Erection of 12 No. Dwellings As Amended by Letter and Plan(S) Receievd on 12 August 2004 and 4 November 2004 and Further Information Awaited

Reference No: 2/2004/0673 Received: 21/05/2004 Proposal: Erection of 12 No. dwellings as amended by letter and plan(s) receievd on 12 August 2004 and 4 November 2004 and further information awaited. Location: Land At Scotscroft Little Clifton Workington Applicant: Senator Homes Ltd. Hillcrest Avenue Carlisle Agent: Senator Homes Ltd. Hillcrest Avenue Carlisle Cumbria CA1 2QJ

Representations: Parish Council – Site boundary in dispute, detrimental to wildlife interests, no. of units too great for village, trees should be retained, 12 houses too many for village, detrimental to highway safety, out of scale with size of village, contrary to new structure plan housing figures, not sustainable development in view of Greenfield location and lack of village facilities, harmful to tributary of SSSI, archaeological investigation required, no local need for housing, lack of drainage and water investigation required, lack of drainage and water supply capacity. Director of Engineering, CCC – No objections subject to conditions Environmental Health - Requests desktop study re mining activity United Utilities – No objections subject to drainage on separate system, separate requirements English Nature - Concerns at potential impact on tributary of River Derwent candidate Special Area of Conservation. Comments on mitigation measures received 4/11/04 awaited. Cumbria Wildlife Trust – Recommends ecological survey to assess presence of bats and owls on site prior to permission being granted. Engineers – Who will have responsibility for surface water retention tank – developer of highway authority? County Archaeologist – No objections. Environment Agency – Response awaited to additional drainage information received. Friends of the Lake District – Greenfield site in non-sustainable location in village with few facilities. Properties would be outside the reach of most local people and proposal represents demand rather than need. Scheme would add to oversupply of housing which the structure plan and interim housing policy seek to address The application has been advertised in the local press, on site and adjoining owners have also been notified. Representations have been received. 41 letters of objection on the following grounds: too much development in village, dangerous access, no pavements, tree should not be felled, harms send of community in village, protected species colonise trees within the site, emergency services would be unable to access site, design not in keeping with village, too many units proposed, sewerage problems in area, should be developing brownfield sites, landscape impact, not sustainable development, no demand for housing. 28 signature petition on similar grounds.

Policy Context: HS5 – Governs new housing settlements. HS8 – Governs the design and siting of residential development. EN3 – Governs landscaping. EN4 – Governs tree preservation orders. EN26 – Protecting nature sites of international importance. EN32 – Protecting wildlife protected by law.

Report: This application relates to land benefiting from outline planning permission (2/2002/1017) and identified as a housing commitment in the Allerdale Local Plan. There are two TPO trees within the site together with a third tree not covered by a Tree Preservation Order. The order was served by the Council County when it resolved to sell the land for development. At that time it considered that the third trees age and condition made it inappropriate to protect it by means of a Tree Preservation orders. Although a substantial number of objections to this scheme have been received, the majority of these relate to the principle of development and do not take account of the fact that planning permission for residential development on this land already exists. The detailed drawings show that loss of the tree not covered by a TPO but provide for the retention of the two TPO trees which would be pruned. Further revisions to the plans are expected before the Committee meets in order to increase the distance between the housing and the TPO trees. The County Council decided against a TPO on the third tree on site on the basis of advice at the time that “decay starting at base of large wound – infected by fungal disease. Although crown seems ok not a good structure”. Some local residents have pressed for this tree now to be protected. An arboricultural report submitted by the applicants supports the view that the tree is nearing the end of its natural life and that a TPO would be inappropriate, An arboriculturalist engaged by the Authority to assess this scheme is of the opinion that although this is a ‘veteran’ tree it is not in any evident danger of falling in the immediate future and could be protected if members wished to serve a further TPO. A copy of the arboricultural report responding to the plans originally submitted as part of the current proposal is attached at the ward councillor’s request. The Borough Solicitor has indicated that given that an outline planning permission already exists and that the permission does not secure the trees retention, the Council would be liable for compensation if a TPO was now served since at least one plot would be lost. It is officers’ opinion that given that additional planting can be secured in association with this proposal and that the tree in question is nearing the end of its life the more appropriate solution is to achieve the planting of new trees under the landscaping scheme associated with this development. Representations have been received regarding the importance of the site including the trees and neighbouring stream as a habitat of wildlife. The developers have met an English Nature Officer at the site and have modified the submitted plans to given greater clearance to the adjacent stream which is a tributary of the River Derwent candidate. These plans are currently the subject of re-consultation Special Area of Conservation (C.SAC). Although the Cumbria Wildlife Trust has requested an ecological survey prior to planning permission being granted, it is considered that this cannot reasonably be imposed at reserved matters stage. Any permission can however remind the developer of his responsibilities under the wildlife and countryside act. Although there have been numerous representations with regard to access and the sub-standard character of the village street, the principle of development has already been established and the highway details shown on the expected revised drawings are understood to be acceptable to the highway authority. The designs show a combination of detached and semi-detached properties largely of two storeys but incorporating at third split level in units on steeply sloping ground. Finishes remain under discussion. Subject to the receipt of satisfactory amended plans, it is recommended that planning permission be granted.

Recommendation: APPROVED Conditions/Reasons

1. Details and representative samples of all external and roofing materials shall be submitted to and approved by the Local Planning Authority before development commences. The materials so approved shall be used in the development as approved. Reason - To ensure a satisfactory standard of development which is compatible with the character of the surrounding area in compliance with Policy HS8 of the Allerdale Local Plan. 2. Before any development is commenced on the site, including siteworks of any description each of the trees indicated by number on the approved plan accompanying this Decision Notice shall be securely fenced off by a post and wire or chestnut pale fence erected in a circle round each tree at a radius from the bole of ten feet or to coincide with the extremity of the canopy of the tree, whichever is the greater. Within the areas so fenced off, the existing ground level shall be neither raised nor lowered, and no materials or temporary buildings or surplus soil of any kind shall be placed or stored thereon. If any trenches for services are required in the fenced-off areas, they shall be excavated and back-filled by hand and any tree roots encountered with a diameter of two inches or more shall be left unsevered. Reason - In order to ensure that adequate protection is afforded to the existing trees on the site in compliance with Policy EN4 of the Allerdale Local Plan. 3. The development shall be carried out in strict accordance with the schedule of measures described in the applicant's letter and plan received 4 November 2004 to prevent contamination of the adjacent stream which is a tributory of the River Derwent Candidate Special Area of Conservation. Reason - In order to minimise the risk of harm to nature conservation interests in the River Derwent Candidate Special Area of Conservation, in accordance with Policy EN26 of the Allerdale Local Plan. 4. Notwithstanding the provisions of the Town and Country Planning (General Permitted Development) Order 1995 (or any Order revoking and re-enacting that Order) relating to 'permitted development', no extensions to the building or development within the curtilage of the building hereby permitted to be erected on plots 6-12 inclusive shall be carried out without the prior approval of the Local Planning Authority. Reason - In the interests of the well being of trees covered by Tree Preservation Orders and in order to minimise the risk of harm to nature conservation interests in the River Derwent Candidate Special Area of Conservation. 5. No reply to date Reason - No reply to date 6. The carriageway, footways and footpaths, cycleways etc shall be designed, constructed, drained and lit to a standard suitable for adoption and in this respect further details, including longitudinal/cross sections, shall be submitted to the Local Planning Authority for approval before any work commences on site. No work shall be commenced until a full specification has been approved. These details shall be in accordance with the standards laid down in the current Cumbria Design Guide. Any works so approved shall be constructed before the development is completed. Reason - To ensure a minimum standard of construction in the interests of highway safety. 7. Full details of the surface water drainage system shall be submitted to and approved by the Local Planning Authority prior to works commencing on site. Reason - In the interests of highway safety. 8. No dwellings or buildings or structures shall be commenced until the access roads, as approved, are defined by kerbs and sub-base construction. Reason - To ensure that the access roads are defined and laid out at an early stage. 9. No dwellings shall be occupied until the estate road including footways and cycleways to serve such dwellings has been constructed in all respects to base course level and street lighting where it is to form part of the estate road, has been provided and brought into full operational use. Reason - In the interests of highway safety. 10. Access gates, if provided, shall be hung to open inwards only away from the highway. Reason - In the interests of highway safety. 11. Details of all measures to be taken by the developers to prevent surface water discharging onto or off the highway shall be submitted to the Local Planning Authority for approval prior to developments being commenced. Any approved works shall be implemented prior to the developments being completed and shall be maintained operational thereafter. Reason - In the interests of highway safety and environmental management. 12. The access drive shall be surfaced in bituminous or cement bound materials, or otherwise bound and shall be constructed and completed before the developments are occupied/brought into use. Reason - In the interests of highway safety. ______

Reference No: 2/2004/0828 Received: 22/06/2004 Proposal: Change of use to workshop, as amended by letter and photographs received on 4 August 2004, plan(s) received on 10 August 2004 and letter received on 8 October 2004. Location: Hangar K1 Kirkbride Airfield Kirkbride Wigton Applicant: Tweddle Fabrications West Lane Kirkbride Wigton Agent: Tweddle Fabrications West Lane KirkbrideWigton Cumbria

Representations: Parish Council – No objections Director of Engineering, CCC – Expresses concern on the lack of visibility splays which are below current standards and the access junction also has limited radial access width especially as the road has a poor accident history. The proposed splays are an improvement on the existing, with the cutting back of vegetation, but continues not to reflect current standards and would recommend any future user of the building appraise themselves of the liabilities of using this access. The mitigating reasons of comparing the proposals to the existing site are dismissed due to the slower speeds within the village. The highway safety implications therefore require careful assessment. Although acknowledging the splays are an improvement on the poor visibility of the existing access, it is well below the minimum requirements for this type of use and the likely speed of traffic on the highway. The existing and proposed use of this access by HGV’s present a real danger to road safety. Although the applicant has provided the history of the site, it has not been quantified or proven that it has been authorised. Checks are requested on the planning history of the site, to establish any potential former highway conditions. They also recommend that the applicant and the neighbouring operator explore the provision of a new access to comply with current highway requirements and the closure of the existing access. Environmental Health - No objections in principle (HSE enforcement previously on the site, query the siting of propane gas cylinders in accordance with the Code of Practice. Access Officer – Seek access for disabled facilities. Environment Agency – No comment The application has been advertised on site and adjoining owners have also been notified. No representations have been received.

Policy Context: The application site is located in the open countryside. Policy REM9 of ALP outlines the criteria for storage use of the airfield buildings at Kirkbride (including traffic implications). Policy EN6 of ALP seeks to resist potential pollution generating development in proximity to pollution sensitive development.

Report: The applicant seeks consent to convert a large aircraft hanger building formerly used for storage into a steel fabrication workshop. The scheme seeks to relocate the applicants existing established steel fabrication business from within the nearby village to this site.

The proposal also involves an outside storage area for steel (which is screened by existing hedgerows) and car parking along part of an existing runway. The scheme also includes a portacabin building at the front of the hanger. Access to the site is via an existing entrance onto the B-Classified Wigton – Kirkbride highway. The applicant has submitted amendments outlining visibility splays of 4.5m x 90m in both directions for the existing access along the highway. In a supporting letter, the applicant advises that the continued existing storage use of the building could generate a limitless amount of HGV traffic, with other storage hangers in the locality generating in excess of 30 vehicles per day. The applicants proposed two HGV’s per week would therefore be substantially less than its current use. The applicant advises the neighbouring unit uses the same access and therefore the same steel and engineer suppliers would be combined in a single journey. The proposal would lessen traffic down West Lane in Kirkbride to their existing established industrial premises. The access was formerly used by articulated lorries for 2½ years by Harrisons of Waverton. Previously the site was used by Graham and Saggerson who occupied Hanger 1. The proposal would generate 12 new jobs in addition to the 25 staff transferred from the existing site at Kirkbride. Whilst the site is designated for storage use in the plan, officers consider the principle of the applicants B2 general industrial use would be acceptable subject to its having no physical impact on its surroundings. (the hanger is sited 90m from the nearest dwellinghouse). Environmental Health raise no grounds of objection relating to loss of amenity. (The applicant has agreed to reserve the details of the gas tanks under a planning condition in response to the concerns of the Environmental Health Officer). The visual impact of the outside storage elements is limited due to the existing screening around the site which would result in it not being prominent to public view. The applicant has declined to incorporate the storage within the building as it would impact on production facilities within the building, but has restricted their storage facilities to a less prominent location adjacent to the southern side of the building. A stacking height restriction is to be imposed). Similarly, the applicant has also declined to incorporate the portacabin within the building as it would also be affected by dust from the steel operations. The site of the cabin would largely be screened from the public view, but both it and the storage could be further screened by additional planting (reserved under a planning condition). The highway authority have expressed concern on the sub-standard details of the sites existing access on the Wigton – Kirkbride highway. The 90m x 4.5m x 90m splays are significantly shorter than the highway authority’s recommended splays for a 60mph road. Whilst the proposed splays are below those required by the highway authority, significant weight has to be attached to the existing use of the hanger. There is no planning history relating to the former storage use of the site other than a change of use application to light industry which was withdrawn (pre 1974). The applicants supporting evidence indicates this type of use has operated at the site, albeit under different operations for the twenty five years utilising the existing access. Any use of the building would generate traffic and any alternative continued storage (which may constitute its lawful use) would likely generate similar or possible more intensive levels of HGV traffic. Change of use consent (2/1980/0474) was granted in 1980 to Cross Hill Engineering Limited for the conversion of the light industrial use of the neighbouring shed, the highway authority indicated the original access ‘as originally formed is in accordance with normal highway requirements for the proposed use’ but recommended the trimming back of hedgerows which had became overgrown, The applicant has sought an alternative access to the site to meet the highway authority’s objections but the neighbouring landowner does not agree to these works being undertaken on their land. Therefore, on the light of the historic background of the site and the former planning decision on the neighbouring hanger, it is considered the merits of the access are acceptable as it would not result in any greater highway hazard than the existing use. Officers have investigated whether the use would result in environmental improvements to the applicant’s existing workshop premises in the village. The applicant has indicated his long term ambitions to redevelop his existing brownfield site in the village for housing, but is aware that it would currently conflict with the Council’s local plan and interim housing policies (especially as part of the industrial site extends outside the settlement limits). The applicant is to pursue this option as part of any future Local Development Frameworks. In the light of these circumstances with no guarantee of any alternative future residential landuse the applicant has declined to cease the industrial use of his existing site which would be used for storage but anticipates the scale of the operations would be significantly reduced. Officers consider that as the merits of the proposed development at the application site on the airfield are acceptable in their own right it would be unreasonable to impose any onerous restrictions under any S106 legal agreement on the future use of the applicant’s existing industrial site within the village. Therefore, officers consider the proposal, irrespective of the concerns of the highway authority are considered satisfactory resulting in the beneficial industrial use of the hanger building.

Recommendation: APPROVED Conditions/Reasons

1. The development hereby permitted shall be begun before the expiration of FIVE years from the date of this permission. Reason - In order to comply with Section 91 of the Town & Country Planning Act 1990. 2. The dwelling shall not be occupied until the vehicular access, parking and turning requirements have been constructed in accordance with the approved plan and has been brought into use. The vehicular access, parking and turning provisions shall be retained and capable of use at all times thereafter and shall not be removed or altered without the prior consent of the Local Planning Authority. Reason - To ensure a minimum standard of access provision when the development is brought into use. 3. The outside storage hereby approved shall solely operate within the area hatched on the approved plan, dated 10 August 2004 and no structural or stored materials shall be stored which exceeds 3 metres in height. Reason - To minimise the impact of the open storage on the visual amenity of its location in the open countryside. 4. The development shall not be commenced until a detailed landscaping scheme indicating the type, height, species and location of all new trees and shrubs, has been submitted to and approved by the Local Planning Authority. No part of the development shall be brought into use after the end of the first planting and seeding seasons following the approval of the landscaping scheme, unless those elements of the approved scheme relating to … have been implemented. Any trees or plants which within a period of 5 years of planting die, are removed, or become seriously damaged or diseased, shall be replaced with others of similar size and species. Reason - In order to enhance the appearance of the development and minimise the impact of the development in the locality. 5. Prior to the commencement of works, details of the proposed propane gas facilities shall be submitted to and approved by the Local Planning Authority. The details shall be implemented solely in accordance with the approved details. Reason - To minimise any health and safety risks relating to the propane tanks. ______

Reference No: 2/2004/1174 Received: 06/09/2004 Proposal: Demolition of agricultural buildings/structures, conversion of barns and water mill to 6 dwellings and works to Packhorse Bridge, as amended by letter and plans received on 18 November 2004 Location: Vacant Buildings And Land Adjacent To Islekirk Hall Westward Wigton Applicant: Messrs Skelton C/O Roshween Rosley Wigton Agent: Taylor & Hardy 9 Finkle Street Carlisle Cumbria CA3 8UU

Representations: Parish Council – Recommend refusal – unhappy with the entrance and the driveway unsealed and no passing places. Dir of Engineering, CCC – Advise the site is served by a long private driveway that has a substandard access with the U2134 highway. The alterations to this access junction the works are limited as there is significant vertical and horizontal alignment changes in the topography of the highway. This junction would remain substandard and would not be suitable for completely new development. Consideration would have to be allowed for the existing barns, and this may be in excess of that generated by the six dwellinghouses. The mitigation measures of signs and workings for the access are essential elements of the proposal. Overall whilst the access junction, despite mitigating measures remains less than ideal, he is of the opinion that the proposed development will be acceptable in highway terms subject to the enlargement of the splay and the mitigating measures, plus the cessation of the agricultural traffic. It is recommended that a ‘Grampian condition’ be applied to the road workings. County Archaeologist – Seek condition re archaeological recordings. Environment Agency – Object on the grounds of the absence of a flood risk assessment. United Utilities – No objections, but advise the water mains will need to be extended to serve the site. Fire Officer – Object on the grounds that the water available for fire fighting purposes is inadequate and access to the mill via the road bridge may be inadequate. Environmental Health – No objections. The application has been advertised on site and within the local press. Adjoining owners have also been notified. Three letters of objection were received on the grounds of the erection of a fence and parking of scrap cars at the end of the lane (which hinders the ability to provide passing places), poor hazardous access of the lane onto the highway, to the detriment of highway safety, the improvements to the junction will not make the junction safe, maintenance problems of the surface of the access and its driveway junction.

Reference No: 2/2004/1175 Received: 06/09/2004 Proposal: Listed Building Consent for demolition of agricultural buildings/structures, conversion of barns and water mill to 6 dwellings and works to Packhorse Bridge, as amended by letter and plan received on 18 November 2004 Location: Vacant Buildings And Land Adjacent To Islekirk Hall Westward Wigton Applicant: Messrs Skelton C/O Roshween Rosley Wigton Agent: Taylor & Hardy 9 Finkle Street Carlisle Cumbria CA3 8UU

Policy Context: The application site relates to a cluster of farm buildings in the open countryside. Policy HS6 of the first alterations, second deposit consultation to ALP allows the conversion of barns in the open countryside subject to specific criteria including the marketing of the site and satisfactory access details. Policy HS8 outlines the design criteria for new housing development including conversions, whilst Policy HS9 seeks the provision of satisfactory access and drainage facilities. Under the site’s listed building status (as curtilage buildings) Policy CO14 advises that a flexible attitude would be adopted for change of use of listed buildings if it would secure its retention. Policy CO15 seeks to ensure alterations to listed buildings are sympathetic with their design and character and Policy CO18 aims to safeguard their setting.

Report: The applications seek planning (2/2004/1174) and listed building consent (2/2004/1175) to convert a range of courtyard buildings to the Grade II* listed property Islekirk Hall into five dwellinghouses. The rectangular shaped courtyard comprises of both single and two storey traditional building, with the application also proposing the demolition of other modern agricultural buildings in the immediate vicinity of the courtyard. Access to the courtyard is via an unmade track from the highway which also serves the nearby Islekirk Hall and a neighbouring cottage which are located approximately 5½m from the courtyard. In addition to the courtyard, the current scheme also proposes the conversion of an additional detached derelict mill building 160m east of the courtyard into a five bedroomed dwellinghouse. The mill is accessed via a track from the courtyard over a modern vehicular bridge on the River Waver. The bridge is alongside a traditional arched packhorse bridge which has been fenced off and is in a poor state of repair. In a supporting statement to the applications the applicant refers to the range of existing buildings. The letter advises the traditional buildings have a close architectural and historic relationship with Islekirk Hall. These buildings were formerly an integral part of Islekirk Hall Farm, a farm unit which extended to 211 acres. In more recent years, the farm (excluding the Hall and attached cottage) extended to 530 acres operated from New House Farm, Welton. This farm ceased to be farmed as a single unit in 1998 and the land at Islekirk Hall Farm was advertised and sold to adjoining farmers, with the farm buildings and 8.37 acres retained by the applicant (but does not include the separate ownership of the Hall or the cottage). The applicant highlights the historic significance and interest of these farm and mill buildings plus the bridge has been examined within an Archaeological Assessment. The supporting letter advises that Grade II* buildings are regarded by the Government as being particularly important buildings of more than special interest and comprise 4% of all listed buildings. The applicant emphasises the proposal is architecturally, historically and physically linked to the hall buildings. The supporting statement refers to the range of modern buildings. The conversion of the courtyard buildings into three 3-bedroomed units and two 4-bedroomed dwellinghouses which are sympathetically designed to reflect their existing details. (A single storey building is also to be converted to garages.) An additional new build garage block would be sited on the edge of the courtyard. The statement also advises that the mill conversion has similarly been designed to retain its character and architectural details. A supporting drainage engineers report has been submitted on the details of the two separate private treatment plants to serve the proposal. The applicant also agreed to a scheme to repair the packhorse bridge. The supporting statement also refers to the access lane accepting that it is currently substandard but refer to the benefits of separating the vehicular traffic of the hall from the vehicular traffic of the conversion and minimise traffic through the courtyard. The applicant’s supporting evidence also refers to the former discussions undertaken with the Highway Authority, which includes speed surveys. The applicant outlines the former history relating to agricultural traffic to the site, indicating that he purchased the site and its buildings (excluding the hall and cottage) and 211 acres of farmland in 1993. The applicant lived at New House Farm, Welton and the purchased land in addition to his existing holding resulted in a single agricultural unit, but in the absence of ownership of any of the existing dwellinghouses at Islekirk the farm was based at New House Farm. As a result of weak bridges in the applicant’s farmland holding around Islekirk, access to and from the farmland was alternatively gained from three separate points onto the public highway and then channelled down the access lane to Islekirk Hall Farm (ie this increasing and concentrating access along the existing private access lane). The enterprise at Islekirk Hall formerly comprised of 130/140 calves, 130/140 bull calves, 500/600 ewes with their lambs (in the Spring), grazing of fat bulls, cast cows, calving heifers and cows. In addition the site involved 1600 tons of cut silage, 300 tons of barley and 1500 bales. This agriculture generated the following traffic:-

(i) Croping the lane (silage, straw/grain/contractors vehicles – 1720 movements (both ways per annum). (ii) Movement of crop for feeding stock (silage/mixed grain) – 1112 movements (both ways per annum). (iii) Movement of stock (ewes, lambs, calves, bulls, heifers and cows) – 718 movements (both ways per annum). (iv) Visitors/goods delivered (feed, fuel, representative, contractors, inspectors, vets and farm labourers) – 1412.

Consequently in total the applicant contests the agricultural use of the holding would generate 18,462 trips per year (ie 51 per day) in both ways at the Islekirk site. The applicant considers this would be significantly greater than that of the proposed six dwellings. The applicant has submitted a highway consultants report on the access alterations to the entrance which with the clearing of trees and vegetation in the highway verge increasing the visibility splays to the south from 23m to 45m, with satisfactory visibility in the other northern direction. A former speed survey indicates an 85th percentile speed of just under 30mph in both directions. If considered necessary the highway consultant considers ‘SLOW’ markings could be placed on the highway in association with a junction ahead warning sign for northbound drivers of the access. The consultant highlights that unfortunately the splay cannot be increased in this direction without third party land. The consultant recommends that notwithstanding the nature of the access junction the proposed development is considered acceptable in highway terms subject to conditions on the provision of the enlarged visibility splay and the cessation of the use of the road by agricultural vehicles associated with the Islekirk Hall holding. The applications supporting documents also include a drainage engineers report on the proposed treatment plants, and a structural engineers report. Officers in assessing the submitted evidence acknowledge the site occupies an isolated location in the open countryside. As the applications were registered prior to the Council’s interim housing policy, it is not affected by its criteria. The merits of the principle of the development relate to whether it complies with the details of Policy HS6. Whilst the applicant has indicated that the buildings have not been advertised for alternative commercial use, officers accept that the commercial use of the buildings may affect the character and setting of the listed hall and the courtyard and itself. In addition it may result in the increased use of larger slower moving commercial vehicles on the single lane private access track and its constrained access. It was therefore accepted that the residential conversion of the buildings would result in the beneficial use of these buildings. It is considered the existing buildings are well related to the existing listed and would result in the re-use of these redundant buildings (ie no requirement for replacement buildings). Officers accept the applicant’s claims that the six units are appropriate to the size and scale of the existing building with satisfactory parking and amenity facilities for each respective unit. (Whilst the number of units is larger than that associated with open countryside, they do relate solely to the existing traditional buildings at the site which constitute an important integral architectural and historic part of the agricultural unit. This is also applicable to the mill building which although detached from courtyard buildings (which results in doubt as to whether it has listed status) is historically linked to the farm unit). Therefore in terms of sustainability although it constitutes a higher than normal housing density it would result in the beneficial re-use of these important redundant historical buildings. Therefore subject to confirmation through a structural engineers report that the derelict mill building which has fallen into disrepair can be satisfactory converted without substantial rebuild there are no objections to the principle of the development. The main physical constraint of the site relates to its access. Although the Highway Authority had previously referred to the existing access as “grossly substantial” but concurred that the traffic associated with the development in association with visibility improvements would ameliorate the existing position, but indicated it would be up to the Council to assess the ‘pros and cons’ in determining the application. In response to the highway consultants report, the Highway Authority refer to the possible improvements to the junction being limited due to vertical and horizontal alignment changes in the topography of the highway, resulting in the revised junction remaining substandard. However they accept the former use of the building would have generated traffic, and that the additional mitigation measure to the access (if implemented) whilst less than ideal would result in the proposed development being acceptable. He recommends that the highway improvement be required to be implemented prior to the commencement of the use of the site. The track is no longer used as previously but agricultural activity could be re-commenced and account must be taken of this.

In the light of the Highway Authority’s comments, officers agree that subject to the highway improvements and the subsequent removal of agricultural traffic, the potential of fewer and faster residential vehicles using the access would result in no greater hazard to highway safety. The issues of maintenance of this track is a legal issue (similar concerns would arise if agricultural traffic were to recommence). This problem is similarly applicable to the absence of passing bays, which the applicant is unable to implement due to land ownership constraints. There are no Highway Authority objections on these issues. Given the constraints of the existing access officers recommend that the highway improvements are implemented prior to the commencement of works to provide an improved means of access for any construction traffic. Further to withdrawing the previous applications. The application addresses design details raised by English Heritage and the historic amenity agencies. Although further revisions are awaited to resolve the remaining outstanding comments of the Society for the Protection of Ancient Buildings, the other historic agencies appear satisfied with the revised designs as they safeguard the character (both internally and externally) of these existing buildings. Additional amendments are awaited from the applicant on the access drive from the track into the courtyard, following concerns of the Conservation Area Officer that this route in association with the large domestic curtilage to the neighbouring courtyard units could affect the setting of the courtyard. The Conservation Area Officer seeks the continued use of the existing courtyard access (amendments awaited). Although this traverses closer to Islekirk Hall and its adjoining cottage, as these are approximately 15m distance from the access, there would be no significant loss of amenity and the retention of the existing access preserves this historic and architectural feature of the existing courtyard. An additional block plan is also awaited for the grounds of the mill. The existing arched packhorse bridge constitutes another important historic and architectural feature on the outskirts of the farm complex. However similar to the mill, there is an element of doubt as to whether it benefits listed status as it is sited outside the courtyard. It comprises of an old 17th/18th Century arch bridge over the River Waver which had been widened in the late Victorian period. The two bridges are currently breaking apart structurally with the latter extension in poor condition. The applicant in association with the renovation of the mill upstream from the bridge is agreeable to a scheme of works to renovate and repair the original bridge. However its restoration would not result in it being functionally used as a bridge as access over the river is via the nearby modern bridge. A structural survey of the bridge has been undertaken indicating the original bridge was reasonably sound to allow remedial works, but that the extension arch was unlikely to be feasible without complete demolition and rebuilding, on new foundations. Some emergency repairs have been undertaken to the bridge within the past year to prevent its collapse. Although English Heritage originally sought the retention of the bridge, after costings were undertaken indicating these repair works would be unreasonable and excessive with the bridge not serving a long term functional vehicular use it was accepted that it would be unreasonable to impose the retention of the extension part of the bridge. Officers consider the beneficial repair of the bridge, under the renovation of the historic mill would result in the retention of this important individual original feature within the historic group of buildings at this locality. It is considered this schedule of works would be subject to a S106 legal agreement. (Additional comments are awaited from the Fire Officer to clarify whether the neighbouring modern vehicular bridge which provides access to the mill can structurally support any means of access for five tenders.) Therefore overall it is considered that from a conservation perspective the proposal provides a comprehensive redevelopment scheme for the whole site and would result in the beneficial re-use of these redundant buildings, securing both their individual and group value. Subject to the receipt of satisfactory amendments to resolve the outstanding details, the proposal, the merits of the scheme are acceptable and may be approved. A letter will be sent with any approval advising the applicant that failure to repair the bridge will cause a repairs notice to be served. (As a Grade II* building any approval recommendation would require further ratification by Government North West prior to issuing any approval decision.)

2/2004/1174 Recommendation: APPROVED

Conditions/Reasons

1. The development hereby permitted shall be begun before the expiration of FIVE years from the date of this permission. Reason - In order to comply with Section 91 of the Town & Country Planning Act 1990. 2. The rooflights hereby approved shall not project above the plane of the roof. Reason - To safeguard the character of the listed building in accordance with Policy CO18 of the Allerdale Local Plan. 3. Prior to the commencement of works section drawings to a 1:10 scale of the joinery for the timber windows and doors shall be submitted to and approved by the Local Planning Authority. The scheme shall be implemented solely in accordance with the approved details. Reason - To safeguard the character of the listed building in accordance with Policy CO18 of the Allerdale Local Plan. 4. Details of the siting, height and type of all means of enclosure/screen walls/fences/other means of enclosure shall be submitted to and approved by the Local Planning Authority before development commences. Any such walls/fences etc shall be constructed prior to the approved building being brought into use/occupied. All means of enclosure so constructed shall be retained and no part thereof shall be removed without the prior consent of the Local Planning Authority. Reason - To ensure the boundary details are sympathetic with the listed building and safeguard its setting in compliance with Policy CO18 of the Allerdale Local Plan. 5. No development shall take place within the site until the developer has secured the implementation of a progamme of archaeological survey and recording [to include recording of the standing historic fabric and any below ground remains affected by the works] in accordance with a written scheme of investigation which has been submitted by the applicant and approved by the Local Planning Authority. Reason - To afford reasonable opportunity for the investigation and recording of any surviving remains of archaeological interest revealed during development works. 6. Details and representative samples of all surface materials shall be submitted to and approved by the Local Planning Authority before development commences. The materials so approved shall be used in the development as approved. Reason - To safeguard the character of the listed building in compliance with Policy CO15 of the Allerdale Local Plan. 7. Details and representative samples of all external pointing shall be submitted to and approved by the Local Planning Authority before development commences. The external pointing so approved shall be used in the development as approved. Reason - To safeguard the character of the listed building in compliance with Policy CO15 of the Allerdale Local Plan. 8. Details and representative samples of all external rainwater goods shall be submitted to and approved by the Local Planning Authority before development commences. The rainwater goods so approved shall be used in the development as approved. Reason - To safeguard the character of the listed building in compliance with Policy CO15 of the Allerdale Local Plan. 9. Access to the site shall solely be via the approved access on the approved plan dated .... Reason - In the interests of highway safety in compliance with Policy HS9 of the Allerdale Local Plan. 10. Prior to the commencement of works of the proposed regrading works within the visibility splay on the approved plan dated ... shall be submitted to and approved by the Local Planning Authority. The approved details and the visibility splay as hatched on the approved plan dated ... providing clear visibility shall be provided at the site prior to the commencement of works. Notwithstanding the provisions of the Town and Country Planning (General Permitted Development) Order 1995 (or any Order revoking or re-enacting that Order) relating to permitted development no structure, vehicle or object of any kind shall be erected, parked or placed and no bushes or other plants shall be permitted to grow above 1 metre in height of the nearest part of the carriageway which obstructs the visibility splay. Reason - In the interests of highway safety in compliance with Policy HS9 of the Allerdale Local Plan. 11. Prior to the commencement of works details of the signage and markings for the approved access junction onto the U2134 shall be submitted to and approved by the Local Planning Authority. The approved details shall be fully implemented prior to the commencement of works on the site. Reason - In the interests of highway safety in compliance with Policy HS9 of the Allerdale Local Plan. 12. The dwelling shall not be occupied until the vehicular access, parking and turning requirements have been constructed in accordance with the approved plan and has been brought into use. The vehicular access, parking and turning provisions shall be retained and capable of use at all times thereafter and shall not be removed or altered without the prior consent of the Local Planning Authority. Reason - In the interests of highway safety. 13. The access drive shall be surfaced in bituminous or cement bound materials for a distance of 6m from the carriageway edge of the U2134 highway, prior to the commencement of works on site. Reason - In the interests of highway safety.

2/2004/1175 Recommendation: APPROVED

Conditions/Reasons

1. The development hereby permitted shall be begun before the expiration of FIVE years from the date of this permission. Reason - In order to comply with Section 18 of the Planning (Listed Buildings & Conservation Areas) Act 1990. 2. The rooflights hereby approved shall not project above the plane of the roof. Reason - To safeguard the character of the listed building in accordance with Policy CO18 of the Allerdale Local Plan. 3. Prior to the commencement of works section drawings to a 1:10 scale of the joinery for the timber windows and doors shall be submitted to and approved by the Local Planning Authority. The scheme shall be implemented solely in accordance with the approved details. Reason - To safeguard the character of the listed building in accordance with Policy CO18 of the Allerdale Local Plan. 4. Details of the siting, height and type of all means of enclosure/screen walls/fences/other means of enclosure shall be submitted to and approved by the Local Planning Authority before development commences. Any such walls/fences etc shall be constructed prior to the approved building being brought into use/occupied. All means of enclosure so constructed shall be retained and no part thereof shall be removed without the prior consent of the Local Planning Authority. Reason - To ensure the boundary details are sympathetic with the listed building and safeguard its setting in compliance with Policy CO18 of the Allerdale Local Plan. 5. No development shall take place within the site until the developer has secured the implementation of a programme of archaeological survey and recording [to include recording of the standing historic fabric and any below ground remains affected by the works] in accordance with a written scheme of investigation which has been submitted by the applicant and approved by the Local Planning Authority. Reason - To afford reasonable opportunity for the investigation and recording of any surviving remains of archaeological interest revealed during development works. 6. Details and representative samples of all surface materials shall be submitted to and approved by the Local Planning Authority before development commences. The materials so approved shall be used in the development as approved. Reason - To safeguard the character of the listed building in compliance with Policy CO15 of the Allerdale Local Plan. 7. Details and representative samples of all external pointing shall be submitted to and approved by the Local Planning Authority before development commences. The external pointing so approved shall be used in the development as approved. Reason - To safeguard the character of the listed building in compliance with Policy CO15 of the Allerdale Local Plan. 8. Details and representative samples of all external rainwater goods shall be submitted to and approved by the Local Planning Authority before development commences. The external rainwater goods so approved shall be used in the development as approved. Reason - To safeguard the character of the listed building in compliance with Policy CO15 of the Allerdale Local Plan. ______

Reference No: 2/2004/1217 Received: 17/09/2004 Proposal: Erection of conservatory to rear. Location: 6 Cavendish Street Workington Applicant: Mr G M J O'Donnell 6 Cavendish Street Workington Agent: Mr G M J O'Donnell 6 Cavendish Street Workington Cumbria

Representations: Town Council – No objections (06/10/04) County Archaeologist – No objections (01/10/04) Director of Engineering, CCC – No objections (23/09/04) The application has been advertised on site, in the local press and adjoining owners have also been notified. As at 22 November 2004 representations have been received from one property.

Policy Context: HS12: Extensions to Dwellings. C02: Alterations to buildings within Conservation Areas.

Report: Consent is sought for the erection of a mock-timber uPVC conservatory to the rear of 6 Cavendish Street, Workington. This is a resubmission of application 2/2004/0718, which was refused due to the fact the design and materials to be used were considered inappropriate for a dwelling with a Conservation Area and thus, contrary to Policy CO2 of the Allerdale Local Plan. Policy CO2 seeks to encourage design and use of materials that are compatible with both character and setting. The second reason for refusal was that the original proposal sought to use 100% of the amenity space of the property, contrary to Policy HS12 of the Allerdale Local Plan, which states that applications that would result in the loss of more than 50% of undeveloped curtilage of a dwelling would not be supported. The dwelling is terraced dwelling and has a small yard to the rear, which is east facing. The yard is bounded by high walls north and east with a low wall to the south. Access to the yard is via a narrow communal alley that is shared with 15, 17 and 19 Portland Square. This area is very constricted in terms area and receives very little daylight. 19 Portland Square has two windows to the rear, which face north looking onto the low wall, where the proposed extension is to be sited.

One objection to the proposal has been received citing: • The proposal is contrary to policy HS12 of the Allerdale Local Plan As the proposal will result in a loss of approximately 63% (according to the submitted plans) this statement is correct. • The conservatory will impinge on land not owned by the applicant This is not a planning consideration. • Surface water will drain onto land not owned by the applicant This is not a planning consideration. • The applicants only have a right of way over the communal alleyway This is not a planning consideration.

• The proposal would have a harmful effect on the privacy/residential amenity of adjacent properties It is considered that the proposal would have a detrimental effect of the property immediately adjacent to the proposed conservatory in terms of both privacy and amenity.

The conservatory in the new application differs little from that in the original application in terms of its lack of adherence to policy regarding extensions to dwellings within Conservation Areas. The conservatory proposed is still of a modern design consisting of modern materials, namely red brick and mock- timber uPVC. Although the conservatory would not be visible from the highway, the design does not reflect that the dwelling lies within a Conservation Area and is neither in-keeping with the character of the house nor the immediate locality. The proposal would result in the loss of more than 50% of the undeveloped curtilage of the property (approximately 63%) and would also have a detrimental effect of the residential amenity of adjacent residents.

Recommendation: REFUSED

Reasons

1. In the opinion of the Local Planning Authority the proposed development would be harmful to the character of the property, the immediate locality and the character of the Portland Square Conservation Area. The proposal is therefore contrary to Policy CO2 of the Allerdale Local Plan. 2. The Local Planning Authority considers that the proposed development is contrary to Policy HS12 of the Allerdale Local Plan as it will result in the loss of more than 50% of the undeveloped curtilage of the property and would be harmful to the privacy and visual amenity of adjacent residents. ______

Reference No: 2/2004/1221 Received: 15/09/2004 Proposal: Erection of new dwelling, as amended by letter and plans received on 4 November 2004 Location: Land To Rear Of Melbourne House Mawbray Silloth Applicant: Mr P Wise 22 Esk Street Silloth Agent: Mr P Wise 22 Esk Street Silloth Cumbria

Representations: Parish Council – Refuse. Poorly related. Dir of Engineering, CCC – No objections. Conditions. County Archaeologist – No objection. Environmental Health – Comment on poor standard of residential amenity being sited adjacent cattle shed. Environment Agency – No objections in principle. Standard conditions apply. The application has been advertised on site and within the local press. Adjoining owners have also been notified. Representations have been received from three objectors:- • Glenmore Cottage – Dispute land ownership. • Melbourne House – Residential amenity affected and highway issues. Adjacent dwelling under construction – objections resolved by amendments. • Gates Garth Hall – Proximity to agricultural building.

Policy Context: HS5, HS9, EN20, CO3 and CO13.

Report: Application for a single detached dwelling within the settlement limit of Mawbray and in the Conservation Area. The site is also part of the AONB and Hadrian’s Wall Setting. The original submission was for a two storey dwelling and an amended scheme now attempts to overcome the potential reasons for refusal. The site comprises a small paddock area to the rear of dwellings fronting the village road. These dwellings are two storey with a single storey cottage. This cottage has a single opaque glazed window facing into the proposed site. The site is accessed by a narrow unmade lonning and measures 16 x 33 metres. A large agricultural building housing cattle is evident forming the northern boundary to the site. A number of trees are also noted, some requiring removal for the development to take place. One tree, a sycamore, has been judged to contribute to the setting of the Conservation Area and has recently been protected by a TPO. A planning application was considered on this site in 1989 and was refused on the grounds of backland development with concerns over the restricted site area for the siting of a septic tank and overlooking of adjacent dwellings. Very adjacent to the application site and accessed by the same agricultural lonning is an area with full planning permission for a dwelling now under construction. The original application for this site 2/2003/0886 was refused as backland development poorly related to the settlement pattern and having an adverse impact upon the character of the Conservation Area. The subsequent appeal was dismissed. The Inspector did however have some sympathy and suggested that a single storey dwelling would be acceptable based upon historical evidence showing a pair of semi-detached cottages on the site long since demolished. The Inspector recognised the character of the settlement pattern being essentially linear with some haphazard rear courtyard development. He confirmed that a precedent need not be set for further backland development and any further applications judged on their own merits. A resubmission for this site was subsequently approved reference 2/2004/0838. In view of the planning history and the Inspector’s comments, this application must be assessed on its own merits.

i) The site displays all the characteristics of backland development associated with the adjacent plot originally refused and can be considered poorly related to the settlement pattern and character of the Conservation Area. Additionally there are added problems with this site of the protected tree, livestock building forming the site boundary and the amenity of the dwelling under construction.

ii) The protected tree at the point of access is considered not to be under threat by any construction or surfacing of the access. The proximity of the trunk to the proposed dwelling is not expected to put the tree at any risk being within BSI standards. The amenity of the dwelling is similarly intact as this tree has some scope for long term maintenance to preserve and enhance its shape.

iii) The livestock building has raised concern from Allerdale Environmental Health regarding noise and odour nuisance affecting the general standard of residential amenity.

iv) The adjacent dwelling under construction is opposite the proposal by some 12-14 metres albeit offset with no direct overlooking of window to window.

The amended siting and design of the dwelling is an improvement to the original but would not appear to fully overcome the reasons for refusal. The applicant is aware of the site difficulties and is prepared to consider an appeal. The application has received a ‘call’ in from two councillors; one in favour and one against. Local representations have been received objecting on the grounds of inappropriate access, impact upon residential amenity, proximity to a working agricultural building and part of the development site being beyond the applicant’s ownership. These issues have been dealt with above. In conclusion it would appear on balance that the plot has a number of siting difficulties over and above those associated with the adjacent site originally refused and the only consistent recommendation would be one of refusal.

Recommendation: REFUSED Reasons

1. The Local Planning Authority consider the site of the proposed dwelling to be poorly related to the existing settlement pattern, constituting an inappropriate form of backland development contrary to policies HS5 and HS8 of the Allerdale Local Plan and policies 1 and 25 of the Cumbria and Lake District Joint Structure Plan. 2. If allowed the proposal would act as an adverse precedent for similar residential proposals elsewhere which are poorly related to the existing settlement pattern. 3. The Local Planning Authority considers that the siting of the proposal adjacent to an agricultural livestock building would result in an unsatisfactory level of residential amenity. ______

Reference No: 2/2004/1229 Received: 17/09/2004 Proposal: Erection of 2 detached houses and garages, as amended by letter received on 11 November 2004 Location: Plots 1 & 2 Adjoining Gale Croft Low Seaton Seaton Workington Applicant: Mr & Mrs Bowman 8 Beech Grove Low Seaton Workington Agent: Mr W Bowman 8 Beech Grove Low Seaton Workington Cumbria CA14 1PZ

Representations: Parish Council – Refuse (4.10.04). Approve (25.10.04). Dir of Engineering, CCC – No objections subject to amendments. Fire Officer – No objections. United Utilities – No objections. Environmental Health – No comment. The application has been advertised on site and adjoining owners have been notified. One letter of support for the proposal has been received, which contains 35 signatures from local residents. These letters state that the development, by means of providing a pavement for pedestrians will be beneficial to residents of Low Seaton. 14 letters of objection to the proposal have been received, which raise the following concerns;-

• The development would result in a loss of privacy for adjacent dwellings; • Proposed design of new dwellings is not in keeping with existing dwellings in Low Seaton; • Existing road infrastructure in and around Low Seaton already at capacity; • Proposed access via Beech Grove has inadequate provision for the passing and turning of vehicles; • Proposed access will result in increased noise nuisance for residents of Beech Grove and Kelsick Park; • The development will increase the susceptibility of the Low Seaton area to flooding; • The proposed site has amenity value and is a habitat for wildlife; • The proposal will encourage additional pedestrian and vehicular traffic onto Low Road Seaton, where parking problems exist already.

Policy Context: HS5 – New housing in settlements. EN6 – Potentially polluting development.

Report: A local ward councillor has called in this application for the following reasons:

• Overdevelopment in the Low Seaton area. • Existing traffic problems due to the width of Low Seaton Road. • Difficulties in Emergency Services accessing properties on Low Seaton Road.

This application relates to a full planning permission for the erection of two detached four-bedroomed houses with detached garages on land adjacent to Gale Croft, Low Seaton. There is a separate application for a further two detached dwellings adjoining the site, which is also before the Development Panel (reference 2/2004/1230). A number of points were raised by the objectors, which will be discussed within this report:-

• The development would result in a loss of privacy for adjacent dwellings. The plans indicate that the distance between habitable windows on the proposed development and dwellings on Low Seaton Road will be approximately 7 metres (23 feet).

• Proposed design of new dwellings is not in keeping with existing dwellings facing onto Seaton Low Road. The existing properties opposite the site are of a traditional ‘cottage’ style; however there are examples of more modern design along Low Seaton Road. Therefore a precedent has already been set in terms of acceptable housing design.

• Existing road infrastructure on and around Low Seaton Road already at capacity. This Authority has already sought to resist any development that would increase the volume of traffic using Low Seaton Road (application reference 2/2004/0574, 2/2004/0867 and 2/2004/0961), which is considered sub-standard by Cumbria Highways (letters dated 8 June 2004 and 29 July 2004.

• Proposed access via Beech Grove has inadequate provision for the passing and turning of vehicles. Cumbria Highways have stated that the proposed access would require revision in order for it to be considered acceptable. Their recommendations are that the access road is widened to allow two cars to pass each other safely and also a turning area be provided. If these requirements were to be satisfactorily resolved, then Cumbria Highways would not have any objections to the proposal.

• Proposed access will result in increased noise nuisance for residents of Beech Grove and Kelsick Park. Due to the location of the entry point into the site (between 55 Kelsick Park and 6 Beech Grove) and the positioning of the access road (running along the rear gardens of 6, 8 and 10 Beech Grove) is likely that there will be increased noise disturbance and loss of amenity in these dwellings. The access road lies beneath the garden levels of 6, 8 and 10 Beech Grove, which would provide visual screening but will not provide any insulation against noise of passing vehicles.

• The development will increase the susceptibility of the Low Seaton area to flooding. United Utilities have no objection to the proposal. In the event of an approval, the sewerage and drainage for the development would be controlled under the Building Regulations application.

• The proposed site has amenity value and is a habitat for wildlife. The site is a privately owned piece of land and therefore cannot be used by local residents for recreational purposes and the adopted Allerdale Local Plan does not identify the site as having any significant amenity value. However, the land is one of the few remaining green spaces within the locality and is clearly regarded as a significant open space amongst local residents.

• The proposal will encourage additional pedestrian and vehicular traffic onto Low Road Seaton, where parking problems exist already. Although the official access to the development and parking will be via Beech Grove, the plans indicate that there will be pedestrian access via Low Seaton Road. Consequently, there will be a temptation by motorists to use Low Seaton Road to access the proposed dwellings. Low Seaton Road already suffers from congestion and acute parking problems as identified in previous applications.

In the officer’s opinion, the proposed access to the development is poorly related to existing settlement pattern of Low Seaton area and due to its close proximity to existing residential development, would be detrimental to the amenity of these dwellings. In addition, the proposal will also put additional strain on Low Seaton Road, which is a substandard highway that is already at full capacity.

Recommendation: REFUSED Reasons

1. The proposed access to the development is poorly related to the existing settlement pattern of Low Seaton and would be detrimental to the character of this particular area of the village. On this basis, the proposal is contrary to Policy HS5 of the adopted Allerdale Local Plan 1999. 2. The proposal, by virtue of its access onto Low Seaton Road, would create an increase in pedestrian and vehicular traffic onto a substandard highway and thus, be detrimental to highway safety. The proposal is therefore contrary to Policy HS5 of the adopted Allerdale Local Plan 1999. 3. The proposal would result in an increase in a loss of residential amenity, in terms of increased noise, for those residents whose dwellings back onto the proposed access road. Therefore the proposal is contrary to Policy EN6 of the adopted Allerdale Local Plan 1999. ______

Reference No: 2/2004/1230 Received: 17/09/2004 Proposal: Erection of 2 detached houses and garages, as amended by letter received on 11 November 2004 Location: Plots 3 & 4 Adjoining Aviemore Low Seaton Seaton Workington Applicant: Mr & Mrs R Hutton Garth Croft Low Seaton Workington Agent: Alan Rutherford 5 Tranwell Close Red House Farm Newcastle Upon Tyne NE3 2BH

Representations: Parish Council – Refuse (4.10.04). Approve (25.10.04). Dir of Engineering, CCC – Amendments required (no objections if satisfied). Fire Officer – No objections. United Utilities – No objections. Environmental Health – No comment. The application has been advertised on site and adjoining owners have been notified. Two letters of support for the proposal have been received, one of which contains 35 signatures from local residents. These letters state that the development, by means of providing a pavement for pedestrians will be beneficial to residents of Low Seaton. 12 letters of objection to the proposal have been received, which raise the following concerns;-

Policy Context: HS5 – New housing in settlements. EN6 – Potentially polluting development.

Report: A local ward councillor has called in this application for the following reasons:

• Overdevelopment in the Low Seaton area. • Existing traffic problems due to the width of Low Seaton Road. • Difficulties in Emergency Services accessing properties on Low Seaton Road.

This application relates to a full planning permission for the erection of two detached four-bedroomed houses with detached garages on land adjacent to Gale Croft, Low Seaton. There is a separate application for a further two detached dwellings adjoining the site (reference 2/2004/1229). A number of points were raised by the objectors, which will be discussed within this report:-

• The design of new dwellings is not in keeping with existing dwellings facing onto Seaton Low Road. The existing properties opposite the site are of a traditional ‘cottage’ style; however there are examples of more modern design along Low Seaton Road. The design is considered acceptable.

• Proposed access via Beech Grove has inadequate provision for the passing and turning of vehicles. Cumbria Highways (6 October 2004) have stated that the proposed access would require revision in order for it to be considered acceptable. Their recommendations are that the access road is widened to allow two cars to pass each other safely and also a turning area be provided. If these requirements were to be satisfactorily resolved, then Cumbria Highways would not have any objections to the proposal.

• Proposed access will result in increased noise nuisance for residents of Beech Grove and Kelsick Park. Due to the location of the entry point into the site (between 55 Kelsick Park and 6 Beech Grove) and the positioning of the access road (running along the rear gardens of 6, 8 and 10 Beech Grove) it is likely that there will be increased noise disturbance and loss of amenity in these dwellings. The access road lies beneath the garden levels of 6, 8 and 10 Beech Grove, which would provide visual screening but will not significantly reduce the noise of passing vehicles.

• The development will increase the susceptibility of the Low Seaton area to flooding. United Utilities have no objection to the proposal (28 September 2004). In the event of an approval, the sewerage and drainage for the development would be controlled under the Building Regulations application. • The proposed site has amenity value and is a habitat for wildlife. The site is a privately owned piece of land and therefore cannot be used by local residents for recreational purposes and the adopted Allerdale Local Plan does not identify the site as having any significant amenity value. However, the land is one of the few remaining green spaces within the locality and is regarded as an open space by local residents.

Recommendation: REFUSED

Reasons

1. The proposed access to the development is poorly related to the existing settlement pattern of Low Seaton and would be detrimental to the character of this particular area of the village. On the basis, the proposal is contrary to Policy HS5 of the adopted Allerdale Local Plan 1999. 2. The proposal, by virtue of its pedestrian access onto Low Seaton Road, would create an increase in pedestrian and vehicular traffic onto a substandard highway and thus, be detrimental to highway safety. The proposal is therefore contrary to Policy HS5 of the adopted Allerdale Local Plan 1999. 3. The proposal would result in an increase in a loss of residential amenity, in terms of increased noise, for those residents whose dwellings back onto the proposed access road. Therefore the proposal is contary to Policy EN6 of the adopted Allerdale Local Plan 1999. ______

Reference No: 2/2004/1260 Received: 21/09/2004 Proposal: Installation of telecommunciations equipment, as amended by letter and plans received on 16 November 2004 Location: Brigade Headquarters Cumbria Fire Service Station Road Cockermouth Applicant: VodafoneVodafone House The ConnectionNewbury Agent: Daly International Fairbank House Ashley Road Altrincham Cheshire

Representations: Town Council – Recommend refusal in view of the proximity of two junior schools and one primary school. Environmental Health – No objections. Cockermouth Civic Trust – Objects to proposal on the grounds of visual impact and safety grounds. Dir of Engineering, CCC – No objections. The application has been advertised on site and adjoining owners have been notified. 19 letters of objection have been received and one petition containing 155 signatures objecting to the proposal. Main concerns are health and safety and close proximity to schools.

Policy Context: EM15 – Control of telecommunications mast.

Report: Planning permission is sought for the installation of telecommunications equipment, Brigade Headquarters, Cumbria Fire Service, Station Road, Cockermouth. The proposed structure involves a steel lattice mast located to the rear of the Brigade Headquarters. The design and materials are considered acceptable, it is lightweight in appearance and will be green in colour. The proposed mast will also enjoy screening from the existing trees within these grounds. The proposed mast is considered to be less of a visual impact than the existing mast on Sullart Street, Cockermouth. Illustrative drawings were included with the proposal and it is considered that it has been demonstrated that visually the proposal will not result in a detrimental effect on the surrounding environment. The current proposal is intended to replace an existing mast currently situated on Sullart Street, Cockermouth. This mast is currently closer to both Fairfield Junior School and St Josephs School and the proposed mast is considered to be the most suitable alternative. The issues surrounding the County Council and their land remains an issue for the County Council and will not be considered by Allerdale Borough Council. For the coverage required within this part of Cockermouth this is considered the most suitable option. Every effort has been made to consider other options with additional options being put forward to the applicant in addition to those put forward originally with the submission of the application. All of these alternative sites have been considered unacceptable. Cockermouth Town Council and Cockermouth Civic Trust both object to the proposal, reasons being visual impact, safety grounds and the close proximity to the schools. No other objections have been received from any other statutory consultees. The application has received 19 letters of objections and a petition objecting to the proposal which includes 155 signatures. The areas of concern that have been put forward are: Health and safety issues/risks: Recently a well publicised high court case relating to Yorkshire favoured the telecommunications company and they won the right to install a telecommunication mast near three schools in Yorkshire. The main crux of the case centred round the guidance given in PPG8 and the compliance of such companies within the ICNIRP regulations. This particular case provided evidence to support their compliance and they subsequently won the court case. Clear guidance is given in PPG8 (paragraph 98) that states that the local authority can not assess the issues surrounding health and safety for a proposed telecommunications installation. It states that such an issue remains the responsibility for Central Government and for them to indicate what measures need to be taken to protect public health. If the proposal meets ICNIRP guidelines and the certificate supporting this is included with this proposal then it is not necessary for the Local Authority to consider further health aspects of the proposal. No further weight therefore can be added to the comments received from the objectors regarding the health and safety issues with regard to this proposal and it is therefore considered the health and safety grounds have been addressed in relation to the Local Authority. If there is not a risk there is the public’s fear of a risk to be taken account of. The applicant has pointed to a lack of success for local authorities trying to pursue such reasoning.

Close proximity to schools and a well populated area: again this issue has been addressed in that the proposed mast is further away from the current mast which is due to be decommissioned. It is considered therefore that the proposal is the most suitable both visually and as stated above the health and safety aspects have been addressed from the Local Authority’s point of view.

Red squirrels: no evidence has been provided to support claims about a red squirrel population and in addition to this there is also no evidence that the proposed mast and the construction of the mast would effect any such population. The applicant has acknowledged however that any measures if needed could be implemented if the case was proved that red squirrels did exist within this area. Such measures could include tree canopy netting or temporary fencing during the build.

Concern about a precedent being set: any application received by the Council is considered on its own individual merits and comments of this nature bear no relevance to the consideration of this current proposal.

Taking all of the above into account the proposal is recommended for approval and is considered that the proposal complies with Policy EM15 of the Allerdale Local Plan.

Recommendation: APPROVED Conditions/Reasons

Reference No: 2/2004/1270 Received: 21/09/2004 Proposal: Erection of dwelling, as amended by plans received on 4 October 2004. Location: Site Between 10 & 11 Brigham Hill Mansion Brigham Cockermouth Applicant: Mr & Mrs A Sykes 11 Brigham Hill Mansion Gardens Brigham Cockermouth Agent: Len Cockcroft Len Cockcroft Consultancy 18 Deer Orchard Close Cockermouth Cumbria CA13 9JH

Representations: Parish Council – No objections. Director of Engineering, CCC – Refuse – unsatisfactory access (06/10/04). Refuse – unsatisfactory access (06/10/04). United Utilities – No objections. Fire Officer – No objections. The application has been advertised on site and adjoining owners have also been notified. Representations have been received from five properties – one objecting and four offering support.

Policy Context: HS5: New housing in settlements. HS8: Housing design. HS9: Infrastructure requirements for housing.

Report: Full planning permission is sought for the erection of a single dwelling on site between 10 & 11 Brigham Hill Mansions, Brigham, Cockermouth The site lies within the cul-de-sac which gives access to the former Brigham Hill Mansion, now subdivided into a number of separate dwellings. This adopted and largely unmade cul-de-sac also serves a group of modern bungalows. A two bedroomed house is proposed for the underused land adjacent to the bungalow 11 Mansion gardens. One letter of objection has been received along with four letters of support for the proposal:

The objection letter cites: • The close proximity of the development to existing dwellings Officers have concerns that the siting of the house would still have a harmful effect on the residential amenity of existing dwellings due to its close proximity (2 meters at closest point). • Windows of existing dwellings overlooking proposed dwelling The close proximity of the proposed dwelling to adjacent dwelling could result in a loss of privacy/residential amenity for both dwellings. • The boundaries shown on the plans are incorrect The Local Planning Authority are satisfied that the plans contained within the application are correct. • The foul water drainage for the proposed dwelling is insufficient for an additional dwelling would require upgrading United Utilities have no objection to the proposals.

The letters of support cite: • The proposed dwelling is in-keeping with existing houses in Mansion Gardens This cannot be disputed as there are a variety of dwelling types within Mansion Gardens. • The proposal would not generate any additional traffic as the future resident already lives in Mansion gardens When determining an application, consideration must be given to future scenarios, not just those which currently exist. It is likely that the erection of a new dwelling in Mansion Gardens will lead to an increase in traffic using the access in the future, if not immediately. • There have been no accidents at the junction leading to Mansion Gardens Whilst this may be true, it is the opinion of Cumbria Highways that any further development would lead to an increase in the risk of an accident at this junction.

With regards to the unsatisfactory siting of the proposal, in normal circumstances the agent would be given the opportunity to amend the plans in order to achieve a better relationship with adjacent dwellings. However due to the responses from Cumbria Highways, detailed below, it was deemed that issues relating to poor access to the site would be unable to be resolved by the applicant and would take precedence over any problems with regards to siting when the application was determined. Therefore the applicant was not asked to amend the plans even thought the siting of the proposal could have been revised. In terms of access, the private cul-de-sac giving access to the site is partly unmade although the section immediately adjacent to the village street is hard surfaced. High walls immediately adjacent to this junction limit visibility severely and are outside the applicant’s ownership. Cumbria Highways recommend refusal on the basis that the access has virtually no visibility splay and that any increase in the use of this junction will significantly increase the risk of an accident. The agent attempted to overcome this problem by submitting details of a highway mirror that could be installed to improve visibility, The Highways response suggested that the proposed mirror only served to highlight how bad the access is to the site The site has a planning history. Two applications for dwellings on this site were refused in 1996 and 1997, one of the reasons being the sub-standard visibility at the access to the cul-de-sac (2/96/0894 and 2/97/0233). A change of use (retrospective) from a dwelling to a mixed use of residential and child minding business was approved by the Development Panel in 1996 under application 2/96/1065. The officer had recommended refusal on the basis of poor access, however this decision was overruled by the development panel. In the officer’s opinion this issue of poor access to the site remains unresolved since the applications in 1996 and 1997. Cumbria Highways states that ‘any increase in the use of the junction will also significantly increase the risk of accidents’. Therefore, the application fails to comply with policies HS5 and HS9 of the Allerdale Local Plan. The siting of the proposal is considered intrusive to existing dwellings and is therefore contrary to Policy HS8 of the Allerdale Local Plan.

Recommendation: REFUSED Reasons

1. Visibility from the proposed access is severely restricted and vehicles emerging from the site onto the Class C road would thereby give rise to a hazard to other road users and increase the risk of accidents. 2. The Local Planning Authority considers the site, scale of the proposed development and close proximity to neighbouring properties would constitute an unneighbourly form of development to the detriment of the residential amenity of the neighbouring dwellinghouses contrary to Policy HS8 of the Allerdale Local Plan. ______

Reference No: 2/2004/1349 Received: 30/09/2004 Proposal: Outline application for erection of dwelling. Location: Paddock Next To Hunday Winscales Workington Applicant: Mr S Williams Ghyll Grove Hunday Winscales Agent: Richard Lindsay Design 2 Calva House Calva Brow Workington Cumbria CA14 1DE

Representations: Parish Council – No objection. Dir of Engineering, CCC – No objection subject to conditions. Environment Agency – No objection subject to conditions. The application has been advertised on site and adjoining owners have been notified. 10 letters of support from local residents and businesses. Three letters from medical practitioners confirming that a single storey dwelling would be beneficial to the applicant and that his speech disorder is helped by visits from friends with whom he can practise communication skills.

Policy Context: HS4 – New housing in open countryside. HS15 and HS16 – Local needs/affordable housing. HS9 – Infrastructure requirements for housing.

Report: This proposal is for the erection of a dwelling at Midtown Farm at Winscales. The site was granted planning permission in 1993 under 2/93/0836, but this permission was allowed to lapse. The Allerdale Local Plan, adopted in 1999, did not include a settlement limit for Winscales and the site was now regarded as open countryside. Subsequent applications for planning permission have been refused (2/98/0633, 2/2001/0116, 2/2002/0147 and 2/2002/0911). An additional reason for refusal of 2/2001/0116 and 2/2002/0911 was the failure to provide percolation tests in circumstances where septic tank drainage was proposed. In support of the current application the agent describes why, in his view, this should be regarded as an acceptable infill site. He also explains how his client, who lives in Winscales, has recently had a stroke and wishes to move to a bungalow. The site is outside the settlement limit and not in a location where policy supports the provision of local needs housing. Whilst the applicant may prefer to live in Winscales because he has friends there, there is no clear reason why he could not move to a bungalow in nearby Workington, or why friends whose support helps his recovery would cease to visit him were he to make such a move. Although the applicant’s agent has suggested that the future occupancy of the dwelling be limited to a local person there is no known local housing need in Winscales and it would be impossible to justify a condition or legal agreement along those lines were the Council approached to have it lifted. It is considered that the arguments put forward by the agent do not overcome the basic policy objections to a dwelling on this site. Once again non mains drainage is proposed and no percolation tests are provided, contrary to circular advice. Drainage in this area is known to be problematic.

Recommendation: REFUSED Reasons

1. The proposal would result in new residential development in open countryside where no essential need has been demonstrated. The proposal is therefore contrary to policies HS4 and HS16 of the Allerdale Local Plan. 2. In the absence of percolation tests it has not been demonstrated that the site can be satisfactorily drained. The proposal is therefore contrary to Policy HS9 of the Allerdale Local Plan. ______

Reference No: 2/2004/1385 Received: 11/10/2004 Proposal: Erection of detached garage (retrospective), as amended by letter received on 27 October 2004 Location: 39 Harringdale Road High Harrington Workington Applicant: Mr & Mrs Greggain 39 Harringdale Road High Harrington Workington Agent: Mr D Harris 100 Harringdale Road High Harrington Workington Cumbria CA14 4NU

Representations: Town Council – No objections. Dir of Engineering, CCC – Objects – current proposal substantial from a highway point of view. The application has been advertised on site and adjoining owners have been notified. 18 letters of objection received, all letters the same. Reasons for objection are: • Development out of character with estate. • Worried that the garage will not be used for domestic purposes.

Policy Context: HS12 – Extension to dwellings.

Report: Planning permission is sought for the erection of a detached garage (retrospective), 39 Harringdale Road, High Harrington, Workington. The Harringdale estate off Scaw Road in Harrington is made up of a mixture of bungalows, houses and flats, the whole estate is residential. No. 39 is a bungalow with the immediate adjacent properties being houses. The garage is already in situ and the application is retrospective. A previous permission under reference 2/2003/1056 (this being a resubmission of reference 2/2002/1075) was submitted on this property for a domestic extension and the re-siting of the garage. Whilst in the process of carrying out this permission the garage was enlarged and thus the applicant submitted this current proposal. The garage dimensions are 7.9 x 7.9 metres, with the materials although currently concrete blocks once completed the garage will to finished to match that of the existing property. The design and materials are considered acceptable and it is considered that the garage does not result in a detrimental effect visually on that of the surrounding environment. The overall scale and massing of the garage is also considered acceptable, its location and position at the end of this particular section of the estate does not result in an adverse effect on the overall character of the estate. An amendment received on the 27 October 2004 confirmed that the garage will be used for domestic purposes only and this being the case the garage and its setting are not considered unusual. However irrespective of this the Highway Authority have objected to the proposal on the grounds that currently the proposal is substandard, there is only a 4.0 metre driveway to one of the garages and in addition to this the 1.8 proposed fence would result in vehicles emerging blind onto the highway increasing the use of the turning head and overall resulting in a detrimental effect on the highway. Workington Town Council has no objections to the proposal yet we have received 18 letters of objection from various residents of the estate. The reasons of concern within these letters in the main have been addressed. Given the Highway Authority concerns the proposal is recommended for refusal. It has not been demonstrated that access and egress methods can be achieved satisfactorily and the relationship between the garage and the highway is one of a substandard one. It is therefore considered that the proposal does not comply with Policy HS12 of the Allerdale Local Plan.

Recommendation: REFUSED

Reasons

1. The proposal fails to achieve a satisfactory relationship with its access and egress arrangements and therefore results in a detrimental effect on the residential amenity of the area and therefore does not comply with Policy HS12 of the Allerdale Local Plan. ______

Reference No: 2/2004/1414 Received: 20/10/2004 Proposal: Erection of cattle shed (phase one) and extension and upgrading of existing road access (resubmission), as amended by letter received on 9 November 2004. Location: Home Farm Main Street Dearham Maryport Applicant: Mr F Stockdale Home Farm Dearham Maryport Agent: David Hetherington 6 Carlton Gardens Stanwix Carlisle Cumbria CA3 9NP

Reference No: 2/2004/1415 Received: 20/10/2004 Proposal: Erection of cattle shed phase two (resubmission). Location: Home Farm Main Street Dearham Maryport Applicant: Mr F Stockdale Home Farm Dearham Maryport Agent: David Hetherington 6 Carlton Gardens Stanwix Carlisle Cumbria CA3 9NP

Reference No: 2/2004/1416 Received: 20/10/2004 Proposal: Erection of free range poultry unit - phase one. Location: Home Farm Main Street Dearham Maryport Applicant: Mr F Stockdale Home Farm Dearham Maryport Agent: David Hetherington 6 Carlton Gardens Stanwix Carlisle Cumbria CA3 9NP

Reference No: 2/2004/1417 Received: 20/10/2004 Proposal: Erection of free range poultry unit - phase two. Location: Home Farm Main Street Dearham Maryport Applicant: Mr F Stockdale Home Farm Dearham Maryport Agent: David Hetherington 6 Carlton Gardens Stanwix Carlisle Cumbria CA3 9NP

Representations: Parish Council – “Following consultation the parish council recommends refusal of these applications for the following access on to the road, intrusive into the open countryside, pollution of River Ellen, extension of village building line into the open countryside.” Director of Engineering, CCC - This application is one of five applications to develop land in this location. Whilst this application on its own may not generate a significant increase in traffic on the local road network the accumulated incremental impact of the proposed developments, as a whole may be significant. Although previous verbal discussion that I have had with the Applicants and their Agent inclines me to a favourable view in principal, it is necessary that this information be presented in a completely clear and unambiguous format for each application, having regard to the applications as a whole, before the matter is determined. I would therefore recommend that the applicant be given further opportunity to provide this additional information. Environmental Health – “We have no objection in principle however, I wish to make the following comments, clarification to what is meant by the term of the frequency of disposal of manure and predicted quantities.” The application has been advertised on site and adjoining owners have also been notified. No representations have been received as at 22/11/04.

Reference No: 2/2004/1419 Received: 20/10/2004 Proposal: Temporary siting of living van. Location: Home Farm Main Street Dearham Maryport Applicant: Mr F Stockdale Home Farm Dearham Maryport Agent: David Hetherington 6 Carlton Gardens Stanwix Carlisle Cumbria CA3 9NP

Representations: Parish Council – Following consultations, the Parish Council recommends refusal of these applications for the following access on to the road, intrusive into the open countryside, pollution of River Ellen, extension of village building line into the open countryside. Director of Engineering, CCC – I refer to the above consultation received on 25 October 2004 and would inform you that there are no objections to the proposal from a highway point of view subject to the following recommended conditions being included in any consent which may be issued: visibility splays of 70 metres x 120 metres, the dwelling shall not be occupied until vehicular access has been constructed, gradient of drive way no steeper than 1:20 surface water discharge and access gates. Removal of a considerable length of hedgerow is required. Environmental Health – Reservations if dwelling was not associated with the proposed agricultural uses. United Utilities – No objections. Environment Agency - The agency request that any permission granted includes the conveyance of foul drainage to a private treatment plant. The application has been advertised on site and adjoining owners have also been notified. No representations have been received as at 22/11/04.

Policy Context: Policies REM 6 and REM 7 of ALP outlines the criteria for agricultural development in non-sensitive landscape areas. Policy HS4 of ALP outlines criteria for development in the open countryside, outside development cordon. Policy HS8 of ALP outlines criteria for design guide. Policy EN6 of ALP seeks to resist potential polluting development in proximity to pollution sensitive development. Policy 1 of C&LDJSP Development and the environment. Policy 13 of C&LDJSP The Rest of the Countryside. Policy 25 of C&LDJSP The Quality of Development.

Report: The proposal before you is for the relocation of a farmstead. The original farmstead was located at Home Farm, Dearham which has received planning permission for residential development (2004/0620 - Conversion of barns and erection of new buildings to create 12 domestic dwellings, as amended by plans received on 29 June 2004), hence the reason for the relocation. The proposal is in five parts :- 2004/1414 - Erection of cattle shed (phase one) and extension and upgrading of existing road access (resubmission) 2004/1415 - Erection of cattle shed phase two (resubmission) 2004/1416 - Erection of free range poultry unit - phase one 2004/1417 - Erection of free range poultry unit - phase two 2004/1419 - Temporary siting of living van The proposed cattle shed is to be built in two phases, the overall dimensions of the proposed cattle shed measures 27.02 metres (width) x 32.01 metres (length) x 7.3 metres (height) (863 sq. m.), this is to be positioned 14 metres from the north western boundary of the proposed site. The proposed shed will be finished in tanalised timber Yorkshire boarding with concrete panels below. The application for phase 1 of the cattle shed incorporates vehicular access to the site, County Highways have recommended a visibility splay of 70 metres in a southwesterly direction and 120 metres in a northeasterly direction, to achieve this visibility splay a substantial section of hedgerow is to be removed, 87 metres in total, however, this hedgerow is not considered to be important. A similar length of hedge row has been removed from the A594 relating to an application for a heavy horse centre. The applicant is proposing to replant the hedgerow, behind the visibility splay to less the impact on the area. The hen shed proposed is also in two phases, the overall dimensions proposed are 36.58 metres (length) x 19.5 metres (width) x 6.2 metres (height) (768 sq. m.), there is also a small extension to the hen shed which is to be used as an egg collection unit, this measures 4.6 metres (width) x 12.19 metres (length) x 3.6 metres (height) (56 sq. m.), this is to be situated 38 metres from the north east boundary. The proposed shed will be finished in green juniper sheeting panels with concrete blockwork below. Temporary consent is being sought for the siting of a static caravan, this is to be positioned north of the buildings. The applicant is proposing a 5,000 bird, free range chicken establishment, the proposal includes roaming area for the chickens. The remainder of the field that is not affected by the proposed development is to be used as the roaming area for the chickens with access to fields beyond running along the north west boundary. The proposed cattle sheds, are to house livestock which is grazing currently in the fields, around the application site. The proposed farmstead lies between the villages of Dearham and Crosby, occupying an elevated open prominent location. The land contour is mixed, the proposed development is situated near the brow of a hill, the land beyond runs down to the River Ellen and back up to Crosby and the Solway Firth. There have been pre-application negotiations with the applicant and planning officers, and it has been agreed that the proposed buildings are located in the most appropriate position on the applicants holding to avoid a visual intrusion into the open countryside and achieve a satisfactory means of access. The proposed temporary accommodation is required to ensure that there is round the clock supervision available to the livestock which resides on site. The applicant requested that the proposed temporary accommodation be positioned on the north-east side of the application site, thereby benefiting from open views across the countryside. Negotiations have taken place and it has been agreed that this should be located closer to the proposed agricultural buildings, and in a less prominent position. The siting of the temporary accommodation will allow the application to demonstrate the need as to whether or not a permanent dwelling on the site is viable and essential to the running of the business.

In this instance the cattle and chickens, warrant the need for temporary accommodation, this has been further demonstrated in the Agents calculations, with the position of the accommodation being situated between the two buildings, this lessens the impact on the countryside. The main concern with the application is the spreading of manure from the sheds, this is proposed on a 14/15 month cycle, whereby spreading is limited to 5 fields, 2 fields being the principle area for spreading, immediately to the north west of the application site and three areas suitable for light application of manure, south of the application site. A supporting statement has been enclosed with the application which outlines the need for the replacement farmstead, the type of stock that will be kept and justification on the no. of hours labour generated by the business, a detailed explanation into the spreading process and collection of birds has been included. Concern has also be raised with the increased use of vehicles along the Dearham to Crosby road, the proposal involves the creation of a new vehicular access to the road, however, I feel that activity will not be dis- similar to what was being appreciated when Home Farm was operating from the edge of Dearham, there is roughly 500 metres separating the two farmsteads, access and visibility from the new farmstead is better than the original farmstead. Concern has been raised with use of heavy goods vehicles (HGV’s) using this section of road, and snake bend down to Dearham Bridge, Dearham Bridge has bad visibility and is only accessible to one vehicle at any one time. The Local Planning Authority considers that the development complies with policies REM 6 and REM 7, HS4, HS8 and EN6 and Cumbria and Lake District Joint Structure Plan Policies 1, 13 and 25.

2/2004/1414 Recommendation: APPROVED

Conditions/Reasons

1. The development hereby permitted shall be begun before the expiration of FIVE years from the date of this permission. Reason - In order to comply with Section 91 of the Town & Country Planning Act 1990. 2. The development shall not commence until visibility splays providing clear visibility of 4.5 metres x 70 metres in a southwesterly direction and 120 metres in a northeasterly direction measured down the centre of the access road and the nearside channel line of the major road have been provided at the junction of the access road with the county highway. Notwithstanding the provisions of the Town and Country Planning (General Permitted Development) Order 1995 (or any Order revoking and re-enacting that Order) relating to permitted development, no structure, vehicle or objection of any kind shall be erected parked or placed, and no trees, bushes or other plants shall be planted or be permitted to grow within the visibility splay which obstruct the visibility splays shall be constructed before the general development of the site commences so that construction traffic is safeguarded. Reason - In the interests of highway safety. 3. There shall be no vehicular access to or egress from the site other than via the approved access, unless otherwise agreed by the Local Planning Authority. Reason - To avoid vehicles entering or leaving the site by an unsatisfactory access or route, in the interests of road safety. 4. The courtyard area indicated between the livestock building, dwelling house and poultry shed shall remain free of structures and obstructions, whether these be permanent or not. Reason - To ensure that vehicles entering and leaving the site do so in a forward gear and in the interest of highway safety. 5. Access gates, if provided, shall be hung to open inwards only away from the highway. Reason - In the interests of highway safety. 6. The gradient of the access drive shall be no steeper than 1:20 for a distance not less than 5 metres as measured from the carriageway edge of the adjacent highway. Reason - In the interests of highway safety. 7. Details of all measures to be taken by the applicant/developer to prevent surface water discharge onto or off the highway shall be submitted to the Local Planning Authority for approval prior to the development being commenced. Any approved works shall be implemented prior to the development being completed and shall be maintained operational thereafter. Reason - In the interests of highway safety and environmental management.

2/2004/1415 Recommendation: APPROVED

Conditions/Reasons

1. The development hereby permitted shall be begun before the expiration of FIVE years from the date of this permission. Reason - In order to comply with Section 91 of the Town & Country Planning Act 1990. 2. Phase two of the cattle shed shall not be constructed until phase one has been completed. Reason - In order to ensure that the proposed development is carried out in a satisfactory manner.

2/2004/1416 Recommendation: APPROVED

Conditions/Reasons

1. The development hereby permitted shall be begun before the expiration of FIVE years from the date of this permission. Reason - In order to comply with Section 91 of the Town & Country Planning Act 1990. 2. Prior to the commencement of the use of the shed hereby approved, details of the storage and disposal of dead birds shall be submitted to and approved by the Local Planning Authority. The storage and disposal of dead birds shall be undertaken solely in accordance with the approved scheme, unless otherwise agreed in writing with the Local Planning Authority. Reason - In the interests of health and safety and safeguarding the amenity of nearby residential properties. 3. All vehicular deliveries and collections and manure disposal operations relating to the poultry shed shall only be undertaken between 0800 hours and 1800 hours. Reason - To minimise the risk of noise pollution to the amenity of nearby residential properties in compliance with Policy EN6 of the Allerdale Local Plan. 4. Prior to the commencement of the development, details of foul and surface water drainage for the application site shall be submitted to and approved by the Lcoal Planning Authority. The approved details shall be fully implemented before the commencement of the use hereby permitted. Reason - To minimise the risk of pollution to local watercourses. 5. No part of the development hereby permitted shall be commenced until details of the feed hopper have been submitted to and approved by the Local Planning Authority. Reason - To minimise the visual impact of the development in its open countryside surroundings in compliance with Policy REM7 of the Allerdale Local Plan. 6. Prior to the commencement of the development hereby permitted, details of the on-site containment and cleansing of the poultry shed shall be submitted to and be approved by the Local Planning Authority. The development shall be undertaken solely in accordance with the approved details. Reason - To minimise the risk of pollution to local water courses. 7. Phase one of the chicken shed shall not be commenced until phase two of the cattle shed has been completed. Reason - In order to ensure that the proposed development is carried out in a satisfactory manner. 8. Upon completion of the chicken sheds hereby approved, the roaming area for the chickens shall be confined to the area marked in yellow on the attached plan, unless agreed in writing with the Local Plannign Authority. Reason - To safeguard the perception of fear of the proposed agricultural development roaming operations on the amenities of the nearby residential properties and vehicular users of the highway. 9. Before development commences on phase one of the chicken shed, a 50 metres buffer zone around 1-4 Cross How, Dearham must be constructed and implemented, details of which shall be submitted to and approved in writing with the Local Planning Authority. Reason - In order to protect the residential amenities of the neighbours.

2/2004/1417 Recommendation: APPROVED

Conditions/Reasons

2. Phase two of the chicken shed shall not be commenced until phase one of the chicken shed has been completed. Reason - In order to ensure that the proposed development is carried out in a satisfactory manner.

2/2004/1419 Recommendation: APPROVED

Conditions/Reasons

1. The development hereby permitted shall be begun before the expiration of FIVE years from the date of this permission. Reason - In order to comply with Section 91 of the Town & Country Planning Act 1990. 2. The siting of the temporary accommodation shall not be put in place and occupied until the completion of the cattle sheds and chicken sheds have been completed. The temporary accommodation shall be in place for a temporary period of three years from initial siting after which the caravan should be completely removed unless a further application has been submitted to and approved by the Local Planning Authority prior to expiration of three years. Reason - The accommodation hereby permitted is not considered suitable as a permanent separate residential unit in this sensitive location. 3. The occupation of the static caravan shall be limited to a person solely or mainly employed, or last employed, in the locality in agriculture as defined in Section 336(1) of the Town and Country Planning Act, 1990 or in forestry (including any dependants of such a person residing with him or her), or a widow or widower of such a person. Reason - In view of the location of the site the Local Planning Authority would wish to carefully examine its suitability for all uses other than that which is hereby approved. 4. No development approved by this permission shall be commenced until a scheme for the conveyance of foul drainage to a private treatment plant has been submitted to and approved by the Local Planning Authority. No part of the development shall be brought into use until such treatment has been constructed and completed in accordance with the approved plans. Reason - To prevent pollution of the water environment. 5. The siting of the temporary accommodation shall not be put in place and occupied until the completion of the cattle sheds and chicken sheds have been completed. The temporary accommodation should be removed within 1 calendar month of the completion of the proposed dwelling. Reason - The accommodation hereby permitted is not considered suitable as a permanent separate residential unit in this sensitive location. ______

Reference No: 2/2004/1455 Received: 03/11/2004 Proposal: Change of use of land and building for general retail market. Location: Mitchells Auction Co. Ltd Lakeland Livestock Centre The Lakeland Agricultural Business Centre Cockermouth Applicant: Mitchells Auction Centre Lakeland Livestock Centre Cockermouth Agent: Armstrong Payne Associates 35 King Street Penrith Cumbria CA11 7AY

Representations: Town Council – No reply to date (17.11.04). Director of Engineering, CCC – No reply to date (17.11.04). Environmental Health – No reply to date (17.11.04). The application has been advertised on site. No representations have been received to date (17.11.04).

Policy Context: The site is within a Locally Important Landscape Area which is protected by Policy EN23. Allerdale Local Plan (ALP) Policy RG2 seeks to safeguard existing town centres by controlling the location of retail development.

Report: This application relates to all the land and buildings that are readily associated with the existing Livestock Mart. In August 2001, permission was granted for a Sunday market subject to conditions restricting the use to the hours of 0900 to 1300 and to only being within the mart building. The applicant has commented on the successful operation of the market and that “….. has now reached the stage where it needs to grow to provide additional area for trading.” The site shown for the market includes elevated fields to the north of the building and the car park to the south. The ability to hold markets on the site was restricted with the original permission as the Council was aware of difficulties that had been experienced in Penrith where a market operates from the livestock mart. The previous restricted permission was not thought to be likely to cause detriment to traders in Cockermouth. The market has operated successfully and has not, as far as we are aware, caused complaint from Cockermouth traders. The application as submitted is for the ‘use of land and building for general retail market’. It does not suggest any restriction on that use. An unrestricted use would not be acceptable in policy terms or in terms of its impact on the locality. It is a surprise that the application has submitted in such general terms. The application should be supported by information stating the days and hours of operation the market would operate. In addition, the plans should indicate the extent of land to be used for the market, such land should exclude the existing car parks otherwise there will be nowhere for customers to park. Further officers have stated a need for the number and type of stalls to be given and how they might be laid out. It is unfortunate that a market could not be accommodated within Cockermouth itself which might cause users to also visit other shops and businesses in the town. A small scale extension of the extent of the use on Sundays might be reasonable but put in the terms of the current application such a use would not be acceptable. Given the development that has occurred, it is not considered the use would be contrary to policies aimed at protecting the Locally Important Landscape Area within which the site is located. It is not considered that the proposal as submitted will impact upon the risk of flooding as a consequence of surface water runoff.

Recommendation: REFUSED

Reasons

1. In the absence of details to prove the contrary, the Local Planning Authority cannot be satisfied that the unrestricted use of the land and buildings for a gneral retail market would not be harmful to the vitality and viability of Cockermouth Centre and as a consequence the proposal would be contrary to RG2 of the adopted Allerdale Local Plan (ALP). 2. In the absence of details to prove the contrary, the Local Planning Authority are not satisfied that adequate, safe and convenient parking is being retained in connection with the use. In the absence of adequate parking, the proposed development would be harmful to highway safety. ______

Reference No: 2/2004/1459 Received: 03/11/2004 Proposal: Change of use of land for overspill car parking. Location: Mitchells Auction Co. Ltd Lakeland Livestock Centre The Lakeland Agricultural Business CentreCockermouth Applicant: Mitchells Auction Co Ltd Lakeland Livestock Centre Cockermouth Agent: Armstrong Payne Associates 35 King Street Penrith Cumbria CA11 7AY

Representations: Town Council – No reply to date (17.11.04). Director of Engineering, CCC – No reply to date (17.11.04). Environmental Health - No reply to date (17.11.04). The application has been advertised on site. No representations have been received to date (17.11.04).

Policy Context: The site is located within a Locally Important Landscape Area (LILA) and as such the development should take account of Policy EN23 which seeks to protect the character of such areas from inappropriate development.

Report: The application relates to 7.5ha of sloping agricultural land to the west of the existing livestock centre. In support of the application, the applicant has commented, “The Auction Mart Company is finding it increasingly difficult to accommodate the volume of vehicles that have been attracted to sales being held on the site. In order to ease this problem, my clients seek consent to use land that is currently in agricultural use immediately adjacent to the site for overspill parking. Access into the field would be over a new ramped private way located on the western boundary of the site as indicated on the attached plans. Clearly, not all the area included within the application boundaries will be required at any one time but it was felt appropriate to move the parking provision around within the land and use different parts of the field so as to minimise any cutting up of the grass surface. The majority of the land is well hidden in the landscape behind the bulk of the Auction Mart Building and the rising ground adjacent to the A66. This extra parking facility is required by the Mart Company as a result of their success in the establishment of their relocated business. If that success is to continue then there needs to continue then there needs to be a sufficient parking capability to deal with demand.” The ramped private way is not in fact shown, nor have any details been submitted of it. The applicant has been asked to produce evidence of the scale and frequency of the problem. It is stated that not all of the land will be used at one time. It is difficult to consider how a condition might be framed so as to avoid widespread parking, it might limit the number of vehicles permissible at any one time but that would be prone to difficulties of both enforcement and management. It would also be problematic as to how much time should be allowed between the use of different areas. A last issue might be the provision of wheel washing facilities. Officers do not share the view that the majority of the land is well hidden. Parts of it at least are visible from the A66 and from the A5086 – Egremont road. It is also appropriate to consider the impact of the development from within the site. It is considered that the uncontrolled use of all of the application site as a car park would be harmful to the character of the area and visually intrusive. A much reduced scheme might be acceptable if clear need for it could be shown. A lack of information and informed comment cause a recommendation if refusal to be offered.

Recommendation: REFUSED

Reasons

1. In the opinion of the Local Planning Authority, the uncontrolled use of the application site for the parking of vehicles would be harmful to the character of the area and visually intrusive. In the absence of any overriding need for the development, it is considered to be contrary to Policy EN23 of the Allerdale Local Plan. ______

COUNTY MATTER

Reference No: 02/2003/9034 Received: 08/10/2003 Proposal: Extension to existing quarry with consequent amendments to current restoration scheme. Location: Tendley Quarry Brigham Cockermouth Applicant: Mr W Landgstaff Tendley Quarries Ltd. Brigham Cockermouth Agent: Peter Stephenson Stephenson Halliday Ltd. 30 Lowther Street Kendal Cumbria

Policy Context: Policy 33 of the Minerals and Waste Local Plan states “Proposals for quarry extensions to provide general crushed rock aggregates will not be permitted unless there is a demonstrable need or significant benefits would accrue to local communities or the environment”. The reasoned justification to the policy states that in the latter half of the plan period Eskett/Rowrah, Tendley and Silvertop Quarries will have most of the permitted reserves but may not be able to meet all the production area’s requirements for the remainder of the plan period. If this situation does develop it may be necessary for any additional reserves to be released.

Report: This proposal is for an extension to release 8,200,000 tonnes of limestone to provide a secure life for the quarry for 26 years. At present, 3 years reserves remain with planning permission. The company employs a direct workforce of 17 with a further estimated 17 indirectly dependent on the quarry. In relation to Policy 33 of the Minerals and Waste Local Plan, the developers argue that there is a need for more reserves to be released at Tendley because of the quality of the limestone there, which is not equaled by reserves elsewhere in the area. Tendley supplies a high proportion of its output to static manufacturing plants within Cumbria. Without this supply and the need to import from elsewhere, the financial viability of some of these companies is argued to be put at risk. Tendley Quarry’s asphalt coating plant is described as the most modern plant in Cumbria and that with the greatest capacity. The applicants see it as a vital element in the efficiency of road building and repair schemes locally and is linked to the continued availability of on site limestone aggregate. The proposal shows the phased extension of the quarry, with initial workings towards the southern end of the site and later phases towards the northern end. Progressive restoration is envisaged with the final scheme incorporating a small lake. An environmental statement submitted with the application considers the landscape impact of the development, its impact on archaeology, transport, hydrology and hydrogeology, agriculture, noise, blasting and dust. Any necessary mitigation measures are addressed in relation to each of these subject areas. Allerdale originally objected to this planning application on the grounds that whilst there might be justification under Policy 33 of the Minerals – Waste Local Plan for some extension of Tendley Quarry site the need for size of extension proposed could not be justified. It was considered that a lesser scheme could be designed to achieve greater clearances to the nearest dwellings, thus overcoming the expressed concerns of Eaglesfield residents

and reducing the risk of adverse impacts on those residents. This view was conveyed at a joint site meeting within the County Council last March. The County Planning Officer has asked the applicants to consider a reduction in the site area as suggested by Allerdale and others, but they have declined to modify their scheme along these lines. Additional information on traffic, restoration, flora and fauna and the impact of dust and a great crested newt survey have been submitted. Subject to the views of the environmental health officer, it is recommended that Allerdale maintains its objections to the proposal.

Recommendation: OBJECT ______

SITE VISIT

Reference No: 2/2004/1068 Received: 11/08/2004 Proposal: Demolition of existing buildings and erection of one dwelling, as amended by letter dated 27 October 2004 and plans dated 4 November 2004 Location: Field 553 Harriston Aspatria Applicant: Mr P Thomson 26 Croft Terrace Aspatria Agent: Telford Planning Associates Isabels House Beckfoot Silloth Cumbria

Representations: Town Council – No objections. Director of Engineering, CCC – No objections subject to highway conditions and seek no interference with public footpath No.205008. County Archaeologist – No objections. The Cumbria Wildlife Trust – No information to indicate that barn has wildlife potential but the demolition/alteration of old buildings may affect barn owl and bat habitats. Recommend surveys be undertaken prior to the commencement of works. English Nature – Advise the existing buildings may have barn owls and bats present and should be checked prior to demolition. The application has been advertised on site and adjoining owners have also been notified. No representations have been received.

Policy Context: The application site is located in the open countryside. (Harriston does not benefit any settlement limit). Policy HS4 of ALP seeks to resist residential development outside of development limits in the open countryside unless supported by an essential employment employment or local need. Policy HS7 seeks the preferable siting of new residential development on brownfield sites prior to Greenfield sites. Policy HS8 of ALP outlines the design criteria for new residential development, whilst Policy HS9 seeks the provision of satisfactory access and drainage facilities. Policy HS8 of the second deposit first consultation alterations to ALP seeks that housing density reflects a ratio of 30 dwellinghouses per hectare.

Report: The applicant seeks full consent to erect a four bedroomed dwellinghouse on the site of farm buildings on the applicant’s small holding. A portal frame building and another outbuilding would be demolished to accommodate the dwelling. The dwellinghouse would be finished with an artificial slate roof and stone and render walls. Access to the site is via an existing track to the smallholding from the nearby hamlet of Harriston. In a supporting statement the applicant’s agent accepted that Harriston does not benefit a settlement limit, he considers it historically and physically constitutes a village. The village has undergone substantial growth and change in recent years which result in it being worthy as a settlement in the Local Plan. The site is 1000m from Aspatria and its services and is a satellite of Aspatria. The applicant also considers it is a brownfield site. The letter contests the low level dwellinghouse would be similar to the design of an alternative converted building proposal at the site. The site whilst part of the settlement is screened from the village by woodland and is not visible from Brayton Road. The site benefits an existing access and the amendments indicate it would be connected to the public sewer system in Harriston. The applicant has agreed to submit further amendments to reduce the large size of the plot to a small domestic curtilage. The applicant concludes the previously developed site is brownfield and consequently should be acceptable for housing development. Officers consider the site is an open countryside location outside the designated settlement limits. Officers consider the current amended plot size although reduced in scale remains excessively large and the plans are without any scale (failing to comply with the objections of Policy HS8 alterations to ALP which seeks new housing development to comply with the Government’s guidance of a ratio of 30 dwellinghouses per hectare). Unless further amendments are received to resolve this issue, the size of the plot is a ground for refusal. Harriston does not benefit any designated settlement limits due to its limited services and Aspatria’s designated limit is approximately 980m distance from the application site. No essential employment or local justification has been provided with the application. Contrary to the applicant’s supporting evidence, agricultural buildings do not constitute ‘brownfield’ land and therefore little weight can be attached to that issue. Harriston is a hamlet lacking facilities and therefore policy properly presumes against new residential development. Furthermore the site is poorly related to the dwellings that exist and is in open countryside. If accepted the proposal would constitute an adverse precedent for other non-essential residential proposals outside the designated settlement within the local plan. It is therefore considered the principle of the proposal, by virtue of its open countryside location is unsatisfactory and should be refused. (A static caravan has recently been sited on the application site. This is to be investigated as a separate issue).

Recommendation: REFUSED Reasons

2. The Local Planning Authority consider the proposed dwellinghouse, in the absence of any demonstrated essential employment or local need would constitute non-essential residential development in the open countryside to the detriment of its visual amenity. Contrary to Policy HS4 of the Allerdale Local Plan and Policies 1, 25 and 40 of the Cumbria and Lake District Joint Structure Plan. 3. If allowed the proposal would act as an adverse precedent for similar non-essential residential proposals in the open countryside to the detriment of its landscape quality. 4. The Local Planning Authority consider the size of the proposed plot is excessive in size, increasing the prominence of the development in the open countryside to the detriment of the visual amenity of the site and its immediate surroundings. ______

SITE VISIT

Reference No: 2/2004/1177 Received: 07/09/2004 Proposal: Outline application for residential development, as amended by letter and plan received on 17 October 2004 Location: Land Opposite 7-13 Station Road Aspatria Applicant: Mr & Mrs M Trestianu 25 Park Road Aspatria Agent: Glen Beattie Alpha Design Unit 7N Lakeland Business Park Cockermouth CA13 0QT

Representations: Town Council – Recommend refusal on grounds of highway safety and egress. Dir of Engineering, CCC – No objections subject to highway conditions (including condition re visibility splays). Fire Officer – No objections. United Utilities – No objection subject to the site being drained on a separate system with only foul drainage connected to the foul sewer. Environmental Health – No reply to date (15.10.04). The application has been advertised on site and adjoining owners have been notified. Nine letters of objection were received on the grounds of:- the site constitutes an important open agricultural area/green wedge within the town’s layout, other housing developments at Noble Croft and Brayton Road results in the proposal being undesirable ribbon development, hazardous access, slope of road and other accesses in the locality plus the heavy traffic using the road and unneighbourly impact on adjoining properties (due to the elevated sloping land) which was identified by the Inspector on the Local Plan. Two letters of support were received on the grounds of the possibility of affordable building plots with no significant increase in traffic (or its associated noise), no impact on residential amenity or privacy of existing houses, little effect on urban open space and satisfactory means of access.

Policy Context: The application site is located within the designated settlement limits for Aspatria. Policy HS5 of ALP outlines the criteria for residential development proposals within the settlement limits. Policy HS7 of the alterations to ALP seek the preferable development of brownfield sites before greenfield sites. Policy HS9 seeks the provision of satisfactory access and drainage facilities for housing development proposals. Policy EN38 of ALP seeks that development which significantly adversely affects the character visual amenity, recreation and wildlife value of green wedge would be resisted unless the economic benefits of the proposal outweigh the value of the site or that the development provides a positive contribution to the character of the green wedge.

Report: The application site forms part of a field which was part of a former allocated site within the deposit version of the Allerdale Local Plan. The Inspector’s report on the Local Plan concluded that the development of the site may have an unacceptable impact on the residential amenity of the houses on the opposite side of the road. Given the sloping nature of the site the Inspector considered the privacy of the existing houses could be safeguarded through the orientation of any future housing. He was not convinced that any future buildings would not have a dominating impact on the existing properties. Doubt also remained as to whether a satisfactory means of access could be achieved. The Inspector consequently recommended that the allocation be deleted, which was accepted as part of the modifications to the Local Plan. The site is not allocated within the adopted Allerdale Local Plan. The application seeks outline consent for a 0.19ha area of land along the highway frontage onto Station Road. The application provides details of access to be considered as part of the application proposing a single vehicular access (two car width) to the site near the southern corner including visibility splays of 2.4m x 81m to the north east and 2.4m x 90m to the south west. In a supporting statement the applicant advises the access details have been designed to accommodate a maximum of five dwellings, and reflects the housing density ratio of 30 dwellinghouses per hectare. At this density no adoptable highway is required as it will be a private driveway. No separate pedestrian access through the existing wall will be provided to deter any on- street parking. The supporting letter advises that although the site is greenfield, it is sustainable due to its close proximity to the town centre and its associated services. The applicant states the town’s other approved greenfield sites are nearing or under construction. The only other alternative brownfield site known to the developer is a showroom/repair garage site further down Station Road which is constrained due to its poor access. In a further supporting statement, the applicant advises the site is within the settlement limits and complies with the local plan and interim housing policies. In reference to highway safety the site is within a 30mph speed limit, adopts a single vehicular/pedestrian access onto the highway, provides a 2.4m x 90m splay for the nearside traffic going up Station Road and 86m splay. This may be increased if measured to the centre line of the major highway (providing a further 9-10 metres) as its higher levels provide the ability to see over any traffic on the nearside carriageway. Cumbria Highways have no objection subject to conditions. In reference to residents amenity the applicants contest the levels would not likely result in overlooking, with a 22/23 between the proposed and existing dwellinghouses, are only slightly above the level of the footpath, and the most elevation plot (No. 5) would overlook the Rugby Car Park. In terms of visual/landscape/townscape impact the application site is within the settlement limits and has not been designated as a green wedge under Policy 38, the proposal would balance the street scene, and the buildings would by virtue of their levels blend in with the topography of the site. The statement concludes the proposal complies with local plan housing policies and there are no Highway Authority objections to the scheme. They consider the scheme would not result in any overlooking or have an overbearing impact and would enhance and strengthen the character of the streetscene.

Officers consider the site is within the limits and accept there are little alternative brownfield sites available within the town. Crucial to the merits of this proposal is whether it addresses and overcomes the previous constraints identified in the Inspector’s report which resulted in its de-allocation. The Inspector referred to the impact of the development on the ‘green wedge’ of the surrounding land but considered little weight could be attached to it as the site would be viewed with the background of houses located on a higher level when approached from the south. As a consequence this ground was not one which resulted in the de-allocation of the site. One fundamental difference is the significantly smaller scale of the site. It is only frontage development. Although the frontage development is sited within the green wedge, the majority of the field at the rear of the site would be retained resulting in the elevated more prominent sections of the site remaining a field. It is considered the character of the green wedge would not be significantly eroded. The land at the rear of the site does rise steeply within the remaining field. The lower sections of the site are similar in level to the adjoining highway, but the north-easterly section of land rises above the level of the road. In order to address these details the applicant has submitted revised plans outlining the siting of the five units, and specifying which of the higher level units would be restricted to single storey dwellinghouses. In addition to the layout plans the amendments also show cross sections along the highway frontages to demonstrate the proposed floor levels (which involve excavating into the slope to lower their finished height) and their relationship to existing dwellinghouses. Although the profile of these dwelling units are hypothetical (ie not part of the current application) officers are satisfied that the submitted level details are sympathetic to the contours at the site and would not result in any overbearing impact on the opposite dwellinghouses. (Any future application for additional development would be assessed on its individual planning merits.) On the second issue of access, the Highway Authority raises no objections to the proposed access. Any additional dwellinghouse would require an adoptable standard of estate road. The existing footpath fronting the site extends from the B-road to the town centre. The submitted highway details are satisfactory and would not act as a precedent for additional housing development. On balance officers consider the current scheme, subject to the receipt of satisfactory amendments is acceptable.

Recommendation: APPROVED Conditions/Reasons

1. Approval of the details of the siting, design and external appearance of the building[s], the means of access thereto and the landscaping of the site (hereinafter called "the reserved matters") shall be obtained from the Local Planning Authority in writing before any development is commenced. Reason - To enable the Local Planning Authority to assess all the details of the development.

2. Plans and particulars of the reserved matters referred to in condition 1 above, relating to the siting, design and external appearance of any buildings to be erected, the means of access to the site and the landscaping of the site, shall be submitted in writing to the Local Planning Authority and shall be carried out as approved. Reason - To enable the Local Planning Authority to assess all the details of the development. 3. Application for approval of the reserved matters shall be made to the Local Planning Authority before the expiration of THREE years from the date of this permission. Reason - In order to comply with Section 92 (2) of the 1990 Town & Country Planning Act. 4. The development hereby permitted shall be begun either before the expiration of FIVE years from the date of this permission, or before the expiration of TWO years from the date of approval of the last of the reserved matters to be approved, whichever is the later. Reason - In order to comply with Section 92 (2) of the 1990 Town & Country Planning Act. 5. The dwellinghouse hereby approved shall be solely implemented in accordance with the level details outlined on the approved amended plan dated 17 November 2004. The detailed plans required by condition 1 above shall indicate the precise position of adjacent properties and shall include sections through the site to indicate the levels and height of the development in relation to surrounding properties and/or the locality in general. Reason - So that the impact of the proposed development can be fully assessed in relation to both the site itself and nearby property. 6. The development shall not be brought into use until visibility splays providing clear visibility delineated by straight lines extending from the extremities of the site frontage with the highway in a northerly direction to a point 2.4m along the centre line of the access drive measured from the edge of the adjacent highway has been provided. Notwithstanding the provisions of the Town & Country Planning (General Permitted Development) Order 1995 (or any Order revoking and re-enacting that Order) relating to permitted development, no structure, vehicle or object of any kind shall be erected, parked or placed, and no trees, bushes or other plants shall be planted or be permitted to grow within the visibility splay which exceeds a height of 1 metre above the level of the adjacent highway and which obstruct the visibility splays. Reason - In the interest of highway safety. 7. The carriageway, footways and footpaths shall be designed, constructed, drained and lit to the satisfaction of the Local Planning Authority and in this respect further details, including longitudinal/cross-sections, shall be submitted to the Local Planning Authority for approval before any work commences on site. No work shall be commenced until a full specification has been approved. These details shall be in accordance with the standards laid down in the current Cumbria Design Guide. Any works so approved shall be constructed before the development is completed. Reason - To ensure a minimum standard of construction in the interests of highway safety. 8. The gradient of the access drive shall be no steeper than 1:20 for a distance not less than 5m as measured from the carriageway edge of the adjacent highway. Reason - In the interests of highway safety. 9. Before the development is brought into use the existing field access to the highway and the footway crossing shall be permanently closed and the highway crossing and boundary shall be reinstated in accordance with details that have been submitted to, and approved by, the Local Planning Authority. Reason - In the interests of highway safety. 10. The existing wall fronting the site shall not be lowered below 1m in height and no means of pedestrian or vehicular access shall be provided from the application onto the B5301 other than the single approved vehicular access outlined on the approved plan dated 7 October 2004. Reason - To minimise the potential of on-street parking in the interests of highway safety. ______