Proposed Hospice, Flass Lane, Barrow-In-Furness s1

PLANNING COMMITTEE 7th February 2006

PLAN NUMBER: APPLICANT: DATE RECEIVED:

2005/0984 Hospice Of St. Mary Of Furness 27/06/2005

WARD/PARISH: CASE OFFICER: STATUTORY DATE: Newbarns Jason Hipkiss 20/08/2005 01229 894764 LOCATION:

Proposed Hospice, Flass Lane, Barrow-in-Furness

PROPOSAL:

Outline Consent for construction of Hospice and ancillary accommodation.

LOCAL PLAN:

POLICY F2

Health centres, welfare buildings and doctors, dentists and other surgeries should be located within, or on the edge, of town, neighbourhood or village centres. They will only be allowed in residential areas if; a) They occupy large properties or former commercial properties which are not capable of being readily converted to residential use and which have been vacant and on the market for at least a year; and b) They provide adequate on-site parking space or there is adequate on-street space in the immediate area without their use causing undue congestion or loss of amenity; and c) Their hours of use will not cause a significant loss of residential amenity.

SUMMARY OF MAIN ISSUES:

The location is a greenfield site albeit within the urban area adjacent to an established residential area. The suitability of this site for the proposal must be assessed against national and local policies that encourage sustainable development. The acceptability of the scheme depends upon whether the specific requirements of the use, together with the potential social benefits, are sufficient justification to override these criteria, and whether any potentially adverse impact can be overcome by appropriate conditions.

NON MATERIAL CONSIDERATIONS:

REPRESENTATIONS:

The Occupiers of 22-56 (evens), 25-59 (odds), 1-4, 10, 11 Smallholdings, Flass Lane, Barrow in Furness all informed.

Page 1 of 50 PLANNING COMMITTEE 7th February 2006

The Occupier, 55 Flass Lane, Barrow-in-Furness

“Thank you for your letter of 4th July 2005 concerning the above application and please excuse this belated acknowledgement. I trust my comments are not too late for consideration. They are as follows:

1. The plan does not detail the proposed hospice structure, but states that it will be “relatively unobtrusive”. Does this mean single storey? 2. The plan shows the car park to be relatively close to Flass Lane housing. I would suggest that it be sited more adjacent to the hospice for the convenience of hospice visitors. 3. The plan does not appear to show intended use of existing access land between Flass Lane house numbers 39/41 and the hospice. 4. Para. 4.7 of the plan refers to reducing the risk of flooding. The site is a natural watershed, and in the past adjoining Flass Lane properties have suffered serious flooding at times of heavy rain. Clearly they will be even more vulnerable on completion of hospice building and car park so that an efficient draining is essential.

Finally, I have no objection to the proposed hospice development, which will provide a much needed facility for the town.”

CONSULTATIONS:

Environment Agency

“The Agency would advise consultation with United Utilities”.

Cumbria Highways

“I have no objections in principle to the application.

The proposed new access road has been designed by our consultant, Capita Symonds and I am satisfied that it is to standard. I would be grateful still if model condition one, relating to the quality of highway works can be imposed to ensure that what has been designed is actually delivered on the ground. We will be looking to the developer to enter into a section 38 Agreement for the adoption of this new highway.

At reserved matters stage, the application will be assessed to ensure safe access from the new road and adequate parking; servicing and delivery arrangements have been put in place. In addition, pedestrian linkages will have to be provided to Flass Lane and these will have to be shown on the proposed plans. Due to the magnitude of this and the adjacent proposed nursing home, we will require a Transport Assessment and Travel Plan to be submitted and this can cover both sites together or separately though the former is preferred. Finally, a section 184 permit will be required for the new access road onto Flass Lane and this will also cover carriageway markings to provide a ghost island right turn facility. Alterations are required to the street lighting also and I understand from colleagues in Capita Symonds that these are in hand”.

Estates Manager

“No Comments”.

Page 2 of 50 PLANNING COMMITTEE 7th February 2006 Cumbria Constabulary

“I write in reference to the proposal above would strongly recommend that if the proposal is to go ahead, the building should meet Secured By Design standards.

Good design must be the aim of those involved in the development process and should be encouraged in this development. Secured By Design is a police initiative to encourage the building industry to adopt crime prevention measures in development design. This assists in reducing the opportunity for crime and fear of crime, creating a safer and more secure environment. It aims to achieve a good overall standard of security for buildings and the immediate environment. It attempts to deter criminal and anti social behaviour within the building grounds by introducing appropriate design features that enable natural surveillance and create a sense of ownership and responsibility for every part of the development. These features include secure vehicle parking, adequate lighting of common areas, control of access to individual and common areas, defensible space and a landscaping and lighting scheme which when combined enhances natural surveillance and safety.

Police Forces employ architectural liaison officers to advise on designing out the opportunity for crime to occur during the design process. The main mechanism for delivery is the Secured By Design initiative and award scheme. As Architect Liaison Officer for the Barrow Police, I will give site-specific advice, commensurate with the perceived risk, which will be based on local crime trends. I enclose an application form for Secured By Design.

The primary role for hospitals/hospices is to provide medical support/care for the community. The Secured By Design Hospitals Guide seeks to create a safe and secure working environment for patients, medical professionals and visitors – the provision of which should significantly reduce the opportunity for crime”.

County Highways

“This seems ok for now, at outline stage though a full Transport Assessment will be required at reserved matters stage. This will look more closely at parking provision, daily trips to the site, cycle storage etc. Closing comments are good regarding the policies to encourage staff to travel by sustainable means and it is hoped that this would be contained within a works travel plan. This could be produced at the same time as the TA”.

United Utilities

“Thank you for your planning consultation of 4 July 2005. I have no objection to the proposal providing that the site is drained on a separate system, with only foul drainage connected into the foul sewer. Surface water should discharge to the watercourse/soakaway/surface water sewer and may require the consent of the Environment Agency. Land drainage or subsoil drainage water must not be connected into the public sewer system directly or by way of private drainage pipes. It is the developer's responsibility to provide adequate land drainage without recourse to the use of the public sewer system. Should this planning application be approved, the developer should contact our Service Enquiries Department (Tel No: 0845 7462200) regarding connection to the water mains.

Page 3 of 50 PLANNING COMMITTEE 7th February 2006 consideration in project design as it is better value than traditional methods of data gathering. It is, however, the applicant's responsibility to demonstrate the exact relationship on site between any assets that may cross the site and any proposed development.”

County Archaeologist

“I have checked with the County Sites and Monuments Record and the application site lies in an area of archaeological potential. A number of prehistoric artefacts have been revealed in the vicinity of the site, including axes and a perforated stone mace (Historic Environment Record nos. 2296, 2304, & 5600) indicating that the area was a focus for activity during this period. It is considered likely that important archaeological remains survive on the site and that they would be damaged or destroyed by the proposed development.

I therefore recommend that, in line with policy D28 of the Barrow Borough Local Plan, further information on the archaeological site is required before a planning decision is taken. As outlined by PPG16 section 20-22 this information should be obtained by means of an archaeological evaluation. The evaluation should determine the presence, nature and extent of surviving archaeological remains within the development site. An informed judgement can then be made as to whether any planning consent will need to include provisions for the recording and, more importantly, the preservation of important archaeological remains in situ.

I would also suggest that you advise the applicant that such investigations are liable to involve some financial outlay. I trust the above recommendation is acceptable. Please do not hesitate to contact me if you wish to discuss this matter further”.

Capita Symonds

“I write in support of the above planning applications and with regard to the Transport Assessment requirements.

We were commissioned by Barrow Borough Council to design a new road to cater for the two developments. As part of our initial consultation with the Highway Authority it was decided that a Transport Assessment would not be necessary. This was based on IHT Guidelines for Traffic Impact Assessments (1994) which states that a Transport Assessment would generally not be required if a development does not generate more than 10% traffic growth on the adjoining highway (providing the network is not congested). It now our understanding that the Highway Authority have requested a Transport Assessment. It is our belief that this is not required or necessary. Below is a calculation of the number of daily trips to the site, these figures are based on information supplied by the applicants. Nursing Home

There will be 50 nurses and 5 administrative staff, working 3 shifts per day. At any one time there will be no more than 30 staff present. This should generate around 120 single (one way) trips per day. In addition to this there will be the following trips each day ; Ambulance 4 trips, Doctors 6, Resident visits 40, Deliveries 6, Services 2. This is a total of 178 trips per day.

Page 4 of 50 PLANNING COMMITTEE 7th February 2006

Hospice

Based on the Transport Form submitted with the Outline Application, there will be 100 trips per day. Existing houses

3 no. houses generating 30 trips per day.

This gives a total number of trips of 308 per day. Flass Lane currently carries around 8200 Annual Average Daily Trips (1998 figures). Therefore, the development will generate an increase on the network of 3.8%, which is well below the threshold stipulated in the IHT guidelines. Furthermore, we are aware that in July 2005 the Highway Authority published the Provisional Local Transport Plan April 2006 - March 2011 which provides new guidance on Transport Assessments. We accept that this guidance says that any development over 1000 m2 requires a Transport Assessment. However, if this development was residential then up to 100 houses could be built without the need for a Transport Assessment, such a development would generate at least 500 trips per day, so it can be clearly seen that the Nursing Home and Hospice Developments have less impact than 100 house development and we therefore believe it does not require a Transport Assessment. The junction with Flass Lane has been designed in accordance with the Design Manual for Roads and Bridges (Part 6 TD 42/95). This type of junction is suitable for a range of flows. For example, with a major flow of 10,000 AADT, the Minor Road would cater for up to 5,000 AADT. A junction of this type would also cater for a major flow of 15,000 AADT, with a minor flow of 2,000 AADT. Both developers are keen to develop Travel Plans and we suggest that this be conditioned as part of the approval. Should require any further information please do not hesitate to call me.

OFFICERS REPORT:

The application was deferred from your meeting of 17th January. This was in order that counsel’s opinion could be sought as to the likelihood of costs being awarded against the authority in the event of planning permission being refused, and the applicant appealing via a Public Inquiry. Prior to the publication of the agenda, I have received a letter from chambers which indicates that our QC should be able to provide a formal opinion in time for your meeting.

At your special meeting, Members resolved to be “Minded To Refuse” this application. Cllr Garside presented the following resolution, which was agreed by Members;

1. “This proposal is un-neighbourly due to its location and its size, and would be detrimental to the amenity of the nearby residents. 2. The site is Greenfield and is used for agricultural purposes and this should remain so. Therefore I do not agree that this proposal is the best use of the land and the reasons given to me in my opinion do not amount to enough to go against normal local and government policies. 3. It is against policy L56 in the emerging Structure Plan because I believe that this development would have a major impact on the surrounding area not the minor one the officer has said.

Page 5 of 50 PLANNING COMMITTEE 7th February 2006 4. The proposal is against policy F2 of the Barrow Borough Local Plan in that this development will cause a significant loss of residential amenity due to the hours of use a 24 hours a day institution causes.” (My notation for ease of reference).

Taking these in turn;

1. This would be difficult to justify at Appeal, as the application is an outline one, with no specific details of building heights or elevational appearances. How the development is detrimental to residents would also need clear evidence to substantiate on what grounds it would have an adverse impact upon residents. With the current level of available details I could not furnish Members with an appropriately worded reason for refusal that would stand scrutiny at an Appeal. Issues such as potential overlooking, noise, light pollution, drainage, siting and appearance, would be dealt with at the Reserved Matters stage, and could be either conditioned or negotiated out. With specific reference to traffic generation, our consultants at Capita have furnished technical advice that the road network, together with the access road and junction as amended, all have sufficient capacity to absorb the development without an adverse impact upon road safety. In the absence of technical advice to the contrary, I would not recommend any refusal based upon highway grounds, as this would leave the Authority open to a claim for costs at any subsequent Inquiry

2. The site is previously undeveloped, and recently used for agriculture (grass for feed). I have indicated in my report that the advice from central government is that it can be appropriate for certain types of specialised development to locate on Greenfield sites if they have specific requirements, and alternative sites are not readily available. I am also satisfied that the site search carried out by the Hospice is robust, and that there are no opportunities at present to relocate the Hospice elsewhere on a brownfield site. However, if Members take a contrary view, a reason for refusal could be;

“In the opinion of the Planning Authority, the applicant has failed to provide suitable evidence to show why this Greenfield site should be developed contrary to national guidance and development plan policies which seek to utilise previously developed locations” Policy ST3, contained within the emerging Joint Structure Plan, draws together the relevant guidance relating to the principles that apply to all developments, including minimising the uptake of greenfield sites through sequential assessment, transport accessibility, design issues, and energy efficiency. This is one such policy upon which the case could be built.

3. Policy L56 in the emerging Structure Plan states that; “Proposals for new or improved facilities for health, education and training will be supported in key service centres and other towns and villages defined in Local Plans, in locations that relate well to the intended catchment, which are, or can be, served by a range of transport modes, and where their detrimental impact, including traffic generation, is minimised”. Barrow is identified as a key service centre, and the site is well located relative to the catchment, as the hospice is intended to serve the Borough. Furthermore, Flass Lane is a bus route, and the site is within walking distance of other bus services. It is also close to housing. As this is an outline application, any reason for refusal would have to relate to broad principles, rather than detailed evidence, and for the same reasons as I have expressed in point 1, I would not endorse this as a suitable way to resist this application.

4. Policy F2 in the Barrow local plan is reproduced above. As stated in my original report, this policy was drafted in relation to smaller medical facilities within residential areas. There is

Page 6 of 50 PLANNING COMMITTEE 7th February 2006 particular reference, in parts (a) and (b) to occasions where proposals related to conversions of buildings, and there were potential issues relating to conflict through unsuitable parking facilities. At this Outline stage, there are no exact details of parking facilities, but in order to meet policies, it would have to achieve current maximum standards, taking into account factors such as floor space, employee and visitor numbers, and servicing requirements. Part (c) of the policy gives broader criteria, taking into account the hours of use of a facility and the potential impact upon residential amenity. Consequently, a refusal on the basis of adversely affecting residential amenity will have to show what specific aspects you are concerned about, with evidence to back it up. Again, this could be difficult, for the reasons that I have stated in points 1 and 3 above.

Your Minded To Refuse resolution also makes reference to the continual operation of the site. By the very nature of its use, the hospice will offer 24-hour medical care, and is likely to be open to visitors on a 24-hour basis, although activity is likely to be low. In view of this, I do not recommend that this be pursued as a reason for refusal. FGH operates within a residential area, and I am not aware of any major conflicts with residents at anti social hours resulting from the 24-hour medical care facilities provided. The administrative and fund raising activities will operate more conventional office hours, and conditions could be added to control these latter activities at weekends if this issue was of serious concern to Members. I am, therefore, offering the committee a single reason for refusal based upon broader principles rather than specific details, due to the lack of substantive evidence upon which a robust defence at an Appeal could be fought. Without such evidence, there is a strong likelihood of costs being awarded against the council. However, whilst this reason could be used, I am concerned that, in the light of the available evidence, it may have limited weight at Appeal. I am not, therefore, changing my original recommendation that this proposal warrants a favourable decision, subject to the conditions suggested.

My original report continues:

This 1 ha site stands behind established housing on Flass Lane, and forms part of a larger undeveloped area that sits between Flass Lane and the Bridgegate Smallholdings further to the east. The Smallholdings consist of a number of scattered dwellings, with associated outbuildings, set within an area of grazing plots and fields used mainly for hay production. Surrounded by a mature mixed hedgerow, the site is currently in agricultural use, although the application site also includes a vacant dwelling and its curtilage, positioned on the northern boundary. The local topography means that the site is set approximately one metre higher than the rear gardens of the adjacent properties with which it shares a common boundary. It then rises gently towards the opposing eastern side. At present, the access is from a narrow track that runs from Flass Lane along the southern and eastern site boundaries leading to the Smallholdings. Flass Lane is a wide local distributor road that features grass verges and trees. It is served by public transport, and the site is also within easy walking distance of other bus routes.

The site has a limited planning history. In the current Barrow local plan 1996-2006, the site forms part of a wider area (4.77 Ha) allocated for housing by virtue of policy B1, creating an estimated 150 dwellings. Following the publication of PPG3, which requires authorities to prioritise brownfield sites for housing where possible, the site has been deleted from the list of allocations in the current Housing Chapter Review.

Page 7 of 50 PLANNING COMMITTEE 7th February 2006 St Marys Hospice has provided palliative care within the Furness peninsula for some 16 years. Recent research has indicated an under provision of care within the Furness peninsula, particularly the Barrow area. This proposal is to expand the current level of palliative care, which takes various forms, but the Hospice has identified a particular need for a single site facility upon which it can base this provision. The core of the scheme is a 12 bed in- patient unit, together with an extensive day care facility for out patients incorporating training facilities for staff and volunteer workers. The third element will be an administrative block to provide for the various fund raising activities and the administration of the Hospice shops. The supporting statement indicates that the floor areas for each function are approximately 900, 600, and 200 square metres respectively. A total of about 80 jobs will be created on site, with a shift system to provide 24 hour cover, backed up by a pool of nearly 300 volunteers, mainly involved in the fund raising activities of the hospice. Car parking for around 50 vehicles is anticipated.

The application is in outline form, as the scheme involves a bid for national lottery funding, for which a valid planning approval is paramount if monies are to be awarded. A schematic layout indicates that the car parking would be to the west and southern site boundaries and the buildings in a more central position. The development would share an access road with the nursing home scheme proposed on the adjacent site to the south. This would be upgraded to a standard that would adequately serve both sites and also includes a proposal for highway improvements on Flass Lane, including a right turn lane and revised street lighting. Appropriate conditions could be attached to achieve such off site works.

In terms of general planning policy, which is underpinned by the principle of sustainability, the key issue raised by this proposal is the greenfield nature of the site, and how this development sits in terms of current government policy that seeks to maximise the efficient use of land. Particular emphasis is made of the need to utilise previously developed, i.e. brownfield land, in preference to greenfield sites wherever possible. However, the guidance also states that not all development should be expected to take place on previously developed land, as appropriate sites may not always be available. There will be occasions where greenfield development can be justified, particularly for specialised schemes where suitable alternatives are adequately proven not to be available. Such locations will still have to meet other established criteria though. To prevent urban sprawl, sites should be within existing settlements, rather than open countryside, and priority should be given to position facilities in locations where there is an existing, or potential for, access to alternative means of transport other than the private car.

There is no specific policy relating to hospice developments at national level but reference is made in PPG13 that major health developments should be planned in locations that not only have good accessibility by various transport modes but also have good access for emergency vehicles and for people who rely on the car. This would seem to suggest that such facilities should be positioned on main roads rather in more central locations where there is increased congestion. In this respect, Flass Lane is a main distributor road that also acts as a bus route. Health related facilities are mentioned in policy L56 of the emerging Structure Plan, and policy F2 of the current Barrow local plan. Policy L56 generally encourages the location of such facilities in the key service centres, (which includes Barrow) where they will relate well to their catchment area, are accessible by public transport, and achieve minimal impact upon the immediate area. The site meets the first two criteria in that the Hospice will serve the Furness area, with good road links that avoid the town centre for those arriving by car from outside the Borough. Secondly, Flass Lane is a bus route so the site is served by public transport. In terms of impact upon the area, the use is unlikely to generate excessive noise, the only source being from traffic, but I am satisfied that this will be absorbed into the general background activities.

Page 8 of 50 PLANNING COMMITTEE 7th February 2006 Potential noise sources such as plant and equipment can be controlled through siting and conditions to control noise production. Traffic generation has not be cited by consultees as a potential problem, subject to the suggested conditions, and is likely to be significantly less than would have been generated by the allocated housing development even allowing for vehicles from the proposed nursing home site.

Policy F2 allows for the siting of health and welfare facilities within, or on the edge of town centres, with specific criteria for residential areas. This policy is mainly aimed at facilities such as health centres, and medical surgeries, where visits are generally short and can form part of a mixed trip, rather than larger developments such as the one before you today that operate different parameters. I consider it to have limited weight in the determination of this proposal.

Prior to submitting this application, the applicants have carried out an examination of alternative brownfield locations for the development, taking into account the site-specific requirements that this type of use requires. The hospice requires a site with a quiet and peaceful setting, which is also readily accessible by various modes of transport. The alternative sites examined, and reasons for unsuitability were as listed below:

 Former Howard St college- site too small and location too busy, now offices  Former church Greengate St- site too small, now developed by SureStart  Land adjacent County Coachbuilders- unsuitable due to adjacent industrial uses  Land adjacent 6th Form college Rating Lane-significant activity and noise during the day. Also the site is adjacent is the Furness Abbey approach and a listed building, the setting of which would potentially be affected  Victoria Park Hotel- unsuitable for adaptation as such conversions rarely meet current health facility standards. Also issues related to its Listed status  Dunlop House Abbey Road-as VPH above  Former Lonsdale Hospital- too small and constrained by surrounding area  Channel Side- inappropriate due to adjacent business and industrial uses.

The docks development would also be inappropriate for the same reasons as Channelside, whilst the clearance project in Hindpool is to create an urban park rather than replace one development with another.

The decision rests upon whether or not the site-specific requirements of the hospice, and the sequential search that concludes a lack of available brownfield options, are sufficient enough evidence to make an exception to normal policy. A further material consideration is the submission that there is a need for the additional Hospice facilities, with a resulting overall benefit to the general community. Taking all of these factors into account, my conclusion is that this application should be supported, albeit subject to the suggested conditions.

My reasoning is that the development clearly has specific requirements, and this site would provide the setting needed for such a sensitive end use. In planning terms, an approval would not compromise the position of the Authority in its ability to resist other less appropriate forms of greenfield development. This is because national guidance accepts that greenfield development can be justified in certain circumstances where there are special site requirements, and alternatives have been suitably discounted. Based upon the interpretation of current government policy, alternative locations have also been explored and proven not to be either available or suitable. The site is accessible by public transport, and is also within walking distance of several hundred homes, so opportunities exist to reduce dependence upon the private car, as advocated in PPG13. However, the same guidance note also acknowledges that some health related uses might have other access

Page 9 of 50 PLANNING COMMITTEE 7th February 2006 criteria that warrant main road locations, rather than town centres where congestion may unduly interfere with general day to day activity.

Conditions can be attached to this approval in order to ensure that proper access arrangements are put in place to minimise any adverse impact upon the local highway network, and that there are suitable safeguards to protect residential amenity. Additionally, I have suggested that in view of the current uncertainty relating to archaeological data, a condition requiring further study is submitted for evaluation.

The Hospice will have to submit a Reserved Matters application to resolve the final layout and design, so there will a suitable opportunity to ensure that the development does not unduly impact either upon immediate residential properties, or the area in general by virtue of design or layout.

RECOMMENDATION:

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

Condition No. 3

The access road from Flass Lane shall be designed, constructed, drained and lit to a standard suitable for adoption, as laid down in the current Cumbria Design Guide. In this respect, further details including longitudinal and cross sections, shall be submitted to the Planning Authority for approval before any development work commences on site. No highway related work shall commence until a full specification has been approved. The development shall be built in accordance with the approved details, unless the Planning Authority gives prior written consent to any variation.

Reason

In order to ensure a minimum standard of highway construction, and in the interests of highway safety.

Condition No. 4

Prior to the beneficial occupation of the development, the applicant shall submit a Travel Plan to the Planning Authority for their approval. The Plan shall identify the measures to be taken to encourage the achievement of a modal shift away from the use of private cars to sustainable transport modes. The site operator shall thereafter permanently implement the subsequently approved measures, and provide the planning authority with an annual report reviewing the effectiveness of the Travel Plan including any revisions to its operation, unless the Planning Authority gives prior written agreement to any variation.

Reason

To aid in the delivery of sustainable transport objectives, and in accordance with policy T31 of the Cumbria Joint Structure Plan 2001-2016

Condition No. 5

Page 10 of 50 PLANNING COMMITTEE 7th February 2006 No part of the development shall be beneficially occupied until the access road identified in condition 3, together with all on site car parking facilities, have been completed in accordance with a phasing scheme to be subject to the prior written agreement of the Planning Authority.

Reason

In order to ensure a minimum standard of access and car parking associated with the development.

Condition No. 6

The approved car park shall be permanently retained free from all obstructions and no development, whether permitted or not by the Town & Country Planning (General Permitted Development) Order 1995 (or any order revoking or re-enacting that Order with or without modifications) shall be carried out that would prevent its continuous use for vehicle parking, unless subject to prior express consent by the Planning Authority.

Reason

In order to ensure a suitable level of on site parking associated with the development.

Condition No. 7

No part of the development shall be beneficially occupied until works for the provision of a right turn facility into the access from Flass Lane, together with associated amendments to the street lighting, have been completed in accordance with details previously approved by the Planning Authority.

Reason

In the interests of highway safety.

Condition No. 8

No development shall commence within the site until the applicant has secured the implementation of a programme of archaeological work in accordance with a written scheme of investigation which has been submitted to, and approved in writing by, the Local Planning Authority.

Reason

To afford reasonable opportunity for an examination to be made to determine the existence of any remains of archaeological interest within the site and for the preservation and examination of recording such remains.

Condition No. 9

Page 11 of 50 PLANNING COMMITTEE 7th February 2006 All planting, seeding or turfing comprised in the approved details of landscaping shall be carried out in the first planting and seeding seasons or in accordance with the phasing of the scheme as agreed in writing with the Planning Authority. And any trees or plants which within a period of five years from the completion of the development die, are removed or become seriously damaged or diseased shall be replaced in the next planting season with others of a similar size and species, unless the Planning Authority gives written consent to any variation.

Reason

In order to protect the visual amenities of the area.

Condition No. 10

For the first twelve months following initial occupation of the development, the site operator shall implement a scheme to monitor the modes of transport utilised by all visitors to the site and submit those details to the Planning Authority at the end of that period. The methodology of the study shall be agreed with the Planning Authority prior to its commencement. In the event that the monitoring indicates a reduction in highway safety through increased on street parking, then the site operator shall undertake appropriate measures within a suitable time frame, which shall be agreed with the Planning Authority, to overcome the problems identified.

Reason

In order to ensure that highway safety is not compromised.

Condition No. 11

Drainage must be on the separate system.

Reason

In order to control water pollution.

Condition No. 12

Any plant and machinery associated with the use must be sited, designed and operated so as not to cause the existing background noise level (measured as the LA90 10 minutes) to be exceeded at any neighbouring noise sensitive locations. Tonal noise will result in a 5db addition to that noise (Definition in: appendix E “Noise Procedure Specification publication 140”, The Engineering Equipment & Materials User Association). Note: The noise is measured 3.5metres from any reflective surface, other than the ground at a height of between 1.2 m and1.5m.

Reason

In order to control noise pollution.

The reason(s) for the grant of planning permission are as follows:

Page 12 of 50 PLANNING COMMITTEE 7th February 2006 The development, subject to conformity with the stated conditions, will not cause any material harm to an interest of acknowledged importance and will not conflict with Barrow Borough Local Plan Review 1996 - 2006.

Page 13 of 50 PLANNING COMMITTEE 7th February 2006

PLAN NUMBER: APPLICANT: DATE RECEIVED:

2005/0985 Risedale Estates Ltd 29/06/2005

WARD/PARISH: CASE OFFICER: STATUTORY DATE: Newbarns Jason Hipkiss 22/08/2005 01229 894764 LOCATION:

Proposed Nursing Home, Flass Lane, Barrow-in-Furness

PROPOSAL:

Erection of a Nursing Home (C2), creation of new access road and other associated works.

LOCAL PLAN:

POLICY D23

Where the importance of known remains, or the archaeological potential of a site is not adequately understood, applications for development will only be accepted when accompanied by an evaluation of the archaeological importance of the site. Planning permission will not be granted without adequate assessment of the nature, extent and significance of the remains present and the degree to which the proposed development is likely to affect them.

POLICY F2

SUMMARY OF MAIN ISSUES:

NON MATERIAL CONSIDERATIONS:

Page 14 of 50 PLANNING COMMITTEE 7th February 2006

Loss of private views Impact upon property values

REPRESENTATIONS:

The Occupiers of 36-56 (evens), 60-94 (evens), 1, 2, 3, 4, 10, 11 Smallholdings, Flass Lane, 109,111, Friars Lane, Barrow in Furness all informed.

The Occupier, 68 Flass Lane, Barrow in Furness

“I would like to pass comments on the above application as follows:

The revised version of the town plan adopted as "Local Plan Review 1996-2006 - Proposed Alteration Chapter 3 Housing", (copy attached) alters the status of the land from Housing to Green Field and this I believe should preclude the approval of the development of a commercial premises.

The development of commercial premises should be limited to the considerable brown field sites, which ring the dock complex and extend up through Park Road.

If the proposed "Alteration" has not been adopted, then the land again is not designated for the development of a commercial premises.

If the town council is intent on using the land for the commercial benefit of the electorate then I would suggest that it is designated as house building land and its sale would bring in a significant amount of extra income.

In the Newbarns area there is already the provision of elderly care places through Bevan House which is situated within 300m of the proposed development. If we are considering the proportional delivery of elderly care services across the borough then there are other wards that have no provision.

In terms of the need to bring jobs to the borough I am sure that this land could well be developed with small high tech premises to bring more than minimum wage jobs to the town. We are in serious danger of the town hitting a spiral of less availability of opportunity for educated people, them leaving town and their place being taken by the elderly which will eventually see what industry we have leaving for areas with an suitable workforce.

I also believe that there was a covenant with the land which meant that its use should be retained for the borough. I would appreciate it if you could arrange for me to address the planning committee when it meets.”

The Occupier, 70 Flass Lane, Barrow in Furness

“I feel that I must strongly object to the proposed development on the following grounds.

Page 15 of 50 PLANNING COMMITTEE 7th February 2006

This land is Greenfield and with large amounts of brownfield sites in the borough surely a proposal of this scale should be on a brownfield site. This proposal is not in keeping with the surrounding properties, all residential two storey. There are no four storey properties.

1. Flass Lane is currently one of the busiest roads in the area being one of the major routes to three schools and a college, and also a cross town rat run. 2. I understand that it is proposed to put all surface and foul water from this development into the main sewer on Flass lane. This sewer is reaching capacity and during the last thunderstorm water was jetting over 6ft high from one of the man hole covers. 3. If this land is to be sold for development then surely it should be put up for tender to obtain the best return for the town.

I would like to exercise my option to attend the Planning Committee meeting”.

The Occupier, 68 Flass Lane, Barrow in Furness

1. “Was the land on Flass Lane for sale? Was it put up for public auction? I was under the impression it was green land, and if not, for the purpose of housing. The proposal is for business purposes, to make money for a business, it is not in the interest of the public. 2. Do we have a lack of accommodation for the elderly in Barrow, or is this a way of enticing people from outside the area to move here "to live by the Lakes"? Will this become a retirement town? 3. Flass Lane is a major road used for three schools, one college, lorries to and from the gas terminal, the water treatment plant etc etc. The extra traffic from visitors, employees and delivery vans to the home will make Flass Lane dangerous. 4. The size of the nursing home (four storeys high) will require some considerable lighting and as Bevan House looks like Morecambe illuminations, the new one will look like Blackpool. 5. The properties along Flass Lane will become devalued.

I would like to exercise the option to address the committee”.

The Occupier, 68 Flass Lane, Barrow in Furness

“The revised version of the town plan adopted as "Local Plan Review 1996-2006 - Proposed Alteration Chapter 3 Housing", (copy attached) alters the status of the land from Housing to Green Field and this I believe should preclude the approval of the development of a commercial premises.

The development of commercial premises should be limited to the considerable brown field sites which ring the dock complex and extend up through Park Road.

If the proposed "Alteration" has not been adopted, then the land again is not designated for the development of a commercial premises.

Page 16 of 50 PLANNING COMMITTEE 7th February 2006 In the Newbarns area there is already the provision of elderly care places through Bevan House which is situated within 300m of the proposed development. If we are considering the proportional delivery of elderly care services across the borough then there are other wards that have no provision.

I also believe that there was a covenant with the land, which meant that its use should be retained for the borough.

I would appreciate it if you could arrange for me to address the planning committee when it meets”.

The Occupier, 72 Flass Lane, Barrow in Furness

“I strongly object to the proposed erection of a Nursing Home to be situated in Flass Lane, Barrow on the following grounds:

1. The proposed development is to be built on the only green site in the area. 2. The height of the proposed building will be detrimental to my privacy and views from my front elevation. 3. I am also concerned that the sewer will not be able to cope with the extra load placed on them in storm conditions. 4. Additional traffic on an already very busy road used by school children, pedestrians, cars and heavy goods vehicles. 5. There are already two residential homes in the area plus three schools and a sixth form college.

I wish to address the meeting, unfortunately I unable due to work commitments. Would it be possible for my representative to attend on my behalf. My representative is Mr D Hunt”.

The Occupier, 60 Flass Lane, Barrow in Furness

“We are not opposed in principle to the building of a nursing home but we do have the following concerns:

1. If planning permission is granted serious consideration should be given to the height of the proposed nursing home. 2. A four storey building will not be aesthetically pleasing in this residential area. 3. Living opposite a building of this height would seriously affect our privacy. 4. The value of existing houses in Flass Lane will be greatly reduced. Leading to a reduction in Council Tax and to a loss of revenue for the Council. 5. We are concerned about the fire risk, if a fire should start and not enough staff on duty to evacuate. As the type of residents are not very mobile. Lifts should not be used. So there could be loss of life trying to use the stairs from the four storey building. 6. It is a busy road and will lead to further congestion of traffic. Parking toing and froing of residents and staff plus the added addition of the proposed hospice on Flass Lane and their facilities for parking.

Page 17 of 50 PLANNING COMMITTEE 7th February 2006 7. Are the residents going to be locked in? If not they will be at risk of going out onto the busy road. 8. Adverse rainfall in the lass two years has created problems with flooding on Flass Lane and Friars Lane. 9. What provision will be made to cope with future floods in the area. 10. Will adequate sewerage systems be in place? 11. Consideration should be given to retaining the existing hedge to prevent the adverse effect on the wild life.

We would like to attend the planning committee meeting when heard”.

The Occupier, 78 Flass Lane, Barrow-in-Furness

“I am writing to strongly object to the erection of a building of this size and the subsequent traffic problems it will cause. There has already been an increase from the Ratings Village and residents of Flass Lane find it necessary to leave their cars outside their homes as it is very difficult to exit their drives. Staff and visitors leaving the proposed new building will also find it hard to exit the new road and will also tend to leave their cars on Flass Lane causing further restrictions. We also thought this land was of GREEN BELT NATURE”.

The Occupier, 10 Smallholding, Flass Lane, Barrow

“I strongly object to your proposal to develop land formally part of the smallholdings on Flass Lane. The land is only formally a smallholding because I was bullied into giving up the tenancy after the death of my father., by Barrow Council. Why do the Council seem hell bent on developing the area of Green Land? What is the need for a ‘Private’ nursing home. How can a building of this size and the huge area of tarmac for parking not be a blot on the local landscape. The traffic on Flass Lane is horrendous now, what is it going to be like when this development is up and running? Does the Council even own this land? I don’t think they do. Can they produce anything to prove otherwise? Probably not, but then that’s never bothered Barrow Council before has it? As for new jobs I also believe this not to be true as all jobs will be transferred from other facilities. How will this affect the value of my home?”

The Occupier, 10 Smallholdings, Flass Lane, Barrow in Furness

“I wish to strongly object to these proposals for a 'Private' Nursing Home, Access Road and Hospice on this site at Flass Lane. Are they really necessary?

This is a lovely green area of Newbarns, and the only one left, which is looked directly upon by not only every house along Flass Lane, but also all the houses behind the even side, consisting of several different streets, backing up and up as far as the church on Middlehill.

At present, they are fortunate enough to look down onto green fields, why would we want to look out onto two great buildings and a vast expanse of tarmac for people to park their cars?? From here I can already look out of my house and see one nursing home, do we really need another right next door! It was said in the paper they would not create an eyesore to this area, of course they will! Would you like it if some one came and dug up your back garden and placed a building on it, especially when there was other areas it could have gone which were much more viable. What about the land up by Furness General Hospital? Or at the back of Rating Lane near the playing park at the bottom end (which is disused and not maintained)? What about land at Leece Lane (disused playing fields)? There are many other 'brownfield sites' which could be used for this development; it would be criminal if this lovely area of land was used instead, what happened to 'preserving

Page 18 of 50 PLANNING COMMITTEE 7th February 2006 Britain’s green areas and countryside'????? I wonder also if you know that this land, up until January this year, was being used for grazing sheep and horses. That was until the council gave us notice of about a month to give it up. I think this is ridiculous, where do the animals go?? It was a pleasure to watch passers by stop at the bottom of the lane to just watch the animals peacefully grazing, causing no harm to anyone. Is anyone going to rehome them? What about all the birds and rabbits I watch every morning, nesting and breeding in the hedgerows which are going to be ripped out to create the new access road? Will they be able to move into the hospice, or be given another nice green area to live?? I doubt it. Why build on this land being made good use of when there are empty, disgusting, dilapidated buildings and areas of land in need of reconstruction? Probably because it is cheaper! And what will be done about the increased number of traffic using this road? I struggle at present to pull out of the lane onto Flass Lane because of cars parking along it and this reduces my visability to zero. It is very busy at school times and when people are finishing work which makes it almost impossible to pull out. It will only be made worse by visitors and staff coming and going to and from the site. I do not believe this will create any extra jobs in barrow at all, and I believe from talking to some staff at Furness General Hospital, that there is indeed no 'bed shortage' in our nursing homes. They also disagreed with this proposal. I think this application should be rejected, as was a recent planning application for Dalton where it was planned to use up a 'greenfield' site for housing when there were other 'brownfield' sites still available. I believe that is the case here, and it would be wrong to destroy this lovely piece of what’s left of our countryside!!”

The Occupiers, 64 Flass Lane, Barrow in Furness

“We are very concerned at your proposed erection of a nursing home and other associated works on Flass lane, Barrow. We are residents at 64 Flass lane and we directly overlook the field area where your proposal of the nursing home will be. We are a young couple who have only lived here just over 12 months. When viewing our property a major factor which influenced our choice of house was the beautiful, countryside view from the front of the property and the fact we were not overlooked by housing or other buildings. We are expecting our first baby very soon and we felt this location overlooking animals and lovely scenery was ideal as a family home. We are disappointed in your choice of location for your proposal and having viewed the plans feel it will be very much an eye-sore. We feel it would be such a shame to turn such as stunning area into this development and it would not be in keeping with the surrounding area. We also feel it could influence the valuation of our property and may even be a hindering factor if ever we were to sell our property. We feel this is very unfair.

We are also concerned about the traffic problems it may create as it is already a very busy road. We would appreciate if you could take our concerns into consideration”.

The Occupier, 66 Flass Lane, Barrow

“I strongly object to this being built. The traffic situation in this area is becoming worse and some days the volume and speed at peak times is like a motorway or Barrow ring road. There are times when its difficult to get out or into our drives. Already building on Holbeck, Riverside Gardens and the more recent Ratings Village at the other end of Flass Lane has added to the increase in traffic and this proposed site will make it even worse in what used to be a reasonably quiet residential area.

We have already lost many green field areas around here.

The proposed Nursing Home is not like the proposed Hospice as this would be needed and beneficial for the people of Barrow and District.

Page 19 of 50 PLANNING COMMITTEE 7th February 2006 The other objections I have are the amount of disruption it would cause, sewerage works etc for what will be a purely commercial business project and evidently this building would be a huge four storey high, which will be out of keeping with the area lit up probably all night as in Bevan House behind us”.

The Occupier, 3 Smallholding, Flass Lane, Barrow

“After inspecting the plans we are totally against the size and scale of this development, the overall height will create a blot on the landscape, and is not in keeping with the surrounding properties.

We would also question whether 60 new jobs will be created. In view of the large scale development of this site, Risedale Homes may well close some of their other homes and move the staff and residents to this one site”.

The Occupier, 55 Flass Lane, Barrow-in-Furness

“Thank you for your letter of 4th July 2005 and again, please excuse this delay in acknowledgement. My comments are as follows:

1. Whilst I have no objection in principle to the planned development of a nursing home, I do believe that the proposed building is too high for the site. At four storeys plus roof etc, on existing rising ground, it will completely dominate properties on the opposite side of Flass Lane and will appear completely out of place.

I would suggest a reduction in height and an extension in floor area to compensate should be considered.

2. Planning application paragraph 4a relating to the present use of building and land states that the smallholding is vacant. It is, of course, currently occupied by a Council smallholding tenant.

The Occupier, 86 Flass Lane, Barrow in Furness

“Thank you for your letter dated 4/07/2005 with reference to the above planning application for the erection of a Nursing Home and access road in Flass Lane. The Proposed site would entail building on what is at present part of a Smallholding and is as such a Green Field Site, development of which I understand to be, contrary to existing Government policy. I can think of many other Brown Field Sites within Barrow that could be utilised for this development. With the development of the area for residential housing both on the old Roose Hospital and Listers sites traffic has increased dramatically within the last few years. I contend that the proposed parking attachment to the development will not be enough to accommodate both staff and visitors and would ultimately result in extra parking resulting in more congestion in Flass Lane as was seen in Dalton Lane after the opening of Furness General Hospital. If the proposed plan is given approval I feel that amendments should be made to the existing Flass Lane road layout in the proximity of the ,proposed Nursing Home and the Y-Junction to Roose Station. With the increase of traffic and the present parking of vans and cars on both sides of the road the need for restrictions in parking will be paramount e.g. double yellow line on both sides of the road along with bus markings. I see no benefit in attending the Planning Committee meeting”.

Page 20 of 50 PLANNING COMMITTEE 7th February 2006 The Occupier, 70 Flass Lane, Barrow in Furness

“I feel that I must strongly object to the proposed amended development on the following grounds. 1. This land is Greenfield and with large amounts of brownfield sites in the borough surely a proposal of this scale should be on a brownfield site. 2. This proposal is not in keeping with the surrounding properties, all residential two storey, and is too large for a single building development. 3. The plans appear to show the removal of the existing hedgerow along Flass lane, as this is used by the local wildlife I believe that this should be maintained at all cost and not be removed just to make it easier for the developer to landscape the area. 4. Flass Lane is already a very busy cross town route leading to three schools and a college. Any proposals to increase the traffic without some scheme to reduce the speed will endanger the life of those living in the area. It is already proposed to restrict parking on a short stretch alongside this development site but this will not help as this will encourage people to keep driving in excess of the speed limit. 5. I understand that it is proposed to put all surface and foul water from this development into the main sewer on Flass lane. These latest proposals will almost double the surface water from the site. The existing sewer is almost at its maximum capacity and during the last thunderstorm water was jetting over 6ft high from one of the man hole covers. I would like to exercise my option to attend the Planning Committee meeting”. The Occupier, 68 Flass Lane, Barrow in Furness

“I would like to make the following comments on the above proposal:

1. Was the land on Flass Lane for sale? Was it put up for public auction? I was under the impression it was green land, and if not, for the purpose of housing. The proposal is for business purposes, to make money for a business, it is not in the interest of the public. 2. Do we have a lack of accommodation for the elderly in Barrow, or is this a way of enticing people from outside the area to move here "to live by the Lakes"? Will this become a retirement town? 3. Flass Lane is a major road used for three schools, one college, lorries to and from the gas terminal, the water treatment plant etc etc. The extra traffic from visitors, employees and delivery vans to the home will make Flass Lane dangerous. 4. The size of the nursing home (three storeys high but larger than originally proposed) will require some considerable lighting and as Bevan House looks like Morecambe illuminations, the new one will look like Blackpool. 5. The properties along Flass Lane will become devalued. I would like to exercise the option to address the committee.”

The Occupier, 10 Smallholdings, Flass Lane, Barrow

“I am writing again, in response to the modification of the plans for the Proposed Nursing Home on Flass Lane. I still strongly object to this development going ahead on this site. The

Page 21 of 50 PLANNING COMMITTEE 7th February 2006 removal of one storey is completely insignificant as, not only has it been relocated, rather than completely removed, it is still 3 storeys high and a huge blot on the beautiful landscape which can be seen for miles. It will still be destroying the homes of all the wildlife, taking away a perfectly good piece of agricultural 'green' land which was still being used until notice was given to make way for this development. We are supposed to be using up brownfield sites before starting on the greenfield sites, so why has an exception been made here?? I know of many other places this nursing home and hospice could be built. The traffic volume will still be increased on Flass Lane, which is already a problem and it will only be a matter of time before an accident happens. The change in plans also appears to now mean the removal of some of our farm buildings, which are being used as we speak. These buildings were believed to be remaining if this development was to go ahead, but its ok for someone sat in some office somewhere who doesn’t know this smallholding, to just decide they will get rid of it because it stands in the way of their plans? I think that is disgusting that it is given that much thought and consideration. What happens to the animal that is kept in there? If this green land is to be built on that easily, I truly fear for the future of our countryside and farming/agricultural community. I would like to address the planning meeting to voice these opinions properly.”

The Occupier, 68 Flass Lane, Barrow

“Further to your letter detailing that there has been modifications to the proposal referenced above, I would like to re-iterate the comments below from my original mail.

Also I have further comments, which I believe to be pertinent to the issue.

Monopoly of Private Provision of Elderly Care.

I suspect that the majority of residents in homes owned by Risedale Estates are funded from the public purse. By partnering this company through the provision of this land and this planning application, the Local Council is enabling the Company to establish a local monopoly. If the council considers that elderly care is under provided within the borough, should it not be using any opportunity it has to encourage other large providers to come to the borough to increase competition and hence value for money for local people.

Land at North Lonsdale Hospital.

I believe that there is relationship between the provision of this land to Risedale Estates and the sale of land adjacent to St Georges church by Risedale Estates. If as part of this deal Risedale Estates were made any guarantees by elected or paid officials of the borough, then I believe there is a conflict of interest.

I would like to be present to make representations to any meetings that take place.”

Page 22 of 50 PLANNING COMMITTEE 7th February 2006

Previous correspondence

The development of commercial premises should be limited to the considerable brown field sites which ring the dock complex and extend up through Park Road.

If the proposed "Alteration" has not been adopted, then the land again is not designated for the development of a commercial premises.

I also believe that there was a covenant with the land which meant that its use should be retained for the borough.

I would appreciate it if you could arrange for me to address the planning committee when it meets.”

The Occupier, 72 Flass Lane, Barrow in Furness

“I object to the above proposal on the following grounds:

It is one of the few green field sites left on the outskirts of Barrow.

I am concerned that the sewers are not of an adequate size to take the extra amounts of sewerage and surface water from this site.

I also note there is only twenty four car parking bays for visitors. This will mean visitor car parking in Flass Lane. Its is difficult now to park outside my property.

Flass Lane is also a main entry and exit road from Ratings Village and Holbeck. The road is very busy now and the extra traffic will only add to the congestion. Very few motorists adhere to the speed limit and make it a race track. A serious accident is waiting to happen.

The lighting from the proposal at night will be an invasion of my privacy. Also traffic going in and leaving the site during the night will disturb my sleep.

Page 23 of 50 PLANNING COMMITTEE 7th February 2006

I wish to speak at the committee meeting but due to work commitments I will not be able to attend. I would like my representative to attend the meeting on my behalf.

The person in question is Mr D Hunt”.

The Occupiers, 3 Smallholding, Flass Lane, Barrow in Furness

“After viewing the plans we still think the proposed development is still over large and too tall for the area.

We are also concerned as to the effect on our water pressure. Our supply line is over 120 metres in length and we understand that these types of developments use a lot of water throughout the day”.

The Occupier, 10 Smallholdings, Flass Lane, Barrow in Furness

“I must strongly object to your modified plans for the nursing home on land, still part of 10 Smallholdings, Flass Lane. It is outrageous that this greenfield site that we have rented from the Council and put to good agricultural use for over 20 years is now going to have a huge building stuck in the middle and then surrounded by tarmac. I feel there must be sites far more suitable for this type of project. I have only just this last year purchased my home from the Council and this is going to drastically reduce the resale value. As for the traffic I have just recently won my battle to have double yellow lines painted along Flass Lane in this very area after several near accidents caused by the amount of parked cars and sheer volume of traffic, this development is going to make this situation even worse! The drains on Flass Lane regularly back up after a medium downpour, this will be made even worse with the huge area of tarmac draining into Flass Lane too! I would also like to address the planning meeting to give my side of how this land was obtained by the Council in the first place”.

The Occupier, 60 Flass Lane, Barrow in Furness

“We are not opposed in principal to the building of a nursing home but we do have our concerns.

If planning permission is granted serious consideration should be given to the height of the proposed nursing home. A three storey building will not be aesthetically pleasing in this residential area. Living opposite a building of this height would seriously effect our privacy. The value of existing houses will be greatly reduced leading to a reduction in Council Tax and to a loss of revenue for the Council.

We are concerned about the fire risk, if a fire should start and not enough staff on duty to evacuate, as the type of residents are not very mobile. Lifts should not be used. So there could be loss of life due to trying to use stairs from the three storey building.

It is a busy road and will lead to further congestion of traffic parking, coming and going of residents and staff. Plus the added addition of the proposed hospice on Flass Lane and their facilities for parking.

Are the residents going to be locked in, if not they will be as risk of going out onto the busy road.

Page 24 of 50 PLANNING COMMITTEE 7th February 2006 Adverse rainfall in the last two years has created problems with flooding on Flass Lane/Friars Lane. What provision will be made to cope with future floods in the area? Will adequate sewer systems be in place?

Consideration should be given to retaining the existing hedge and wall to prevent the adverse effect on the wildlife”.

The Occupiers, 102 Flass Lane, Barrow in Furness

“We wish to lodge a complaint against the application for planning consent for a 60 bedded nursing home on land in Flass Lane, Barrow in Furness, Cumbria.

The level of traffic on Flass Lane is already horrendous and this would increase to an unacceptable level if this planning consent was granted. There has already been a large development of housing on Flass Lane and no measures have been taken to improve the part of the road, which branches to the left and passes the Red River Club.

The amount of traffic on this road is terrible, we have coaches and large lorries frequently on this road which only adds to the congestion especially around 8.30 in the mornings. We really feel that this development would only exasperate the traffic problems and feel strongly that you should not allow this development”.

The Occupier, 68 Flass Lane, Barrow in Furness

“Having had an opportunity to review the report submitted by Barden Planning Consultants supporting the above application I would like to point out two very important inaccuracies which believe mean that the application should be rejected.

1 Paragraph 2 of the report says that the development should be regarded as a health development. The land on Flass Lane is not designated as health land.

The report goes on the suggest that an investigation into alternatives has been undertaken. Stating a few selected sites, which would never be suitable. However they fail to look at land which has been made available and is already designated as health land adjacent to Furness General Hospital. Morecambe Bay Health Trust have twice tried to develop this land for residential use and been turned down on the grounds it is not residential land.

This would seem an ideal opportunity for the trust to profit from the land and retain the green belt land on Flass Lane. Win Win I would say.

2 There are three letters of support within the document for the "principle" of a nursing home development. All three use as a justification a shortage of beds within Furness General Hospital. Since these letters have been written it has emerged that there is in fact a considerable surplus of beds at FGH and ward 9 and some other facilities have been closed.

There seem to be two opportunities here:

If there is still a need for beds then Morcambe Bay trust could run the beds within FGH with funding from Cumbria County Council or

Page 25 of 50 PLANNING COMMITTEE 7th February 2006 Risedale Estates could take out a lease on the vacant facilities and operate within the FGH campus which would be both better for the patients and for the environment.

I would again like to say that I want to address any meeting held to discuss this matter”.

Extra Representations produced in Extra Information Booklets for meeting on 17 th January 2006

The Occupier, 27 Chestnut Walk

“I feel very strongly that the Committee should reconsider the granting of planning permission for the building of a nursing home by Risedale Estates. There is a great shortage of suitable residential and nursing care for people with dementia in the Furness area, and many people are being told that they will have to accept places outside the area.

I would like to ask the Committee to consider carefully the needs of people with dementia and their families in this area. It is important for people with dementia to maintain contact with their families it is important for families too. It is difficult enough to have to accept that you can no longer look after someone you love at home, without being told that you have to travel for up to several hours in order to visit. In addition while some people find that long visits are acceptable, many people find that shorter visits on a more frequent basis are better for someone with dementia and this is impossible when a person is in care many miles away from their home.”

The Occupier, 55 Hollyoake Terrace

“Please reconsider the granting of planning permission for the building of a nursing home by Risedale Estates. There are very few nursing homes in this area that will accept people with dementia. I care for my mum at home for now but one day I may have to put her in a home, this will be a very hard decision to do and it will be even harder if I cannot get her in a local home. Dementia is a very complex disability and need to have their families around at regular intervals, it would not be possible if the home was not in this area. Please contact the Alzheimer’s Society, Barrow for more understating of dementia.

Dementia is a horrible thing to deal with, we do not need anymore worries, please reconsider your decision.”

The Occupier, 184 North Row

It is with great concern that I have learned of your refusal to give planning permission for Risedale Estates to build a care home for people with dementia who require nursing care.

As a recently retired manager of a care home in the area I am well aware of the difficulties relatives face in finding a place for people with dementia in this area, and the importance to them of family contact. Many already have to be placed outside the area with the result that this vital contact can be lost as visiting is necessarily limited by the distance relatives have to travel.

On a personal level I have a husband who suffers from dementia, who lives at home at present, but will need care in the future, so I am well aware of the special needs of these sufferers.

It is generally accepted, with the ageing population that we are facing a crisis in available care home places, which will only worsen if no action is taken now. I would therefore urge you to reconsider and allow this project to continue.”

Page 26 of 50 PLANNING COMMITTEE 7th February 2006 The Occupier, 53 Dane Avenue

My father was in Risdedale Nursing Home for 2½ years. It would have been very difficult for me if he had been in a home out of Barrow.”

The Occupier, 64b Ulverston Road

“I find it very distressing to learn planning permission has been refused to Risedale Estates regarding a proposed nursing home for patients with dementia and the EMI.

I am acquainted with the dreadful situation affecting partners – families trying to cope with advanced alzheimer’s disease when the patient becomes double incontinent, aggressive or uncooperative.

In many cases the partner/carer is in the older age group cannot cope especially when being abused physically by the patient.

Most people do not take lightly to facing the fact they are forced to seek professional help with caring, nor do they find the prospect of placement outside the area suitable.

I write this letter in the hope the Committee will carefully reconsider the situation involving this neglected area of care.”

The Occupier, 2 Kestrel Drive

“I feel strongly that the Committee should reconsider the granting of planning permission for the building of a nursing home by Risedale Estates. There is a great shortage of suitable residential and nursing care for people with dementia in the Furness area, and many people are being told that they will have to accept places outside the area. I would like to ask the Committee to consider carefully the needs of people with dementia and their families in this area. It is important for people with dementia to maintain contact with their families and it is important for families too. It is difficult enough to have to accept that you can no longer look after someone you love at home, without being told that you will have to travel for up to several hours in order to visit. In addition while some people find that long visits are acceptable, many people find that shorter visits on a more frequent basis are better for someone with dementia and this is impossible when a person is in care many miles from their home.

I am the main carer for my husband who has dementia , I look after him at home at the moment (not easy) when the time comes I want to be able to visit him often and after all he will still be my husband even though he is unable to live at home with me. I do urge the Committee to think about the needs of people like me when making their decision. After all he was once just as able and intelligent as you. It all changed on his 66th birthday, it could happen to you.”

Page 27 of 50 PLANNING COMMITTEE 7th February 2006

The Occupier, 29 Hare Lane

“I feel very strongly that the Committee should reconsider the granting of planning permission for the building of a nursing home by Risedale Estates. There is a great shortage of suitable residential and nursing home care for people with dementia in the Furness Area and many people are being told that they will have to accept places outside the area.

I was the main carer for my husband who had dementia. I was unable to look after him at home so he had to go into fulltime care. This meant a journey of nearly 100 miles to Silverdale and back so I was not able to visit him as often as I would have liked, if there had been somewhere in Barrow it would have meant I could have gone more often and for shorter periods of time which is better for someone with dementia. I urge the Committee to think about people like me when making their decision.”

The Occupier, 70 Flass Lane, Barrow

“I feel that I must again strongly object to the proposed amended development on the following grounds.

1.Jason Hipkiss stated at the December planning meeting that the site on the corner of Bridgegate Avenue and Park Drive would be unsuitable due to the busy road junction but this is not the case if the council were to agree to both plots of land which are adjacent to Bridgegate Avenue being developed then access could be via Lesh Lane thus avoiding the busy junction. Use of both pieces of land I feel would provide enough space for both Hospice and Nursing Home. 2.Alternatively there is a large piece of land off James Freel Close overlooking the channel. This land has only small commercial units to the rear and no heavy industry of any kind. This site again should be large enough for both Hospice and Nursing Home and already has a roadway provided. What nicer outlook could the residents have than to over look Walney Channel. 3.Coming back to the current proposal I feel that the suggestion that the Traffic survey from 1998 would show no problem with the proposed site but this may be untrue since the last survey major alterations have taken place on Abbey road which have channelled more traffic via Flass Lane. Also since the time of the survey a large amount of house building has taken place further down Flass Lane, nearly all the traffic from these ongoing developments is using Flass Lane. 4.This proposal is not in keeping with the surrounding properties, all residential two storey, and is too large for a single building development. The current plans do not meet the requirements laid down under Local Plan Policy F2 (a) Not on former commercial site (c) Their hours of use will be 24/7 and the level of lighting required in the police report will cause a significant loss of residential amenity. 5.These latest proposals will almost double the surface water from the site and at the last meeting no solution to this problem had been obtained from the Environment Agency. 6.The alternatives sites proposed as being unsuitable by Risedale Estates were infact a fiasco as most of the sites had already been developed. Risedale Estates should have been told to provide a proper list of other sites but this has not been done because the Council have offered them the land on Flass Lane”.

The Occupier, 68 Flass Lane, Barrow

“Following today’s press reports in the Evening Mail, I would urge you to stand up to this crude attempt at intimidation.

Page 28 of 50 PLANNING COMMITTEE 7th February 2006 I would like to congratulate you as Councillors for upholding your duty to protect the long term future of the town over the short term commercial gain of private interest within the local business community”.

The Occupier, 68 Flass Lane, Barrow

“Following today’s one sided press coverage I would like to re-iterate some comments on the above development:  Such a huge development would blight what is a quiet residential neighbourhood, being visible from a considerable distance perched on top of a hill.

 It has been stated by the local health authority that it would alleviate a bed crisis – Given the closure of Ward 9 and proposals to reduce beds at Westmoreland Hospital, it seems to me that there is no local bed crisis in the public healthcare sector. If this is all about money, I would say that we are being asked to sanction the back door privatisation of palliative care services within South Cumbria. and given the intentional blurring of the boundaries,  The new Oncology Suite at Furness General Hospital, will provide short to medium term relief for hospice care until a suitable location is found should it be necessary”.

The Occupier, 60 Flass Lane, Barrow “In view of today’s meeting regarding the proposed nursing home on Flass Lane I would like to make the following points.

1. What will happen to the three storey building belonging to Risedale Estates should they decide to sell the proposed nursing home.

2. As the cost to each resident could be £36,400 per annum, how many residents in the borough of Barrow in Furness will be able to afford these rates. How many would like to live in such a high rise building also.

3. What will be the cost to every council tax payer for the short fall to each resident occupying the nursing home via the social services.

4. As it is a business and not a charity, to re-accrue the cost of the building, will the majority of the residents be from the more affluent areas and not the borough. Therefore it will be of no benefit to the citizens of the borough apart from paying for the building.

5. Road usage - I counted 72 vehicles using the lane in 14 minutes and that was not at peak times.

6. As I stated before, the loss of life to the people with problems of movement will be severe in a building of that height in a fire.

7. The green belt areas of Barrow are sadly lacking and more so if this scheme goes ahead when there are plenty of brown sites around the district, even then the height of the building is too high.

8. I believe there maybe more brown sites available in the near future also.

Page 29 of 50 PLANNING COMMITTEE 7th February 2006 9. There has still not been any sites viewed in Dalton or Askam. There seems to be a lot of people in favour of this development that live on the outskirts such as Lindal and Urswick, how many green fields are around these areas or do they not want any prison looking like buildings in their area.

Please keep the views of the residents in mind as we cannot afford to have a solicitor fight for us”.

The Occupier, 17 Westbourne Crescent, Barrow

“I am at a loss as to why the Planning Committee recently refused planning permission for the building of a nursing home by Risedale Estates on Flass Lane, Barrow. As I understand, the home aim to provide much needed suitable residential and nursing care for local people suffering from dementia. Therefore the proposed home could be regarded as a much needed community asset. As can be seen from Risedale Residential & Retirement Home on Abbey Road and Risedale at Lonsdale/St. Georges, School Street, the homes are carefully and sympathetically maintained and fit well into their surroundings. As far as I am aware there are no incidents of disturbance to residents and no infringements of parking rights. There would be little or no noise (apart from while the initial building work is carried out) and disruption to local residents, once the home was built, would be bare minimum.

I feel the Planning Committee should bear in mind that the home would benefit our community and grant the application as the nursing home will provide a valuable service to our aging townsfolk. The local residents opposition is unjustified as they are only a very small proportion of the 60,000+ residents that the proposed home would serve.

I speak with a certain amount of experience as I have a close family relative who is presently diagnosed with dementia and am very aware that homes of this kind are at a premium, I believe that if planning permission were to be granted for this much needed care home it would go some way towards filling the shortfall of places available in the Furness area

I live within close proximity to Furness Family Centre, Abbey Road, Risedale Residential and Retirement Home, Abbey Road, Stafford House, Abbey Road and The Croft, Hawcoat Lane which all serve our community. As long as I have lived close by I have not known any trouble or inconvenience to local residents from these homes. The Planning Committee should act for the benefit of our community as a whole and not just consider a small group of residents who don't want to be subjected to inconvenience, albeit for a short time, or oppose planning because it is to be located close to their properties. Once again, I urge the Planning Committee to grant permission for the home on the grounds that there is no doubt whatsoever that the home is desperately needed and that the land is a good and appropriate place for the home to be sited on”.

The Occupier, 29 Portland Crescent, Barrow in Furness

“I have, until recently, worked as a voluntary supporter of carers of patients with dementia.

This experience made me realise how important it is for people with this disease to maintain contact with their families.

Page 30 of 50 PLANNING COMMITTEE 7th February 2006

Having to travel several miles is often very daunting. Also, brief, frequent visits are usually much more helpful than an occasional long one. Traveling, with the increase in volume of traffic, for an elderly spouse is rapidly becoming more and more nerve wracking.

I appeal to the Committee to consider granting planning permission for the building of a nursing home on Flass Lane, Barrow. We desperately need more residential nursing care for those with dementia”.

The Occupier, 563 West Shore Road, Barrow in Furness

“I feel very strongly that the committee should re-consider the granting of planning permission for the building of a nursing home by Risedale Estates on Flass Lane in Barrow. There is a great shortage of suitable residential and nursing homes for people with dementia in the Furness area and many people are being told that they will have to accept places outside the area. I would like to ask the committee to consider carefully the needs of people with dementia and their families in this area. It is important for people with dementia to maintain contact with their families and it is important for families too. It is difficult enough to have to accept that you can no longer look after someone you love at home, without being told that you will have to travel for up to several hours in order to visit. In addition, while some people find that long visits are acceptable many people find that shorter visits on a more frequent basis are better for someone with dementia and this is impossible when a person is in care many miles away from their home.

I am the main carer for my husband who has dementia, I am unable to look after him at home any more and have had to accept the need for him to go into full time care. I want to be able to visit him often which I do every day traveling 20 miles a day to Ulverston. After all he will still be my husband even if he is unable to live at home with me. I do urge the committee to think about the needs of people like me when making the decision”.

The Occupier, Meadowside, 13 Church Road, Great Urswick, Nr Ulverston

“I felt so deeply about the refusal of planning permission for the nursing home and hospice on Flass Lane, that I have written an open letter to the Evening Mail.

Having had the experience and distress of finding care for my husband in a nursing home, I was so glad to see that someone was providing a new facility.

I thought about the many people I have met, on the journey of finding suitable care for a loved one.

I know of no family who would rather keep their loved ones at home, but care at home becomes impossible at some stage and the family have to make a heartbreaking decision that they are unable to cope with the special care that is needed.

I have learnt so much about our wonderful doctors, nurses and carers in this profession. It is quite humbling for a lay man meeting these problems for the first time.

I would like to think that someone from the planning department would visit nursing homes to see the need for car for dementia, before making decisions about buildings. They would find great care is given, but also that all beds are full. It is like no room anywhere.

Page 31 of 50 PLANNING COMMITTEE 7th February 2006 I would like to comment on the fact that my observation of the Flass Lane area is that it is an important community area of Barrow. It is an area of many people both young and old. It is a built up area of the town and surely should cater for all needs. Surely some members of this community may need the facility of a nursing home or hospice at sometime. I am surprised this need does not seem to have been taken into account. I feel the silent majority must make it known the need for care of the elderly and sick.

I would also like to think three is a great deal of compassion with the committee making a decision like this. I enclose a photocopy of my letter to the Evening Mail which is self- explanatory”.

Alzheimer’s Society

“We, at the Alzheimer's Society, feel very strongly that the committee should reconsider the granting of planning permission for the building of a nursing home by Risdale Estates on Flass Lane in Barrow. There is a great shortage of suitable residential and nursing care for people with dementia in the Furness area, and many people have approached us in great distress after being told that they will have to accept places outside the area.

I would like to ask the committee to consider carefully the needs of people with dementia and their families. It is important for people with dementia to maintain contact with their families and it is important for families too. It is difficult enough to have to accept that you can no longer look after someone you love at home, without being told that you will have to travel for up to several hours in order to visit. In addition while some people find that long visits are acceptable, many people find that shorter visits on a more frequent basis are better for someone with dementia and this is impossible when a person is in care many miles away from their home”.

The Occupier, 12 Ormsgill Lane, Barrow in Furness

“I was appalled when I heard that permission had been denied for a nursing home on Flass Lane. Why? This is desperately needed in Barrow! How can families cope with loved ones sent so far away for care. I am sadly fully aware of the difficulties facing families affected by dementia and are forced to look into the future and wonder how we can cope and now not even able to hope for help and respite care nearby. Sadly our Barrow is slipping further and further down in its care for the sick and elderly I sometimes despair of the future.

Please re-think on this decision I beg you on behalf of those who cannot speak for themselves”.

CONSULTATIONS:

Cumbria Highways

“I have no objections in principle to the application subject to the following.

The proposed new access road has been designed by our consultant, Capita Symonds and I am satisfied that it is to standard. I would be grateful still if model condition one, relating to the

Page 32 of 50 PLANNING COMMITTEE 7th February 2006 quality of highway works can be imposed to ensure that what has been designed is actually delivered on the ground. We will be looking to the developer to enter into a section 38 Agreement for the adoption of this new highway.

No pedestrian linkages appear to have been provided onto Flass Lane and these will have to be shown on the proposed plans. It would also be helpful if the applicant can describe how the number of car parking spaces that have been provided has been calculated. No disabled parking bays, bicycle storage of motorcycle parking has been shown on the drawing. Where is access to be obtained from for the car parking area adjacent to Flass Lane – via the service road? This does not appear to be adequate due to its width, curvature and the lack of forward visibility around the building to the parking area. There is potential for conflict here between service vehicles and other users.

Due to the magnitude of this and the adjacent proposed Hospice, we will require a Transport Assessment and Travel Plan to be submitted and this can cover both sites together or separately though the former is preferred. The transport form that has already been provided does not provide adequate information to form a judgment on whether the site is in a sustainable location or whether sustainable transport can be promoted.

Finally, a section 184 permit will be required for the new access road onto Flass Lane and this will also cover carriageway markings to provide a ghost island right turn facility. Alterations are required to the street lighting also and I understand from colleagues in Capita Symonds that these are in hand. All of these improvements will be at the applicant’s expense”.

Environment Agency

“The Agency would advise consultation with United Utilities”.

Estates Manager

“No comments”.

Cumbria Constabulary

“With reference to consultation documents under planning reference number 6/2005/0985, I have the following recommendations to make:

Planning Advice

Home Office Circular 5/94 states that crime prevention is a material consideration when reviewing planning applications.

Section 17 Crime and Disorder Act 1998, states. “Without prejudice to any other obligation imposed on it, it shall be the duty of each authority to exercise it’s functions with due regard to the likely effect of those functions and do all that is reasonable to prevent crime and disorder in its area.”

Entrance to the Development

There should be only one entrance to the nursing home making it in effect, a cul-de-sac. A 'symbolic' barrier in the form of surface colour, rumble strips, pillars and narrowed entrances etc.

Page 33 of 50 PLANNING COMMITTEE 7th February 2006 The object of this sort of ‘psychological’ barrier is to make unauthorised persons feel vulnerable and exposed.

Landscaping

All shrubs and hedges specified should have a maximum growth height of 1m, whilst all trees should be pruned up to a minimum height of 2m, thereby maintaining a clear field of vision. A broad defensively planted area is effective in deterring intruders. When mature trees should not mask lighting columns or become climbing aids. All hard landscaping and street furniture should be securely fixed in order to prevent removal, vandalism and/or use as potential ammunition.

Perimeter Fencing

It is recommended that a perimeter fence in installed along the boundary of Flass Lane. To lessen the impact of this structure, it could be positioned within the landscape/planted area. However the fencing should endeavour to enclose the landscaped area and car parking and adjoin the building at the north west and south east elevations as near to the rear corner of the building line as possible (public entrance to residential area.). This should be weldmesh fencing i.e. paladin or similar (to BS.1722 Part 14) to a minimum height of 2.4m. Chain link is not recommended. A Quicktorn or Hawthorn hedging planted adjacent to the fence will enhance security and should be maintained at 1m height to aid surveillance.

Grounds Lighting

The lighting in the grounds layout should be carefully designed to cover all vulnerable areas and must not create shadows.

Ideally ‘Mercury’ or ‘Mental halide’ lighting should be used for better colour definition, alternatively High-pressure sodium (SON) can be used. Low-pressure units (SOX) emit poor quality light and consequently poor colour definition, which in turn makes it difficult to see intruders. Lighting to BS 5489 should be used and in some cases higher levels of illumination are required for vulnerable areas of the site such as fire exits, rear loading bays and car parks etc. Lighting deters and reveals the intruder.

Security Lighting

All external doors should have opaque, vandal resistant, compact fluorescent bulkhead lights, operated by photo-electric cells (‘Dusk till Dawn’) fixed above them at the highest inaccessible points. This form of illumination not only increases the security of the building and car park, but also reduces the fear of crime. If CCTV is considered then lighting type and positioning should accommodate this. Seek advice from the CCTV engineer.

Page 34 of 50 PLANNING COMMITTEE 7th February 2006 Car Parking

Car Parks should have one entrance and be well lit after dark. They should also be subject to good natural surveillance and have obvious pedestrian routes. Defensive planting can be used to direct pedestrians to use particular routes. It is recommended that planting adjacent to car parking bays should be between 0.5m and 1m thereby preventing any hiding in these areas. Traffic calming measures should be employed over the full width of the entrance to the car park. Consideration should be given to installation of bollards or access control barriers (adjacent to disabled parking and service road) for out of hours to prevent the area being used anti social driving or theft of vehicles.

Telephone Lines

Telephone lines should enter the building below ground level in order to protect the integrity of any alarm system installed. The telephone junction points should be positioned so they are covered by natural surveillance.

Climbing Aids

Place waste disposal areas and oil tanks away from buildings as they can be a target for arson and help provide access to roofs and windows.

Wall Apertures/Recesses

Where possible avoid areas that create blind spots like apertures, recesses or wide external columns. Where this is not possible consider fencing the area off or preventing access by defensive planting particularly if the area has a doors or windows that can be attacked.

Veranda – The installation of perimeter fencing should alleviate problems associated with having a veranda. Verandas usually only serve a purpose of offering shelter for youths and encouraging them to loiter around the building leading to anti social problems and criminal activity. If fencing cannot be installed then consideration should be given to removing this feature.

Easily Accessible Roofs

Roofs can be made more secure by incorporating design features such as deep eaves and recessed or flush faced guttering which prevent them being scaled. However, persons trying to gain access to roof voids by removing a few tiles can be prevented by fixing expanded metal to the topside of rafters. In some cases it may be possible to protect the roof void by fixing coiled barbed tapes within that space. Bolt all ceiling hatches from below.

Windows

The glazing to all vulnerable windows should employ minimum 6.8mm laminated glass.

Page 35 of 50 PLANNING COMMITTEE 7th February 2006 All ground floor and other accessible windows should be fitted with 2no. locking handles together with either barred protection or steel shutters with open restrictors. An alternative to external protection is the use of security grade anti shatter film to the inner surface of the glazing.

Windows should be designed to BS 7950 or LPS 1175 level 3 (or above according to risk) and designed so that computers cannot be passed through them.

Perimeter Doors

All perimeter doors should be either steel or minimum 44mm thick solid timber core fitted with a BS.3621 mortice deadlock. Rolled steel section doors should comply with BS.6510 and pressed steel doors to BS.1245. Any glazing in perimeter doors should be 6.8mm laminate. 3 no. 100mm heavy-duty butt hinges. Hinge bolts to outward opening doors.

The opening leaf of perimeter double doors must be fitted top and bottom with key operated rack mortice bolts and the meeting styles should be rebated.

Consider LPS 1175 level 3 or above according to risk. Access control would be appropriate to prevent unauthorised entry and to prevent patients being able to leave the home at will without staff being aware.

Door Frame Security

Doorframes should be securely fixed to the building fabric with rawl bolts at 450mm centres, one of which should pass through the keep of the lock. Frames should have a formed rebate of 25mm.

Emergency Doors

Escape doors should be steel, or steel clad with a steel frame. None of the hardware should be visible externally. A 3-point “Pullman latch” and 3 hinges with hinge bolts is also recommended.

Skylights

If skylights are specified, they should be under drawn with either steel bars or expanded metal securely fixed to the building fabric.

Drainpipes

Drainpipes should be either flush fitting or concealed and made from plastic so as to give way in the event of a person trying to climb them.

Consider umbrella spikes on vulnerable down pipes.

If cast iron pipes are specified they should be coated with anti-climb paint above 2250mm over ground level. A sign indicating the use of this paint must be erected. Alternatively a guard over the pipe to a height of 2250 can be installed to prevent climbing.

Interior Doors

Page 36 of 50 PLANNING COMMITTEE 7th February 2006

Interior doors should be 44mm solid core and fitted with a BS3621 5 lever mortice deadlock. Store cupboard doors to the same spec. except 2 no. deadlocks.

Key Security

Key distribution should be kept to an absolute minimum. Keys should be locked in a purpose made key security cabinet located in the main office. Keys should not be made identifiable with the registration numbers of vehicles or names/numbers of rooms.

Alarm System

An intruder alarm system should be fitted to the appropriate British Standard and if remote signalling should comply with the guidelines of the ACPO policy for this type of alarm. It may be worth considering a personal attack alarm strip for specific areas in the event of a member of staff/patient requiring assistance.

It is recommended that some doors be fitted to an alarm system so that when opened a 'bleep' is sounded in the main office. This is appropriate for some main doors and some fire doors.

A non-switched 13 amp fused spur suitable for an alarm control panel is required to be included in the building to enable and alarm to be installed. Any alarm fitted should comply with; BS 4737. Hard wired system BS 6799 Wire free systems BS 7042 High security systems All will be covered by EN 50131-1. BS PD 6662 It is recommended that a ‘NACOSS’ or ‘NSI’ approved company be used.

Property security

Computers and office equipment are very vulnerable to theft. They should be kept away from windows and be placed in a security storage cabinet each evening, or failing that, should have individual steel cases fitted in order to protect the component parts. Any computer enclosure system should be to Loss Prevention Council standard LPS 1214. All office equipment and especially the conference equipment should be overtly security marked such as etching.

Staff Security

The internal design of a building, room or furniture can help to make sure staff are in a position to react and escape from potential hazardous situations.

Staff should have wherever possible, secure lockers for personal property.

Visitors and users

Resident visitors should all be channelled through the glazed entrance. Consideration must be given to having a visitors signing in book. This will enable management to be aware of who is on the premises in the event of a fire. Conference users should be directed to use the sub level entrance to discourage by-passing residents rooms.

Page 37 of 50 PLANNING COMMITTEE 7th February 2006 Access to the conference area should preferably be via manned desk at the offices marked KC or BR (or control entry system such as video and audio links.) Signage at the entrance to the premises should clearly direct visitors and conference guests appropriately. All floors should have keypad access to areas/rooms only to be accessed by staff.

If the scheme is altered in accordance with the above recommendations it should gain approval and the client will then be entitled to advertise using the Secured By Design logo. A Secured By Design application form is enclosed.

If you would like to discuss the Secured By Design initiative or require further assistance please contact me on tel. 01229 848911”.

United Utilities

“Thank you for your planning consultation of 4 July 2005. I have no objection to the proposal providing that the site is drained on a separate system, with only foul drainage connected into the foul sewer. Surface water should discharge to the watercourse/soakaway/surface water sewer and may require the consent of the Environment Agency. _ Land drainage or subsoil drainage water must not be connected into the public sewer system directly or by way of private drainage pipes. It is the developer's responsibility to provide adequate land drainage without recourse to the use of the public sewer system.

Should this planning application be approved, the developer should contact our Service Enquiries Department (Tel No: 0845 7462200) regarding connection to the water mains.

United Utilities offers a fully supported mapping service at a modest cost for our electricity, water mains and sewerage assets. This is a quality assured service, which is constantly updated by our Map Services Team (Tel No: 0870 7510101) and I recommend that the developer give early consideration in project design as it is better value than traditional methods of data gathering. It is, however, the applicant's responsibility to demonstrate the exact relationship on site between any assets that may cross the site and any proposed development.

Please note that a copy of these comments has been forwarded to the agent”.

County Archaeologist – dated 8 th August 2005

Page 38 of 50 PLANNING COMMITTEE 7th February 2006

I would also suggest that you advise the applicant that such investigations are liable to involve some financial outlay: I trust the above recommendation is acceptable. Please do not hesitate to contact me if you wish to discuss this matter further”.

County Archaeologist dated - 11 th October 2005

“Thank you for forwarding a copy of the letter from Datum Design Company concerning the archaeological potential of the above site.

Our records show that a Neolithic stone axe (HER no. 5600) was found in Minster Lane, only 80m from the site, and that a Bronze Age burial cairn (HER no. 2622) and another Neolithic axe (HER no. 2304) were located just off Flass Lane. Furthermore, finds from local amateur archaeologists indicate that prehistoric artefacts have been recovered in the vicinity of the site that are not on our records. Furthermore, the discovery of the Neolithic pit in advance of a housing development at Holbeck Park Avenue shows the potential for the site at Flass Lane to contain unknown prehistoric remains. We therefore consider that the site has the potential to contain important archaeological remains that would be damaged or destroyed by the proposed development.

The Barrow Borough Local Plan and PPG16 both advocate archaeological assessment prior to the determination of planning applications. This office has recommended that an evaluation takes place pre determination for the reason that if significant archaeological remains survive on the site which are worthy of preservation in situ then there is the flexibility to influence the design of the proposed development to achieve this. Once a planning application has been approved and the principle that the development will take place has been determined then the opportunity for preservation in situ has been lost. This does not mean that the determination of the planning application is dependant upon the results of the archaeological evaluation. Rather, the results will allow us to make an informed judgement as to whether any planning consent will need to include provisions for the recording and the preservation of important archaeological remains in situ.

Consequently, the advice outlined by this office in a letter dated 08 August 2005 is still considered appropriate. Please do not hesitate to contact me if you wish to discuss this matter further”.

OFFICERS REPORT:

At your last meeting, Members resolved to be “Minded To Refuse” this application. Cllr Garside presented the following resolution, which was agreed by Members;

5. “This proposal is un-neighbourly due to its location and its size, and would be detrimental to the amenity of the nearby residents.

Page 39 of 50 PLANNING COMMITTEE 7th February 2006 6. The site is Greenfield and is used for agricultural purposes and this should remain so. Therefore I do not agree that this proposal is the best use of the land and the reasons given to me in my opinion do not amount to enough to go against normal local and government policies. 7. It is against policy L56 in the emerging Structure Plan because I believe that this development would have a major impact on the surrounding area not the minor one the officer has said. 8. The proposal is against policy F2 of the Barrow Borough Local Plan in that this development will cause a significant loss of residential amenity due to the hours of use a 24 hours a day institution causes.” (My notation for ease of reference).

This was the same wording used in your decision for the Hospice application, hence there are similarities with that report. Taking these points in turn;

5. By its very nature, the nursing home requires a large site (which, in turn limits the search for alternative locations), and involves a multi storey building. This is in order to provide the scale and standard of accommodation required to meet the identified shortfall in the Borough for such a facility. Despite the amendment made by the applicant to reduce the height of the main building and introduce a rear annexe, and the extensive re profiling of the site to create landscaped screening, Members were concerned about the visual impact that the development would have. Accordingly, a reason for refusal could be;

“In the opinion of the Planning Authority, the size of the proposed development would have an overbearing visual impact upon the surrounding area, by virtue of its bulk and massing combined with its prominent location on a sloping site. Accordingly, by failing to adequately minimise this detrimental impact, the proposal is considered to be contrary to criteria contained within policy L56 of the Cumbria and Lake District Structure Plan 2006-2016”

6. The site is previously undeveloped. I have indicated in my report that the advice from central government is that it can be appropriate for certain types of specialised development to locate on Greenfield sites if they have specific site requirements and alternative locations are not readily available. I am also satisfied that the site search carried out by Risedale Estates is robust, and that there are no opportunities at present to relocate the nursing home elsewhere on a brownfield site. However, if Members take a contrary view, a reason for refusal could be;

Policy ST3, contained within the emerging Joint Structure Plan, draws together the relevant guidance relating to the principles that apply to all developments, including minimising the uptake of greenfield sites through sequential assessment, transport accessibility, design issues, and energy efficiency. This is one such policy upon which the case could be built.

Page 40 of 50 PLANNING COMMITTEE 7th February 2006

7. Policy L56 in the emerging Structure Plan states that; “Proposals for new or improved facilities for health, education and training will be supported in key service centres and other towns and villages defined in Local Plans, in locations that relate well to the intended catchment, which are, or can be, served by a range of transport modes, and where their detrimental impact, including traffic generation, is minimised”. Barrow is identified as a key service centre, and the site is well located relative to the catchment, as the nursing home is intended to serve the Borough. Furthermore, Flass Lane is a bus route, and the site is within walking distance of other bus services. It is also close to housing. The impact of traffic generation would be reduced through the upgrading of the junction, and the provision of appropriate parking and servicing facilities on the site.

8. Policy F2 in the Barrow local plan is reproduced above. As stated in my original report, this policy was drafted in relation to smaller medical facilities within residential areas. There is particular reference, in parts (a) and (b) to occasions where proposals related to conversions of buildings, and there were potential issues relating to conflict through unsuitable parking facilities. The application has been assessed as meeting current government guidance and local plan policies in that it provides appropriate parking and servicing facilities. The advice from our traffic consultants is conclusive in that the upgraded junction and access arrangements meet with current guidance, and that the local network can absorb the increased traffic. Neither is there an objection raised by Cumbria Highways. Part (c) of the policy gives broader criteria, taking into account the hours of use of a facility and the potential impact upon residential amenity. Consequently, a refusal on the basis of adversely affecting residential amenity will have to show what specific aspects you are concerned about, with evidence to back it up. In the absence of sufficient evidence, I do not recommend this be pursued. Your Minded To Refuse resolution also makes reference to the continual operation of the site. By the very nature of its use, the nursing home will offer 24-hour medical care, and is likely to be open to visitors on a 24-hour basis, although activity is likely to be low. In view of this, I do not recommend that this be pursued as a reason for refusal. FGH operates within a residential area, and I am not aware of any major conflicts with residents at anti social hours resulting from the 24-hour medical care facilities provided.

I am offering the committee two possible reasons for refusal as set out above, one based upon broader principles and the second upon specific details relating to the size of the development. However, whilst these reasons could be used, I am concerned that, in the light of the available evidence, they may have limited weight at Appeal. I am not, therefore, changing my original recommendation that this proposal warrants a favourable decision, subject to the conditions suggested. Following members comments at your last meeting, I have suggested an additional condition relating to land drainage. Furthermore, I attach an appendices that contains the latest supporting statement received from the applicant.

My original report, including the amendment following the first deferral, continues:

During your last meeting Members expressed concerns about the greenfield nature of the site. This resulted in the application being deferred from your previous meeting, in order to allow officers to explore the possibility of available alternative sites for this development. I have taken a stance that

Page 41 of 50 PLANNING COMMITTEE 7th February 2006 this refers to locations that are obtainable or achievable, with a realistic chance of the site coming forward for development. The position of central government is that whilst it promotes the use of brownfield sites wherever possible, there will be instances where it is appropriate to use greenfield locations. Such cases are where the development has certain characteristics or site specific requirements that preclude the use of brownfield locations, even more so when those alternatives are unsuitable for one reason or another. Where a development has specific needs, the approval of an application on a greenfield site does not set a precedent that leaves planning authorities susceptible to further approvals of less appropriate developments such as housing or retail schemes.

An assessment of alternative locations had already been carried out by the applicants, prior to them choosing the application site, and a list was contained within my report. Members had commented that they felt that some of the sites examined were somewhat unrealistic in terms of being able to accommodate the development. It does, however, serve to highlight that there appears to be a lack of large unconstrained brownfield sites available within the Borough, which could provide for the type of development proposed, and within the required timescale. The list of additional sites that have been examined since your meeting is therefore relatively concise.

There are two basic strands to the applicants search criteria. The first is that the nature of the scheme justifies that a large site is necessary. This is in order to accommodate the scale of the project, which is not only influenced by the number of bedrooms and ancillary accommodation, but also by the need to offer suitable surroundings, in the form of landscaped grounds for convalescing residents, and to provide appropriate parking and servicing. A smaller site would also dictate an increased multi storey approach for the building, with a corresponding greater potential to impact upon the locality. The second criterion is the timescale. The development is not speculative, as the applicant has identified an existing local shortfall of such specialist provision, with a corresponding need for these beds as patients are currently being moved outside the Borough to other facilities. Figures have been provided to substantiate that this is an immediate need rather than a projected estimate or a forecasted need.

Consequently, sites that may become free in the future, such as in and around the Waterfront project (even if considered suitable for such a sensitive use by reason of the nature of adjacent activities), are not immediately obtainable or likely to become free for development, within an appropriate timescale. They should not therefore be considered as “available” for the proposed scheme. I have also examined sites such as the former golf range on Park Road, and land within the BAe estate that may be surplus (such as Cavendish Villas). However, there are relevant issues with each site regarding the probable need for remediation of previously tipped land, potential contamination from industrial activity also requiring remediation, and the general incompatibility with adjacent industrial processes, that all discount these locations as being available for the proposal. One final option was a piece of land next to Parkview School, surplus to County Council requirements, adjacent to the junction of Bridgegate Avenue and Park Road. This land is also greenfield, and protected as open green space by policy D26 in the Barrow local plan. Furthermore it is significantly smaller than the application site, and could not accommodate the scheme without a major reworking of the building layout necessitating a multi storey format. It is also close to a busy staggered junction, and there are likely to be traffic implications associated with any development.

Overall I am satisfied that a robust and transparent assessment of alternative sites has been undertaken, by the applicant and by officers, and that those sites have been discounted for sound materially relevant reasons. Approval of this proposal would not weaken the Authority’s stance of protecting greenfield land from development, as there is government guidance that indicates the circumstances when such proposals are appropriate. The guidance differentiates between major

Page 42 of 50 PLANNING COMMITTEE 7th February 2006 developments of this type and other developments such as residential schemes, which have less restrictive site requirements and which can be more easily adapted to fit different sites. My recommendation remains unchanged.

The application site stands immediately to the south of the location proposed for the new Hospice (application 2005/0984 refers), separated by the lane that also provides access to the smallholding residences to the east. There are, inevitably, almost identical policy issues raised by this application and some repetition will appear in the reports. This is a bigger site, measuring approximately 1.6 ha, and forms a substantial part of a larger undeveloped area that sits between Flass Lane and the Bridgegate Smallholdings further to the east. The Smallholdings consist of a number of scattered dwellings, with associated outbuildings, set within an area of grazing plots and fields used mainly for hay production. A mature mixed hedgerow defines the front and flank boundaries, set upon a 1.5 metre high retaining wall at the front. and the local topography means that the site rises gently towards the opposing eastern side. At present, the site is in mixed use for agriculture and horse grazing.

The site access is from a narrow track that runs from Flass Lane along the northern site boundary leading to the Smallholdings. Flass Lane is a wide local distributor road that features grass verges and trees. It is served by public transport, and the site is also within easy walking distance of other bus routes.

The application is for a 60-bedded nursing home providing specialised medical care, which places it in Use Class C2. Other uses in this class are hospitals and residential schools. It is not a residential care home, which is within a separate Use Class, and for which planning permission would be required. The development would be constructed in two phases, 40 beds in phase 1, 20 beds in phase 2. Plans and illustrations will be on display at your meeting. The original submission indicated a building with four floors, with the lower ground floor partially obscured by re-profiling the front of the site, and the top floor housed in a mansard type roof arrangement. A portico feature above the main entrance and a series of tower structures to the gable corners rose higher than this. The latter were also functional in that the increased height housed lift equipment.

The building is set centrally on the plot, and orientated so that it presents the main elevation in views from Flass Lane. The rise in the site gradient would mean that the building would have to be cut into the slope, and it would be the displaced material that would be used to introduce the screen mounds at the front. This was considered superior to following the building line of the houses, which would have precluded the introduction of landscaping to the site frontage and thus the opportunity to provide screening, to the Flass Lane frontage.

Putting the building in this location also enables the car parking to be split into two separate areas, which can be more readily screened than a larger single facility. Staff car parking is indicated to the front, whilst visitors would be located in a circular arrangement, built around a landscaped feature, at the rear of the site. The position of the building and the subsequent layout of landscaping, car parking and other general arrangements appeared to work satisfactorily. However, the building still appeared to be excessively large in the context of the surrounding area, with a height of 15 metres to the main roof, and the corner tower features some 4 metres higher.

Page 43 of 50 PLANNING COMMITTEE 7th February 2006 Following a meeting with the applicant and agent, the scheme was revised to the one before you today. As this is radically different to the initial submission, neighbours have been re-notified and given an opportunity to comment on the revision. The revised design still provides 60 beds, but seeks to reduce the visual impact. The building is now laid out as a three-sided development, the northern elevation being the shortest side, with the front and rear sections running in parallel on a northwest to southeast orientation. One floor has been removed from the front section, so that the scheme now presents a building towards Flass Lane that is equivalent to 9 metres in height, but also retains the rooms in the roof structure. The tower features are reduced to 12 metres in height, as is the centrally positioned entrance feature.

As proposed in the first design, the lower ground floor would be partially screened by introducing a series of landscaped mounds to the site frontage. This layout also has the advantage of forming an open south-facing courtyard that would be landscaped to create a sheltered amenity space for residents. The rear annex of the building would be of single floor construction but with a steeply pitched roof, 6 metres in height, which would enable additional rooms in the roof space as part of phase 2. In general views from Flass Lane this area would be partially screened by the main front section of the building. The proposed external materials are relatively standard with the walls indicated as facing brick with stone features, and the roof clad in grey concrete tiles and a red ridge tile. Windows and doors would be white upvc.

The applicants have submitted a supporting statement, which is backed up by letters from Cumbria Social Services and Morecambe Bay PCT. The statement highlights research that identifies changing trends in the demographic structure of the local population. These include greater life expectancy and higher levels of ill health amongst the older members of society and a corresponding increased pressure upon agencies to provide care facilities. Overall, this has created a shortage of nursing home beds in the Borough area, leading to “bed blocking” as older patients are delayed in being discharged from hospital, transfers to nursing homes outside the Borough creating travel problems for relatives, and long waiting lists for beds in local nursing homes. The conclusion of this statement is that the proposed facility would secure the provision not only of services for elderly people, but also offers the potential for future specialist units to provide facilities for younger people. These include sufferers of dementia, acquired brain injury, M.S, and Huntington’s Disease. However, “need” by itself is not the sole justification for the acceptance of a planning application. This can be a material consideration, in terms of benefit to the community, but the proposal must be considered in accordance with established national guidance and any local policies.

In terms of general planning policy, which is underpinned by the principle of sustainability, the key issue raised by this proposal is the greenfield nature of the site, and how this development sits in terms of current government policy that seeks to maximise the efficient use of land. Particular emphasis is made of the need to utilise previously developed, i.e. brownfield land, in preference to greenfield sites wherever possible. The guidance also states that not all development should be expected to take place on previously developed land, as appropriate sites may not always be available. There will be occasions where greenfield development can be justified, particularly for specialised schemes where suitable alternatives are adequately proven not to be available. Such locations will still have to meet other established criteria though. To prevent urban sprawl, sites should be within existing settlements, rather than open countryside, and priority should be given to position facilities in locations where there is an existing, or potential for, access to alternative means of transport other than the private car.

Whilst there is no specific policy relating to nursing homes at national level, reference is made in PPG13 that major health developments should be planned in locations that not only have good accessibility by various transport modes, including public transport, but also have good access for

Page 44 of 50 PLANNING COMMITTEE 7th February 2006 emergency vehicles and for people who rely on the car. This would seem to suggest that such facilities should be positioned on main roads rather in more central locations where there is potential for increased congestion. In this respect, Flass Lane is a main distributor road, which also acts as a bus route, which is well connected to the rest of the road network.

At local level, health related facilities are mentioned in policy L56 of the emerging Structure Plan, and policy F2 of the current Barrow local plan. Policy L56 generally encourages the location of such facilities in the key service centres, (which includes Barrow) where they will relate well to their catchment area, are accessible by public transport, and their impact upon the immediate area, is minimised. The site meets the first two criteria in that the development will serve the Furness area, with good road links that avoid the town centre for those arriving by car from outside the Borough. Secondly, Flass Lane is a bus route, so the site is served by public transport. With regard to the impact upon the area, the use is unlikely to generate excessive noise, the only source being from traffic, but I am satisfied that this will be absorbed into the general background activities. Traffic generation has not been cited as a potential problem, and the scheme would be likely to generate less traffic than that associated with the previous housing allocation, even allowing for vehicles from the proposed hospice site. Potential noise sources such as plant and equipment can be controlled through siting and conditions to control noise production.

Policy F2 allows for the siting of health and welfare facilities within, or on the edge of town centres, with specific criteria for residential areas. This policy is mainly aimed at facilities such as doctors and dentists surgeries, where visits are generally short and can form part of a mixed trip, rather than larger developments such as the one before you today which operate different parameters. The policy has little weight here.

The nursing home has similar site requirements as the Hospice proposal. Consequently the applicants have also carried out an examination of the same alternative brownfield locations and discounted them for similar reasons.

 Former Howard St college- site too small and location too busy, now offices  Former church Greengate St- site too small, now developed by SureStart  Land adjacent County Coachbuilders- unsuitable due to adjacent industrial uses creating noise and disturbance  Land adjacent 6th Form college Rating Lane-significant activity and noise during the day. Development on this land would also have some impact upon the settings of Manor Farmhouse, and the approach to Furness Abbey  Victoria Park Hotel- site too small, unsuitable for adaptation as such conversions rarely meet current health facility standards. Also issues related to its Listed status  Dunlop House Abbey Road-as VPH above, (I also consider access to be sub standard)  Former Lonsdale Hospital- owned by the applicants too small and constrained by surrounding area. Allocated for housing in Review and consent recently granted. The scale of building needed to provide this level of accommodation would dominate the surrounding area  Channel Side- inappropriate due to adjacent business and industrial uses.

I have also considered the clearance site in Hindpool and land in the Waterfront development site. The former can be discounted because the aim of the clearance project is to introduce green open space into a high-density area. The latter is unsuitable due to the amount of land required thus affecting the balance of the final layout, and the proximity to industrial and dock related activities This decision rests upon whether or not the site-specific requirements of the nursing home, and the sequential search that concludes a lack of available brownfield options, are sufficient enough

Page 45 of 50 PLANNING COMMITTEE 7th February 2006 evidence to make such an exception. A further material consideration is the submission that there is a need for the additional facilities, with a resulting overall benefit to the general community. Taking all of these factors into account, my conclusion is that the principle of this application should be supported, albeit subject to the suggested conditions.

My reasoning is that the development clearly has specific requirements, and this site would provide the setting needed for such a sensitive end use. National guidance accepts that greenfield development can be justified in certain circumstances where there are special site requirements and alternatives have been suitably discounted. In planning terms, an approval would not compromise the position of the Authority in its ability to resist other forms of less appropriate greenfield development. Based upon the interpretation of current government policy, alternative locations have been explored and proven not to be either available or suitable. This site is accessible by public transport, and is also within walking distance of several hundred homes, so opportunities exist to reduce dependence upon the private car, as advocated in PPG13. However, the same guidance note also acknowledges that health related uses might have other access criteria that warrant main road locations, away from town centres.

In its revised format the development has a reduced impact upon the surrounding area, although such is the raised nature of the site that it would be unrealistic to expect the building to be entirely screened from general view. Reducing the height of the main building and introducing the annex at the rear helps to moderate the visual impact on the neighbourhood, whilst at the same time it enables the applicant to meet his development requirements. Planning Policy Statement 1 refers to the promotion of “good design”, and in the context of this application, this appears to have been achieved through the positioning of the various elements on the site, and the revised appearance of the building. This displays a simple combination of architectural features that work well collectively, although it must be acknowledged that the requirements of other legislation upon the internal layout will almost inevitably have a certain level of constraint upon the final external appearance. This point was accepted at the initial meeting with the agent and applicant. The quality and colour of the external material will be crucial, and I have suggested a condition to require samples to be submitted for approval prior to the commencement of building.

Conditions can also be attached to ensure that proper access arrangements are put in place to minimise any adverse impact upon the local highway network, and suitable safeguards can be introduced to protect residential amenity. Additionally, I have suggested that in view of the current uncertainty relating to archaeological data, a condition requiring further study is submitted for evaluation.

RECOMMENDATION:

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

Condition No. 2

Page 46 of 50 PLANNING COMMITTEE 7th February 2006 Reason

In order to ensure a minimum standard of highway construction, and in the interests of highway safety.

Condition No. 3

Reason

Condition No. 4

Reason

To aid in the delivery of sustainable transport objectives, and in accordance with policy T31 of the Cumbria Joint Structure Plan 2001-2016

Condition No. 5

No part of the development shall be beneficially occupied until the access road identified in condition 3, together with on site car park facilities, have been completed in accordance with a phasing scheme to be subject to the prior written agreement of the Planning Authority.

Reason

In order to ensure a minimum standard of access and car parking associated with the development.

Page 47 of 50 PLANNING COMMITTEE 7th February 2006 Condition No. 6

The car parks shall be permanently retained free from all obstructions and no development, whether permitted or not by the Town & Country Planning (General Permitted Development) Order 1995 (or any order revoking or re-enacting that Order with or without modifications) shall be carried out that would prevent its continuous use for vehicle parking, unless subject to prior express consent by the Planning Authority.

Reason

In order to ensure a suitable level of on site parking associated with the development.

Condition No. 7

Reason

In the interests of highway safety.

Condition No. 8

No development shall take place until there has been submitted to and approved in writing by the Planning Authority a scheme of landscaping, , including details of the proposed earth moundings, which shall include indications of all existing trees and hedgerows on the land and details of any to be retained, together with measures for their protection in the course of development The submitted scheme shall make provision for the retention of, and reinforcement with additional planting where necessary, the hedgerow along the site frontage to Flass Lane.

Reason

In order to protect the visual amenities of the area, due to the prominent location of the site.

Condition No. 9

All planting, seeding or turfing comprised in the approved details of landscaping shall be carried out in the first planting and seeding seasons or in accordance with the phasing of the scheme as agreed in writing with the Planning Authority. And any trees or plants which within a period of five years from the completion of the development die, are removed or become seriously damaged or diseased shall be replaced in the next planting season with others of a similar size and species, unless the Planning Authority gives written consent to any variation.

Reason

In order to protect the visual amenities of the area, due to the prominent location of the site.

Condition No. 10

Page 48 of 50 PLANNING COMMITTEE 7th February 2006 Drainage must be on the separate system.

Reason

In order to control water pollution.

Condition No. 11

Any plant and machinery associated with the use must be sited, designed and operated so as not to cause the existing background noise level (measured as the LA90 10 minutes) to be exceeded at any neighbouring noise sensitive locations. Tonal noise will result in a 5db addition to that noise (Definition in: appendix E "Noise Procedure Specification publication 140", The Engineering Equipment & Materials User Association). Note: The noise is measured 3.5metres from any reflective surface, other than the ground at a height of between 1.2 m and 1.5m.

Reason

In order to control noise pollution

Condition No. 12

No external lighting scheme on the site shall be implemented except in exact accordance with details that shall have been subject to prior agreement, with the Planning Authority.

Reason

To ensure compliance with policy D63 of the Barrow local plan, by controlling light pollution.

Condition No.13

Reason

In order to ensure that highway safety is not compromised

Condition No. 14

No development approved by this permission shall be commenced until the Planning Authority has given written approval to a scheme for the permanent provision of surface water drainage works,

Page 49 of 50 PLANNING COMMITTEE 7th February 2006 details of which shall be submitted by the developer. The scheme shall be completed in accordance with the approved plans prior to beneficial occupation of any part of the site.

Reason

To reduce any potential increased risk of flooding, by ensuring the provision of a satisfactory means of surface water disposal.

The reason(s) for the grant of planning permission are as follows:

The development, subject to conformity with the stated conditions, will not cause any material harm to an interest of acknowledged importance and will not conflict with Barrow Borough Local Plan Review 1996 - 2006.

Page 50 of 50