Allerdale Borough Council

Planning Application 2/2016/0751

Proposed Erection of up to 64 dwellings including landscaping, open space, Development: access, highways and drainage Location: Land North of Broughton Park Great Broughton Cockermouth Applicant: Mr Adam McNally Story Homes

A full list of plans is attached at Annex 2.

Recommendation: Approve, subject to the attached conditions and the signing of a s106 agreement to secure the following:

 Upgrade to Winder Lonning footpath link to an adoptable standard of surface, with lighting details to be secured by condition.  A commuted sum towards existing off site play equipment at Kirklea of £17,454 to cover the SPD contribution of £12,454 and £5000 for future maintenance.  An education commuted sum £223,791 for a new classroom at Broughton Academy (infant and juniors), and £71,250 for secondary school transport.  25% provision of affordable housing, 11 units for social rent and 5 units for discounted sale.

Should the s106 agreement not be satisfactorily completed in a timely manner, then it is requested that the powers to refuse the proposal be delegated to the Head of Service, on the basis that those measures necessary to make the development acceptable in policy terms have not been secured through the necessary legal agreement.(This is to be applied to all future s106 agreement planning decisions)

Summary/Key Issues

Issue Conclusion

Principle Notwithstanding the fact that the site lies outside of the saved settlement limit for Broughton officers consider the principle of residential development at this location to be acceptable. The site lies directly adjacent to the saved settlement limit and therefore, can be considered both well related and sustainable. The scale of development proposed is not considered to be disproportionate to the size of the settlement nor its role as a Local Service Centre.

The council can demonstrate a 5-year supply of housing and therefore the policies for supply of housing contained within the adopted Local Plan are to be considered up-to-date. In accounting for the number of existing housing approvals in Broughton (Great and Little Broughton), the proposed development would result in the draft housing supply target for Broughton being exceeded by 9 units. This is not considered to be a significant overprovision, sufficient to compromise the overall strategy for growth within the settlement hierarchy in adopted ALPP1. Highways The concerns of local residents and the Parish are noted and Implications understood in relation to impacts on the surrounding road network which is often substandard. However, the advice of the Highways Authority is that with the inclusion of the Winder Lonning footpath link (providing an alternative to Craggs Road/Harris Brow) and with the junction improvements at Little Brow, the impacts of the proposal on the highway network would not be severe, which is the test outlined at paragraph 32 of the NPPF. Based on this advice from the Highways Authority and Highways England, the impacts of the proposal on the local highway network are not considered to be so severe to warrant refusal of the application.

With regards to additional traffic movements along Main Street, the accident record has been considered and the Highways Authority has advised that the narrowness on the streets helps traffic calming and whilst there is congestion at peak times, the statistics suggest it remains safe. As such, any additional impacts on existing congestion through Main Street of Great Broughton are not considered to be so severe as to warrant refusal of the application. Parking The Highways Authority is satisfied that the level of parking provision proposed meets current standards. Sustainability/ A pedestrian link is proposed to be provided from the site to Permeability Winder Lonning on the northern boundary (to the western end) which would provide a pedestrian access to Little Broughton at the top of Meeting House Lane. This link would be approx 260m in length from the edge of the site. From this point, a bus stop is in close proximity and it is understood that the bus service provides for Service 68B Workington to Cockermouth (4 services Mon – Fri, 3 services on Sat, no service on Sunday). The bus stop is also served by school bus 47. Also within close proximity is the village hall, public house and Kirklea play area.

From this footpath, Broughton Academy would be an additional 600m along the existing footpath running to the rear of Kirklea play area. The facilities and services available in Great Broughton (bakery post office public houses etc.) would be a further 420m minimum from the end of Winder Lonning. Those facilities in Little Broughton would be closer. National Route 71 of the National Cycle Network passes along Papcastle Road, Harris Brow and Main Street and within 400m of the proposed site access. National Route 71 makes up the western third of the Coast to Coast route.

Given the proximity to the local bus stop, the proximity to national cycle routes and the proposed footpath upgrade proposed, it is considered that the site is accessible by modes of transport other than the car. It is considered that the proposal is sufficiently well related and connected to the facilities and amenities of Broughton (Great and Little Broughton), in accordance with policy S22 of the ALPP1. Landscape and From wider range viewpoints to the south, north and east, it is not Visual Impacts considered that the proposal would have an unacceptable impact on the wider landscape or rural character and Officers concur with the findings of the LVIA in this regard. From closer range viewpoints however, particularly from the north and west when leaving the village by the network of footpaths within this locality, the proposal will be much more apparent and will result in a much greater change to the rural character and visual amenities of the locality.

Overall, the relatively dense and suburban form of the estate will change the character of this area locally from a rural and open setting to an urban one, within an area where there is a general sense that the built up village form has already dissipated to a more rural setting with some low density development, when viewed from the immediate north and west. The proposal raises some concerns with Officers, when considering the village setting and rural character of the immediate locality, particularly when viewed from the network of footpaths to the north.

However, it is acknowledged that the proposal will incorporate a significant level of tree planting along the northern and eastern boundaries of the site, along with additional hedge planting where gaps exist, and the retention of the band of mature trees to the western boundary. Whilst this planting cannot mitigate all adverse landscape and visual effects of the proposal, over time, this planting would soften the built form of the development within the landscape and as viewed by nearby receptors. Design/ Whilst the degree to which the proposal responds to the character, Appearance history and distinctiveness of the area has been questioned, given that it will largely be seen as an extension of the existing housing estate at Broughton Park, then it is considered that the proposal has had sufficient regard to its context and policies S4 and DM14. Further, it is noted that relatively large modern housing estates of uniform design are common to the villages of Great and Little Broughton, e.g. Church Meadows and Kirklea. Residential Subsequent to the change in levels and house types, and the Amenity removal of retaining walls along the southern boundary, whilst the the outlook for existing residents on Broughton Park will change, it is considered that the resulting impact would not be significantly harmful in terms of overlooking, overshadowing, over-dominance or loss of privacy. The proposal is considered to be acceptable in accordance with policies S32 of the ALPP1. Affordable Level of provision and type/tenure split acceptable in relation to Housing Policy S8. Officers consider that a greater level of dispersal could have been achieved with smaller clusters, but the proposed affordable housing units will share a similar design and materials to open market housing throughout the development. As such, this will assist in the affordable housing provision being less distinguishable from the open market housing and as such, this aspect of policy S8 is considered to be adequately addressed. Flood Risk and On the advice of the Local Lead Flood Authority, the drainage Drainage details for the proposal, which include attenuation, are considered acceptable. Archaeology On the advice of the County Archaeologist and Heritage England, the heritage implications of the proposal are considered to be acceptable. Ecology An appropriate level of survey work and corresponding mitigation measures have been put forward to conclude that the proposal is unlikely to result in significant effects on ecological interests. Education A commuted sum proposed for education of £223,791 for a new classroom at Broughton Academy (infant and juniors), and £71,250 for secondary school transport would meet the requirements specified by the County Council. Benefits of the The provision of 64 additional dwellings at Broughton (Great and Proposal Little Broughton villages) would provide for additional housing at a scale that the draft Allerdale local Plan part 2 (ALPP2) considers reasonable for this Local Service Centre and would contribute particularly to one of the key objectives of the NPPF to boost significantly the supply of housing in order to contribute to the economic and particularly the social dimension of sustainable development. Similarly, the proposal would contribute to strategic objective SO2c of the ALPP2, which seeks to ensure a deliverable supply of housing land that meets the needs of the community and local economy.

The proposal would provide for 16 additional affordable houses for social rent and discounted sale, increasing access to affordable housing, in accordance with strategic objective SO2d of the ALPP1 and the Council Plans priority of tackling inequality through the provision of more affordable housing.

The proposed education contribution would allow for the construction of an additional classroom at the adjacent Broughton Academy.

The proposed contribution to upgrade existing play provision at Kirklea would benefit the community as a whole.

Proposal

The proposal seeks detailed planning permission for the erection of 64 dwellings, including landscaping, open space, access, highways and drainage.

The proposal would be accessed from an existing cul de sac within Broughton Park, a 1970’s housing estate directly to the south. This would form the single vehicular access point to the development, although a second pedestrian access point is proposed to the north west of the site adjoining Winder Lonning. The proposal includes a looped road layout, with a number of smaller spurs. Given the sloping nature of the site, the proposal would include earthworks, regrading and retaining walls in part to address this.

The proposed housing consists of:

Size: 6 x 2 bed terraced houses 22 x 3 bed houses (3 detached, 16 semi-detached and 3 terraced) (includes two bungalows) 32 x 4 bed houses (detached) 4 x 5 bed houses (detached)

Tenure: 48 open market houses, mix of 3, 4 and 5 bedrooms. 11 social rented houses (at no more than 80% open market rental value), 6 x 2 bedroom houses and 5 x 3 bedroom houses 5 Intermediate houses (at no more than 80% open market value), all 3 bedroom units, (one of which would be a bungalow).

The density of the development based on the gross site area would be approx. 21 dwellings per hectare.

Two areas of open space are proposed within the site, one located to the north eastern section of the site and one adjacent to the site entrance off Broughton Park.

Materials proposed are a combination of stone, two lighter buff bricks and render to external elevations and natural slate to the roof of more prominently positioned units, with grey tiles to others. A total of 172 parking spaces are proposed, which are provided through a combination of in curtilage spaces, parking courts, parking bays and on street. Only one space is counted for double garages, single garages are not included as a parking space.

The details of the application include the following:

 Upgrade to Winder Lonning footpath link to Cumbria County Council specification, with lighting, details of lighting to be provided by condition if proposal is approved)  A commuted sum towards existing off site play equipment at Kirklea of £17,454 to cover the SPD contribution of £12,454 and £5000 for future maintenance.  A commuted sum of £6600 for Travel Plan monitoring.  A commuted sum proposed for education of £223,791 for new classroom at Broughton Academy (infant and juniors), and £71,250 for secondary school transport.  25% provision of affordable housing, 11 units for social rent and 5 units for discounted sale.

Proposals would involve the re-alignment of the existing 11,000volt overhead and underground electricity apparatus, to follow the estate road, including new substation.

The proposal involves a connection from the south west corner of the site to the existing public sewer and the laying of a new surface water sewer within the access road of the Broughton Park estate, down to an existing culvert at Harris Brow, connecting ultimately to the river Derwent.

Amendments

Amended plans/supporting information has been provided during the consideration of the application, summarised as:

 layout changes including plot re-positioning and parking revisions at the north west corner of the site  Removal of red brick and increased use of render, lighter coloured bricks and stone  Various changes have been made to house type fenestration details  Revised ground levels to plots adjoining the southern boundary of the site - the revised levels have precluded the need for a boundary retaining wall at the existing Broughton Park boundary  Finished Floor Levels have been reduced - plot 1 has been reduced by 1.2m, plot 10 reduced by 0.9, plot 11 reduced by 0.85 and plot 13 reduced by 0.7m  Photomontages of the latest proposals at 0 years, 10 years and 20 years winter scenario from 8 x agreed key locations  New details in respect to Engineering Improvement plans, Executive Drainage Summary and Construction Environmental Management Plan in attempt to demonstrate suitable mitigation against reasonable foreseen consequences impacting upon River Derwent SSSI/SAC  Amended Boundary Treatments and Furniture Plan - incorporates 1.2m post and rail fence at the more sensitive and rurally exposed north and east boundaries. (where applicable set behind existing hedgerow) and new strategic landscaping  revised Ecological Assessment which demonstrates mitigation measures against impacts upon red squirrels  Transport Statement Addendum dated January 2017, re-alignment of the lines at the junction of the Papcastle Road, Little Brow and Harris Brow junction  Revised house types at plots 1 and 11 and 15.

Site

The application site relates to a single grazing field. It extends to approx 3 ha. Land levels across the site slope significantly from the north east down to the south west (approx. 61 – 77m AOD). The site holds an elevated hillside position along the Derwent valley. The eastern boundary of the site is formed by a wire fence and borders further grazing land. To the north, the boundary is a hedgerow adjoining part of bridleway 218020 and a footpath (Winder Lonning) that connects this bridleway to public footpath 218013, which runs along the western boundary along with a band of mature trees. Land to the north consists partly of housing and partly open land. The southern boundary consists of a range of fencing to the rear of the dwellings on Broughton Park estate.

Access to the field is currently gained from a spur off the adjacent housing estate at Broughton Park. This estate contains a mix of single and two storey rendered housing of a relatively consistent design off an estate road from Craggs Road.

The site lies to the east of Great Broughton and Little Broughton and to the north of the Broughton Park estate. This existing estate is somewhat detached from the main villages of Great and Little Broughton, the estate entrance is approx. 400m from the start of Main Street in Great Broughton. The adjacent villages combined offer a range of services including post office, bakery, primary school, pubs and places of worship. These villages provide a mix of traditional housing and estates constructed during the latter part of the 20th century, such as Kirklea, Moorfield Bank, Church Meadows, often of a non-traditional and unsympathetic design to the traditional historic parts of the village.

Relevant Policies

National Planning Policy Framework (March 2012)

Chapter 4: Promoting sustainable transport Chapter 6: Delivering a wide choice of high quality homes Chapter 7: Requiring good design Chapter 8: Promoting healthy communities Chapter 10: Meeting the challenge of climate change, flooding and coastal change Chapter 11: Conserving and enhancing the natural environment Chapter 12: Conserving and enhancing the historic environment

Allerdale Local Plan (Part 1) Adopted July 2014

Policy S1 - Presumption in favour of sustainable development Policy S2 – Sustainable development principles Policy S3 – Spatial Strategy and Growth Policy S4 - Design principles Policy S5 - Development principles Policy S6 – Area Based Policy S7 – A Mixed and Balanced Housing Market Policy S8 – Affordable housing Policy S10 –Elderly needs housing Policy S21 – Developer Contributions Policy S22 - Transport principles Policy S25 – Sports, leisure and open space Policy S27 - Heritage Assets Policy S29 – Flood Risk and Surface Water Drainage Policy S30 – Reuse of Land Policy S32 - Safeguarding amenity Policy S33 – Landscape Policy S35 - Protecting and enhancing biodiversity and geodiversity Policy S36 - Air, water and soil quality Policy DM12 – Sustainable construction Policy DM14 – Standard of Good Design Policy DM16 – Sequential Test for Previously Developed Land Policy DM17 - Trees, hedgerows and woodland

Relevant Planning History

None relevant

Representations

Representations received from consultees are summarised as follows:

Broughton Parish Council – Objection: 1) Highways, Access & Egress Issues - There are no appropriate routes for the additional 130-180 cars that would be associated with this estate. Access to the A594 via Priests Bridge is a very dangerous junction, and additional traffic driving via Little Broughton Main Street to the A594 is a road safety risk due to the lack of pavements. There are serious concerns regarding any additional traffic accessing the village from the A66 over Broughton Bridge. Any additional pressure on this junction will only further exacerbate the problems and accident risks. 2) Pavements- There is no viable safe pedestrian access from this proposed site to the village services e.g. shop/post-office etc. Significant improvements would be required along Craggs Road & Harris Brow. 3) The site proposed is outside of the current settlement boundary as part of the Local Development Plan. 4) Broughton Parish Council has serious concerns regarding the impact of this development on Broughton Academy which is already running close to capacity. Serious investment would need to be provided as part of a S.106 agreement to the school for expansion to enable the extra capacity to be accommodated. The premise of a development of houses reliant on transporting children to school out of the area is not acceptable. 5) Sewage & Surface Water Run-off. The sewage system is already known to be at full capacity in this location, and no proposals have been identified for a new mains sewer/upgrade of the mains sewer system. In addition the increase of tarmac in this area would only expedite the surface drainage issues in this area that are regularly reported to the Better Highways Team (lack of drainage on Cragg’s Road). 6) The mix of houses proposed as part of this development doesn’t satisfy local needs as per the most recent local needs housing survey. 7) The proposed development alters the balance of housing in the village towards larger ‘executive’ style houses, which are prohibitively expensive for local residents, resulting in likely further outward migration of local young people. This development appears to be a profit led development rather than a local needs one. 8) The same developer already has outline permission elsewhere within Broughton Parish that is not active. This pre-existing permission should be fulfilled and completed before any new developments are started. This proposed new development would exceed the current development requirement for Broughton Parish and is seen as an over-domination of large scale new development by local residents. In addition smaller brownfield/infill sites should be considered before development on greenfield/agricultural sites are considered. 9) This proposed site boundary is encroaching on a local historical site and concern is raised over the probably detrimental impacts this would have on the Quaker Graveyard. 10) This proposed development would have a significant negative visual amenity impact on neighbouring parishes and adversely affect the character of these settlements north of the Derwent.

A further response is provided stating that the archaeological survey of the site has missed the standing stone and that a more appropriate survey should be sought to address this. The Council confirm that they are submitting an application to register this feature to Historic England. Advice is also sought as to whether the appropriate species surveys have been undertaken.

Bridekirk Parish Council – Objection, the proposal would result in the joining up of Great and Little Broughton. There is not the infrastructure to support it. Deemed without justification.

Papcastle Parish Council - 1. The development of 64 dwellings would impact significantly on the roads and visibility of the junctions of Little Brow and Harris Brow, Craggs Road and Harris Brow and Crags Road and Dearham Road. There are already egress problems on all departure routes from the village. 2. The development would change the character of the village by conjoining Great and Little Broughton. At present they are two distinct and separate villages with separate Identities. 3. The visual impact of the development 4. The impact on the existing school - the development would bring pressure on school numbers and the capacity of Broughton school site and the impact on the pupil numbers at Cockermouth Secondary School. 5. The site in question is outside the Local Development Plan.

Brigham Parish Council – Objection  Proposal is adding further housing to the east of Allerdale rather than in the west which would be more sustainable. The Inspector for the Local Plan noted that the dispersal of development around the Borough was unfortunately weighted recently on eastern settlements.  Precedent to refuse this on prematurity grounds following appeal at School Brow, Brigham.  Reduces the identity of Great and Little Broughton.  Loss of good agricultural land.  64 houses is out of character and too large.  Development should be small scale and on brownfield land which remains in the Borough.  Plans have been altered since community consultation.  Doubt that infrastructure will support the proposal. Missing play area and no obvious proposal to support the school.  Labyrinthine design and road connectivity leaves us cold. Road network is simply a bad place to add more traffic.  The design of the estate is poor, a very long cul de sac unconnected with the settlement it is supposed to be part of. Refer to appeal at Ellerbeck, Brigham, where one highway entrance was considered to be unacceptable.

A further response states that the same developer has outline permission elsewhere within Broughton parish and the Council would like to see this brought forward properly first.

A further response states refers to an appeal decision at Brigham - The view at Ellerbeck, on a 30 mph road, was that 49 m had to be achieved (and we disputed that given the slope should make the requirement greater) and yet at Great Broughton you’re asking for only 30 m. That seems very short considering what’s written in MfS and MfS2 and needs checking. The people of Great and Little Broughton must not have a poor-quality junction pushed on them – better to find somewhere else to build – it’s about safe-walking and cycling as well as driving.

Environmental Health –No objections to the Geo-environmental Appraisal subject to conditions for Materials Management Plan and Construction Management Plan.

The second response states that the submitted Construction management Plan is acceptable with the exception that working hours should commence at 8:00am and not 7:30am.

Highways England – no objection.

County Council: CCC Highways Confirm that the additional information relating to trip generation, distribution and the assumptions on the capacity of the existing local road network is accepted. The proposed changes to the Little Brow/Harris Brow/Papcastle Road junction are welcomed. This junction should be improved prior to construction starting on site to assist with the visibility of construction vehicles. Applicant has provided plan showing accident locations in Broughton over the past 15 years. In light of this, it would be impossible for us to recommend refusal due to the increased use of the current substandard junctions. Therefore, confirm that there is no severe impact from this application onto the local highway network. This being dependant on the mitigation/improvement measures proposed by the applicant. (Footway link and junction improvements as mentioned above). In light of the aforementioned comments, we have no objections to this application.

A second response on the amended plans was received. The details of the Environmental Construction Management Plan are welcomed. They also withdraw their former requirement of a £6600 contribution associated with the travel plan as it is below their threshold for this scale of development

CCC Drainage - It is comforting that the surface water system proposed is completely separate to the system in place serving Broughton Park, this should allay the fears of neighbouring residents who alluded to the current system serving them being at capacity. The attenuation, storage and discharge measures are acceptable to this authority and will ensure that any flood risk downstream is not exacerbated. It is however disappointing that there are minimal sustainable drainage measures being proposed, the adequacy of which is for the planning authority to consider.

Conditions recommended for the construction of carriageways and footways, junction improvements to Little Brow/Harris Brow/Papcastle Road junction and the footpath link on the north western corner, access and parking provision for construction traffic, maintenance of the drainage system ongoing.

CCC Education – Broughton Academy cannot accommodate the estimated yield of 16 pupils from the development. Only space for 5 of the 16 required. St. Bridget’s and Bridekirk have insufficient spaces. For this development to be sustainable, a further classroom at the school is required at a cost of £223,791.00. County Council does not have the capacity to deliver this and requests the developer enables delivery. Subject to this provision, this school is within walking distance with no route safety issues recorded and therefore no school transport contribution would be required.

Cockermouth School has insufficient space to accommodate the pupil yield of 11 spaces. Using the DfE multiplier, an education contribution of £200,068 would be required. However, priority for CCC is the primary age provision. Whilst there is a need for secondary provision, CCC is willing to be flexible in relation to the requested sum, to ensure the primary provision is delivered. It is anticipated that there will be sufficient places at Netherhall School which is over the 3 mile statutory walking distance from the development. A transport contribution of £71,250 would be required.

We would require that the applicant enters into a suitable legal agreement to secure the education funding.

CCC Archaeology Archaeological geophysical survey and a rapid desk-based assessment of the site indicate that there is a low likelihood of significant archaeological assets being disturbed by the construction of the proposed development. Note presence of a large prominent stone on the site and that it has been suggested it may be of archaeological interest. We lack any evidence to support the view that this stone is of archaeological interest. It would normally be expected that such a conspicuous stone of archaeological interest would be referred to in historical documents and shown on historic maps, but it is not mentioned in readily available documents and it is not shown on historic maps. Occasionally, new archaeological features come to light, or existing features are re-assessed to have greater archaeological interest, but the low occurrence of prehistoric remains and finds in the Broughton area does not lend support to the stone having a prehistoric origin.

Heritage England The first response of Heritage England was that consultation was not necessary as it did not fall under the relevant statutory provisions. The second response of Heritage England was that they are not aware of being approached by any local group regarding possible new designations at the site. Consequently, as there is no nationally designated historic asset at the proposed development site our first response stands.

ABC Housing Services First response: 2016 Housing Study shows that the need for affordable housing in Broughton and its adjoining Parishes is mostly for three bed properties followed by one bed properties. CBL data shows 9 bids per property for 2 bed properties, 7 bids for 2 bed bungalows and 3 bed houses, with 2 bed flats receiving 5 bids and one bed flats receiving 2 bids.

The discounted sale provision meets the need evidenced by the 2016 housing study (42% of the need is for 3 bed properties), and two bed houses received the highest average number of bids on Cumbria Choice.

However, three bed houses received the same average number of bids on Cumbria Choice as two bed bungalows. Given that there are more three bed houses available to rent from a RP in Broughton than two bed bungalows and in light of the evidence of an ageing population, it may be appropriate to seek some provision of bungalows.

Second Response: In view of the viability of the site being affected by the provision of additional affordable bungalows, Housing services confirm that the provision of affordable units specified is acceptable.

United Utilities – No objections subject to conditions requiring surface water drainage to be taken to a watercourse in accordance with the principles set out within the supporting drainage documents and plans and unless otherwise agreed by the LPA, no surface water shall be allowed to discharge to the public sewer an, plus management and maintenance of drainage systems.

Natural England First response: Requests additional information to rule out any significant effects on the River Derwent SAC/SSSI, which lies approx. 360m from the proposal. The additional information relates to surface water drainage, construction management and pollution prevention measures to the tributary of the River Derwent.

Second Response: Natural England confirm that the additional Drainage Strategy dated March 2017 and the submitted CEMP address all their previous concerns relating to possible impacts on the river Derwent SAC and they have no further comments.

Police Liaison Officer – Generally, the layout follows the requirements of policy DM14. Some recommendations re; landscaping and physical measures for protecting dwellings.

Electricity North West – The proposal has the potential to impact on electricity assets/operational land. Advisory notes provided, along with full costs for diversion to be borne by the developer.

Environment Agency – No consultation necessary.

Public Rights of Way – Public footpath 218013 runs to the western boundary of the site and bridleway 218020 runs adjacent to the north eastern boundary. These rights of way shall not be obstructed or altered before or after the development has been completed.

The application has been publicised by press advert, site notice and neighbour letter.

A letter has been received from Broughton Academy, which is summarised as follows:

Broughton Academy – 10 spaces at present, although these are not evenly distributed over the school years. Schools nominal role has increased significantly in 2013/14 as a result of Persimmons Church Meadows (54 dwellings that has actually generated 24 new pupils for the school). View is that the Story proposal will generate a greater number of pupils than the CCC generated figure of 16. Other developments generating demand. Before School and After School clubs may be stretched beyond capacity by an influx of new families. No option, other than to physically increase capacity through a new building. No capital funding. Should a new classroom be developable from a contribution from the developer, then the funding should be made available up front, given timescales for appointing architects, getting approval, tendering and finally building. Concern remains relating to poor provision for safe walking routes, inevitably lead to increased vehicles attempting to enter school grounds or parking on the very constricted roads close to the school (not a problem with the Church Meadows development given its proximity to the school.

A second letter has re-iterated these points.

71 letters of objection have been received for the proposal (up to 24th Feb 2016). The grounds of objection are summarised as follows:

Principle of the development

 Should be a strong presumption against development outside of the settlement limit.  If there is to be further expansion to the east of this site, then all impacts of the development would need to be re-considered.  Derwent Forest – a brownfield site should be built on, rather than agricultural land.  Proposal is outside the settlement limit and on greenfield land.  Illogical to build on greenbelt land  Story Homes have permission at Derwent Forest for eco housing but none yet built. Why destroy a greenfield site when brownfield sites remain vacant?  Previous sites in the locality were discarded in the SHLAA due to landscape impact and increases in traffic on same routes.  Housing need met at Church Meadows extension.  Site should not be put forward in advance of site allocation by the Council.  Are an additional 64 houses needed, especially for larger units? Shortage is for starter homes.

Visual/ Landscape impact

 Very large development, totally inappropriate and out of scale to the village  The proposal, by virtue of its site, layout, design, scale of development is not sympathetic to the built form, layout and village character and distinctiveness of Great and Little Broughton, contrary to policies S2, S3, S4 and S33.  The proposal is outside the settlement boundary and in a field with high visual impact.  Cramming in of 64 houses does not relate well to the existing layout of Broughton Park’s 29 houses. Land area is small in comparison.  Development on crest of hill will have much greater visual impact.  Entrance to the site should be more sensitive to existing development in Broughton Park. Existing housing adjacent to the new entrance are bungalows. New housing adjacent to the entrance will have ground floor levels equivalent in height to the rooves of existing housing, dominating the street scene and highly visible from the surrounding area. Will allow overlooking to Hillrigg from their patios. These houses should be replaced with bungalows.  Very significant impact on skyline.  Appeal decisions such as at Papcastle show that the distinctiveness of villages and landscapes should be preserved and enhanced. The proposal will result in the adverse coalescence of Great and Little Broughton, two separate and historically distinct villages.

Highways

 The roads into the village are small and narrow and were never designed to take the volume of traffic from Great and Little Broughton. This should be a limiting factor on future development.  Inadequate visibility at junctions of Little Brow, Papcastle Road, Harris Brow even with suggested improvement.  Trips to shops, post office not factored in.  Lack of public transport and safe walking routes  Transport Statement is inadequate.  Assumptions used within the Transport Statement as to direction of travel at junctions is not credible.  Road junctions are dangerous, there are virtually no visibility splays at the junctions leading to workplaces and amenities, bottom of Little Brow in particular where the National Speed Limit applies and stopping distances exceed the visibility splay, particularly in winter. Rural junctions serving fields designed for small amounts of traffic. Harris Brow junction, due to steepness and acute angle makes visibility impossible.  Pedestrians are not going to walk up hill to take a longer and different route.  The nearest bus stop is actually on the busy and dangerous hairpin bend at the bottom of Harris Brow at the field entrance. Cockermouth School children are picked up/dropped off here on a hairpin bend, the proposal would make this even more dangerous as there are no footpaths. Council should take steps to ensure the safety of schoolchildren or oppose building on the site.  Concerns relating to construction traffic using the inadequate roads, blind bends and narrow bridge.  Hazard of junction made worse by crossing of C2C cycle route.  A footpath link to the north west will not improve pedestrian facilities to the south – bus service, school bus and facilities in Great Broughton.  Cycle times to railway stations are for dedicated cyclists, not the average person. Similarly, walking times are not likely to apply to small children. Misleading to say that Great Broughton is well connected. Very difficult to live here without a car.  Insufficient parking provision in the scheme.  Transport Statement relies on comparison of traffic flows from Broughton Park residents, but two thirds of the estate are retired and will not compare to trips generated from family housing.  24 car journeys in the AM peak is not credible. 40-50 journeys is much more likely based on 64 houses, 2 cars, 2 jobs, school runs etc.  A Transport Assessment should have been provided on the basis that this is an extension to an existing estate exceeding 80 units. Otherwise, incremental development avoids proper scrutiny.  Harris Brow is narrow, high banked sides, a blind bend and is unlit with the 30mph limit terminating before Little Brow.  A major improvement to the access roads to Broughton villages is long overdue. As a minimum, the 30mph limit should be extended, across to the A66, the section of Craggs Road between Harris Brow and Meeting House Lane should be made one way west to east, Intersection of Papcastle Road and Little Brow should be re- aligned to enable drivers to emerge safely from Little Brow – a roundabout may be the best solution.  Increased use of the lonning by pedestrians would conflict with vehicles who use this to access housing (ten properties).  The shortest pedestrian route from Broughton Park to Main Street, Great Broughton is via Craggs Rd and Harris Brow, the safer but longer route is via Meeting House Lane. Craggs Rd (between Meeting House Lane and Harris Brow) is narrow and has a blind bend. There is no footpath, it is unlit and there is a spring on the northern side. Verge can be muddy and rutted in winter. Prone to flooding from blockage of drains.  Security concerns arising from increased pedestrian use on the lonning.  Collision risk on the access roads will be significantly increased because the proposal is likely to be occupied by families rather than retired people.  References appeal at Brigham where one access and poor connectivity to the village was part of reason for dismissing an appeal at Ellerbeck Brow. This scheme would have only a single vehicular access and a much longer walk to school.

Schools/village services

 The number of children from the Church Meadows development was double that modelled by Cumbria County Council.  Cockermouth School is at capacity and Story Homes are making no provision for investment in the school. Re-schooling children at Maryport/Workington will greatly increase travel times.  Proposal will add congestion to an already overburdened and congested village centre at school times. Parents will need to drive children to the school through the centre of the village. Existing residents wear high visibility jackets when walking to the village.  The 16 modelled children will result in an additional 4 vehicle trips per day as children are not likely to walk nearly 1 mile in poor weather. With four road crossings, it isn’t safe for unaccompanied young children and it would be a 25/30 minute return walk for parents. Teachers indicate parents drop off children on way to work. This will greatly exacerbate problems in Main Street of Great Broughton by traffic flow increase.  Lack of available primary school places and in-catchment secondary school places.  Capital money for new classrooms does not address the permanent cost of staffing extra classes.  Concerns with access to GP’s and dentists.

Ecology

 Destroys flora and fauna for no good reason.  Bat roost potential and activity surveys should have been carried out. Without this, the LPA cannot be satisfied that diverting lighting away from such features is adequate to not adversely affect their conservation status.

Drainage

 Allerdale should re-visit redevelopment of The Terraces, part of the Broughton Armaments Depot, to meet housing need not skyline sites on the Derwent Valley.  The development of the field and the asphalting of Winder Lonning would make flooding issues far worse. These lonnings are already like streams.  Localised flooding already affects routes in from the A66 and the A594.  Damp area to south west corner of site, leading to water flowing down Meeting House Lane. Lack of detailed drainage plans and how this will link to existing drainage.  The proposal would connect to culvert and ditch before joining to the river Derwent. The ditch is unmaintained and overgrown. The culvert under Broughton Bridge is frequently overtopped with water flowing across the road. Need adequate maintenance of the ditch. Dormers are proposed adjacent to Broughton Park, not bungalows. Steeper pitches will result in something much higher than a bungalow and the change in levels will result in new ground floor windows at the same level as bedroom windows on Broughton Park.  Drains within Broughton Park road are already inadequate. Drainage proposals need clarified. Sewage and drainage facilities insufficient.  The site contains natural springs, during heavy rain; water rises from under the ground and creates extra surface water.  Concerns as to suitability of upgrade to lonning and environmental impact. Impact on drainage. Who will maintain it?  Debris has to be regularly cleared from the drains in Meeting House Lane by residents.

Impact on neighbours

 Change from public consultation; houses to rear of Broughton Park were originally bungalows.  2.8m high boundary to Broughton Park (1m retaining wall and 1.8m fence) as well as the high roofline of the properties would dominate the existing properties.  Proximity of side elevation of large 4 bed property to rear of Loen, Eyrie and Talardy in Broughton Park, this property would nearly be in our gardens and completely overlook.  Housing will be much closer to Broom Knoll and Hillrigg, but no bungalows are proposed to the rear of these properties, unlike at plots 11-13.  Sales Office/parking to Plot 1 will disturb the roots of an existing Silver Birch at Hillrigg.

Other

 Insufficient evidence as to whether the proposal will impact on good agricultural land.  The layout does not allow for south facing roof on all homes, thus not allowing for the full utilisation of solar power.  Documents are inconsistent and in some cases wrong.

Further consultation was undertaken on the main set of amendments received at the end of March. Nine further letters were received up to the time of preparing this report (10th may 2017). Where new issues were raised as part of this further consultation, they are summarised as follows:

 Concern that section provided relates to property Eyrie, when in fact the property Loen is in closer proximity.  Been told that a fish eye lens used suggesting that Broughton Park road is wider than it actually is. Also been told that traffic flows monitored at non busy times.  Largest and highest house type has been positioned to the rear of properties Loen, Eyrie, and Talardy, almost in back gardens.  Inaccurate naming of properties within Broughton Park.  Query what will be in the space between stone wall and post and rail fence adjacent Broughton Craggs Hotel.  Why do plans indicate NOT TO SCALE? Surely they need to be to scale.  Reference to Tendring appeal, para 15, "In my judgement, the future occupiers of the proposed properties would be heavily reliant upon the need to travel outside of the village for almost all services and facilities, and for access to employment. I find that it is highly probable that the preferred means of travel would be by private motor car. Accordingly, I find that the appeal site cannot be said to be in a particularly sustainable location on that basis. “Bus service is similar to Broughton villages.  The houses are denser in number than the existing estate and the proposed houses are uphill, close, overbearing and overlook the existing homes next to the field on Broughton Park, contrary to policy.  Drainage to culverts that already flood.  Junctions: The proposed egress routes even with alterations suggested still lack satisfactory visibility splays to the detriment of highway safety contrary to DM14, and S32 of the Allerdale Local Plan part 1. Note: There is in effect a 60mph zone at the bottom of Little Brow where the max visibility splay is 19m when the grass has been cut. Other developments for smaller housing numbers, recently Blitterlees 2/2016/0727, for 5 houses, not 64 houses as proposed here required splays of 60m in a 30mphzone by CCC. The proposed painting on the road will not solve the visibility problem as it only increase the visibility splay to 30m and will undoubtedly endanger C2C cyclists who have right of way coming down Harris Brow.  The Draft Annual Monitoring Report for 2015/2016 demonstrates Allerdale has a 5.7 year supply of housing which includes a 20% buffer allowance…ie There is no hurry to exceed the 55 homes required in the Allerdale combined villages of “Broughton” in one lump with one large developer and immediately when the local plan life is to 2029.  Highways consultant has advised that the Transport Addendum measurement for the visibility improvement at bottom of Little Brow does not accord with Manual for Streets, not measured correctly. Therefore 30m visibility not actually achieved.  When the impact of the enormous new house behind the bungalow is combined with the height of the existing neighbouring property, Hillrigg will be completely overwhelmed.  The Comparative Offset Distances fails to take into account the height differences between the new and existing properties, and while the distances between the properties on the north and south sides of Broughton Park can be made to look similar to the proposed distances between the new development and existing properties, the properties on the south side of Broughton Park are built into the hillside unlike the properties on the north side. There is a difference between looking across a road from the front of a property to the front of another and having a large overbearing property placed behind what has previously been a private garden and conservatory.  Plots 52, 53 & 54 are directly facing Hillrigg; they and their access road are built on top of an embankment raising their floor levels to heights between 67.85m and 68.5m, levels higher than the eaves of Hillrigg 67.31m (Geoenvironmental Appraisal Appendix A), this will give them a direct line of sight into our bedroom and kitchen and a grandstand view of an area we currently consider to be part of our back garden this will create a serious loss of privacy for us. There is insufficient screening planned to offset this intrusion, especially in winter when there will be no leaves on the trees.  The planned access road, created by opening up the existing dead end is just 3 metres from our kitchen extension; this will result in a serious loss of privacy. This extension is not shown on the land registry plans though it was built in 1995.  In the absence of any field drains, the garden of plot 1 must drain into the gardens of Hillrigg and Broom Knoll. The surface water from all the gardens on the Southern and Western sides of the development will continue to run into the neighbouring properties and footpath. This will be exacerbated if the occupiers of the new properties install large areas of hard landscaping.  There do not seem to be any plans to enlarge the inadequate culvert at the bottom of Harris Brow, nor do there seem to be any permission in place to discharge the surface water into an existing beck on third party land.  The parking is still insufficient and has not been amended since the original application, in spite of the single garages no longer counting as off road parking.  If garage spaces and driveway spaces blocked by other cars are discounted, there are still only 2 parking spaces per house. Every resident who is old enough to drive will require a car in order to access local services other than the post office, therefore there will be many more than 129 cars kept on the development. As the development matures, the number of cars kept by the occupants will increase and there is the potential for up to 200 cars to be kept there. Of these, 70 will, of necessity, be parked on the road. The roads on the new development are too narrow to accommodate most of these vehicles so they will be abandoned on the existing roads. 70 parked cars will have an impact well beyond Broughton Park.  Customer parking will extend all the way down Broughton Park, creating disturbance and access problems for the existing community.  Hijacking the present highway, with plans to place a plethora of street furniture on the boundary of Hillrigg.  When and how did Story Homes obtain title to the strip of land between the adopted highway (which according to my records terminates at the end of the surfaced road) and the field boundary (which the land registry shows as the existing fence line) I cannot find that this strip of land has been registered. If there is no good title to this land, it would be highly irresponsible for this to be the only access to 64 houses. If, however, Allerdale BC or Cumbria CC have good title to this land it is to be hoped that they have not just given this land to Story Homes.

A second letter from Broughton Academy raises similar points to those initially made.

Main Issues:

Principle of the Development

(a) Geographical location

The villages of Great and Little Broughton combined are designated as a Local Service Centre within the Allerdale Local Plan Part 1 (ALPP1) and Policy S5 states that new development will be concentrated within the physical limits of Local Service Centres. The proposed development site lies outside of, but directly adjacent to, the defined settlement limit for Broughton (Great and Little Broughton) along its southern boundary, as the Broughton Park estate to the south is within the defined settlement . Notwithstanding the recent adoption of the ALPP1 and the spatial strategy contained therein, the defined limits for individual settlements continue to be derived from the Allerdale Local Plan 1999. The LPA is currently in the process of reviewing settlement limits as part of the site allocations process but this development plan document, Allerdale Local Plan Part 2, is some way from adoption.

The draft Allerdale Local Plan Part 2 identifies the site for inclusion within the revised settlement boundary for Broughton (Great and Little Broughton), on the basis that this site is also put forward in the same document as the preferred option housing allocation. The site is selected for a number of reasons, including; it would have less landscape and visual impact than alternatives put forward; no potential for significant effects for protected sites or species, no significant environmental or physical constraints identified, low flood risk, achievable access, minimise impact on Great Broughton Main Street. The alternative discarded site is Rose Farm, to the north of Little Broughton. Given that the ALPP2 has only just completed its first public consultation, these documents cannot be given any weight at this stage in the determination process.

Taking into account the age of the current defined settlement limits and also principles of sustainable development set out within the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF), officers considered that an element of flexibility must be applied when considering proposals for development that lie outside of settlement boundaries derived from the ALP 1999. Taking into account the proximity and relationship of the site to the current defined settlement, officers consider the principle of residential development to be acceptable at this location.

(b) Scale of development

As a larger village within the Borough, with a range of facilities, Broughton (Great and Little Broughton) is identified as a Local Service Centre (LSC) in the ALPP1. Policy S3 states that in combination, LSC’s will provide up to 20% of the 5,471 net additional dwellings up to 2029, equating to 1094 net additional dwellings. Policy S5 requires that the scale of new development should be commensurate to the size of the settlement and reflect its position within the hierarchy. It also requires the prioritising and effective re-use of previously developed land.

The proposal is for 64 residential units. This scale of development is considered to be appropriate to the size of the settlement and the role it has been allocated as a Local Service Centre within the adopted ALPP1. Drawing on the evidence base for the draft ALPP2, Officers are not aware of any previously developed sites within Broughton (Great and Little Broughton) that would be of a scale sufficient to accommodate the level of development apportioned to the villages as a Local Service Centre, (Rose Farm as a working farm would not be considered Previously Developed Land under the NPPF definition). The proposal is therefore also considered to be acceptable in relation to policies S5 and S30 in this respect.

A number of representations refer to the availability of brownfield land at the former Armaments depot – Derwent Forest. However, policy S18 of the ALPP1 only supports residential development at this location sufficient to achieve the viability of the project and secure site restoration.

(c) Housing supply

The Council published its most recent five housing land supply statement in August 2014, following the adoption of the ALPP1. An update from Policy colleagues to this confirms that the Local Planning Authority has a total supply of 5.6 years (as of July 2016) based on its annual supply target. This includes 20% increase due to a record of persistent under delivery and shortfalls in delivery since 2011.

As the LPA are able to demonstrate a five year supply of deliverable housing sites the policies for the supply of housing contained within the ALPP1 are to be considered up-to- date, in accordance with paragraph 49 of NPPF. The policy framework for the supply of housing within the plan area is set out in the spatial strategy, contained within Policy S3. This policy identifies that Broughton, along with the other LCS’s will provide for 1094 residential over the plan period 2011-2029, as discussed above.

Pertinent to this application, Policy S3 states that completions and commitments since 2011 should be accounted for when considering future proposals for housing growth. In the context of Broughton, the total number of completions/commitments since 2011 stands at 70 units.

Documentation forming part of draft ALPP2, indicate a supply target for Broughton (Great and Little Broughton) of 125 net additional dwellings. In allocating targets to all Local Service Centres, regard has been had the size of the villages, the services and facilities available, capacity issues, constraints and so on. Noting completions/commitments, 55 residential units remain outstanding. Again, whilst draft ALPP2 carries no weight at this stage, the evidence base and analysis underlying the allocations process is indicative that Broughton (Great and Little Broughton) can accommodate further housing development.

In seeking approval for up to 64 residential dwellings, the proposed development would exceed the draft residual requirement by nine units. However, as indicated above the scale of the development is considered to be commensurate to the size of the settlement. Furthermore, the NPPF indicates that housing applications should be considered in the context of the presumption in favour of sustainable development. Officers interpret that as meaning that the presumption in favour of sustainable development set out in the NPPF is not solely reliant on the lack of a 5 year supply of housing land. Given the role identified for Broughton (Great and Little Broughton), the level of housing proposed is considered to be proportionate, therefore, it would not be reasonable to dismiss the proposed development solely on the basis of the local planning authority being able to demonstrate a robust five year housing land supply.

(d) Conclusion on the principle of development

Notwithstanding the fact that the site lies outside of the settlement limit for Broughton officers consider the principle of residential development at this location to be acceptable. The site lies directly adjacent to the saved settlement limit and therefore, can be considered both well related and sustainable. The scale of development proposed is not considered to be disproportionate to the size of the settlement nor its role as a LSC.

Allerdale Borough Council are able to demonstrate a 5-year supply of housing and therefore the policies for supply of housing contained within the recently adopted ALPP1 are to be considered up-to-date. Taking into account the number of existing housing approvals in Broughton (Great and Little Broughton), the proposed development would result in the draft housing supply target for Broughton being exceeded by 9 units. This is not considered to be a significant overprovision, sufficient to compromise the overall strategy for growth within the settlement hierarchy in adopted ALPP1.

Officers conclude that the proposed development is acceptable in principle.

Impact of the proposed development on adjacent highway network

Policy S5 of the ALPP1 requires that new development shall not exceed the capacity of local infrastructure and Policies S22 and S32 provide further detailed requirements for safe access, connectivity and so forth. However, the NPPF sets a clear test at paragraph 32 that ‘Development should only be prevented or refused on transport grounds where the residual cumulative impacts of development are severe’.

The proposal provides for the main vehicular and pedestrian access off the adjacent Broughton Park. The estate road for Broughton park joins Craggs Road which extends to the east and west and serves 29 existing houses as well as providing access to the application site, currently in agricultural use. To the west, Little Brow heads south to the A66 and Craggs Road joins Harris Brow, leading into Great Broughton village. The applicant acknowledges the lack of existing footpath provision on these routes to the south of the site and deems that improved footpath provision would be prevented by the restricted width of these roads. As such, a second pedestrian route is proposed to be provided (upgraded to the County Council’s specification) from the north west corner of the site along Winder Lonning, which leads into Little Broughton at the top of Meeting House Lane.

A significant number of representations from the public, including the Parish Council, raise concerns with the intensified use of the surrounding road network by vehicles and pedestrians, which they consider to be substandard, resulting in safety concerns for future occupiers and existing users of the highway network.

Good visibility for vehicles is achievable from Broughton Park itself and this section of Craggs road has a footpath to Meeting House Lane. Beyond this point however, to the south and west, there are no further footpaths along Craggs Road/Harris brow directly into the village or south to the A66. Craggs Road. The existing footpath does link to Meeting House Lane which has bollards to the south, but this would not provide a particularly direct route to the services and amenities of the villages, which mainly lie in Great Broughton to the west. Harris Brow and Little Brow are narrow for much of their length, and visibility from a number of junctions is poor, particularly the Harris Brow/Craggs road junction when turning both left and right, and the Little Brow/Harris Brow/Papcastle Road junction when turning right. There is a sharp bend at the bottom of Craggs Road at the junction with Little Brow and Papcastle Road. Specific concerns also relate to the picking up and the dropping off of school children by the School Bus in the vicinity of the Little Brow/Harris Brow/Papcastle Road junction, and the increased safety risk to these children from the vehicles associated with the development and the resulting intensified use of the local roads.

Other specific concerns relate to an intensification of traffic on Main Street, through Great Broughton village as a result of future residents picking up and dropping off children at the Academy on the basis that the walking distance would be too great. Main Street varies in width and lacks designated pedestrian footpaths. Two way traffic can be restricted by on street parking, causing congestion at busy times.

Operational/capacity issues are acknowledged at the Broughton villages/Brigham junctions onto the A66. Highways England has revealed initial plans for a 4 arm roundabout to replace the existing arrangement. It is unclear how far these plans have progressed.

The application has been supported by a Transport Statement, an Addendum to the Transport Statement and a Travel Plan. The findings of the Transport Statement and Addendum are summarised as follows:

 The TS includes assessment of the Craggs Road/Broughton park T-junction, Little Brow/Papcastle Road/Great Broughton/Harris Brow crossroads junction, A66/Great Broughton/Brigham Ghost Island Staggered Crossroads Junction  Baseline traffic conditions on the road network, classified turning count surveys were undertaken at Junctions 1, 2, and 3 during both the AM (07:30-10:00) and PM (15:00-18:30) peak periods.  Trip generation rates for the proposed residential units have been derived from the TRICS database and show a total of 33 trips (IN and OUT) within the AM (08:00 – 09:00) and PM (17:00 – 18:00) peaks. Actual trips recoded from the existing residents of Broughton Park were much lower at a total of 14 trips (IN and OUT) within the AM (08:00 – 09:00) and PM (17:00 – 18:00) peaks  Trip distribution is based on - At the Craggs Road/Broughton Park junction it is assumed that 10% of the development will route to the east and 90% to the west. It is then assumed that 20% will remain in Little Broughton and Great Broughton or travel on local roads to the north, whilst 70% will route to the A66.  There has been 1 Personal Injury Collision (PIC) on the road network within the vicinity of the site. The PIC occurred on Harris Brow, approximately 30m to the west of its junction with Little Brow and Papcastle Road, on the 3rd August 2012 at 11:00. The incident involved a single car and resulted in a slight injury to the male driver. The TS states that the number of PICs that have occurred in the vicinity of the site and in Little Broughton itself is very low and demonstrates no inherent road safety issues on the local road network.  The data at Appendix D also shows that there have been a total of 6 PICs at the A66/Great Broughton/Brigham staggered crossroads junction since 2012. Of these incidents 4 resulted in a slight injury, 1 in a serious injury and 1 in a fatal injury. 3 of the incidents occurred at the Great Broughton arm of the junction and 3 occurred at the Brigham arm of the junction, which included the serious and fatal injury incidents.  It is evident that the number and severity of PICs that have occurred at the A66 staggered crossroads junction indicates an existing road safety issue at the junction. This view has been supported by the recent announcement that Highways England has revealed initial plans to provide a 4 armed roundabout at the junction.  It is considered that the increase in traffic at the junction as a result of the proposed development is minimal at less than 1% of the total flows through the junction. This is considered to be well within the day to day variation in flows and therefore the impact of the proposed development at the junction will not be severe.  The increase in traffic on the local road junctions as a result of the proposed development is low at less than 1 additional trip every 2 minutes and it is therefore considered that the local road junctions would continue to operate well within capacity with the proposed development traffic included.  It is acknowledged that visibility from the Little Brow arm of the junction is sub- standard and therefore it is proposed to amend the white lining at the junction to improve the visibility that can be achieved from the Little Brow arm. Drawings showing the current white lining and the proposed amendments are included at Appendix C to the Addendum and show that the visibility for vehicles exiting from Little Brow to vehicles approaching on Harris Brow will be improved, by over 50%, and will therefore be beneficial to all users at the junction.

The Highways Authority has confirmed that the methodology and assumptions within the TS and Addendum relating to trip generation, distribution and the capacity of the local road network are acceptable. The proposed changes to the Little Brow/Harris Brow/Papcastle Road junction are welcomed. The Highways Authority has also provided data on accident locations in Broughton over the past 15 years. In light of this, the Highways Authority confirms that it would be impossible to recommend refusal due to the increased use of the current substandard junctions and that the impacts of the proposal on the local highway network are not considered to be ‘severe’. This being dependant on the mitigation/improvement measures proposed by the applicant, (footway link along Winder Lonning and junction improvements, which could be secured by condition, should planning permission be granted).

Highways England has raised no objection to the proposal in relation to the operation of the A66 trunk road.

The concerns of local residents and the Parish are noted and understood. However, the advice of the Highways Authority is that with the inclusion of the Winder Lonning footpath link (providing an alternative to Craggs Road/Harris brow) and with the junction improvements at Little Brow, the impacts of the proposal on the highway network would not be severe, which is the test outlined at paragraph 32 of the NPPF. Based on this advice from the Highways Authority and Highways England, the impacts of the proposal on the local highway network are not considered to be so severe to warrant refusal of the application.

Further, with regards to concerns relating to an intensification of traffic movements on Main Street, through Great Broughton village, similar concerns were raised for a housing development at Brigham, with the main road through Brigham sharing similar constraints to Main Street in terms of a narrow width, lack of pedestrian facilities and on street parking. In that appeal decision (APP/G0908/A/13/2193690), the Inspector noted that it was inevitable that additional housing would bring additional traffic through the village. However, no recorded accidents suggested that this route was not inherently unsafe and indeed the constraints of the route would in themselves act as a means of traffic calming. The resulting impact of that proposal at Brigham was not considered to unacceptably interrupt the free flow of traffic or significantly increase safety of pedestrians.

For the main route through Great Broughton, the accident report has been obtained for the last 20 years. This indicates three slight incidents in 1996, 2000 and 2009, and a serious incident in 1997. The latter involved a youth on a skateboard coming out of Broughton Hall on a skateboard into a car. The slight incidents involved vehicles reversing into pedestrians and one was a bicycle swerving to avoid a car. The Highways Authority has advised that the narrowness on the streets help with traffic calming and whilst there is congestion at peak times, the statistics suggest it remains a safe route. As such, any additional impacts on existing congestion through the main street of Great Broughton are not considered to be so severe as to warrant refusal of the application.

Subject to the conditioning of a Construction Traffic Management Plan and the implementation of the junction improvement at Little Brow, the Highways Authority has not raised any concerns as to the traffic implications of the construction phase on the surrounding road network.

To conclude based on the advice of the Highways Authority and Highways England, the highways implications of the proposal are not considered to be severe, the test of acceptability contained within the NPPF.

Vehicular/pedestrian provision, and parking provision within the site

The proposed site access will be from the end of the cul-de sac of Broughton Park at the north eastern corner of the estate. The road will be extended into the site with its carriageway width reduced to 5.5m, which is considered satisfactory to serve the proposed development. The existing footway on the western side of the road will also continue into the site. This will provide both vehicle and pedestrian access to the site and will connect to Craggs Road via the existing infrastructure on the Broughton Park estate.

The TS indicates that suitable provision has been made within the proposal for refuse turning/collection.

Parking standards of CCC require 159 for residents and 13 spaces for visitors. The scheme proposes 172 spaces, with garages only included where complaint with CCC standard of 21m2. The parking is provided by:

 133 in curtilage spaces  27 combination of on street/visitor bays  12 within parking courts with designated spaces

The Highways Authority has raised no objection with the layout of the site overall, nor with the layout and level of parking provision and confirm that the on street parking is reasonable compared to the within curtilage parking. They have also clarified that they do not foresee any access issues for emergency vehicles. Based on the advice of the Highways Authority, the internal vehicular and pedestrian provision and the parking provision are considered to be acceptable.

Sustainability/Alternative Modes of Transport/Permeability

Acknowledging the lack of pedestrian facilities along Craggs Road/Harris Brow, a pedestrian link is proposed to be provided from the site to Winder Lonning on the northern boundary (to the western end) which would provide access to Little Broughton at the top of Meeting House Lane. This link would be approx. 260m in length from the edge of the site. From this point, a bus stop is in close proximity and it is understood that the bus service provides for Service 68B Workington to Cockermouth (4 services Mon – Fri, 3 services on Sat, no service on Sunday). The bus stop is also served by school bus 47. Also within close proximity is the village hall, public house and Kirklea play area.

From this footpath, Broughton Academy would be an additional 600m along the existing footpath running to the rear of Kirklea play area. The services available in Great Broughton (bakery post office public houses etc.) would be a further 420m minimum from the end of Winder Lonning. Those facilities in Little Broughton would be closer.

National Route 71 of the National Cycle Network passes along Papcastle Road, Harris Brow and Main Street and within 400m of the proposed site access. National Route 71 makes up the western third of the Coast to Coast route.

Given the proximity to the local bus stop, the proximity to national cycle routes and the proposed footpath upgrade proposed, it is considered that the site is accessible by modes of transport other than the car.

As the proposal lies beyond the existing housing estate of Broughton Park, which in itself is somewhat detached from the villages of Great and Little Broughton, the proposal site is isolated to an extent from the built form of the village, albeit well related to Broughton Park itself. However, the upgrade to Winder Lonning footpath would improve the connectivity/permeability of the site to the villages for future residents and potentially for residents of Broughton Park, albeit for the latter, this would not be a direct route to all services and the gradients of the site may discourage some users. The distances indicated above are not considered prohibitive for people to access village services by foot and the County Council has indicated that Broughton Academy is within the statutory walking distance and that there is no route safety issues recorded for this locality.

Within representations, comparisons have been drawn with this proposal and a proposal for housing at Brigham, which was dismissed on appeal (APP/G0908/A/13/2193690). The scheme at Brigham had only one access for both pedestrians and vehicles, along a relatively long and winding access road/cul-de sac. The Inspector noted within that appeal that ‘with only a single point of access, the development would be poorly connected to the rest of the village, particularly for pedestrians. Those living at the western end of the scheme …would have a walk of 200 metres or more just to get to Ellerbeck Brow, at a point on the scheme which would be furthest from the centre of the village and its facilities, and the primary school at the far end of the village’. In comparing the two schemes, the scheme under consideration benefits from a second pedestrian access point onto Winder Lonning and the Inspector for the Brigham appeal specifically emphasized the disadvantage of one access points for pedestrians, over drivers. Access to amenities within Little Broughton (village hall, public house and play area) and bus services would be in close proximity to the end of this Lonning which is approx. 260m in length, with other facilities at a distance ranging from 400 – 600m beyond this point, including the school. In comparison, beyond the entrance to the Brigham site on Ellerbeck brow, village facilities ranged in distance from approx. 330m to 1.3 km (330m to church, 490m to shop, 580m to village hall,1.3km to school). As such, it is considered that the connectivity of the current proposal is greater than the scheme dismissed on appeal at Brigham.

A Travel Plan has been provided for the proposal which the Highways Authority has confirmed is acceptable. This provides for the appointment of a Travel Plan co-ordinator and in the main, a number of promotional measures to encourage walking, cycling, car sharing and the use of public transport.

For these reasons, it is considered that the proposal is sufficiently well related and connected to the facilities and amenities of Broughton (Great and Little Broughton), in accordance with policy S22 of the ALPP1.

Landscape and Visual Effects

Policy S33 of the ALPP1 seeks to protect, conserve and enhance the landscape character and local distinctiveness of the Plan Area and supports the NPPF aim to recognise the intrinsic character and beauty of the countryside. Policies S4 and DM14 of the ALPP1, seek to ensure amongst other things that new development responds positively to the character and distinctiveness of the location and integrates effectively.

The applicant has provided a Landscape and Visual Assessment of the site, along with viewpoints and photomontages, the results of which can be summarised as follows:

Landscape Effects:  Sensitivity of the landscape character (as a receptor) is considered to be Medium. This considers the Site features which exhibit some value (such as intact hedgerows along its boundaries and established landscape pattern), but also the detracting elements which have influenced the landscape (such as its edge of town location and a variety of non-original boundary treatments) creating a capacity for this landscape to accept change.  The assessment Site is not critical to maintaining the overall landscape character of the area, as the character would continue to be obtained in the surrounding area  The magnitude of the effects on landscape character is therefore considered to be Low. This takes into account that the site has been assessed as having capacity to accept change.  The extent of the local landscape change would be predominantly localised and generally confined to the immediate setting due to the existing built form to the south and the well vegetated boundary which currently exists along the western boundary.  The landscape effect of the proposed development on the overall landscape character would therefore be Slight.  Slight change to landscape features and vegetation.  Whilst there would be, to varying degrees, elements of change to each of these receptors, the nature and extent of that change would be generally confined to the immediate area and would not change the fundamental character of the landscape setting and in no way would change the overall character of the wider area.

Visual Effects:  The proposed development would change the nature of the outlook available from  Properties adjoining or close to the development, in that the existing views to and over the undeveloped assessment site would be affected. The susceptibility and sensitivity of these residential visual receptors is considered to be High. Residents further afield would be of medium sensitivity.  The overall visual effect on residential properties would be Major to Major/Moderate at closer proximity and Slight at longer distances.  Any Moderate and Major/Moderate visual effects on these adjoining properties will be mitigated through the implementation of a Landscape Strategy and planting plan.  The susceptibility and sensitivity of roads as visual receptors is considered to be Medium. The value of these passing and transient views is therefore considered to be Low. This is because the observation of passing road users and commuters is brief and momentary. The magnitude of the visual effect of the development on public roads is therefore considered to be Small.  The principle visual effect on public rights of way (PRoW) will be Major/Moderate. There are two PRoWs which run immediately adjacent to the site boundaries; 218020 and 218103, to the north east and west, respectively. There is also a third PRoW (218011) located to the immediate north of the Site boundary close to Crags Farm, however upon visiting Site, this footpath is not present/ in use.  Public rights of way generally as visual receptors are considered to be of High sensitivity and susceptibility. Given that the views from public rights of way within close proximity of the Site are relatively open and uninterrupted, and comprise views towards the Lake District National Park, their value is assessed as High. For other footpaths at longer distances, their value is considered to be Medium.  In terms of magnitude of effect, the visual effect of the proposed development on PRoW would be large from those views closest to the development, and Small for views at longer distances along these footpaths.  The proposed development would entail a Major/Moderate change to the existing view from footpaths at closer distances, and Moderate to Slight change from those views at greater distances. However, given the small component of the view which will change as a result of the proposed development, and the existing built form in close proximity, it is considered that a more appropriate rating of significance would be Slight.  Impacts would be mitigated through supplementary planting in order to assist in screening the development from view.  The relatively small scale development of the assessment site would only give rise to a few Major/Moderate visual effects for receptors on the immediate boundaries of the Site. The most significant would be on adjoining residential properties at Broughton Park and Crags Farm, road users along Broughton Park and Great Broughton Road, users of footpaths 218020 and 218103. Beyond the immediate vicinity of the Site, visual effects are limited to Moderate or less, as a result of the screening and filtering effects of intervening built form, vegetation and topography.

The site lies within landscape character type ‘5a – Ridge and Valley. Broughton (Great and Little Broughton) occupies an elevated position on the side of the Derwent Valley when viewed from the south and east and west along the A66. From the north, whilst still undulating, there is more of a plateau when viewed across from the A594, with only the higher parts of the villages visible before levels fall towards the river. Other villages, such as Papcastle and Brigham similarly occupy elevated positions within the landscape along the Derwent valley.

The application site presently is part of a network of fields comprising the countryside that surrounds Broughton (Great and Little Broughton). It contributes to the rural ambience and character of the village surroundings, most notably from the footpath network to the north of the site and offers a vista of the wider landscape, including towards the Lake District National Park.

Land levels across the site slope significantly upwards from the south west to the north east, (approx. 61 – 77m AOD). Land levels continue to rise to the north east beyond the site, approaching the ridgeline. Therefore the site also holds an elevated position along the Derwent valley. As a result, the housing development would clearly be seen lying above Broughton Park when viewed from the south, east and west. From the south, the proposal would be seen largely as an expansion of the built form of Broughton Park. From this direction, whilst the proposal would look somewhat detached from the villages, this is similar to the somewhat detached nature of Broughton Park at present, and therefore it is considered that the proposal would not look overly incongruous in the landscape from this direction. It is demonstrated by photomontage 6 that the proposal would sit on rising land, approaching and potentially exceeding the ridgeline in part, but that this would be in a similar form to the existing Great and Little Broughton villages, which also break the ridgeline to the west. The proposal provides for landscaped buffers to the northern boundary and eastern boundary, where the proposal will adjoin open land. Over time, this planting will soften the landscape impact of the proposal. As such, from the south, where open views of the proposal will be possible along the river valley, the landscape and visual impacts of the proposal are considered to be acceptable.

From wider range viewpoints to the east, the site will generally be viewed with the backdrop of the village and therefore the landscape and visual impacts from this direction are generally considered to be acceptable.

From wider viewpoints to the north, land levels are undulating and finally rise up to the ridge line before falling to the river valley. From the A594 and other roads to the north, viewpoints provided indicate that the proposal will be screened by the landform.

As such, from wider range viewpoints to the south, north and east, it is not considered that the proposal would have an unacceptable impact on the wider landscape or rural character and Officers concur with the findings of the LVIA in this regard.

From closer range viewpoints however, particularly from the north and west when leaving the village by the network of footpaths within this locality, the proposal will be much more apparent and will result in a much greater change to the rural character and visual amenities of the locality.

Presently, this network of footpaths generally extends beyond the built form of the village into a more open and undeveloped landscape (albeit with some dispersed development to the north at Broughton Manor and Crags Farm) and the area has a rural and open character of fields interspersed with hedges and pockets of trees, with open views across to the Lake District National Park.

Whilst the proposal forms an extension to Broughton Park, presently this estate sits lower in the landscape than this network of footpaths and is separated by the application site. The proposal would introduce a relatively dense form of development, abutting part of this network of footpaths to the north. The majority of the line of properties along the northern boundary whilst detached and having generous gardens sit very closely together, removing any potential to retain views or a sense of openness through the site. Development to the north west corner consists of terraces and semi-detached housing with small gardens and shared car parking (provided to address concerns of car dominance within the scheme). The applicant indicates that this denser form of development to the north west corner closest to the villages is intended to reflect the dense historic pattern of development of the Broughton villages. However, at this point, the site is some distance from the historic village. Overall, the relatively dense and suburban form of the estate will change the character of this area from a rural and open setting to an urban one, within an area where there is a general sense that the built up village form has already dissipated to a more rural setting with some low density development.

The LVIA acknowledges that the local landscape character would change and acknowledges the proposal would result in a Major/Moderate change to the existing view from footpaths at closer distances. However, in considering the landscape impact of the proposal in the wider sense, the LVIA concludes these impacts will not be significant and further considers that the small component of the view which will change as a result of the proposed development from the surrounding footpath network, and the existing built form in close proximity, it is considered that the significance of any adverse visual effects will be slight.

Having regard to the estate form and density of the development within the local landscape context and the proximity of public footpaths and the sensitivity of those using this footpath network particularly, it is considered that the likely adverse effects of the proposal on the local landscape/rural character and the visual amenities of the local area would be adverse and in Officers opinion, are likely to be greater than that concluded within the submitted LVIA. Therefore the proposal raises some concerns with Officers, when considering the village setting and rural character of the immediate locality, particularly when viewed from the network of footpaths to the north.

However, it is acknowledged that the proposal will incorporate a significant level of tree planting along the northern and eastern boundaries of the site, along with additional hedge planting where gaps exist, and the retention of the band of mature trees to the western boundary. Whilst this planting cannot mitigate all adverse landscape and visual effects of the proposal, over time, this planting would soften the built form of the development within the landscape and as viewed by nearby receptors. Any outstanding landscape and visual effects fall to be balanced against the benefits of the proposal.

Other concerns expressed by the public relate to the proposal joining the villages of Great and Little Broughton, adversely impacting on the distinct historic identities and character of these two villages. The proposal would extend north from Broughton Park, within Great Broughton, adjoining relatively low density development at Craggs Farm on the eastern edge of Little Broughton.

The physical form of these two villages has already been conjoined to a large extent by post WW2 housing development that encroached on then agricultural fields that separated the villages historically. This included development at Ghyll Bank, Grange Avenue and later Kirklea. The built form now extends from Great Broughton into Little Broughton with little to physically distinguish the two, other than signage. The proposal will extend from Broughton Park, Great Broughton, to existing development at the eastern edge of Little Broughton. However, the lack of a vehicular through route to the site will limit the physical connectivity. Given the extent to which the physical forms of the two villages are already conjoined it is not considered that the proposal would result in significant harm in this respect.

Design/Appearance

Policies S4 and DM14 of the ALPP1 seek to ensure a high quality of design in new development and incorporate criteria addressing a number of design issues, including responding positively to the character and distinctiveness of an area, integration, connectivity, appropriate scale, and so on.

The proposal provides for a relatively standard housing estate layout, the approach being dictated to some extent by the singular access point from the neighbouring estate and level changes across the site. The layout generally follows a looped round that extends from and returns to the one access point. The proposal provides for a mix of standard house types and sizes, generally with in-curtilage parking to the front or side, integral garaging, front driveways and private rear gardens. The proposal provides for two areas of Public Open Space, one to the north-eastern section of the site intersected by the access road and one adjacent to the site entrance at the south east corner, which will also serve as an area for underground water storage/retention. The proposal incorporates significant tree planting along the northern and eastern boundaries, to provide landscaping buffers to the open countryside beyond. Further tree planting is provided internally to the site along the access roads. Materials include slate roofs and stone facades to prominent or focal units within the site, light buff brick and render to external elevations on other dwellings, with grey tiles and composite doors.

A number of design approaches of the scheme are considered to be positive, such as the landscaping buffers to the north and east, the quality of the internal landscaping scheme and the level of tree planting overall, the choice of light coloured render and buff brick to complement the approach to materials taken at Broughton Park (mainly white render), the use of solid walls and landscaping to boundaries that abut the public domain, the use of timber post and rail fencing to the open countryside elevations. Taken in isolation, the proposal provides for a good standard of housing environment, providing adequate separation distances, external amenity space, in curtilage parking and public open space for future residents, similar in style to recent developments at Clifton, High Harrington, Stainburn and Thursby.

Concerns were raised with the applicant as to the extent to which the proposal responds positively to the character, history and distinctiveness of its location, namely the villages of Great and Little Broughton. As a result, a number of small changes have been made to standard house types to simplify their form to better reflect the simple and unfussy form of housing within the village, but otherwise, the scheme remains largely as originally submitted. The D & A Statement indicates that the housing to the north west corner is at a higher density to maximise congruence with the village core and then the density of the development reduces to east and south to reflect the lower density of development at the periphery of the village.

The north eastern corner has been amended to reduce the degree of car dominance within this section and this is considered to provide some improvement. Notwithstanding this, the approach of having higher density development to the north west corner is somewhat questionable given the distance from the higher density development of the village centre at this point. Some landscaping will soften the edge of the development (partial native hedging and some tree planting), but otherwise, views will remain into this area of relatively dense development, with parking courts and driveways, providing a hard and urban edge within an otherwise rural context. The density of the development overall is somewhat higher than surrounding development given this edge of village location and the implications of this have been discussed in the section above in terms of the resulting visual impact and impact on rural character.

Otherwise, the proposal will largely be seen in the context of the adjacent Broughton Park housing estate. Whilst the degree to which the proposal responds to the character, history and distinctiveness of the area has been questioned, given that it will largely be seen as an extension of the existing housing estate at Broughton Park, then it is considered that the proposal has had sufficient regard to its context and policies S4 and DM14. Further, it is noted that relatively large housing estates of uniform design are common to the villages of Great and Little Broughton, seen at Church Meadows and Kirklea for example.

Impact on residential amenity

A number of policies of the ALPP1 and principally Policy S32 seek to protect residential amenity to an acceptable standard.

The proposal has the potential to impact principally on those residential properties to the southern boundary of the site within Broughton Park, predominantly properties extending from Dryfesdale to Talardy, which includes eight properties.

Amended plans have been provided which reduce the finished floor level of plot 1 (reduced by 1.2m), plot 10 (reduced by 0.9m), plot 11 (reduced by 0.85m) and plot 13 (reduced by 0.7m).

Proposed plot 15 would have a side elevation facing towards properties Loen, Talardy and Eryri and a distance of approx. 20.6m at the closest point (to Loen). Amended plans have been provided to change this house type to a Warwick which would be handed so that the side elevation facing towards properties at Talardy, Loen and Eryri would be blank and would incorporate a part catslide roof, with dormer to front, with the ridgeline set lower than the main part of the house (7.5m to ridge, 5.0m and 2.5m to eaves of catslide roof).

As, the side elevation is blank, the proposed house type would not result in any significant level of overlooking for existing residents at Talardy, Loen and Eryri. The proposed development is to the north and therefore no direct overshadowing would result from the proposal. However, there remains a need to assess any over-dominance or overbearing impact, particularly given the level changes. At the south west corner of the site, the level changes are less significant but a difference in finished floor levels (FFL) between existing properties and plot 15 would be 1.3m (approx. 63.79m to 65.1). The amended plans that reduced floor levels across this area now demonstrate that no retaining walls would be required along this southern boundary, only standard fencing. Therefore, whilst the outlook from these properties will change, the separation distance of 20.6m minimum is considered sufficient to retain an appropriate level of amenity, including as a result of the change in levels, particularly following the change in house type which presents a reduced bulk and mass of building to the southern elevation closest to these existing properties.

Proposed plots 12 to 14 would be dormer bungalows at a distance of approx. 30.9m minimum from Howick House and Sandwood. Only roof lights would be proposed at first floor level and as such, no significant level of overlooking is anticipated for existing residents at Howick House and Sandwood. Proposed plots 12 to 14 would have a FFL approx. 2.5m above Howick House and Sandwood but section drawings show no retaining wall would be required along the southern boundary. As such, whilst the FFL would be higher, the combination of a dormer bungalow and the separation distance are considered sufficient not to result in an overbearing impact.

Proposed plot 11 would be a dormer bungalow approx. 26.3m back to back from Broomknoll, with a difference in FFL of 64.5 at Broomknoll to 67.0 at Plot 11, a difference of approx. 2.5m. Section drawings show no retaining wall would be required along the southern boundary. This house type is an amendment from the originally submitted scheme, which provided for a full two storey property. The change to a dormer bungalow is supported at this plot as officers had expressed concerns regarding the impact of a full two storey dwelling on the amenity of existing neighbours, particularly at Broom Knoll. Whilst the separation distance is not as great as that for adjacent properties, a dormer bungalow, with a separation distance of 26.3m is considered sufficient to retain an appropriate level of amenity for the occupiers of Broom Knoll.

The relationship of proposed plot 1 and Hillrigg demonstrates the most notable change in levels at the boundaries of the site, with the proposed two storey unit at plot 1 having a FFL of 66.65, whereas Hillrigg has a FFL of approx. 64.3, a difference of 2.35m. Hillrigg is a single storey bungalow and proposed plot 1 would be a two storey unit. A separation distance between these two properties would be 17.5m at the closest point (to the garage adjoining Hillrigg) and 21m to the house, extending to 25.4m from the rear habitable room window at Hillrigg direct to the side of the proposed unit. To assist with the acceptability of this residential impact and the visual relationship, the applicant has provided site sections and a visual representation. At the request of officer’s a revised house type has been put forward for Plot 1. This introduces a Taunton house type that would be handed so that rather than a full height side wall presented to the elevation facing Hillrigg (5.0m to eaves, 8.4m to ridge), the gable end of the Taunton would incorporate a part catslide roof, with dormer to front, with the ridgeline set lower than the main part of the house (7.3m to ridge, 5.0m and 2.5m to eaves of catslide roof). This change in house type, along with the separation distance and existing and proposed landscaping, it is considered that proposed plot 1 would not have a significantly harmful impact on the residential amenity of occupiers at Hillrigg.

Dryfesdale is a detached single storey dwelling to the east of the new access. This property will be set lower that the proposal site but would be separated from plots 52 to 54 by a distance exceeding 35m. The intervening area will be a landscaped public open space. Therefore the impacts on the residential amenity of this property are considered to be acceptable.

Subsequent to the change in levels and house types, and the removal of retaining walls along the southern boundary, whilst it is accepted that the proposal will change the outlook for existing residents on Broughton Park, it is considered that the resulting impact of the amended details would not be significantly harmful in terms of overlooking, overshadowing, over-dominance or loss of prospect. In this respect, the proposal is considered to be acceptable in accordance with policies S32 of the ALPP1.

Housing Mix

The proposal is considered to provide an acceptable range of house types and tenure in accordance with policy S7 of the ALPP1.

Affordable Housing Provision

Policy S8 of the ALPP1 requires that for LCS’s, developments of this scale will be required to provide 25% affordable housing provision, with a tenure mix of 75% social rented and 25% intermediate housing.

The proposal provides for 11 social rented houses (at no more than 80% open market rental value), consisting of 6 x 2 bedroom houses and 5 x 3 bedroom houses (terraced houses) and five intermediate houses (at no more than 80% open market value), all 3 bedroom units (1 dormer bungalow, 4 semi-detached houses). This equates to the required 25% provision under policy S8 at a 70/30 split. Whilst this is marginally below the policy requirement, it is considered to be acceptable on the basis that the evidence base provided by the Allerdale Housing Study 2016, suggests that this tenure split is likely to change following the changes proposed under draft ALPP2 to a 60/40 split.

Based on the advice from Housing Services, the provision of three bedroom properties for discounted sale is acceptable as this the need evidenced by the 2016 Housing Study (42% of the need is for 3 bed properties). In relation to the provision for social rent, a mix of three and two bedroom properties reflects Choice Based Lettings dated that these unit types are receiving the highest number of bids and therefore this housing mix is also considered to be acceptable. Housing Services have queried whether a greater provision of bungalows for social rent could be provided on the basis that these receive the equivalent no. of bids/property ratio a three bedroom houses. However, Story Homes have indicated that incorporating further bungalows and the required land take would jeopardise the overall quantum of affordable housing provision and in providing two and three bedroom housing, the highest identified needs are being met. Story Homes re- iterate that three bungalows have been incorporated into the scheme (1 discounted sale and 2 open market). Housing Services has accepted this explanation and overall, it is considered that the social rented mix does meet the identified need and therefore the proposal is considered to be acceptable in relation to Policy S8 in this respect.

Policy S8 also requires that affordable housing be provided in clusters throughout the development so as to be indistinguishable from open market dwellings. The detailed layout indicates that the affordable housing provision will be in two main clusters, one to the north west of the site (five social rent and two open market at plots 29 – 35) and one towards the south west (six social rent and three open market). No affordable housing will be positioned to the central and eastern section of the site. Whilst Officers consider that a greater level of dispersal could have been achieved with smaller clusters, the proposed affordable housing units will share a similar design and materials to open market housing throughout the development. As such, this will assist in the affordable housing provision being less distinguishable from the open market housing and as such, this aspect of policy S8 is considered to be adequately addressed.

Overall, the proposal is considered to be in accordance with policy S8 of the ALPP1.

Trees

Policy DM17 of the Allerdale Local Plan seeks to protect trees where they are important to a community, have a positive impact on the character of the area or have nature conservation value. Proposals that involve felling, will be resisted unless acceptable mitigation or compensation measures can be secured.

The application has been supported by an Arboricultural Report and Impact Assessment, and an Arboricultural Method Statement.

The site is currently used for agricultural purposes and therefore most trees are located to the site boundaries. Subject to appropriate management during the construction phase, the majority of peripheral trees should not be impacted by the proposal and the submitted method statement sets out a range of measures to this effect.

Some removal of trees is proposed, predominantly to the north west corner of the site:

 Partial removal of Group 12, category B, mixed group adjacent to plot 29.  Removal of Groups 7 and 8, category C, mixed group adjacent to plots 30, 31 and 32 and the proposed footpath link.  Removal of T27, category C Hawthorn within proposed plot 38.

The number of trees requiring removal is considered to be small and as most are category C, they have not been assessed as being of the highest quality. The proposal would provide for a significant level of tree planting internally and to the north and eastern boundaries of the site over and above the 2:1 ratio specified by Policy DM17 and therefore the proposal is considered to be acceptable, in accordance with DM17. Ecology

Policy S35 of the ALPP1 seeks to maintain and improve conditions for biodiversity and the protection of sites and species according to their level of importance.

The application has been supported by an Extended Phase 1 Habitat Survey. The Ecological Survey has subsequently been updated to include mitigation measures for red squirrels.

The findings of the Ecological Survey are summarised as follows:

 No wildlife sites are recorded within the site.  The river Derwent and Tributaries SSI and River Derwent and Bassenthwaite Lake SAC lies within 450m and 320m of the site respectively.  Records of Red squirrels 200m from the site, Bats 500m from the site, Hedgehogs 800m from the site, 1504 records of birds, a number of which are UK BAP species.

The Impact Assessment is summarised as follows:  Subject to control through construction best practice measures, no off site notable habitats would be adversely affected.  Loss of a small area of tall ruderal vegetation is not considered to have a significant effect on local biodiversity.  New planting to north and east will provide a net biodiversity gain.  Impacts on bats limited to lighting during the construction and operational phase. Likely to be minor negative effects on any bats using the hedgerow and trees immediately adjacent the site.  Minor benefit to bats through the additional tree planting and creation of gardens.  Negligible impacts on birds as no habitat on site suitable for nesting birds.  The hedgerows and trees on site boundaries are suitable for use by nesting birds, recommendations regarding this group of species is provided to ensure construction phase impacts on this species are negligible  The construction phase of the development has the potential to have a negative impact on red squirrels without appropriate mitigation. Mitigation is therefore outlined to ensure impacts are minimised. No evidence of red squirrels was noted during the site visit however broadleaved trees on the site boundaries do provide suitable habitat for this species. It is understood the majority of trees will be retained as part of the development and so there will be no impact on habitats for red squirrels.  A number of mitigation measures proposed relating to CEMP, tree root protection, lighting to be directed away from trees and hedgerows.

The applicant’s submission concludes that the proposal would have negligible biodiversity impacts and a net overall gain in ecological value.

Given the current use of the field for agriculture/grazing and the fact that existing trees/hedgerows to the boundaries of the site are to be largely retained, the level of ecological assessment undertaken is considered to be acceptable. Subject to conditions securing the range of mitigation measures put forward within the Ecological Survey, the development is considered to be acceptable in relation to Policy S35. Any proposal that involves the development of open undeveloped land will have some ecological impacts, however, the proposal would not have any significant direct impacts and indirect impacts are considered to be mitigated/compensated to an acceptable level.

Representations have provided information relating to Great Crested Newts being found within the adjacent Broughton Park estate (approx. 2 years previously). However, the submitted Phase 1 Ecological Survey has considered this species and indicates that the site itself lacks the habitats associated with these species, and is poorly connected to suitable off-site habitat. No ponds are present within 500m of the site and no formal records of this species were noted. The standing advice of Natural England in regards to this species, states:

Survey for great crested newts if:

 distribution and historical records suggest newts may be present  there’s a pond within 500 metres of the development, even if it only holds water some of the year  the development site includes refuges (e.g. log piles or rubble), grassland, scrub, woodland or hedgerows

On the basis of this and the ecological survey provided, no species specific survey for Great Crested Newts is considered to be necessary. The submitted report does provide for mitigation measures, should any protected species be found during the construction phase.

Water Quality/Protection of River Derwent SAC and SSSI

At the request of Natural England, more detailed drainage plans and a Construction Environmental Management Plan has been provided to address mitigation for possible pollution to the designated River Derwent. Following re-consultation on the additional information (Drainage Strategy and CEMP), Natural England has confirmed that they are satisfied that their previous concerns have been addressed. Subject to appropriate conditions securing the drainage strategy and CEMP, it is considered unlikely that the proposal would have any significant adverse effects on water quality and particularly the designated river Derwent.

Flood Risk and Surface Water Drainage

Policy S29 of the ALPP1 directs development away from areas at risk from flooding, and seeks to ensure flood risk is not increased elsewhere, requiring full consideration of the surface water drainage hierarchy.

The site lies within Flood Zone 1, which is land at the lowest probability to flooding. The River Derwent lies 375m to the south, 46m below site level.

The proposal indicates that foul drainage will connect to the main sewer and United Utilities has raised no objection to this. The application has been accompanied by a Flood Risk Assessment and Drainage Strategy, which has been amended as of the 30th March 2017 and an Executive Summary provided.

The site currently has no positive drainage, therefore greenfield run-off rates apply. The submission indicates that soakaways are considered unlikely to be suitable due to sloping nature of site and because local trial pits suggest that the area in underlain with clay.

The drainage strategy for the proposal involves a gravity piped sewer system of 150- 450mm diameter connecting to a series of large diameter concrete pipes Located within the south east POS area) with a capacity to cater for a volume of water of 583 cubic meters for a peak storm event of 1 in 100 + 40% climate change. The storage facility would be fitted with a hydro brake fitted to control surface water discharge from site to 29.4 litres/second so as to mimic the greenfield run-off rate. From the hydro brake flow control manhole, a 300mm surface water sewer is proposed through the existing housing development onto Crags Road and into an existing part culvert/part dry ditch which ultimately discharges to the River Derwent.

The submitted documents indicate that attenuated flows to the greenfield run-off would not increase flood risk up to a 1 in 100 year storm event plus climate change as the attenuated system would be designed to restrict off site flows up to this event.

Representations have been received relating to existing localised flooding issues. However, in providing for attenuation of a 1 in 100 year event plus 40% allowance for climate change, the proposal is considered to take an appropriate and reasonable approach to addressing flood risk and no concerns/objections have been raised by the Environment Agency or the Local Lead Flood Authority. As such, the proposal is considered to be acceptable in relation to policy S29 of the ALPP1.

Archaeology

Policy S27 of the ALPP1 seeks to protect heritage assets to a level appropriate to their significance. The applicant has provided a Geophysical Survey report which included a desk top study and geomagnetic survey of the site (use of hand‐held gradiometers, which measure variations in the vertical component of the earth’s magnetic field. These variations can be due to the presence of subsurface archaeological features).

The report concludes that, ‘a number of the geophysical anomalies detected at the site are believed to be agricultural in origin, including evidence for former ridge and furrow cultivation, and possible land drains. A curvilinear anomaly on the west side of the site may be an associated soil‐filled ditch or field boundary, and matches one shown on the map of the Township of Little Broughton of 1852. The fact that this is an unusual shape, and quite close to Broughton Grange, may indicate early origins. No other anomalies were detected that are of likely archaeological origin’.

Following representations relating to the potential importance of a standing stone on site, which the application details indicate would be relocated to the north eastern area of public open space, the applicant’s archaeologist has confirmed:  The idea that the stone at Little Broughton is potentially a prehistoric standing stone raises a number of concerns  There is no tradition of a prehistoric site in the field in question  The site is not on the historic environment record.  None of the 18th and 19th century antiquarians refer to a prehistoric site in this field  It is not highlighted on any historic mapping I have reviewed  No flint scatters or stray finds of any kind in the immediate vicinity of the stone that could indicate a hot spot of prehistoric activity  I have looked at the standing stone in question and I am happy to view it as a rubbing post for cattle. Traditionally large stones sometimes of unusual shape are put in fields and are not an uncommon feature in England and Scotland and are still being erected on modern working dairy farms. I cannot tell you when the stone was erected, but that in my professional opinion would state that the standing stone in question is unlikely to represent an in situ prehistoric monument.

Both Heritage England and the County Council Archaeologist have been consulted on the application. The County Archaeologist has confirmed that from the available evidence, there is a low likelihood of significant archaeological assets being disturbed by the construction of the proposed development. Similarly that there is a lack of any evidence to support the view that the standing stone is of archaeological interest and as such, no objections are raised. Historic England has confirmed that they are not a statutory consultee for this proposal.

Based on the information available, the heritage implications of the proposal are considered to be acceptable, including the re-location of the standing stone presently on site, in accordance with Policy S27 of the Allerdale Local Plan.

Ground Investigation

The application has been supported by a Geo-environmental Appraisal that includes both desk based assessment and site investigation. The only recommendations relate to foundation design for the proposed housing. The Council’s Environmental Health Officer is satisfied with the findings of this report and does not recommend conditions requiring any further works. As such, the ground conditions for the proposal are considered to be acceptable, in accordance with relevant policies of the ALPP1 and the advice contained within the NPPF.

Education Provision

Cumbria County Council (CCC) has indicated that using a dwelling led model for 6 No. 2 bedroomed, 22 No. 3 bedroomed and 36 No. 4+ bedroomed dwellings, the 64 houses will produce a pupil yield of 27 children (16 primary and 11 secondary). The site would be in the catchment areas of Broughton Academy (0.8 miles) and Cockermouth School (3.7 miles); other nearby schools are St Bridget’s CE School at Brigham (1.3 miles) and Bridekirk/Dovenby CE School (2.2 miles). Broughton Academy is both the catchment and the closest primary school. Cockermouth School is both the catchment and the closest secondary school. The information available to CCC is that there is only space for 5 of the required 16 places and so there are insufficient places in Broughton Academy to accommodate the theoretical pupil yield from the development. The next nearest school is St Bridget's CE at Brigham, which also has insufficient places for all the children. There are insufficient spaces in the next nearest school at Bridekirk/Dovenby CE which is situated a distance of 2.2 miles from the development. For this development to be sustainable, CCC indicate that it will be necessary for additional school places to be accommodated at Broughton Academy. The only way to do this is to build an additional classroom. The County Council has made an initial calculation of a new class room to accommodate the additional pupils to be approximately £223,791. The County Council does not have the capital to deliver this improvement and is therefore requesting that the developer enables delivery of the additional classroom. Without this, CCC indicates that it would not be possible to consider this development to be sustainable.

The information available to CCC is that Cockermouth School has insufficient places to accommodate the pupil yield of 11 places. The next nearest secondary is Netherhall School which is 5.4 miles, and Workington Academy at 5.6 miles from the development, both of these has sufficient places. All these schools are situated more than 3 miles by road from the development.

Using the DfE multiplier an education contribution of £200,068 (£18,188 x 11) would be sought for Cockermouth School, however, the priority for the County Council is the primary school contribution as there is a deliverable solution identified at the school. Whilst there is a need for a secondary contribution, the County Council is willing to consider some flexibility in relation to the requested secondary contribution in order to ensure that the identified solution is fully delivered in relation to primary provision. Instead, it is anticipated that there will be sufficient spaces for the 10 secondary aged children at Netherhall School. This is over the 3 mile statutory walking distance from the development, transport would therefore be required. We have priced based on 1 x 9-20 seat vehicle @ £75 per day (the mid-point of the cost procurement matrix). For secondary school transport, a five year contribution is required. Based on a 190 day school year, the calculation is therefore £71,250.

The agent has confirmed that they would be willing to make the education contribution sought by Cumbria County Council in respect to providing a new classroom at Broughton Academy and the transport contribution to Netherhall Secondary School.

As the requirements of the County Council have been agreed, then subject to the signing of a legal agreement to this effect, the proposal is considered to deliver the educational services necessary to make the development acceptable, in accordance with Policy S21 of the ALPP1.

Broughton Academy has indicated that given the timescales involved in commissioning and building out a new classroom, that any education contribution should be made available up front. Initial views are that this approach does not seem unreasonable but agreement on timescales would be secured through any subsequent s106 agreement, should Members support the proposal. Open Space Provision

Policy S25 of the ALPP1 requires that new residential development makes provision for well-designed public open space, either through on site provision of new open space or by financial contribution to enhance or create off site provision of public open space. The Council has a draft Supplementary Planning Document that sets out requirements for open space provision, differentiating between amenity greenspace and provision for children and young people. For residential developments of over 60 units, the draft SPD indicates that provision for both should be on site.

For amenity greenspace, the draft SPD specifies 15sqm per dwelling, equating to a requirement here of 960sqm. There are two main usable areas of amenity greenspace on site, one to the north east section of the site and one to the south east section of the site. In total, these two areas provide for approx. 1400sqm of amenity greenspace, meeting the requirements of the draft SPD.

For the provision for children and young people, the application proposes a financial contribution to upgrade existing facilities, with the play area at Kirklea having been identified as the closest facility at approx. 425m from the site. Whilst the draft SPD indicates that for proposals over 60 dwellings, provision for children and young people should be on site, this document remains in draft and adopted Policy S25 allows for provision either on or off site. As such, the upgrading of existing facilities off site at a distance of 422m from the proposal is considered to be reasonable in terms of accessibility along the proposed upgraded Winder Lonning. The contribution proposed of £17,454 would allow for the £12,454 required by the calculation within the draft SPD, with an additional £5000 proposed towards maintenance of those additional facilities.

Based on the above, the requirements of Policy S25 are considered to be met.

Loss of Agricultural Land

Policy S36 of the ALPP1 seeks to use poorer land in preference to the best and most versatile land as defined by classes 1, 2 and 3a of the Agricultural Land Classification. The Natural England regional maps indicate that the site subject of the application is Grade 3 Agricultural Land, which is of moderate to good quality. The majority of land within the Borough outside of the National Park shares this classification. Available records online do not break down the classification further to Grades (a) and (b) for this site. The site is currently used for grazing rather than crops.

The proposal will not result in the loss of Grade 1 or 2 agricultural land which is very good to excellent. Whilst the grading of the site between Class a and b is not available, given the availability of agricultural land within the locality, and that Great and Little Broughton has been identified for a some growth likely to result in the loss of greenfield land, then the proposal is considered to be acceptable in relation to policy S36.

Benefits of the Proposal

The provision of 64 additional dwellings at Broughton (Great and Little Broughton villages) would provide for additional housing at a scale that the draft ALPP2 considers reasonable for this Local Service Centre and would contribute particularly to one of the key objectives of the NPPF to boost significantly the supply of housing in order to contribute to the economic and particularly the social dimension of sustainable development – supporting strong, vibrant and healthy communities, by providing the supply of housing required to meet the needs of present and future generations. Similarly, the proposal would contribute to strategic objective SO2c of the ALPP2, which seeks to ensure a deliverable supply of housing land that meets the needs of the community and local economy.

The proposal would provide for 16 additional affordable houses for social rent and discounted sale, increasing access to affordable housing, in accordance with strategic objective SO2d of the ALPP1 and the Council Plans priority of tackling inequality through the provision of more affordable housing.

The proposed education contribution would allow for the construction of an additional classroom at the adjacent Broughton Academy.

The proposed contribution to upgrade existing play provision at Kirklea would benefit the community as a whole.

Other Issues:

None

Local Financial Considerations

Having regard to S70 (2) of the Town and Country Planning Act, the proposal would have financial implications relating to New Homes Bonus, Council Tax Revenue and the Section 106 payments outlined above. It is considered that whilst this is a material planning consideration it has not been given significant weight in assessing the planning merits of the application.

Conclusion

The villages of Great and Little Broughton combined are designated as a Local Service Centre within the Allerdale Local Plan Part 1 (ALPP1) and whilst the proposal lies outside the existing settlement boundary, it is acknowledged that these boundaries are out of date and pending review. As the proposal adjoins the existing settlement boundary to the south, it is considered that the proposal is sufficiently well related to the adjoining settlement.

As a larger village within the Borough, with a range of facilities, Broughton (Great and Little Broughton) is identified as a Local Service Centre (LSC) in the ALPP1. Policy S3 states that in combination, LSC’s will provide up to 20% of the 5,471 net additional dwellings up to 2029, equating to 1094 net additional dwellings. Policy S5 requires that the scale of new development should be commensurate to the size of the settlement and reflect its position within the hierarchy. It also requires the prioritising and effective re-use of previously developed land. The proposal is for 64 residential units. This scale of development is considered to be appropriate to the size of the settlement and the role it has been allocated as a Local Service Centre within the adopted ALPP1.

Whilst representations have been received raising a number of highways related concerns, the advice from both the Highways Authority and Cumbria County Council and Highways England is that the highways implications would not be severe, the test applied by the NPPF.

The proposal is not considered to have significant landscape and visual impacts from within the wider area, but concerns have been expressed as to the impact of development on the rural character of the locality, particularly when viewed from the footpath network to the north and west. This rural character and open views would be altered significantly given the layout and density of the development, and that views through the site would be limited. However, it is accepted that this would be a localised impact, and that mitigation would be provided to some extent by the proposed landscaping buffers that would help to soften the physical form of the development.

A sufficient level of supporting information is considered to have been provided to address ecological and heritage issues, flood risk and drainage, arboricultural implications, ground conditions and so forth. No statutory consultees have raised objection to the proposal, subject to conditions.

The proposal will provide for additional infrastructure necessary to make the development acceptable (education contributions and play provision). The benefits of the scheme include the provision of 16 affordable houses and a re- alignment of the Little Brow/Harris Brow/Papcastle Road junction to improve visibility.

Following revisions to the proposal, the impact on the residential amenity of neighbours is considered to be acceptable.

On balance, it is recommended that the proposal be approved subject to the attached conditions and the signing of the s106 agreement. Should the s106 agreement not be satisfactorily completed in a timely manner, then it is requested that the powers to refuse the proposal be delegated to the Head of Service. Annex 1

Conditions/Reasons

1. The development hereby permitted shall be begun before the expiration of three years from the date of this permission. Reason: In order to comply with Section 91 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 as amended by Section 51 of the Planning & Compulsory Purchase Act 2004.

2. The development hereby permitted shall be carried out solely in accordance with the following plans: Detail Layout drawing no. SL167.90.9.DL rev E Elevations Treatment drawing no. SL167.90.9.ETL rev b Hard Surfaces Treatment drawing no.SL167.90.9.HST rev A Management Layout drawing no. SL167.90.9.ML rev A Parking Layout drawing no. SL167.90.9.PL rev b Development plot schedule rev date 27.03.2017 Site Sections drawing number SL167.90.9.SS rev C Materials schedule amendment received 30th March 2017 Proposed Engineering Improvement Site Layout, Sheet 1of 2 drawing no. SH/BP- C/60-01A Proposed Engineering Improvement Site Layout, Sheet 2 of 2 drawing no. SH/BP- C/60-02A Proposed Engineering Detailed Site Layout, Sheet 1 of 2 drawing no. SHIBP-C/ 10- 01C Proposed Engineering Detailed Site Layout,Sheet 2 of 2 - drawing no.SH/BP- C/10- 02C Proposed Private Drainage Detailed Layout, Sheet 1of 4 -drawing no. SH/.BP- C/11 -01B Proposed Private Drainage Detailed Layout, Sheet 2 of 4 - drawing no. SH/BP- C/11- 02C Proposed Private Drainage Detailed Layout, Sheet 3 of 4 - drawing no. SH/BP- C/11-03B Proposed Private Drainage Detailed Layout Sheet 4 of 4 -drawing no. SH/BP- C/11- 04B Proposed External Works Detailed Layout, Sheet 1 of 4 - drawing no. SH/BP- C/12- 01B Proposed External Works Detailed Layout, Sheet 2 of 4 -drawing no. SH/8P- C/12-02C Proposed External Works Detailed Layout, Sheet 3 of 4 -drawing no. SH/BP- C/12-03B Proposed External Works Detailed Layout, Sheet 4 of 4 -drawing no. SH/BP- C/12-04B Proposed Longitudinal Sections -drawing no. SH/BP-C/1-01 B Proposed Foul Water Manhole Schedules Sheet 1of 2 - drawing no. SH/BP- C/16- 01B Proposed Foul Water Manhole Schedules Sheet 2 of 2 - drawing no. SH/BP- C/16- 02B Proposed Surface Water Manhole Schedules Sheet 1of 3 -drawing no. SH/BP- C/16-03B Proposed Surface Water Manhole Schedules Sheet 2 of 3 - drawing no. SH/BP- C/16-04B Proposed Manhole Setting Out Details Sheet 1 of 3 - drawing no. SH/BP-C/18- 01B Proposed Manhole Setting Out Details Sheet 2 of 3 - drawing no. SH/BP-C/18- 02A Proposed Manhole Setting Out Details Sheet 3 of 3 - drawing no. SH/BP-C/18- 03A Proposed Road Setting Out Details - drawing no.SH/BP-C/19-018 Proposed Plot Setting Out Details Sheet 1 of 2 - drawing no. SH/BP-C/20-01 B Proposed Plot Setting Out Details Sheet 2 of 2 - drawing no. SH/BP- C/20-028 Proposed Engineering Foundation Zoning Plan - drawing no. SH/BP-C/40-01C Proposed Foundation Schedule - drawing no.SH/BP-C/40-02C Hastings v3, HAS-PLP1,HAS-PLE1/2A, HAS-PLE1/22A, Warwick v4, WAR-PLP1 , WAR-PLE1/1, WAR-PLE1/2, WAR-PLE1/4 Banbury v3, BAN-PLP1, BAN-PLE1/2 Taunton v4 , TAU-SCHA, TAU-PLP1, TAU-PLE1/6 Mayfair v3, MAY-PLP1,MAY-PLE1/9 Boston v4, BOS-PLP1A, BOS-PLE1/19, BOS-PLE1/20 Wellington v3, WEL-PLP1, WEL-PLE1/48, WEL-PLE1/5A Salisbury v3, SAL-PLP1,SAL-PLE1/12,SAL-PLE1/13 York v3, YOR-PLP1, YOR-PLE1/5 Hawthorn, HAW-PLP2A, HAW-PLE2/9 Rowan, ROW-PLP1 , ROW-PLP3, ROW-PLE1/8A, ROW-PLE3/4 Landscape General Arrangement plan, drawing no. 11189_L01_P03 Soft Landscape Area 1, drawing no. 11189_L04_P03 Soft Landscape Area 2, drawing no. 11189_L05_P03 Hard Landscape plan -drawing no. 11189_L02_P03 Boundary Treatments and Furniture Plan - drawing no. 11189_L03_ P03 Boundary Details - BD-03A, BD-15, BD-18, BD-32, BD-49 New/Revised Comparative offset Distances Drawing SL167.90.9.COD Warwick v4, WAR-PLP1 Plot 15 specific Taunton v4 TAU PLP1-11 Plot 1 specific Reason: In order to ensure that the development is carried out in complete accordance with the approved plans and any material and non-material alterations to the scheme are properly considered.

3. All planting, seeding or turfing comprised within the scheme and shown on the landscaping plans approved under condition 2 shall be carried out in the first planting season following completion of the development and any trees or plants which within a period of 5 years from the completion of the development die, are removed or become seriously damaged or diseased shall be replaced in the next planting season with other similar size and species, unless otherwise agreed in writing by the Local Planning Authority. Reason: In order to enhance the appearance of the development and minimise the impact of the development in the locality, in compliance with Policy DM14 of the Allerdale Local Plan (Part 1), Adopted July 2014.

4. A landscaping management plan including long term design objectives, management responsibilities and maintenance schedules for all landscape areas including public open space and landscaped buffers shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority prior to the occupation of any dwellinghouse hereby approved. The development shall thereafter be maintained at all times in accordance with the approved management plan. Reason: To ensure the long term maintenance and management of public open space and landscaped buffers within the residential estate.

5. No hedgerows or tree planting to the northern and eastern boundaries of the site as shown as 'landscape buffers' on the Detail Layout drawing SL167.90.9.DL Rev E and as shown in detail on Drawings Soft Landscape Area 1 11189_L04 P03 and Drawings Soft Landscape Area 2 11189_L05 P03, shall be removed unless alternative planting has been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. Reason: In order to enhance the appearance of the development and minimise the impact of the development in the locality, in compliance with Policy DM14 of the Allerdale Local Plan (Part 1), Adopted July 2014.

6. Notwithstanding the provisions of the Town and Country Planning (General Permitted Development) Order 2015 (or in any Statutory Instrument revoking or re-enacting that Order with or without modification), the 1.2m high timber post and rail fence to the northern and eastern boundaries of the site shall be retained and shall not be replaced or altered, without the prior written approval of the Local Planning Authority upon an application submitted to it. Reason: The Local Planning Authority wishes to retain control over any proposed alterations to these boundaries in the interests of the appearance of the site and the amenities of the locality/open countryside location.

7. The development shall be undertaken in accordance with the recommendations and mitigation measures contained within the submitted Arboricultural Report and Arboricultural Method Statement Rev 2 prepared by Urban Green and dated November 2016, updated 30th March 2017. Reason: To ensure that existing trees and hedgerows are protected to an appropriate standard during the construction phase of the development in accordance with policy DM17 of the Allerdale Local Plan (Part 1), Adopted July 2014.

8. The development shall be undertaken in accordance with the recommendations and mitigation measures contained within the ecological measures of the submitted Ecological Assessment revision 5 prepared by Urban Green and dated June 2016, updated 30th March 2017. Reason: To minimise the impacts of the development on the ecological interests of the site in compliance with the National Planning Policy Framework, and Policy S35 of the Allerdale Local Plan (Part 1), Adopted July 2014.

9. The construction phase of the development (excluding working hours) shall be undertaken in accordance with the submitted Construction and Environmental Management Plan prepared by Story Homes and dated March 2017. The hours of operation for construction shall solely be undertaken between 8am -6m Mon –Friday, 8am -1pm saturays and no working on Sundays or Bank Holidays.

Reason: In the interests of safeguarding the amenity of the occupiers of neighbouring properties during the construction works of the development hereby approved, in compliance with the National Planning Policy Framework and Policy S32 of the Allerdale Local Plan (Part 1), Adopted July 2014, and in the interests of highway safety in accordance with Policy S22 of the Allerdale Local Plan (Part 1), Adopted July 2014, and to prevent pollution of the natural environment, in accordance with Policies S32 and S35 of the Allerdale Local Plan (Part 1), Adopted July 2014.

10. No development shall commence until a Materials Management Plan as recommended within the submitted Geoenvironmental Appraisal (ID GeoEnvironmental Consulting Engineers, Report Number: 4548-G-R002, Dated September 2016) has been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The construction phase of the development shall be completed in accordance with the approved details. Reason: To minimise any risk during or post construction works arising from any possible contamination from the development to the local environment in compliance with the National Planning Policy Framework and Policy S30 of the Allerdale Local Plan (Part 1), Adopted July 2014.

11. No development shall commence until a scheme for construction phase and operational phase lighting has been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The development shall be undertaken/completed in accordance with the approved details. Reason: To minimise the impacts of the development on the ecological interests of the site and surroundings in compliance with the National Planning Policy Framework, and Policy S35 of the Allerdale Local Plan (Part 1), Adopted July 2014.

12. No dwellinghouses hereby approved shall be occupied until the footpath link to Winder Lonning has been provided from the site and the footpath itself has been upgraded to a specification that has been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority prior to any dwelling being constructed above plinth level (including details of lighting positions and lighting levels to the footpath). The footpath shall be upgraded from the point where it adjoins the site for its full length to Meeting House Lane unless otherwise agreed in writing by the Local Planning Authority. Reason: To ensure a safe access and egress from the site to Great and Little Broughton villages for pedestrians, in accordance with policy S22 of the Allerdale Local Plan (Part 1), Adopted July 2014.

13. No development shall commence until the junction improvement works at Little Brow/Harris Brow/Papcastle Road junction as set out in the Transport Statement Addendum dated January 2107 prepared by S·A·J Transport Consultants have been completed and in this respect further details, including longitudinal/cross sections, shall be submitted to and approved by the Local Planning Authority before work commences on site. These details shall be in accordance with the standards laid down in the Cumbria Design Guide. Reason: To ensure a minimum standard of construction in the interests of highway safety.

14. The carriageway, footways and footpaths shall be designed, 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 part of the development hereby permitted is commenced. 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 fully occupied. Reason: To ensure a minimum standard of construction within the approved development in the interests of highway safety.

15. No dwelling shall be occupied until the estate road, including footways and cycleways and private road where necessary to serve that dwelling, 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 of the occupiers of residential units hereby approved.

16. Before any development takes place, a plan shall be submitted for the prior approval of the Local Planning Authority reserving adequate land for the parking of vehicles engaged in the construction operations associated with the development hereby approved, and that land, including vehicular access thereto, shall be used for or be kept available for these purposes at all times until the completion of the construction works. Reason: The carrying out of this development without the provision of these facilities during the construction work is likely to lead to inconvenience and danger to road users.

17. The use of any dwellinghouse hereby approved shall not commence until the access and parking requirements for that dwellinghouse have been constructed in accordance with the approved plan. Any such access and or parking provision as shown on Parking layout Plan SL167.90.9.PL shall be retained and be capable of use when the development is completed and shall not be removed or altered without the prior consent of the Local Planning Authority. Reason: To ensure that proper access and parking provision is made and retained for use in relation to the development.

18. A management plan, including management responsibilities and maintenance schedules for all private roads, parking courts and parking bays that will not form part of the adopted highway, shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority prior to the occupation of any dwellinghouse hereby approved. The development shall thereafter be maintained at all times in accordance with the approved management plan. Reason: To ensure the long term maintenance and management of unadopted roads and parking areas within the residential estate. 19. Foul drainage from the development shall be connected to the public sewer.

Reason: To ensure a satisfactory means of foul drainage and to minimise the risk of water pollution to the local water environment, in compliance with the National Planning Policy Framework and Policy S2 of the Allerdale Local Plan (Part 1), Adopted July 2014.

20. Unless otherwise agreed in writing by the Local planning authority, the surface water drainage for the development hereby approved, shall be carried out in accordance with principles set out in the Drainage Strategy Executive Summary dated 28th March 2017 prepared by JLES, received on the 30th March 2017, the Stage 1 Flood Risk Assessment and Drainage Strategy Statement Rev 2, by AVIE Consulting Ltd, received on the 30th March 2017, and the drainage/engineering drawings as approved under condition 2. The development shall be completed in accordance with the approved details and shall be operational before occupation of the development. Reason: To ensure a satisfactory means of surface water drainage and minimise the risk of flooding from the development in comparison to an assessment of its existing undeveloped state, in compliance with the National Planning Policy Framework, Policies S29 and S2 of the Allerdale Local Plan (Part 1), Adopted July 2014.

21. Prior to occupation of the development a sustainable drainage management and maintenance plan for the lifetime of the development shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the local planning authority. The sustainable drainage management and maintenance plan shall include as a minimum: a. Arrangements for adoption by an appropriate public body or statutory undertaker, or, management and maintenance by a resident's management company; and b. Arrangements for inspection and ongoing maintenance of all elements of the sustainable drainage system to secure the operation of the surface water drainage scheme throughout its lifetime. The development shall subsequently be completed, maintained and managed in accordance with the approved plan. Reason: To ensure that management arrangements are in place for the sustainable drainage system in order to manage the risk of flooding and pollution during the lifetime of the development.

22. An annual report reviewing the effectiveness of the Travel Plan up to a period of 5 years and including any necessary amendments or measures shall be prepared by the developer/occupier and submitted to the Local Planning Authority for approval. Reason: To aid in the delivery of sustainable transport objectives. Proactive Statement

Application Approved Following Revisions

The Local Planning Authority has acted positively and proactively in determining this application by identifying planning policies, constraints, stakeholder representations and matters of concern within the application (as originally submitted) and where appropriate negotiating, with the Applicant, acceptable amendments and solutions to the proposal to address those concerns. As a result, the Local Planning Authority has been able to grant planning permission for an acceptable proposal, in accordance with the presumption in favour of sustainable development, as set out within the National Planning Policy Framework.

Notes to Applicant:

CCC - The applicant should be made aware that the highways and drainage works will need the approval from the LHA , be that a sec 278 agreement for the works external to the site and subsequent sec 38 for the adoption of the internal roads.

UU - Please note that these properties will be at the highest part of the local Network and low pressure fittings / boilers should be considered.

UU - There is an easement on an adjacent piece of land and I would therefore advise that the developer adheres to the standard conditions for works adjacent to pipeline. It is the applicant's responsibility to demonstrate the exact relationship between any United Utilities' assets and the proposed development. United Utilities offers a fully supported mapping service and we recommend the applicant contact our Property Searches Team on 03707 510101 to obtain maps of the site.

Due to the public sewer transfer, not all sewers are currently shown on the statutory sewer records, if a sewer is discovered during construction; please contact a Building Control Body to discuss the matter further.

Police Liaison Officer – Your attention is drawn to the recommendations of the Police Liaison officer relating to crime prevention measures, dated 23/12/2016.

Electricity North West – Your attention is drawn to the advice contained within the ENW response dated 29th December 2016 regarding possible impacts on ENW assets.

CCC – If any public right of way is to be temporarily obstructed, a formal closure will be required, please contact [email protected] . There is a 14 week lead in time for this process. Annex 2

Detail Layout drawing no. SL167.90.9.DL rev E Elevations Treatment drawing no. SL167.90.9.ETL rev b Hard Surfaces Treatment drawing no.SL167.90.9.HST rev A Management Layout drawing no. SL167.90.9.ML rev A Parking Layout drawing no. SL167.90.9.PL rev b Development plot schedule rev date 27.03.2017 Site Sections drawing number SL167.90.9.SS rev C Materials schedule amendment received 30th March 2017 Proposed Engineering Improvement Site Layout, Sheet 1of 2 drawing no. SH/BP- C/60-01A Proposed Engineering Improvement Site Layout, Sheet 2 of 2 drawing no. SH/BP- C/60-02A Proposed Engineering Detailed Site Layout, Sheet 1 of 2 drawing no. SHIBP-C/ 10- 01C Proposed Engineering Detailed Site Layout,Sheet 2 of 2 - drawing no.SH/BP- C/10- 02C Proposed Private Drainage Detailed Layout, Sheet 1of 4 -drawing no. SH/.BP- C/11 -01B Proposed Private Drainage Detailed Layout, Sheet 2 of 4 - drawing no. SH/BP- C/11- 02C Proposed Private Drainage Detailed Layout, Sheet 3 of 4 - drawing no. SH/BP- C/11-03B Proposed Private Drainage Detailed Layout Sheet 4 of 4 -drawing no. SH/BP- C/11- 04B Proposed External Works Detailed Layout, Sheet 1 of 4 - drawing no. SH/BP- C/12- 01B Proposed External Works Detailed Layout, Sheet 2 of 4 -drawing no. SH/8P- C/12-02C Proposed External Works Detailed Layout, Sheet 3 of 4 -drawing no. SH/BP- C/12-03B Proposed External Works Detailed Layout, Sheet 4 of 4 -drawing no. SH/BP- C/12-04B Proposed Longitudinal Sections -drawing no. SH/BP-C/1-01 B Proposed Foul Water Manhole Schedules Sheet 1of 2 - drawing no. SH/BP- C/16- 01B Proposed Foul Water Manhole Schedules Sheet 2 of 2 - drawing no. SH/BP- C/16- 02B Proposed Surface Water Manhole Schedules Sheet 1of 3 -drawing no. SH/BP- C/16-03B Proposed Surface Water Manhole Schedules Sheet 2 of 3 - drawing no. SH/BP- C/16-04B Proposed Manhole Setting Out Details Sheet 1 of 3 - drawing no. SH/BP-C/18- 01B Proposed Manhole Setting Out Details Sheet 2 of 3 - drawing no. SH/BP-C/18- 02A Proposed Manhole Setting Out Details Sheet 3 of 3 - drawing no. SH/BP-C/18- 03A Proposed Road Setting Out Details - drawing no.SH/BP-C/19-018 Proposed Plot Setting Out Details Sheet 1 of 2 - drawing no. SH/BP-C/20-01 B Proposed Plot Setting Out Details Sheet 2 of 2 - drawing no. SH/BP- C/20-028 Proposed Engineering Foundation Zoning Plan - drawing no. SH/BP-C/40-01C Proposed Foundation Schedule - drawing no.SH/BP-C/40-02C Hastings v3, HAS-PLP1,HAS-PLE1/2A, HAS-PLE1/22A, Warwick v4, WAR-PLP1 , WAR-PLE1/1, WAR-PLE1/2, WAR-PLE1/4 Banbury v3, BAN-PLP1, BAN-PLE1/2 Taunton v4 , TAU-SCHA, TAU-PLP1, TAU-PLE1/6 Mayfair v3, MAY-PLP1,MAY-PLE1/9 Boston v4, BOS-PLP1A, BOS-PLE1/19, BOS-PLE1/20 Wellington v3, WEL-PLP1, WEL-PLE1/48, WEL-PLE1/5A Salisbury v3, SAL-PLP1,SAL-PLE1/12,SAL-PLE1/13 York v3, YOR-PLP1, YOR-PLE1/5 Hawthorn, HAW-PLP2A, HAW-PLE2/9 Rowan, ROW-PLP1 , ROW-PLP3, ROW-PLE1/8A, ROW-PLE3/4 Landscape General Arrangement plan, drawing no. 11189_L01_P03 Soft Landscape Area 1, drawing no. 11189_L04_P03 Soft Landscape Area 2, drawing no. 11189_L05_P03 Hard Landscape plan -drawing no. 11189_L02_P03 Boundary Treatments and Furniture Plan - drawing no. 11189_L03_ P03 Boundary Details - BD-03A, BD-15, BD-18, BD-32, BD-49 New/Revised Comparative offset Distances Drawing SL167.90.9.COD Warwick v4, WAR-PLP1 Plot 15 specific Taunton v4 TAU PLP1-11 Plot 1 specifi