street, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 13, 15, Braunton Drive, Barrow. All informed.

The Occupier, 6 Baldwin Street, Barrow

“The proposed development seems to have its access in the rear of Baldwin Street. We regularly use this backstreet as we have a garage and vehicles and we are seriously concerned that this is going to be the main access point to this proposed development. Also the public foot-path is accessed by the back street so are pedestrians now at risk from a possible flow of traffic up the backstreet to this proposed development? We have serious concerns over public safety about the access to this proposed development.”

“I wish to express concern for the above mentioned development, my property is alongside the proposed site, and I feel concerned over the proposal of a dormer bungalow being built in such close proximity to myself.

of 72 PLANNING COMMITTEE 1st February 2011 The suggested vehicular access proposal will cause much congestion, I currently on most occasions cannot park in the front of Baldwin Street as there are so many cars on the street, as residents from Hawcoat Lane park here, I often in the winter have to park on the very dimly lit back street if that is possible, as many cars park along here too due to limited space in the front. I currently try to park near my garage, which my son has his vehicle in and we use daily, so need full access to, I am concerned this would be affected if the bungalow is built.

There are also other garages on the street which residents have difficulty getting into as the street is narrow and has no turning space. It is a very busy back street at present and would be made considerably worse if more access was required to gain entry to a bungalow. There is no turning point therefore cars must reverse either up or down, which is quite dangerous as a public footpath is directly at the entrance to the proposed site for vehicular access, and is in an awkward site for danger to pedestrians. I can state myself have found when trying to reverse up the street. I find this a problem myself already, and am concerned it would be made considerably worse.

The congestion and additional traffic will be a major issue, not only affecting Baldwin Street residents, but those on Braunton Drive, with additional traffic, it would be a concern for the safety of the people who frequently use the footpath and children who play in the areas.

I am also concerned that the proposed entrance may affect the structure of my garage, which is attached to the current gates that provide access, and are directly in line with the proposed entrance. So feel I should have been directly consulted regarding this decision.

My other concern is that directly at the area for proposed vehicle access is my main bedroom windows, which there is double aspect to the north and west, and landing window which my bathroom is directly in front of These will not only over look the entrance but depending on design could cause concern if built, looking directly onto the bungalow. My windows look directly into the proposed site not only would I not like intrusion into my privacy but I would not like to intrude onto someone else. Whatever direction the bungalow be built, there will be some windows facing my direction, and I am concerned with this.

I am enclosing land registry copies which show that we have some right of way to the proposed site and would like to have this looked into further. It states that the area hatched in blue on the plans give the purchaser and successors of 20 Baldwin Street right of way to this area. This may mean we have some direct say in this proposal and I would like this looking into in more detail, before decisions are made, I am also considering seeking legal advice on this matter that has been brought to my attention.

I feel due to this that I would like more consultation on this situation, and await response from yourselves.”

“Still have concerns over window locations and vehicle access by Baldwin Street.”

The Occupier, 117 Hawcoat Lane, Barrow in Furness

“I would like to raise an objection to the above planning application with respect to vehicular access will be provided from the existing eastern access. This is via Back Baldwin Street which my two garages open onto.

My objection is centred around the fact that parking in the back street is already a problem and increasing the traffic will eventually lead severe on street parking issues. The back street is quite narrow and there are very few places to park. Human nature being what it is will result in the owners of the proposed property parking in the back street and adding to this congestion. Also there will be a -significant increase in the risk of accidents based on the fact that there is a public footpath which a joins the proposed access point. There is significant public use of the path and with the potential of increased traffic the risk of an accident will also be increased.

Therefore I would be obliged if you would consider my objection and advise that your response. I would also appreciate acknowledgement that you have received my letter”.

The Occupiers, 2 Braunton Drive, Barrow – (Dated 01/05/10)

“I have a major concern about access to the property, which consists of vehicular access from a backstreet and a pedestrian access from Braunton Drive. I feel that the reality of the situation is that vehicular access will be predominately from Braunton Drive not from the existing eastern access (backstreet).

The reasons for this are:

Visitors, residents and delivery vans will find manoeuvring a car up a backstreet challenging and time consuming.

Turning a car around will be difficult, and reversing a car a considerable distance back down the backstreet to a sensible turning point equally challenging.

Delivery vans will find the above near impossible.

Parking a car in a poorly lit backstreet will not be a great option with security and vandalism both factors.

Walking down a poorly lit backstreet will not be an inviting proposition with personal safety, dog dirt, glass and general refuse all issues.

Refuse collection day will cause additional vehicular access problems in the backstreet and again not be inviting for use.

Braunton Drive is a relatively narrow street, containing a mixture of residents. There are both young children and elderly people who may be at risk because of the extra numbers of parked cars, moving traffic and general congestion.

These issues will in all probability lead residents, visitors and delivery people to use Braunton Drive which will allow easier, safer and more secure access to the proposed

of 72 PLANNING COMMITTEE 1st February 2011 dwelling. This I feel will increase traffic and parking in Braunton Drive, which is already a problem. Delivery vans already struggle to turn in the turning circle especially when cars are parked on the road. Access to residents drives around the turning circle is extremely tight and has very recently been the prime factor in a traffic accident between two of the residents. Even the adjacent area of Cliffe Lane has little or no parking. Also when a van access's Cliffe Lane the road is temporarily blocked due to the Lane not being a full width highway.

I have enclosed photographs to show what is quite often the case concerning parking in the backstreet, where the vehicular access is proposed. At various times there are parked vehicles even without the current development. These obstacles I feel would cause visitors, delivery vans and even the proposed residents to use the more sensible option of parking in Braunton Drive.

The logistics of building the house also concerns me with respect to large delivery trucks accessing such a narrow back street”.

The Occupiers, 2 Braunton Drive, Barrow – (Dated 23/11/10) . “With reference to the amended planning application for vehicular access from Braunton Drive, I would like to raise concerns regarding the proposed size of the dwelling and the overdevelopment of the site. The site plan shows very restricted room for off road parking and as previously stated this is a major concern of the local residents. The turning circle which would inevitably be used for additional parking has already been the primary factor in a traffic accident between two of the residents.

The footprint of the house shows little or no area for a garden and this would not fit in with the character of Braunton Drive.

I feel the proposed development will create a more enclosed situation for the surrounding properties at the front, side and rear of the development and have a detrimental on the surrounding area.

I hope you will take these concerns into account and look forward to your response.”

The Occupiers, 4 Braunton Drive – (Dated 02/05/10)

“We are writing to express concern about the proposed dwelling above. We feel there is not suitable vehicular access to the property from the backstreet in Baldwin Street. Delivery vans and refuse collection vans too would struggle to negotiate this access and would have to reverse either up to the property or down towards Hawcoat Lane. Any visitors/ residents would also find very little space to park. The backstreet is also badly lit.

Our feeling is that these residents, delivery vans and visitors will start to use the access from Braunton Drive.We have lived in Braunton Drive since it was built 37 years ago and during that time, with the increase in the number of cars per household, parking, delivery and refuse collection is difficult enough for us without additional vehicles trying to gain access to the proposed new house in Baldwin Street.

The backstreet from Baldwin Street is also used daily as pedestrian access via Braunton Drive and Cliffe Lane to the woodland walk at the bottom end of Cliffe Lane.

We hope that you will give serious consideration to these concerns and look forward to hearing from you”.

The Occupier, 6 Braunton Drive, Barrow

“We write with concerns regarding access to the new property both from the back street of Baldwin Street and pedestrian access into the property from Braunton Drive. The present property enjoys both pedestrian and vehicular access from Baldwin Street. The new property requires vehicular access from back Baldwin Street which is very narrow and would seem inappropriate given the increase in traffic and road safety issues it would cause the considerable local pedestrian community who use the backstreet to access and exit the cutting at the top of the backstreet.

Given the difficulties of access via the back street we have concerns that vehicular access will be via Braunton Drive to the back door of the new property and any increase in roadside parking will create a safety hazard for the community, pedestrians using the cutting and motorists trying to turn around in a small turning area in Braunton Drive.”

“Further to your correspondence regarding the revised planning application for the erection of a dormer bungalow on land at 24 Baldwin Street, Barrow in Furness with vehicular access from Braunton Drive, Barrow in Furness.

As residents at number 7 Braunton Drive we wish to register our objection to the proposed development and the detrimental impact that the proposal would have on Braunton Drive.

The revised plan for a driveway opening onto Braunton Drive and the increased traffic and congestion onto the lower end of the road of, in the first instance, large vehicles involved in the erection of the property and delivery of equipment / materials, etc., and later increased traffic of the residents of the property and visiting vehicles using and parking on the road.

The houses at the lower end of the road which are numbered 11, 13, 15, 10 and 8 have no frontage to allow parking outside their properties and any visitors to 11, 13 and 15 have to park further up the road to avoid blocking the neighbouring driveways, visitors to 8 and 10 park in the horseshoe outside these properties. The plan to introduce another driveway into this small area would overload an already congested situation which has previously resulted in several bumps and near misses when residents are reversing from the driveways.

Larger vehicles with business in the road, such as delivery, refuse and recycling vehicles normally gain access by backing into the road as manoeuvring larger vehicles in the horseshoe area is hazardous if cars are parked on the road.

of 72 PLANNING COMMITTEE 1st February 2011 We have personal experience of this problem as, between 1995 and 2000, our car was damaged whilst parked outside our property, firstly by an unknown driver reversing into the door of the car from the horseshoe in front of numbers 8 and 10 and secondly by one of the council recycling vehicles reversing down the road and damaging the wing and door of the car.

Hopefully the planning committee will revisit the proposed development at 24 Baldwin Street and consider the impact a further driveway and increased movement at the lower end of Braunton Drive would have on pedestrians using the public footpath alongside 24 Baldwin Street and the residents of Braunton Drive.”

The Occupiers, 7 Braunton Drive, Barrow

“I acknowledge receipt of your letter dated 5th January 2011 advising me of revised site plan and change in size of property to the proposed dormer bungalow in the garden of 24 Baldwin Street, Barrow in Furness.

I have visited the internet address as indicated in your correspondence and am unable to locate the revised application, the original application, dated 19/04/2010, and second application, dated 27/09/2010, with revised vehicle access from Braunton Drive, are viewable but there is no other application diagram of the propsed site on the website.

I would be obliged if you could update the portal with the revised site plan mentioned in your correspondence.”

Further to your letter dated 5 January 2011, regarding the revised plan, with change of size, of the proposed development at 24 Baldwin Street, Barrow in Furness.

The concerns detailed in our correspondence of 24 November 2010 regarding increased traffic / roadside parking / congestion at the lower end of Braunton Drive are still relevant and, although the new site plan indicates parking for more than one vehicle within the grounds of the property, visitors would be unlikely to use this area.

The proposed plans have also changed from a dormer bungalow to a two storey dwelling with drastically reduced proportions of between minus 3.3-4.3m (L); 1-2m (W) and an increase of only 0.2-0.7m in height. We also have concerns that, should the ‘outline with all matters reserved’ plans be passed (which indicates that building would not take place in the near future) the restrictions applied to the plans would be adhered to when the land was developed.

I attach a copy of our earlier correspondence regarding the application.”

“Having now had chance to view the application details and location plan we wish to revise our earlier email correspondence on the matter and make a formal objection to the application.

Our objections concern problems we feel will arise in Braunton Drive due to vehicle parking for the above sites visitors, deliver and owners. This street already experiences severe

of 72 PLANNING COMMITTEE 1st February 2011 congestion at times especially at the turning head at the end of the street where several drives (No. 7,9,11,13,15,8 and the 2 drives from No. 10) already converge and where the property is to be located.

Braunton Drive already suffers from additional parking problems from visitor to properties in Cliff Lane due to its very restricted made up street width, and the additional vehicles parking of their visitors and Braunton Drive's existing extended family residents.

The orientation of the property and size of building footprint on this very tight site area would suggest little or no room for vehicle manoeuvring to ensure forward motion when leaving site thus requiring considerable reversing distances in the already congested rear Baldwin Street creating real dangers for the considerable number of pedestrians who use the thoroughfare for access to the woods facility facing Cliff Lane for dog walking etc.

We appreciate the needs of the Council to identify suitable sites within the borough for dwelling purposes but strongly feel the restricted site size and building footprint together with the inevitable use of Braunton Drive for vehicle parking makes it unsuitable”.

“We have studied the revised building size and location on the site and would add the following additional comments to those in my letter of the 5 May 2010.

1 :- We still consider it to be an overdeveloped site.

2 :- We do not consider Barrow is suffering from any mayor issue of land supply warrenting this over development. 3 :- New planning guidelines suggest any new build garden development should be given close scrutiny for land reuse under previous developed land status. In this case the major increased conjestion created in Braunton Drive would seem a prime example of why this amendment was considered important.

“We wish to formally object to the Outline Planning Application for a dwelling at 24 Baldwin Street.

Fundamentally the existing eastern vehicular access that is referred to in the design and access statement does not reflect the logistics of vehicular access from what is predominantly a single lane back street leading to a footpath cutting onto Braunton Drive. The access would have no provision for a turning circle due to the available width directly in front of the proposed access point and would also be inaccessible to anything larger than a Transit type delivery van. This would naturally prompt the use of Braunton Drive for vehicular access. The requirement to reverse back down the single lane back street to a point at which a vehicle could be safely turned would also prompt the use of Braunton Drive for vehicular access. Visitors to the property would naturally use Braunton Drive for vehicular access simply because of ease of access and parking. Emergency vehicle access via Baldwin St back street is not viable and Braunton Drive would offer the most convenient route for attendance by emergency services. Refuse collections, the use of skips by Baldwin Street residents, poor lighting provision (as it is a backstreet and not a highway) and the inherent problems around dog excrement, rubbish, children playing, pedestrian movement and garage access are all additional contributory factors that would make Braunton Drive

of 72 PLANNING COMMITTEE 1st February 2011 the natural choice for vehicular movements in relation to the proposed dwelling. Baldwin Street is also the area of choice for allotment holders to park their vehicles and at times congestion in the backstreet and the back street running parallel with Hawcoat Lane for a short distance makes the suggestion of an access thoroughfare here impractical.

During the build phase it is highly unlikely that HGVs carrying the materials necessary for the construction of a proposed dwelling will have sufficient clearance to utilise the back street (existing vehicular access) and will therefore utilise Braunton Drive as the access point. This again is an unnecessary introduction of additional vehicle movements into Braunton Drive despite being labelled as a pedestrian access, Another major concern is around the proposal to introduce vehicular movements around a heavily used footpath with a 90 degree blind turn directly into the path of these vehicles accessing and leaving the property. The footpath is the main route utilised by dog walkers on their way to How Turin woods and sees significant footfall at all times of the day. To reverse a vehicle (as there is little chance to perform a 180 degree turn in the immediate vicinity for an average sized vehicle) directly across the face of a path with no pavement or other pedestrian provision prior to the proposed vehicle route is introducing a major risk.

There are a significant number of children in Braunton Drive who enjoy the relative freedom and security and quality of life that comes from residents that respect their ability to play safely in the immediate vicinity of their homes. There are also a number of elderly residents for who access and egress is already an issue with vehicles parked along the road. Braunton Drive is a relatively narrow strip of road and the introduction of vehicles that are neither aware of the demographic (and therefore do not take this into account while approaching and leaving the street) and cannot easily be accommodated will cause potential hazards for existing residents.

The turning circle directly in front of the proposed site is widely used for overflow parking and the residents of the seven homes immediately bordering the crescent have access issues due to the available width of exit route. There has already been one collision between resident's vehicles due to the proximity of these driveway entrances. Delivery vehicles are forced to reverse back into Cliffe Lane due to their inability to use the turning circle. In short, the inherent additional vehicular movements in Braunton Drive associated with this outline application, despite being labelled as a pedestrian access, will increase the risk of a Road Traffic Accident and impact heavily on the quality of life for all residents of Braunton Drive. We also have objections around the comments stating the "open aspect of the site to both east and west". The open aspect to the west faces directly over the front aspect of our property at 90 degrees to our windows. It would be impossible to avoid a 45 degree line of sight into three of our property's bedrooms and living room windows under the proposed placement of a dormer bungalow or any other type of dwelling for that matter. The location plan details a very tight boundary in the available envelope and mitigation at the detailed stage by siting the property further away from the west boundary wall seems improbable. The structure will also cast shadows across the front of my property limiting the daylight through the façade of the house and creating a potential blind spot during dark hours. Please consider all of the above points around our formal objection when assessing the viability of the outline application. We look forward to your response”.

The Occupier, 10 Braunton Drive, Barrow – (Dated 23/11/10)

of 72 PLANNING COMMITTEE 1st February 2011 “We wish to further formally object to the Outline Planning Application for a dwelling at 24 Baldwin Street. The major factors to our original objection were predominantly based on the assumption that Braunton Drive would be used as the major access to and from the house and vehicular movement in and around Braunton Drive would increase past the already saturated level. This assumption now forms the basis of the revised proposal.

The concerns around the proposal to the introduction of vehicular movements around a heavily used footpath remain as vehicles accessing and leaving the property would drive across the face of the path if approached from the correct side of the road.

The turning circle directly in front of the proposed site is widely used for overflow parking and the residents of the seven homes immediately bordering the crescent have access issues due to the available width of exit route. There has already been one collision between resident’s vehicles due to the proximity of these driveway entrances. Delivery vehicles are forced to reverse back into Cliffe Lane due to their inability to use the turning circle.

In short, the inherent additional vehicular movements in Braunton Drive associated with this outline application, now labelled as the main vehicular access, will increase the risk of a Road Traffic Accident and impact heavily on the quality of life for all residents of Braunton Drive.

We also have further objections around the comments stating the “open aspect of the site to both east and west”. The open aspect to the west faces directly over the front aspect of our property at 90 degrees to our windows. It would be impossible to avoid a 45 degree line of sight into three of our property’s bedrooms and living room windows under the proposed placement regardless of living/dining or sleeping allocation as suggested in the floor plan sketch. The drawings used for the submission do not represent the full footprint of our property which now extends to the easterly aspect and borders with the western boundary of No 24 Baldwin Street. The location plan details a very tight boundary in the available envelope and the property would not be in keeping with those surrounding it with suitable and sufficient off road parking provision and generally landscaped front aspects.

This is not previously developed land in that it is a private residential garden and the encroachment on the open space an additional dwelling would cause and the strength of feeling amongst residents would be polar to the statement made by the Chief Planner, Department for Communities and Local Government, Steve Quartermain who stated, “Together these changes emphasise that it is for local authorities and communities to take the decisions that are best for them, and decide for themselves the best locations and types of development in their areas.”

Please consider all of the above points around our formal objection when assessing the viability of the outline application. I look forward to your response.

“At the third time of objection I must still note that the amended and superceded plans are still not reflective of the western boundary currently spanned by No 10 Braunton Drive. The revised siting of the proposed plot still presents a direct line of sight into the majority of my property's windows and 3 of the 4 bedrooms. The siting of the entrance still presents all the issues previously logged in correspondence 1 and 2 from myself and the placement of two small cars on the revised plan suggests a footprint larger than I believe possible. A scale drawing of the available space (including the opening access to the property from Braunton Drive which is insufficient to accommodate anything larger than a standard car

of 72 PLANNING COMMITTEE 1st February 2011 due to my property's boundary) to the front of the proposed site and reflective of No 10's current footprint should be provided to present an accurate site impression. The objections from No 10 relating to siting, increase in traffic, insufficient parking, insufficient access during the build phase, risk to pedestrians using the public footpath, risk to children playing in Braunton Drive, access and egress to and from the properties already occupying the crescent, the use of open space to build a property that is not in keeping with those in the cul de sac and the general saturation of a heavily populated area of the cul de sac with an unecessary additional property all still stand.”

“I strongly oppose this proposal for a number of reasons.

• Existing access from Braunton Drive to Hawcoat lane is already very restricted. At the moment there is a skip situated in the backstreet across from the existing garages.

• Vehicles are unable to manoeuvre up the backstreet which can be challenging and time consuming.

People will think it easier to access the dwelling from Braunton Drive, but this will only cause increased frustration for the residents, myself included. This will increase traffic and could potentially become very dangerous for the children playing. Delivery vans already struggle to turn in the turning circle. Although the residents use their drives around the turning circle, the people visiting, delivering etc. have no where to park and residents constantly encounter obstructions. –

I hope you take my comments and concerns into consideration when dealing with this matter.

I look forward to your response”.

“My concern is access to the property which consists of vehicle access from a service road at rear of houses in Baldwin Street and pedestrian access to Braunton Drive the latter has always been there but rarely used fence if used as described but in reality due to difficulty of rear Baldwin Street access Braunton Drive will be used for residents, visitors, deliveries etc in an area already congested with parked cars making use of my driveway difficult most of the time.

Please consider these concerns when considering this application and I look forward to your response.”

The Occupier, 15 Braunton Drive, Barrow.

“The worry I have with this dwelling is the Pedestrian access being used as back door parking using the turning circle for loading, waiting and visiting vehicles. this area at the moment serves as exit and entrance for eight cars who drive directly onto it never minding visting traders etc. I can not believe that any persons needing access to the property would use the back street as it has garage and parking problems in its own right.”

The Occupier, 37 Cliffe Lane, Barrow.

“I wish to voice my concerns regarding the vehicular access shown on the above proposal. The existing vehicle access shown on the outline plan is in fact a backstreet which in reality will not be used for access or parking due to issues regarding security along with access on refuse day etc.

I believe the main parking area for this proposal will in fact be the Braunton Drive turning circle. This area is already highly congested leading to overspill parking in Cliffe Lane at certain times. As Cliffe Lane is basically a single lane road at the Southern end this will create a potential hazard.

I hope my concerns are taken into account and look forward to your response.”

The Occupiers, 39 Cliffe Lane, Barrow

“The concerns I have regarding this application are the access to the property by means of the rear lane leading to Hawcoat Lane to the East.

This lane is known as Rear or Back Baldwin Street, As a resident of the above address for over 30 years and together with my wife, both regular users of this lane (and both pensioners), T would say that access to the proposed property through this lane would be a very difficult manoeuvre due to regular parked vehicles, with an average of 3 to 4 vehicles which are stationary most days especially in the evening etc.

When you add the fact of no lighting whatsoever together at the garages at the rear of the Baldwin St houses, also the two garages situated on the North side of Rear Baldwin Street.

This leads me to one conclusion that Braunton Drive will become the main access by both residents of the proposed property and visitors, which will cause further congestion and extra danger to residents and their children”.

CONSULTATIONS:

Cumbria Fire & Rescue – No response received.

United Utilities

“I have no objection to the proposed development.

If possible this site should be drained on a separate system, with only foul drainage connected into the foul sewer. Surface water should discharge to the soakaway/watercourse/surface water sewer and may require the consent of the Environment Agency. If surface water is allowed to be discharged to the public surface water sewerage system we may require the flow to be attenuated to a maximum discharge rate determined by United Utilities.

Cumbria Highways

“I refer to the above consultation received here on 11/11/2010 and would inform you that there are no objections to the proposal from a highway point of view, subject to the following recommended conditions being included in any Notice of Consent which may be issued:-

1. Layout and Access Requirements All matters relating to the layout of the site the means of access and parking within the site shall be reserved for approval at the detail planning stage.

Reason: In the interest of highway safety

2. On Site Parking Provision shall be made in the submission of reserved matters for a minimum of 2

parking spaces.

Reason:To ensure that a minimum standard of parking provision is made for the development.”

OFFICERS REPORT:

24 Baldwin Street is a detached property that enjoys a spacious plot having a rectangular shape in plan view. The garden area extends northwards and the properties of Braunton Drive form the western boundary of the site; to the north is a walkway and the highway turning head separating the northern properties of Braunton Drive from the application site, whilst the terraced properties of Baldwin Street form the eastern boundary with the application site. The applicants' own property and garden will be the southern boundary delineation.

The application site has an almost rectangular shape being approximately 16 metres x 15 metres with a slight protrusion eastwards towards the rear highway giving an indicated area of 250 square metres. An illustrative layout plan has been submitted, however, this in itself carries limited weight in planning terms as all matters are reserved for subsequent approval and merely seeks to indicate at an early stage that the land could accommodate a residential unit. The illustrative layout indicates a possible footprint of the proposed two storey dwelling to be 8.7 metres x 7.5 metres with a ridge height of 7.2 metres with the dwelling being located towards the north eastern corner of the site. Originally the application was for a dormer bungalow of a larger footprint and ridge height.

Members will have noted the proposal has generated opposition and these objections can be summarised into basically two categories (a) access (b) and loss of amenity. The scheme has been amended to take into account the comments of both the statutory consultees and the local residents in that the vehicular access to the site has been changed from the rear highway from Hawcoat Lane to the turning head located off Braunton Drive and off-road parking and turning area has been shown on the illustrative sketch. In addition the property has been relocated (towards the north-eastern corner of the application site from an original central location) to accommodate these changes and the footprint of the dwelling reduced from 11/12 metres in length with a 8.5/9.5 metres width and a proposed ridge height of 8.5/9 metres to 8.7 metres in length, 7.5 metres in width and a ridge height of 7.2 metres.

Development in rear gardens is usually referred to as backland development as such plots generally do not have direct access to a highway. In this case the plot faces onto Brauntion Drive and is therefore not backland development.

A further important consideration is the changes made to national planning policy with respect to the status of residential curtilages. They had been designated as previously developed or brownfield land. The designation has been changed to greenfield status. The effect of this change has been to reduce the emphasis on approving such development. However it does not equate to such applications being automatically refused.

Council’s are required to ensure that there is an adequate supply of housing land. The local plan allocated a number of larger sites for this purposes which with so called windfall site fulfils the Councils obligations in terms of housing land supply. However there have been increasing reliance on windfall sites for this purpose as opposed to the allocated sites. Of the windfall sites residential gardens represent a significant proportion.

Furthermore less weight can now be placed on regional planning policy which set higher targets for development on brownfield land. As a consequence of the above applications for new housing in domestic gardens will need to be treated on their merits. In this case following changes to the proposed access and positioning, the scheme is now acceptable.

RECOMMENDATION:

I recommend that planning permission be GRANTED subject to the Standard Duration Limit and the following conditions:

Condition No. 2

There shall be no vehicular access to or egress from the site other than from Braunton Drive.

Reason

In the interests of highway safety and to ensure that suitable access for the development exists at all times.

Condition No. 3

Details showing the provision of a vehicle turning space within the site, which allows vehicles visiting the site to enter and leave the site in a forward gear, shall be submitted to the Planning Authority for written approval. The development shall not be brought into use until any such details have been approved and the turning space constructed in accordance with the approved details. The turning space shall thereafter be maintained clear of all obstructions, and shall not be used for any other purpose, unless the Planning Authority gives prior consent to any variation.

Reason

To ensure that the proposed development does not prejudice the free flow of traffic along the neighbouring highway network.

Condition No. 4

Notwithstanding the provisions of the Town and Country Planning (General permitted Development) (Amendment) (No 2) (England) Order, 2008 (or any Order revoking or re- enacting that Order with or without modifications) no dormer extension(s) shall be added to the property hereby approved.

Reason

In order to protect the residential amenities of neighbouring properties and future occupier(s )of the development hereby approved from overlooking or perceived overlooking and for the avoidance of doubt.

Condition No. 5

Surface water arising from the development shall be disposed of via soakaways or by other on site means inaccordance with details which must have first been agreed in writing by the Planning Authority and shall not be discharged into the combined sewer.

Reason

To avoid surface water being disposed off into the combined sewer.

Reason

In order to ensure that the site is adequately drained in accordance with the sustainable principles found in PPG25.

Condition No. 6

The footprint of the dwelling hereby approved shall not exceed a footprint of 66m².

Reason

In order to avoid undue impact on the amenities of neighbouring properties.

Condition No. 7

The development hereby approved shall be of no more than two storeys.

Reason

In order to avoid undue impact on the amenities of neighbouring properties.

of 72 PLANNING COMMITTEE 1st February 2011 Reason for Approval

That having regard to the provisions of Section 38(6) of the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act and all other material considerations, and subject to the proposed conditions, the development as proposed by reason of its location, design and orientation, will not have a detrimental impact upon the neighbouring properties or the visual amenities of the area. As such, the proposal complies with the Development Plan for the area, specifically policies B3 and B5.

______

2010/1644 Pulse FitnessPulse Fitness Good & Tillotson

Parkside Barry Jesson 23/11/2010 01229 876323 STATUTORY DATE: 20/12/2010

LOCATION:

Park Leisure Centre, Greengate Street, Barrow-in-Furness

PROPOSAL:

Non-material amendment to ref. 2009 / 1849 to reduce footprint of carpark with changes to approved layout.

POLICY E16

Secure cycle parking provision, in accordance with the Council’s adopted guidelines, will be required in all new car parks, particularly those associated with employment, retail, leisure and educational developments. Also the Authority will favour the provision of shower facilities at employment-generating developments

Re-designed car park providing sufficient parking for both the existing leisure centre and the proposed soccer facility. No justification provided by Cumbria Highways for their objection.

REPRESENTATIONS:

CONSULTATIONS:

Cumbria Highways

“I refer to the above consultation received at your offices on 23/11/2010 and would comment as follows.

The proposal shows a reduction of onsite car parking provision from that already approved which is not acceptable.

I would therefore recommend that the application is refused for the following reason:-

1. On-Site Parking

The Local Planning Authority considers that in the absence of adequate on-site parking space the proposed development would be likely to result in vehicles being parked outside the site on the county highway to the detriment of the free flow of traffic and road safety. To support Local Transport Plan Policy: LD7, LD8”

OFFICERS REPORT:

The Park leisure centre is located in the south east corner of the park and is divided into the leisure centre building and the outdoor artificial playing surface which has its own pavilion. Both facilities share the car park, which has a one way system, the entrance being located on Greengate Street, and the exit being at the north end of the site onto Park Drive. Planning consent was approved in 1989 (1989/0531 and 1989/0838 refer).

This application is the result of Barrow Borough Council reaching agreement with Pulse Fitness to refurbish the outdoor area, the pavilion, and the car park area. Consent has been granted for the scheme (2009/1849), the proposal before you is a non-material amendment to reduce the footprint of the car park with changes to the approved layout. The pavilion and pitches remain as originally designed.

The result of the amendment is the existing mound located between the leisure complex and Greengate Street will largely remain, albeit re-profiled including the distributed spoil from the proposed car park area. While the footprint of the proposed extension to the existing car park has been reduced, the re-design minimises the loss of spaces. The resulting car park has been confirmed to be as follows:

“The existing car parking facilities are as follows.

Leisure Centre dedicated 68 spaces Soccer Pavilion 24 spaces Disabled 4 spaces. Over flow area (grass-crete spaces adjacent recycle bin area) 38 spaces. 4 no disabled spaces Total 134 spaces

New scheme:

Leisure Centre dedicated 68 spaces (NO CHANGE) Disabled 10 spaces Over flow car parking 38 spaces (NO CHANGE) Soccer Pavilion 88 spaces New total 204 – 11 less than previously approved.

In addition to the vehicular parking, cycle parking facilities remain and improved pedestrian links between the artificial pitches and the Leisure Centre are incorporated in the re- design.

However, Cumbria Highways have objected to the amendment on the basis that the reduction in spaces from that approved is not acceptable. The resulting car park, including the overflow and existing car park areas appears more than sufficient to meet the needs of a facility of this size. Indeed, the document ‘Parking Guidelines in Cumbria 1997' has no stated requirement for minimum/maximum numbers of parking spaces for uses such as that proposed. Instead, for cars, it states that they must be assessed on merits.

No objection was raised by Highways to the original application which contained only a small number of additional spaces. Simply because there is a reduction in the number of proposed additional spaces should not be reason in itself to object to the scheme – no justification has been provided by Cumbria Highways as to why the reduction leads to an inadequate car park.

RECOMMENDATION:

I recommend that the non-material amendment to ref 2009/1849 to reduce footprint of approved car park with changes to approved layout be approved.

______

2010/1374 Mr Ian Turnbull Mr J Dryden Dryden Goldsmith Architects WARD/PARISH: CASE OFFICER: DATE RECEIVED:

Central Jason Hipkiss 28/09/2010 01229 876485 STATUTORY DATE: 27/12/2010

LOCATION:

45 Storey Square, Barrow-in-Furness

PROPOSAL:

Erection of 13 two bedroomed flats (Re-submission of application 2010/0906 in a revised form).

POLICY B3

Applications for residential development on unallocated sites will be permitted where they accord with the sequential approach of the Structure Plan and also satisfy the following criteria: i) The site is located within the built up area of existing settlements or the development cordons identified in Policy B13; and ii) The siting, scale, layout and design (in the materials and form of the buildings) of the development is sensitive to the local environment, it promotes the principles of ‘Secure by Design’ and adequate parking provision is made; and iii) Adequate access arrangements can be provided, including servicing the site by the public transport and by cycle routes; and iv) The development is laid out in a way that maximises energy efficiency; and v) The development will not result in the loss of land which has a recognised or established nature conservation interest; and vi) The development must not cause an undue increase in traffic passing through existing residential areas such as to be detrimental to residential amenity or highway safety; and vii) Adequate water supplies, foul and surface water sewers and sewerage treatment facilities exist or can be provided; and

of 72 PLANNING COMMITTEE 1st February 2011 viii) 'A risk-based approach will be adopted for development in or affecting flood risk areas to minimise the risk of flooding associated with the site and the potential effect development of the site might have elsewhere through increased run off or a reduction in the capacity of flood plains. This shall be in accordance with the sequential characterisation of flood risk set out in Table 1 of Planning Policy Guidance Note 25 'Development and Flood Risk; and ix) Where contamination is suspected, a desk study is undertaken and if necessary a site investigation is undertaken and remediation strategy submitted.

POLICY B4

For allocated and unallocated sites the Authority will expect a density of at least 30 dwellings per hectare with higher densities sought in accessible locations and/or where consistent with good urban design principles.

POLICY B5

Within the urban boundaries of Barrow and Dalton applications for new dwellings or conversions of existing buildings on suitable brownfield sites in residential areas or on the peripheries thereof will be permitted provided the design, siting, layout and access arrangements are satisfactory. This means that the development must also satisfy the criteria of Policy B3. This Policy will also apply to land currently or last used for employment purposes or with planning permission for employment use where the proposal involves the provision of housing for which a specific need has been identified and where the location is considered suitable by the Authority, or such housing is mixed with employment uses, or the existing use is an un-neighbourly or non-conforming one by reason of excessive traffic generation, noise or disturbance to local amenity.

POLICY D21

Development proposals in the countryside shall respect the diversity and distinctiveness of local landscape character. New farm buildings will, in general, be required to be sited within or adjacent to an existing farm building complex or in other well screened locations and to be subject to a complementary design and use of materials, with, where necessary, a ‘planting’ scheme.

POLICY E9

All development should provide for its car parking requirements. However, within the Barrow town centre block (indicated in Proposals map 4 and where A15, B7, C5, C6 & C7 apply) private parking provision will not be required on-site for residential or commercial development. Parking within that area will only be available on-street or within publicly provided off-street areas. This may require the payment of commuted sums towards the cost of publicly provided parking in lieu of on-site parking provision. Development proposals in the Barrow town centre block will further be considered having regard to the level of public transport provision in the area and any improvements to that provision proposed by developers.

An urban brownfield site that is classed as a Windfall site for housing purposes as it is not allocated in the development plan, but is located within a well established residential area. As with most of the central area there is a heavy reliance upon on street parking for residents and other visitors. However, national and local plan policies support the exclusion of on site parking in the allocated town centre area due to the proximity to facilities and as a means of encouraging the use of other modes of transport.

As this is a high density scheme it is important to ensure that living standards are not compromised by the close proximity to building at the rear through careful design of the internal layout.

The potential behaviour of any future occupants. The perceived right to park on the street outside of one’s home. The developer’s assessment of the housing market

REPRESENTATIONS:

The Occupiers of 68 – 86 (evens) Mount Pleasant, 34, 36, 38, 40, 41, 42, 43, 44, 45, 46A, 46B, 48, 49, 50, 52, 53A, 53B, 53C, 53D, 54, 56 Storey Square, (Flats A, B, C) 47 Storey Square, (Flats 1, 2, 3, & 4) 51 Storey Square, Barrow-in-Furness all informed.

The Occupier, 26 Storey Square Barrow.

“More junkie flats for my children to avoid!!! Wrong so wrong!”

The Occupiers, 28 Storey Square, Barrow.

“I am writing to object to the planning application of 14 flats as 45 Storey Square. I have contacted you before on this matter regarding parking in the street. I am also concerned about who will be living in these flats. We already have flats occupied by unsavoury characters at Adelphi Court and there are also Bradford & Northern Homes at 21, 22, 23, 31. Only one of these homes keep themselves to themselves, cause no trouble, unlike the others with fighting & drunkenness which the police are then involved. My mother-in-law lives at 48 Storey Square who will be opposite She is disabled so gets quite upset if

of 72 PLANNING COMMITTEE 1st February 2011 there’s any trouble, who will monitor the people who will be there, because if these flats go ahead the owner will want them occupied all the time for rent, he doesn’t have to live in this street so as long as he’s getting rent anybody will be put in, also as I’ve said before parking is terrible especially after 6pm. Residents from other streets that cannot park equally park in Storey Square. It wouldn’t be so bad if it was residents only, why can’t he just build 4 houses, as the permission was given for the builder at Oxley’s yard has sold his and is building two more. So they do sell.”

The Occupier, 32 Storey Square, Barrow

“Although the old church hall is under demolition, I would prefer to see a smaller, more manageable development on the site rather than the 14 flats which have been applied for.

I live nearby and although I realise that change inevitably occurs, the overall good of the local community is paramount.”

The Occupiers, 38 Storey Square, Barrow.

"Expressed concerns about parking and have requested a disabled driver bay outside their home without success. They are also concerned about the occupants of the flats bringing similar anti social behaviour to the street as they are currently experiencing with the occupiers of flats further down the road".

The Occupier, 41 Storey Square, Barrow-in-Furness

“I am writing to you to object about the plans for 14 two bedroom flats in Storey Square. When the plans were first put in they were for houses not flats. We don’t understand why they are allowed to change their plans from houses to flats.

We know that the government states that parking is not an issue, but we think it is. It does not only affect our street but all the streets around us. People park in Storey Square even without a permit which allows them 2 hours parking but we have seen cars without permits park all day and people without permits and allowed to park all night after 6pm to 8pm. So sometimes if you go out in your car in the evenings we are unable to find a parking space when we get home which we do not think is fair when we have to have a permit to park in our area. We think that something must be done about the parking situation and also the permit situation.”

The Occupier, 49 Storey Square, Barrow-in-Furness

“I would very much like to object to planning application ref: B07/2010/1374 for 45 Storey Square.

Under the Council’s regulations each property has the right to have two parking permits. Where are the 28 extra cars going to park. It is already chaos. Storey Square used to be very much a family street until properties were sold and changed to flats. I am now surrounded by flats which has caused a lot of distress as it is noisy and dirty. I have been burgled twice and had trouble with the neighbours.

I am emphatically against this proposal.”

The Occupier, 18 Newby Terrace, Barrow.

“I am still concerned about the access for people in wheelchairs or for those using perambulators in the proposed development of 45 Story Square which does not seem to have been provided in the revised plans on Barrow Borough Council website. It was my understanding that an Access Officers report would have been provided on the Barrow Borough Council website and I was so advised by one of the young ladies in the Planning Department at Barrow Town Hall. She told me that this document had been posted on to the website by her and that it comprised two pages which she had done herself.

As an older person I feel that the need for space to 'move around in' is very important and these plans do not provide this facility should a resident become impaired in their mobility. It was my understanding that all 'New Build' properties would provide this facility.

Should I take up tenancy of one of the upper flats in this development I would be debarred from inviting friends who were wheelchair users. When a development is a refurbishment of an old building I understand that this might happen. This development is a new build and should, I believe, contain consideration for those of us with disabilities.”

The Occupier, 52 Mount Pleasant – (Dated 18/10/10)

“OBJECTION to Planning Application B07/2010/1374 Methodist Church Storey

Please note -the enlargement of any planning documents has been 141%

We remain totally opposed to the building of a block of 14 flats on land where homes have never been built before on the grounds that this is over-development of the site.

We do not consider the council flats which were built decades ago towards the Church Street end of Storey Square create any precedent for yet more flats to be built. Those flats were (unfortunately) of their time and we hope to see them replaced by houses as is happening in Albert Street. Nor do we think the conversion of the hostel on Church1 Ramsden Streets to be of relevance either since this was basically a revamp of a building already classed as multiple occupancy - the only relevance is regarding parking when the concerns expressed by Cumbria Highways were ignored.

We have studied the amended plans and wish to comment as follows.

Notwithstanding the fact that all flats would now have access via Storey Square – which can only be a good thing - we are more concerned with what is not on the plans. Rear elevation and floor plans - do not 'match'

According to the floor plans there should be seven rear windows on the ground, first and second floors but only six are shown on the rear elevation.

No window is shown on the elevation drawing for the smaller bedroom of basement flat 1.

Using the floor plans we have provided a copy of the rear elevation with our own marking of where the 'missing' windows would most likely be, according to those plans.

Front elevation shows railings

Rear elevation drawing does show railings, cycle racks or waste and recycling bins.

Rear elevation and ‘general waste bins’'

The original plans included three waste bins for the use of all residents. This plan shows two. Assuming the bins have to contain waste in the same capacity ratio provided by the borough council of 120 litres per household each bin would have to hold 120 x 7 litres each i.e. a minimum of 840 litres. Research has shown that the minimum size for bins of such capacity would be approx 4' 6" high x 4' 6" wide and 3' 6" deep We enclose another copy of the rear elevation showing two wheelie bins - to scale – in their proposed location outside the 'missing' window of basement flat 1.

The plan also shows the provision of one large recycling bin but this would have to be augmented by containers for paper to comply with regulations.

Section showing "how natural daylight is gained to the Lower Ground floor flats"

This section suggests that natural light is gained equally to the front and back of the basement flats. This is not the case. The houses on Storey Square opposite the development are at least 40 feet away from the proposed location of the front basement windows. At the rear however, the Church Hall wall is about seven feet away and 12 feet high for approximately 60 feet running backwards from Allison Street - up to where the proposed building is set back to about 14 feet.

All rear basement and ground floor windows will 'face' the church wall - mostly bedroom windows, but for ground floor flat No 4 the living room windows do so as well.

It might seem that where the proposed building is set back it is advantageous but this is the space to accommodate the aforementioned two wheelie bins - outside basement flat No 1.

We have enclosed a copy of the original 'section' and a 'composite' section using the Allison Street elevation plan to show the proximity and height of the church hall at both ends of the rear yard i.e, the 'gate' end and the 'wheelie bin' end. We have also 'extended' the arrows on the plan showing the 'direction of light'.

The yard slopes downwards from Allison Street and this may also 'increase' the height of the Church Hall wall relative to the basements.

The front of our house (52 Mount Pleasant) is in the same orientation as the rear of the proposed block of flats - which overlooks the church hall - and it never receives sunlight until quite late in the day. We live on a fairly wide street and are fortunate in having plenty of good daylight, if not sunlight - we are not seven feet from a church hall wall and we do not have two wheelie bins placed outside a window.

An aerial photograph of the area is enclosed which clearly shows the front of the even numbered houses in Mount Pleasant and Storey Square to be in shade whilst their respective backstreets have plenty of sunlight/daylight.

of 72 PLANNING COMMITTEE 1st February 2011 On Sunday 10th of October - a very sunny day - we took several photographs from the back of our house showing the planned location of the flats next to the church hall – the white 'triangle' is the gable end of the church hall and the scaffolding behind is on the site where the church has been demolished.

Photos 10.18amlll.50amllpm/3.40pm. It can be clearly seen that while sunlight is seen on the rear of the Mount Pleasant houses the back of the houses in Storey Square remain in shadow - except for their highest roofs. Sunlight is seen on the scaffolding but only because it is now an empty site. The block of flats would be as high as the adjoining Storey Square houses.

Photos 5.15pm/5.18pm/5.30pm/5.35pm. While the back of the Storey Square houses start to receive sunlight the proposed site is now in shadow from the gable end of the house on the corner of Allison Street and Storey Square. As the sun moves round and gets lower the top third of the scaffolding receives some sunlight over the house roof.

Two photographs taken at 10.16am and 5.36pm on this day are enclosed, enlarged to show more clearly how close the church hall would be to the rear of the flats - and two photographs from Google which show how close the church hall was to the church. We believe it can clearly be seen that there would be very poor daylight, never mind sunlight received by the rear basement, ground floor flats and possibly the first floor flats considering their planned closeness to the roof of the church hall.

Materials

Roof - grey concrete tiles, Walls - red faced brick, green vertical oak boarding and blue brick spandrels. Plus a glazed lantern.

We fail to see how green boarding, blue bricks and a glazed lantern is in any way sympathetic to either the area or the church building which previously occupied the site.

Parking

We must very reluctantly acknowledge that parking has by 'virtue' of PPG13 been classed as a non-material consideration in this application. Acknowledged - but not accepted.

We must stress once again, that in this small area parking is very much a problem and any new homes will bring additional vehicles - exacerbating the difficulties. Cumbria Highways confirmed this and asked in the previous application for this to be taken into account by the council. Since any residents can apply for up to two parking permits then the increase in parking problems can be firmly blamed on whoever is responsible for allowing the flats to be built without off-road parking - and that would be the council.

There seem to be double standards regarding parking in the same street. The six houses in the small terrace being completed on the site of the former Oxley's builder's yard in Storey Square cannot be occupied until each of their individual off-road parking spaces are available yet we have been told that 'parking' for the flats is not a material consideration on which our comments can be taken into account. Why is this and on whose authority is the Planning Department allowed to arrive at such an arbitrary decision?

Access for people with disabilities - none?

of 72 PLANNING COMMITTEE 1st February 2011 It would also be inadvisable for a potential resident to be so poorly as to require being carried down the spiral stairs by paramedics.

Convenience

We can only imagine the difficulties in getting large and/or heavy furniture and appliances such as beds, sofas, wardrobes and washing machines into the first and second floor flats which would be accessed via the circular staircase in the 'tower'. What about small children? Getting them and their buggies/prams up a spiral staircase with steps which are only half the width on one side would be a nightmare and yet it is highly likely that young families are the intended occupants of the flats.

Overall

Six new terraced houses in Greengate Street have recently been completed for Accent Homes.

The third and fourth houses of a planned terrace of six, with individual off-road parking, are now under construction in Storey Square - less than 100 metres from the former church site.

We therefore fail to see how the developer can state that the previously approved four houses, with off-road parking, are unlikely to sell "within the current market" - let alone proffer that as the reason for submitting plans for the flats!

At the time of the submission of the original planning application the chief architect claimed in The Evening Mail that the site was in the "middle of bedsit land". This clearly indicated that the flats would not be for sale to individual private owners who would live in them - for who would 'market' properties with the sales pitch 'middle of bedsit land'?

We believe it highly likely that the flats would be owned by an absentee landlord (or landlords) and they have been specifically designed with the intention of cramming asmany as possible onto the site, to be rented by people desperate for a home – however small and lacking in light it may be.

We have copied the following from the Officer's report to the Planning Committee held on 24th August regarding the originally submitted plans.

"Externally the design replicates some of the mass and appearance of the original church including the tower feature with glazed cupola." and "Overall I consider that the design is appropriate for the location and raises no adverse issues". A Church does not have to conform to its neighbours. It stands alone - quite often in its own unique architectural style.

Having now sadly lost such a handsome building as the Methodist Church we do not want a pale imitation pretending to replicate its mass and appearance and we especially do not want a tower 'feature' with a glazed cupola sticking out like the proverbial sore thumb.

The design is most certainly not appropriate for the location and it does indeed raise adverse issues.

of 72 PLANNING COMMITTEE 1st February 2011 The second aerial photograph clearly shows the size of the site in relation to its 'neighbours'. It is about half the size of the four adjacent houses and still smaller than four of the houses opposite in Storey Square and yet the developer has plans to squash 14 new families onto the site.

This is an over intensive, backward looking plan offering homes which are inferior in design to those which have stood in this area for over 100 years. We sincerely hope members of the Planning Committee look to the Council's commitment over recent years of improving housing in Hindpool and Central - where housing has been thinned or demolished to make way for newer houses or improved homes with communal areas for residents.

If the members allow these cramped flats to be built where there have never been any homes it will be a retrograde action that will be the equivalent of an official slap in the face to the current residents of this small area.

Any new building or buildings on this site ought to reflect the local architecture of the area, the defining character of which is its mix of traditional single-fronted terraced houses.

Complaint from N and L Hill, 52 Mount Pleasant, Barrow

INDEX TO ADDITIONAL DOCUMENTS (Appendix A)

1. Submitted rear elevation 2. Rear elevation showing unmarked windows 3. Rear elevation showing position of two wheelie bins 4. Submitted section showing how daylight is gained to Lower Ground Floor Flats 5. Composite section showing proximity of Church Hall to rear of proposed flats and 'daylight' 6. Aerial photograph showing orientation of 52 Mount Pleasant and rear of proposed Flats. 7. Photographs taken between 10.18am and 3.40pm showing movement of sunlight 8. Photographs taken between 5.15pm and 5.35pm showing movement of sunlight 9. Photograph taken at 10.16am 10. Photograph taken at 5.36pm 11. Google photograph showing closeness of church hall to the church prior to its demolition. 12. Aerial photograph showing size of site for proposed flats in relation to neighbouring houses.

The Occupier, 52 Mount Pleasant – (Dated 19/10/10)

“Please note that I wish to address the planning Committee.”

The Occupiers, 82 Mount Pleasant, Barrow.

“Can I please draw the Planning Committee's attention to the fact that replacing one leviathan of a building monstrosity with another building of similar height and dimensions seems not only selfish but downright arrogant towards the residents in this area? Do you not think we have had enough of this huge hulk of a building (The old Church) dominating the entire corner block of Storey Square & Allison Street without it being replaced by another domineering building. If it MUST be Flats, and it appears on reading through the

of 72 PLANNING COMMITTEE 1st February 2011 Application document that it must, since 4 Town houses (although far more in keeping with this area) weren't deemed financially viable, then do they really need to be three storeys high? Two storeys and the basement Flats would, looking at the Plans place 10 income- earning Flats on the site. Is there really a need for that third storey apart from greed on the part of the future Landlord of these Flats? Is it any wonder that the local Press used the term 'bedsit land' in a recent article when referring to this particular area when fourteen Flats are being forced upon the local residents of this area ? Its not as if there are any other buildings of a similar nature in this part of Storey Square/Allison Street/Mount Pleasant because there aren't. They are ALL houses - granted some are three storey, but as houses and all painted individually they do not appear as imposing as this monstrosity is going to be. So please, when considering this re-Application, spare a thought for the residents of this area and not view it from a financial point of view so that more money can be made from people being heaped on top of each other in fourteen Flats, in an already population-saturated area. More people bring more social problems, some worse than others - if theres anything we don't need in this area is more of these problems.”

The Occupier, 89 Mount Pleasant, Barrow.

“I object strongly to the above Planning Application for 14 flats at 45 Storey Square.

The reason for my objection is that no thought has been given to the provision of parking for the (at least) 14 cars owned by the new tenants. Where are they going to park them? Mount Pleasant, which already is overcrowded, or Storey Square, which will then be?

Who will be the owners/tenants of these 14 flats? No individual or family who owns a car will want to live there.

I understand that the original plan was for houses with garages on that site, which would have been sensible and fully acceptable.

I understand that the Planning Officer/Committee has recommended that planning permission is granted. Do any of the Planning Officer/Committee members live in or close to Storey Square, or, much more likely, do they live where parking is no problem? Why allow 14 flats to be built in an already overcrowded area? Would the members of the Planning Committee like to live there?

It would be nice, if unusual, for common sense to be applied when this application is being considered.”

CONSULTATIONS:

United Utilities

“I have no objection to the proposed development.

If possible this site should be drained on a separate system, with only foul drainage connected into the foul sewer. Surface water should discharge to the soakaway/watercourse/surface water sewer and may require the consent of the Environment Agency. If surface water is allowed to be discharged to the public surface water sewerage system we may require the flow to be attenuated to a maximum discharge rate determined by United Utilities.

of 72 PLANNING COMMITTEE 1st February 2011 The applicant must discuss full details of the site drainage proposals with George Chapman [email protected]

A separate metered supply to each unit will be required at the applicant's expense and all internal pipe work must comply with current water supply (water fittings) regulations 1999.

Should this planning application be approved, the applicant should contact our Service Enquiries on 0845 7462200 regarding connection to the water mains/public sewers. United Utilities encourages the use of water efficient designs and development wherever this is possible. The most up to date advice for water efficiency and water efficiency products can be found at Waterwise who have recently published a best practice guide on water efficiency for new developments. We would encourage utilisation of the following water efficiency activities:

Installing of the latest water efficient products, such as a 4.5l flush toilet instead of the 6l type. Minimise run lengths of hot and cold water pipes from storage to tap/shower areas. This minimises the amount of waste during the time the water goes from cold to hot. Utilising drought resistant varieties of trees, plants and grasses when landscaping. Install water efficient appliances such as dishwashers, washing machines.”

Environmental Health – Cleansing

“Having looked at the plans for the new flats on Storey Square I would make the following observations.

1) The bin store appears to be right outside the window of the ground floor flat No1 which although not a concern as far as waste storage is concerned, cannot be very good for the occupant.

2) The recycling containers will cause similar problems for the occupants of flat No6.

3) There does not appear to be much room to accommodate enough bins for the 14 flats contained within the building.

4) Are the developers looking at one bin per flat, or a number of large bins to accommodate all the flats. If it is the former then it is highly unlikely there will be enough space to accommodate 14 bins. If it is the latter, who will be responsible for putting the bins out on collection day?

5) Similar to 4) above but with recycling containers.”

Cumbria Highways

I refer to the above consultation received on 4th October 2010 and would inform you that the comments raised in my reply to application 2010/0906, see my letter to you dated 14 th July 2010, apply equally to this present submission.

Cumbria Highways – (Dated 14/07/10)

“I refer to the above consultation received here 7th July 2010 and would comment as follows.

of 72 PLANNING COMMITTEE 1st February 2011 This proposals going to increase the demand for on street parking in an area of the town where this is already at a premium due to the prevalence of terraced housing, a point your authority will need to consider very carefully when determining this application.

Should you still be minded to approve this proposal then I would recommend the following conditions are included in any notice of consent that may be issued:-

1) Windows Abutting the Highway New ground floor windows and doors abutting the highway shall be of a type which cannot open outwards into the highway.

Reason:To minimise possible danger to other highway users. To support Local Transport Plan Policies: LD7, LD8

2) Surface Water Discharge onto Highway Details of all measures to be taken by the applicant/developer to prevent surface water discharging onto or off the highway, including roof water, shall be submitted to the Local Planning Authority for approval prior to development being commenced. Any approved works shall be implemented prior to the development being completed and shall be maintained operational thereafter.

Reason: In the interests of highway safety and environmental management. To support Local Transport Plan Policies: LD7, LD8

All footway reinstatements resulting from the redevelopment of this site shall be carried out to our satisfaction at the expense of the developer.

A Structural Engineers Report will need to be produced for any highway retaining walls abutting this site.

Prior to the alterations works commencing on site the applicant should contact Mr Steve Eddy on tel. no. – (01229) 407593 to agree safe working practices whilst working adjacent to the highway.”

OFFICERS REPORT:

This application is a resubmission of 2010/906 which was deferred at your meeting of 24th August, and subsequently withdrawn by the applicant on 2nd September. It relates to a large former Methodist Chapel located on a corner plot within the town centre. It is currently in the process of being demolished following structural problems and the granting of planning consent for the development of four town houses (6/2008/0040 refers). The building was constructed in the mid 1890s and last used as a Methodist Chapel in the early 1950s. Since then it has had a variety of different uses, including storage and community uses. During the determination process for the 2008 application English Heritage confirmed their decision not to list the property, on the basis that it did not possess sufficient historical or architectural value.

The main site frontage is into Storey Square, although there is a short return into Allison Street on the western side. On the opposing gable is a short terrace of four three storey houses with bay windows and shallow forecourts, whilst across the road the terraced houses are two storeys. The immediate area is predominantly residential, with a mix of two and three storey houses, including some converted to multiple occupation such as flats

of 72 PLANNING COMMITTEE 1st February 2011 and bed sits. In addition, there is also a scattering of commercial activities, including retail premises, workshops, offices, and public houses.

The streets are laid out in the traditional grid iron pattern, and the area is covered by the town centre residents parking scheme, although common short term parking of up to two hours duration is also available for visitors and shoppers

This resubmission has a series of revisions to the layout and also to the servicing arrangements for cycle storage and refuse bin storage. The lower ground floor now indicates just one flat rather than two in order to offer improved accommodation with the flat now having the living space overlooking the front street rather than relying on the alley at the rear for natural lighting. There are four flats at ground floor level, only one of which has living accommodation facing towards the rear. Calculations using the current day lighting indicators show that the layout is acceptable although marginal. Bin storage is amended to show that residents would have responsibility for an individual bin instead of using communal ones, and these are indicated as being kept in a locked annex on the lower ground floor. Access to the bin store and to the cycle store is via the rear alleyway.

Externally there is little change to the previous scheme as the design replicates some of the mass and appearance of the original church including the tower feature with glazed cupola. This tower would provide a common staircase to the upper floors. The proposed materials for the walls of the building are a mix of red brick (with blue brick feature course) and vertical oak boarding, whilst the pitched roof would feature a low profiled grey tile. Doors and windows are indicated as being of timber construction. Part of the Storey Square frontage would be enclosed by a low brick wall, topped with an ornate metal railing, creating a shallow forecourt whilst the rest of the building stands up against the rear of the footway. Overall I consider that the design is appropriate for the location and raises no adverse issues.

The application raises a number of issues. In national policy terms, Planning Policy Statement 3 (PPS3) encourages the use of previously developed land for housing development and is supportive of such schemes as they provide an important source of additional dwellings, particularly in town centres. It states that the Government is committed to maximising the re-use of previously developed land and empty properties, such as this one, in order to both promote regeneration and minimise the amount of Greenfield land being taken for development. Further emphasis is given that empty and dilapidated buildings are a waste of resources and can have an adverse impact upon the amenities of an area, and policies should be put in place to prioritise such opportunities. Particular importance is given to central locations which enjoy high levels of accessibility to jobs, key services, and infrastructure.

PPG13 (Transport) advises that local authorities should accommodate residential uses principally within existing urban areas, planning for increased intensity of development for both housing and other uses. Preference should be given to locations which are highly accessible by public transport, walking and cycling, and Planning Authorities should use parking policies, alongside other planning and transport measures, to promote sustainable transport choices and reduce reliance on the car for work and other journeys. Reducing the amount of parking in new development (and in the expansion and change of use in existing development) is essential, as part of a package of planning and transport measures, to promote sustainable travel choices.

of 72 PLANNING COMMITTEE 1st February 2011 Crucially it advises that local authorities should ensure that levels of parking provided in association with development will promote sustainable transport choices and that they should not require developers to provide more spaces than they themselves wish, other than in exceptional circumstances which might include for example where there are significant implications for road safety which cannot be resolved through the introduction or enforcement of on-street parking controls.

The theme of sustainable development is repeated through the development plan framework, starting with the Regional Spatial Strategy document (RSS). These p olicies identify the need to maximise the use of land by concentrating development on accessible urban brownfield sites wherever possible. The relevant policies in the Cumbria Joint Structure Plan [2001-2016], which gave greater weight to sustainable development, and the promotion of regeneration, have largely been superseded by the RSS.

Saved policy E9, in accordance with the above national guidance, allows for the relaxation of parking standards within the town centre area as indicated on the proposals map. In previous decisions relating to high density residential schemes, such as the approval for converting the former hostel in Ramsden Street into flats, the committee has accepted this policy, even, on that occasion, in the light of an objection from Cumbria Highways.

As with the previous scheme, Members will note that parking is the main issue of concern for local residents with several raising the fact that they would not be able to park outside or near to their homes. However, this is not a recognised material consideration. There is a town centre resident’s permit scheme in operation which gives local occupants some priority in that if they have a residents permit they are allowed exclusive access to residents bays and can also park in the timed bays. On this basis, the potential occupiers of the flats would have equal access to both the permit holder’s only bays and the short term parking bays as well. Whilst this may inconvenience existing residents trying to park outside their homes, it would not offer sufficient reason to refuse the application in the light of other material considerations that encourage the regeneration of urban brownfield sites.

RECOMMENDATION:

I recommend that Planning Permission is GRANTED subject to the Standard Duration Limit and the following conditions;

Condition No 2

The development shall be carried out in all respects in accordance with the hereby approved documents defined by this permission as listed below, and notwithstanding the provisions of the Town & Country Planning (General Permitted Development) Order 1995 (or any Order revoking or re-enacting that Order with or without modification), there shall be no variation without the prior written consent of the Planning Authority. The documents to which this consent refers are as follows; The Design & Access Statement, Drawings numbered MCB/2010/201E, MCB/2010/204C, MCB/2010/300, MCB/2010/303, MCB/2010/304, and MCB/2010/305.

Reason

The condition is required so as to enable the Planning Authority to exercise sufficient control over the development in order to meet policy objectives, and for the avoidance of doubt.

Condition No 3

Drainage must be on the separate system with all foul drainage connected to the foul sewers and only uncontaminated surface water connected to the surface water system.

Reason

In order to ensure that the site is adequately drained and in order to control the potential for pollution of the water environment.

Condition No 4

The areas marked on the approved plans as the locations for “bin store” and “bikes” shall be retained for those uses, and shall be permanently maintained free of all obstructions and no development, whether permitted or not by the Town and Country Planning (General Permitted Development) Order, 1995 (or any Order revoking and re-enacting that Order with or without modifications), shall be carried out on that area of land or in such position as to preclude its use for those purposes.

Reason

To ensure that the proper provision for cycle storage and for refuse storage is made and retained for the development hereby permitted.

Reason For Granting Consent That having regard to the provisions of Section 38(6) of the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act and all other material considerations, and subject to the proposed conditions, the development as proposed by reason of its location, design and orientation, will not have a detrimental impact upon the neighbouring properties or the visual amenities of the area. As such, the proposal complies with the Development Plan for the area, specifically;

RSS policies DP1, DP2, DP4, and DP5. The Saved policies B3, B4, and B5 of the Borough of Barrow in Furness Local Plan Review, Housing Chapter Alteration 2006. The Saved policies D21 and E9 of the Borough of Barrow in Furness Local Plan Review 1996-2006.

______

2010/1704 S & H Trading Craig & Green Architects

Parkside Barry Jesson 15/12/2010 01229 876323 STATUTORY DATE: 08/02/2011

LOCATION:

1 Hibbert Road, Barrow-in-Furness

PROPOSAL:

Change of use from former timber yard to car wash, with ancillary buildings, new fencing and alteration to access.

POLICY D58

New development within the vicinity of residential areas, schools, hospitals and offices must not generate noise above the existing background levels, as measured in accordance with the positions, times and methods agreed beforehand with the Authority.

Proposal should not significantly impact the residential amenities of the surrounding residents as a result of the imposed conditions. However, a temporary consent will allow full consideration of any issues should they arise.

Availability of other existing car washes in town.

REPRESENTATIONS:

Occupiers of 55, 57, 59, 144-156 (evens), Abbey Road, 1A, Hibbert Road, 55, 57, 59, Longreins Road, Barrow. Informed.

The Occupiers, 148 Abbey Road, Barrow-in-Furness

“First of all we would like to make it known that the 21 days allowed to make comment on this application and the opportunity to gather information from council offices, has been seriously hampered as they have been closed for at least 9 of these days due to the Christmas holidays and weekends!

We are writing to object to the above planning permission. From reading the Application for Planning Permission, and talking to a planning officer in the Town Hall on 23 December 2010, section 5 (pre-application advice) states there may be objections on the grounds of the amount of traffic that will be generated in a residential area. This is a major concern of ours, especially as we live directly opposite Hibbert Rd. The amount of extra noise generated from this extra traffic we would deem unacceptable, especially considering the requested opening times. When we return from work, the last thing we want to hear is unnecessary traffic driving past and revving up at the junction of Hibbert Rd and Abbey Rd. For this to be happening until 7pm is not acceptable to us. Also, for the same reason, an 8am start, especially on Saturdays is too early. Weekends for us are a chance for a lie in and peacefully relaxing. If this permission is granted we fear that this will be the end of such weekends.

After speaking to the planning department, I understand that this area of town has not yet been looked at with regard to the town ‘development plan’ and has therefore not been given a particular ‘status’/use, but generally it is noted as being a residential area and not one designated for business use.

Living directly opposite this junction for a number of years, we have seen many accidents involving cars. Although these were not always reported, it is evident from the number of damaged railings in this area. Any increase in traffic will inevitably increase the likelihood of more accidents.

Also of note is, there have been a number of incidents involving cyclists at that junction due to the location of a cycle lane and slip road into Hibbert Road. Large HGV vehicles regularly travel along Hibbert Rd and whilst waiting at the junction of Abbey Rd they would inhibit the access to the planned site. Further to this, the suggested entrance to the car wash will impede motorists turning into Hibbert Rd from Abbey Rd if potential customers are queuing. This could cause further queuing traffic into the main thoroughfare of Abbey Rd. ‘Station hill’ is notorious for traffic travelling at excessive speed from leaving the traffic lights at the Holker St junction. All the above issues will increase the risk of further accidents.

Section 13 (assessment of Flood Risk) Although this are is not officially on a flood risk plain, in recent years there have been numerous floods in the basements of houses along this section of Abbey Rd, ours included, of which United Utilities were notified. We are concerned that the main drains cannot cope with the amount of natural rain water we get, so how will they cope with the extra water that will be generated from a car wash. Although it is proposed to recycle the water used, there is always the overflow to consider. How much overflow will there be?

Section 17 (Trade Effluent/Waste) The applicant has said there won’t be any. We are assuming that it won’t be domestic soap that’s being used to clean cars, so therefore there will be trade waste. We are concerned that this waste will be running into mains drains and want to make sure that this waste is appropriately disposed of and treated correctly.

Section 19 (Non-Residential Floor space) suggests a change of use to a hot food take away. This is not what the applicant has stated they wish to apply for. Is this an error or will there be a take away also situated on site? We would object to this site having any food take away amenities. This may encourage gangs of youths hanging round the area which we feel would make local residents feel unsafe in their immediate local area.

Section 21 (Opening Hours) We consider these hours to be too long and unsociable, especially in the summer. 11 hours daily of increased traffic, working noise and people is unreasonable in a residential area. Local residents should be able to sit outside during the summer months without the disturbance of excessive noise that would be created by the proposed development.

Section 23 (Industrial & Commercial Processes & Machinery) The applicant has not described what will actually happen on site, neither have they said what type of machinery will be used. Does this mean there will be NO machinery? If a power-hose is to be used, this constitutes machinery to us. Will this be the case? Will it be mains fed or require the use of a generator? The noise of a generator operating from early morning to late evening would be something we would strongly object to for reasons stated in a previous paragraph.

There is a car wash at the end of Abbey Rd (based in Tesco car park) so it is not that much further (0.5 mile) to travel if anyone wants their car washing. It is hoped you will consider our concerns carefully before making your final decision.”

The Occupier, 150 Abbey Road, Barrow – (Dated 23/12/10)

“I am one of the owners at 150 Abbey Road and received a notification from you regarding the planning application relating to a change of use from a former timber yard to a car wash.

I would like to object to this application. Allowing this planning change to go ahead and buildings to be erected will have a detrimental effect on the residential area. Not only will the noise level be increased, it will also cause an increase of traffic on Abbey Road/Hibbert Road, which being in a residential area where traffic is already at a maximum will cause further problems, traffic noise and pollution together with endangering children who live in the vicinity.

As far as I can see this is not a viable use for a peice of land in a residential area and would be grateful if the above points can be taken into account before making a decision.”

The Occupier, 150 Abbey Road, Barrow – (Dated 04/01/11)

“I am writing further to a notice being received.

I am objecting to this application on the following grounds:

1. The noise levels in the immediate area will be increased dramatically, causing distress to current residents.

2. There will be cars left with engines running whilst waiting, which can only cause environmental issues by pollution of car fumes and again noise.

3. The traffic flow, which I would like to be noted is already at a maximum, will be stretched beyond control.

of 72 PLANNING COMMITTEE 1st February 2011 4. Children who live in the vicinity will be in more danger from car accidents as the volume of cars that will be “cutting through ”the immediate streets will more than double.

Could you please notify me when the Planning Committee will be meeting so I can attend to address this matter.”

49 Longreins Road, Barrow

I object to the application as I forsee having a car wash at the bottom of my street will cause traffic obstruction, which could prove dangerous coming round the sweeping bend off Abbey Road.

Noise pollution is an issue and I also think this would reduce the value of the local property and potentially put people off buying properties in the area.

The Occupier, 55 Longreins Road, Barrow

“I don’t think this is a good idea. It will only make things worse as regards traffic going off Hibbert Road onto Abbey Road. Sometimes we wait quite a number of minutes to be able to get out onto Abbey Road. Plus all the traffic going to the builders yard. Then you have cars parked to go on the train and into town, so I feel that I must object to this taking place.”

CONSULTATIONS:

Environmental Health

“I am concerned about noise from power supply and washing equipment at the proposed development, therefore I recommend the following noise condition.

Noise from the development must not exceed Noise Rating Curve NR 30 in daytime hours (0700 - 2300) and NR 25 in night time hours (2300 - 0700) in any noise sensitive property”.

Environment Agency

“Thank you for referring the above application which was received by the Environment Agency on 20 December 2010.

The proposed development will only be acceptable if the following measure(s) are implemented and secured by way of a planning condition on any planning permission.

Condition The development hereby permitted shall not be commenced until such time as a scheme to dispose of foul and surface water has been submitted to, and approved in writing by, the Local Planning Authority. The scheme shall be implemented as approved.

Reason To prevent pollution of water resources.

of 72 PLANNING COMMITTEE 1st February 2011 The site is situated above the principle aquifer of the Sherwood sandstone and is located within a Groundwater Source Protection Zone 3 for nearby public water supply abstractions. Site operators will need to ensure that there is no possibility of contaminated water entering and polluting surface or groundwater.

Given the previous use of the site we also recommend the following:

This condition has been recommended as the Environment Agency is satisfied that there are generic remedial options available to deal with the risks to controlled waters posed by contamination at this site. However, further details will be required in order to ensure that risks are appropriately addressed prior to development commencing.

In line with the advice given in PPS23 we understand that the Authority must decide whether to obtain such information prior to determining the application or as a condition of the permission. Should the Local Planning Authority decide to obtain the necessary information under condition we would request that this condition is applied.

Environment Agency position We consider that planning permission should only be granted to the proposed development as submitted if the following planning condition is imposed as set out below. Without this condition, the proposed development on this site poses an unacceptable risk to the environment and we would wish to object to the application.

Condition Prior to the commencement of development approved by this planning permission (or such other date or stage in development as may be agreed in writing with the Local Planning Authority), the following components of a scheme to deal with the risks associated with contamination of the site shall each be submitted to and approved, in writing, by the Local Planning Authority:

1) A preliminary risk assessment which has identified:  all previous uses  potential contaminants associated with those uses  a conceptual model of the site indicating sources, pathways and receptors  potentially unacceptable risks arising from contamination at the site.

2) A site investigation scheme, based on (1) to provide information for a detailed assessment of the risk to all receptors that may be affected, including those off site.

3) The site investigation results and the detailed risk assessment (2) and, based on these, an options appraisal and remediation strategy giving full details of the remediation measures required and how they are to be undertaken.

4) A verification plan providing details of the data that will be collected in order to demonstrate that the works set out in (3) are complete and identifying any requirements for longer-term monitoring of pollutant linkages, maintenance and arrangements for contingency action.

Any changes to these components require the express consent of the Local Planning Authority. The scheme shall be implemented as approved.

Reason

of 72 PLANNING COMMITTEE 1st February 2011 To protect controlled waters.

Condition Prior to development, a verification report demonstrating completion of the works set out in the approved remediation strategy and the effectiveness of the remediation shall be submitted to and approved, in writing, by the Local Planning Authority. The report shall include results of sampling and monitoring carried out in accordance with the approved verification plan to demonstrate that the site remediation criteria have been met. It shall also include any plan (a long-term monitoring and maintenance plan) for longer-term monitoring of pollutant linkages, maintenance and arrangements for contingency action, as identified in the verification plan, and for the reporting of this to the Local Planning Authority.

Reason: To protect controlled waters.

We ask to be consulted on the details submitted for approval to your Authority to discharge these conditions and on any subsequent amendments/alterations.

United Utilities should also be consulted to determine that the sewerage system serving the site has sufficient capacity to accommodate the flows generated as a result of the development without causing pollution. The water produced by the car washing and valeting should ideally be kept separate from roof and surface water.

The applicant is advised to contact United Utilities regarding any requirement to obtain trade effluent consent.

Please forward a copy of the decision notice to penrith.planning@environment- agency.gov.uk”

United Utilities

“This response is based on the details submitted on the planning application form; any changes to the planning application will invalidate this response.

I will have no objection to the proposal provided that the following conditions are met: -

Discharges from yard storage areas, vehicle washing areas, loading and unloading areas and any other areas likely to be contaminated by spillage should be connected to the foul sewer. They may be regarded as trade effluents and may require the formal consent of this Company.

If this proposal results in a trade effluent discharge to a public sewer, the applicant may need Trade Effluent Consent. The applicant must discuss this with our Regulatory Controller, Karen Megson (Tel No:01228610142) to determine whether consent would be granted.”

of 72 PLANNING COMMITTEE 1st February 2011 Cumbria Highways

I refer to the above consultation received here on 20/12/2010 and would inform you that there are no objections to the proposal from a highway point of view, subject to the following recommended conditions being included in any Notice of Consent which may be issued:-

1. The vehicular crossing over the footway, including the lowering of kerbs, shall be carried out to the specification of the Local Planning Authority in consultation with the Highway Authority.

Reason: To ensure a suitable standard of crossing for pedestrian safety. To support Local Transport Plan Policies: LD5, LD7, LD8

OFFICERS REPORT:

The application is for a change of use of the former timber yard to a car wash. The site is vacant and has been cleared following the demolition of the timber yard. To the north of the site lies a residential property, whilst Abbey Road lies to the east. The site is screened by advertising hoardings from the east and partly from the south. Vehicular access is from Hibbert Rd to the south.

There is no specific allocation in the development plan for the plot of land, though it is previously developed land (former timber yard). Whilst the site is adjacent to residential areas, there are a number of commercial uses nearby; opposite are the railway station and Abbey Road, both of which contribute to the existing background noise experienced on site. Furthermore, there is also a commercial property nearby which has previously been used for catering purposes, located the other side of the backstreet which links Hibbert Rd to West View Rd. At the western end of Hibbert Rd is Jewson’s building merchants.

Consent has recently been granted on the site for domestic garages and remains valid. The now proposed car wash requires ancillary buildings including an office, toilet and covered valet bays, but will be developed to a lesser extent than the aforementioned garages. The operational areas have been located away from the residential boundary to limit disturbance. Staff and customer parking areas are provided on-site, with sufficient space for vehicles to turn around. The site is to be surfaced in concrete or tarmac with run off discharging to existing surface water systems, and arranged so as to prevent discharge onto the highway. The immediate car wash area is to be provided with a sump in order to retain waste water for recycling/re-use.

A number of objections have been received from nearby residents, expressing concern over issues including in particular noise and increased traffic. Considering each in turn, Cumbria Highways have not objected to the scheme. Having subsequently discussed the proposal in further detail with the Highway Authority they remain of the view that there is sufficient parking within the site to prevent any conflict with Abbey Road. It is unlikely that normal operation of the site will lead to a significant increase in traffic in the area, and therefore in turn will not lead to any significant increase in vehicular related noise.

of 72 PLANNING COMMITTEE 1st February 2011 With regards to operational noise, Environmental Health have stated that they are concerned about noise emanating from the power supply and washing equipment and as such have specified noise restrictions for both daytime and night time hours. Compliance with the condition should ensure the residential amenities of the area are not unduly harmed. Having looked at similar operations, namely the car wash located on the corner of Friars Lane & Roose Road, no complaints have been received by Environmental health regarding noise disturbance. This site shares a similar relationship in the sense it is adjacent to a busy road and shares a boundary with a residential property.

However, in order to properly assess any impact, given the close proximity to residential areas and in particular the property bordering the site. I consider that a temporary consent is appropriate. Should any issue arise during this period it can be fully assessed prior to the use becoming permanent.

RECOMMENDATION:

I recommend planning permission be GRANTED subject to the Standard Duration Limit and the following conditions:

Condition No. 2

This permission is for a temporary period of 18 calendar months commencing from the date in which the use of the site as a car wash commences. At the end of the 18 month period referred to the use of the site as a car wash shall cease unless a subsequent application has been submitted to and approved in writing by the Planning Authority.

Reason

In order that the impact of the proposed use can be taken into account.

Condition No. 3

The development must be carried out in accordance with the plans (drawing numbers 3099/01, 3099/02A) hereby approved as submitted with the application dated 30.11.2010.

Reason

To ensure that the development is carried out only as indicated on the drawings approved by the Planning Authority.

Condition No. 4

The use approved must only take place within the hours of 0800 – 1900 Mondays to Saturdays and 1000 - 1600 on Sundays and Bank Holidays.

Reason

In order to protect the residential amenities of the area.

of 72 PLANNING COMMITTEE 1st February 2011 Condition No. 5

Noise from the development must not exceed Noise Rating Curve NR 30 in daytime hours (0700 – 2300) and NR 25 in night time hours (2300 – 0700) in any noise sensitive property.

Reason

In order to minimise the potential for noise pollution and thereby conforming to Saved policy D58 of the Barrow Local Plan 1996-2006.

Condition No. 6

Prior to the commencement of the use hereby approved the vehicular crossing over the footway, including the lowering of kerbs shall be carried out inaccordance with a scheme which must have first been submitted to and approved in writing by the Planning Authority.

Reason

To ensure a suitable standard of crossing for pedestrian safety.

Condition No. 7

The development hereby permitted shall not be commenced until such time as a scheme to dispose of foul and surface water has been submitted to, and approved in writing by, the Local Planning Authority. The scheme shall be implemented as approved.

Reason:

To prevent pollution of water resources.

Condition No. 8

Prior to the commencement of development approved by this planning permission (or such other date or stage in development as may be agreed in writing with the Local Planning Authority), the following components of a scheme to deal with the risks associated with contamination of the site shall each be submitted to and approved, in writing, by the Local Planning Authority:

1) A preliminary risk assessment which has identified:  all previous uses  potential contaminants associated with those uses  a conceptual model of the site indicating sources, pathways and receptors  potentially unacceptable risks arising from contamination at the site.

2) A site investigation scheme, based on (1) to provide information for a detailed assessment of the risk to all receptors that may be affected, including those off site.

3) The site investigation results and the detailed risk assessment (2) and, based on these, an options appraisal and remediation strategy giving full details of the remediation measures required and how they are to be undertaken.

of 72 PLANNING COMMITTEE 1st February 2011 4) A verification plan providing details of the data that will be collected in order to demonstrate that the works set out in (3) are complete and identifying any requirements for longer-term monitoring of pollutant linkages, maintenance and arrangements for contingency action.

Any changes to these components require the express consent of the Local Planning Authority. The scheme shall be implemented as approved.

Reason

To protect controlled waters.

Condition No. 9

Prior to development, a verification report demonstrating completion of the works set out in the approved remediation strategy and the effectiveness of the remediation shall be submitted to and approved, in writing, by the Local Planning Authority. The report shall include results of sampling and monitoring carried out in accordance with the approved verification plan to demonstrate that the site remediation criteria have been met. It shall also include any plan (a long-term monitoring and maintenance plan) for longer-term monitoring of pollutant linkages, maintenance and arrangements for contingency action, as identified in the verification plan, and for the reporting of this to the Local Planning Authority.

Reason

To protect controlled waters.

Reason for Approval

That having regard to the provisions of Section 38(6) of the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act and all other material considerations, and subject to the proposed conditions, the development as proposed by reason of its location, design and orientation, will not have a detrimental impact upon the neighbouring properties or the visual amenities of the area. As such, the proposal complies with the Development Plan for the area, specifically policiy D58.

______

2011/0002 Mr Roger Reynolds Mr W Woodhouse

Walney South Ian Sim 23/12/2010 01229 876384 STATUTORY DATE: 16/02/2011

LOCATION:

2 Water Garth, Barrow-in-Furness

PROPOSAL:

Balcony on side/gable elevation.

POLICY B21

The creation of patio areas and balconies over house extensions will be refused where they are considered to represent an unacceptable loss of privacy for the occupiers of neighbouring properties or to occupy a prominent position and be a detrimental intrusion into the street scene.

POLICY D21

The development would be seen in the wider views of Carr Lane being harmful to the local character, detract from the existing simple symmetry of the houses and would appear as an incongruous feature within the street scene.

REPRESENTATIONS:

Occupiers of 33, Tideway Drive, 9, Water Garth, Barrow, informed. No representations received.

CONSULTATIONS:

Estates and Development Manager – No response received.

OFFICERS REPORT:

The application site is a detached property on the northern side of Water Garth in close proximity to the junction with Carr Lane, set within an area of detached and semi detached properties having a uniformity of design and plot size. The immediate character of the application site and adjacent houses is one of limited front and rear gardens. Parking provision with regard to the immediate area is provided through a combination of driveway, hard surfaced area and garage.

The main issue to be considered is the effect of the proposal on the character and appearance of the property and the surrounding area.

The balcony is be located slightly past the mid-point of the side elevation having an indicated footprint of 2.2 metres x 2.3 metres with an overall height of 4.4 metres being constructed of two steel supporting legs attached to timber decking with a balustrade consisting of steel posts and toughened glass panels (with an indicated height 1.1 metres) with access from first floor level by converting the existing landing window to a doorway.

The proposed balcony is to be attached to the side (eastern facing) wall of this detached property at first floor level. It will abutt the boundary with the walk way which runs to the side of the property and helps to delineate the open grassed area which separates the dwellings from Carr Lane and the marshes to the east. This area, apart from where it is enclosed by No.2 Beach Crescent, extends from Ocean Road in the north to a caravan park in the south.

The side elevation of the applicants property and its neighbours are relatively prominent in views from Carr lane and the wider area, such as Ocean Road, a main thoroughfare, across the swathe of public open space which the dwelling adjoins. No screening is available to help remove/screen the structure from public views. It would contrast sharply with the simple side elevational treatment of the dwelling and represents an alien, intrusive and detrimental feature in the street scene. In addition, it would seem likely, that the

of 72 PLANNING COMMITTEE 1st February 2011 applicant would wish to take advantage of the balcony and the introduction of a possible table and or chairs onto the balcony would further emphasis the visual intrusion on the street scene. I have considered the imposition of condition(s) to try to mitigate the impact of the proposal, however, I do not believe this to be achievable to such a degree as to make the proposal acceptable.

In terms of saved policies within the former Local Plan Review 1996-2006 I would suggest that not only does it conflict with saved policy D21 but, also B21 ,in which the latter resists the creation of patio areas or balconies above house extensions and holds "... occupy a prominent position and be a detrimental intrusion into the street scene". In this instance I would suggest it is relevant to the issues the proposal raises as is saved policy D21 which relates to the General Design Code set out in paragraph 5.4.27 of the former plan. In more general terms National policy advice in paragraph 34 of Planning Policy Statement 1; Delivering Sustainable Development (PPS1) states that design which is inappropriate in its context should not be accepted.

A similar proposal at 3 Bermuda Crescent (2004/1068) which enjoyed a greater degree of screening was refused in December 2004 and was subsequently dismissed at appeal.

Taking the above into consideration the proposal would represent a detrimental intrusion into the street scene in conflict with the objective of saved policy B21. It would also fail to harmonise with the street scene or be visually appeasing in terms of scale and design contrary to saved policy D21.

RECOMMENDATION:

I recommend planning permission be REFUSED for the following reason:

Reason No. 1

The development would be seen in the wider views of Carr Lane being harmful to the local character, detract from the existing simple symmetry of the houses and would appear as an incongruous feature within the street scene, thereby, being contrary to saved policies B21 and D21 of the former and Borough of Barrow-in-Furness Local Plan Review 1996- 2006, Housing Chapter Alteration 2006 Barrow-in-Furness Borough Council Plan Review 1996-2006 respectively. ______

2010/1695 Messrs Ceansu/Samson Mr James Samson

Dalton North Dalton and Ian Sim 14/12/2010 Newton Parish Council 01229 876384 STATUTORY DATE: 07/02/2011

LOCATION:

11 & 13, Fell Croft, Dalton-in-Furness

PROPOSAL:

Addition of dormer extensions to front and rear elevations.

Policy B15

Where privacy is to be protected through distance, a minimum of 21 metres will be required between the facing windows of habitable rooms of different homes. Exceptions to this policy may be made for the facing windows of ground floor habitable rooms, where adequate screening exists and also in cases where normal standards of separation cannot be achieved and existing standards will not be eroded by accepting distances of less than 21 metres.

The use of obscure glazing in habitable room windows will not be an acceptable measure to overcome the provisions of this policy if this is deemed to provide a substandard level of accommodation.

Policy B18

Dormer extensions will only be permitted where they are of a scale and appearance appropriate to the property and do not adversely impact on the overall streetscene.

POLICY D21

In towns and villages, proposals shall relate to the context provided by buildings, street and plot patterns, building frontages, topography, established public views, landmark buildings and other townscape elements. Proposals that do not respect the local context and street pattern or the scale, height, proportions and materials of surrounding buildings and development which constitutes over development of the site by virtue of scale, height

of 72 PLANNING COMMITTEE 1st February 2011 or bulk will not be permitted, unless there is specific justification, such as interests of sustainability, energy efficiency or crime prevention.

These are near end of terrace houses and there are existing similar dormers to the front and rear of adjacent properties. The majority of which were added under Permitted Development prior to 1988. Approval of the large, box-like dormer to the front and rear elevations would produce a flat roofed 3 storey box in close proximity to open views from the north would have a detrimental impact upon the street scene and would make further proposals difficult to resist.

REPRESENTATIONS:

Occupiers of 4, 2, 9, 15, Fell Croft, 1, 3, 5, 7, Union Street, 70-72, Chapel Street, Dalton. All informed. No representations received.

CONSULTATIONS:

Dalton with Newton Town Council – No response received.

OFFICERS REPORT:

The application relates to two properties which occupy a near end of terrace location on the eastern side of Fell Croft within a high density residential area, although the Community Centre and open play areas are to the north. The proposal is for front and rear dormers both of which will measure approximately 5 metres x 4 metres x 2.5 metres, giving a combined width of 10 metres. External materials are not specified, although I accept that these could be conditioned accordingly should the scheme be found to be acceptable. Both will include one window unit in each elevation and will occupy the upper roof area and will be level with the ridge of the houses. They will be constructed from the front and rear walls of the houses and will be almost the complete width of the two houses. In order to allow sufficient headroom above the staircase, that will access the rooms served by the dormers, both are shown to extend up to the neighbouring properties (Nos.9 and 15 Fell Croft).

The Local Plan Review 1996-2006, Housing Chapter Alteration 2006 (Policy B18) states that, “Dormer extensions will only be supported where they are of a scale and appearance appropriate to the property and do not adversely impact upon the overall street scene”. The supporting text holds that "...it may be possible to extend into the roof space creating a dormer. These can have a significant effect on the appearance of the property,

of 72 PLANNING COMMITTEE 1st February 2011 especially on the main frontage. The Borough Council will expect to see the proposed dormer extension to be well designed in order that they do not have a box-like appearance."

It is acknowledged that properties in the terrace to the south and some occupying a more central location within the terrace have had similar additions to that proposed. The issue to be considered is the effect the combined front and rear dormer extensions to the two properties have on the character and appearance of the area or whether the impact of the existing dormers have so degraded the street scene that the proposal would not materially harm the character.

However, the existence of these dormers, which do not comply with the aims of the Local Plan, do not make the proposal before you today acceptable. The existing dormers are not a traditional feature of the area and with their boxy appearance and horizontal emphasis they clash with the traditional appearance of the terrace. The scheme, would in essence, being constructed from the front and rear walls produce a three storey flat roofed box with no redeeming features open to view from the highway and public community area to the north to the detriment of the street scene. Approval of this application could set a precedent for future similar developments.

The dormers proposed to the rear of the property would also have a box like appearance, although its impact, upon the back street, is less significant than the impact the dormer to the front would have upon the street scene. A smaller, better designed rear addition would, I feel be more acceptable and in any event would be likely to be permitted development

The application site occupies an elevated position (due to the steep east to west orientation of the land form) in comparison to the even numbered houses of Fell Croft and this allows for greater loss of privacy. There will be a distance of approximately 14 metres between the front dormer and the nearest facing windows of the houses opposite. Whilst to the rear, even allowing for the land form there will be a distance in excess of the Councils minimum requirement of 21 metres between the rear dormer and the nearest facing habitable windows of the houses to the rear. However, these distances are characteristic of the area.

In terms of planning history of the nearby area, prior to 1988 such dormer additions constituted permitted development, providing that they did not extend above the ridge of the roof. This situation changed in 1988 when the General Development Order was amended to allow greater control over dormer extensions. In March of 1989 (1989/0082) consent was granted for two dormer rooms at 41 Fell Croft and a more recent approval (2010/0224) at 31 Fell Croft for the replacement of existing dormers was granted on 8 April 2010. Even so, the majority of the existing dormers in the terrace have been added before 1988 and therefore should not be considered to justify this proposal.

RECOMMENDATION:

I recommend that planning permission be REFUSED for the following reason:

Reason No. 1

Fell Croft contains a number of larger dormer extensions in the more central section of the street. Extending this form of development would have a significant further detrimental impact upon the street scene due to the large, box-like design which would produce a three storey flat roofed property in views from the public highways and from the community area to the north and would conflict with the traditional design of the terrace. Approval could also set a precedent which would lead to a further reduction in the visual amenity of the surrounding area. Approval would therefore conflict with the Barrow-in-Furness Borough Council Local Plan Review 1996-2006, Housing Chapter Alteration 2006 Policy B18 due to the dormer’s detrimental impact upon the character of the area.

______