SOUTH LAKELAND DISTRICT COUNCIL South Lakeland House, Kendal, Cumbria LA9 4UQ www.southlakeland.gov.uk

You are requested to attend a meeting of the Planning Committee on Thursday, 26 March 2009, at 10 a.m. in the District Council Chamber, South Lakeland House, Kendal

Note – Plans will be available for inspection in the Council Chamber from 9.15 a.m. on the morning of the meeting.

Committee Membership Councillors Alan Baverstock Jane Carson Brian Cooper Jackie Cooper Joss Curwen Colin Davies Sheila Eccles Sylvia Emmott (Vice-Chairman) Clive Graham Brenda Gray Frank Hodson Janette Jenkinson Sonia Lawson Paul Little (Chairman) Ian McPherson Maureen Nicholson Brian Wilkinson David Williams 18 March 2009 (date of despatch) Debbie Storr, Corporate Director (Monitoring Officer)

For all enquiries, please contact:- Committee Administrator: Janine Jenkinson Telephone: 01539 733333 Ext.7493 e-mail: [email protected]

1

2 AGENDA Page Nos. PART I 1. APOLOGIES To receive apologies for absence, if any. 2. MINUTES 5 - 12 To authorise the Chairman to sign, as a correct record, the minutes of the meeting of the Committee held on 24 February 2009 (copy attached). 3. DECLARATIONS OF INTEREST To receive declarations by Members of personal and prejudicial interests in respect of items on this Agenda. If a Member requires advice on any item involving a possible declaration of interest which could affect his/her ability to speak and/or vote, he/she is advised to contact the Monitoring Officer at least 24 hours in advance of the meeting. 4. LOCAL GOVERNMENT ACT 1972 – EXCLUDED ITEMS To consider whether the items, if any, in Part II of the Agenda should be considered in the presence of the press and public. 5. PUBLIC PARTICIPATION Any member of the public who wishes to ask a question, make representations or present a deputation or petition at this meeting should apply to do so in writing by noon on the day before the meeting. Information on how to make the application can be obtained by viewing the Council’s Website www.southlakeland.gov.uk or by contacting the Democratic and Member Services Manager on 01539 717440. (1) Planning Applications Planning applications for which requests to speak have been made. (2) Agenda Items Agenda items for which requests to speak have been made. 6. REPORT OF THE CORPORATE DIRECTOR (COMMUNITIES) 13 –16 (1-94) To determine planning applications received. 7. A REPORT ON ENFORCEMENT ACTIVITY FROM 16 JANUARY 2009 TO 16 17 - 22 FEBRUARY 2009 To inform Members about enforcement activity. 8. A REPORT ON THE OUTSTANDING ENFORCEMENT CASELOAD 23 - 26 BETWEEN 1 JANUARY 2004 AND 16 FEBRUARY 2009. To inform Members about enforcement activity. 9. A REPORT ON ENFORCEMENT ACTIVITY FOR 2008. 27 - 28 To inform Members about enforcement activity during 2008. 10. APPLICATIONS CONSIDERED PREVIOUSLY BY THE PLANNING 29 - 34 COMMITTEE AND DETERMINED BY THE CORPORATE DIRECTOR (COMMUNITIES) BETWEEN 13 FEBRUARY AND 13 MARCH 2009. To note the decisions made by the Corporate Director (Communities)

3

11. APPLICATIONS DETERMINED BY CUMBRIA COUNTY COUNCIL. 35 - 36 To inform Members of the applications determined by Cumbria County Council. 12. APPEALS UPDATE AT 13 MARCH 2009 37 - 45 To provide Members with information about the receipt and determination of planning appeals. PART II Private Section (exempt reasons under Schedule 12A of the Local Government Act 1972, as amended by the Local Government Act (Access to Information) (Variation) Order 2006, specified by way of paragraph number) There are no items in this part of the agenda.

4 Item 2

79 24.2.09 Planning

PLANNING COMMITTEE

Minutes of the proceedings at a meeting of the Committee held in the District Council Chamber at South Lakeland House, Kendal, on 24 February 2009, at 10.00 a.m.

Present

Councillors

Sylvia Emmott (Vice-Chairman)

Alan Baverstock Jane Carson Brian Cooper Joss Curwen Colin Davies Brenda Gray Janette Jenkinson Ian McPherson Brian Wilkinson

Apologies for absence were received from Councillors Sheila Eccles, Frank Hodson, Sonia Lawson, Paul Little (Chairman), Maureen Nicholson and David Williams.

Officers

Nick Hayhurst Planning Officer (Part) Lilian Hopkins Planning Officer (Part) Janine Jenkinson Assistant Democratic Services Officer Matthew Neal Principal Solicitor Andy Roe Development Control Manager Helen Smith Head of Finance (Part)

P/122 MINUTES

RESOLVED – That the Chairman be authorised to sign, as a correct record, the minutes of the meeting of the Committee held on 27 January 2009.

P/123 DECLARATIONS OF INTEREST

RESOLVED – That it be noted that Councillor Brenda Gray declared an interest in Minute P/131.

P/124 LOCAL GOVERNMENT ACT 1972 – EXCLUDED ITEMS

RESOLVED – That it be noted that there were no items in Part II of the Agenda.

P/125 PLANNING APPLICATIONS

The Development Control Manager submitted a Schedule of Planning Applications and his recommendations thereon.

RESOLVED – That

(1) the applications be determined as indicated below (the numbers denote the Schedule numbers of the application);

5 80 24.2.09 Planning

(2) except where stated below, the applications be subject to the relevant conditions and advice notes, as outlined in the Schedule; and

(3) except where stated below, the reasons for refusal be those as outlined in the Schedule.

P/126 PUBLIC PARTICIPATION

Planning Applications

RESOLVED – That the following applications, for which representations have been received from members of the public, in accordance with Minute 1810 (1996/97), be determined in the following manner:-

6. SL/2008/1188 BEETHAM: 44 Leighton Beck Road, Slack Head, Milnthorpe. single – storey extension. (Mr and Mrs I West)

Mr David Brown, a neighbouring resident spoke in objection to the proposal, and a full copy of his representation is available on the Democratic Services file.

Mr Ted Fletcher, the applicant’s agent, responded to the points raised. He asserted that the proposal had been significantly reduced in size in order to mitigate concerns. He highlighted that the Planning Officer had been convinced that the scheme was appropriate and had recommended that the application be granted.

A site visit had been undertaken. Members had now had an opportunity to view and assess the issues raised by the proposal. On balance, it was felt that the proposal was acceptable.

GRANT – subject to the conditions detailed in the Schedule.

1. SL/2008/0790 KENDAL: Land adjacent to Westmorland General Hospital, Burton Road, Kendal. Erection of nursing home and a block of 21 retirement/close care apartments, parking provision, landscaping and refuse store. (Trianglo Ltd)

Diane Meakin commented on the application. She asserted that the development would be beneficial to the area, but queried whether the land would remain the property of Westmorland General Hospital.

Mr Graham Bywater, the applicant’s agent responded. He explained that the applicant had initially looked to purchase the land five years ago, during which time the hospital had undertaken a full review regarding the possible usage of the site.

The Development Control Manager summarised the details of the application, highlighting that the fundamental issues relating to the proposal were whether the close – care apartments were appropriate in terms of design, scale and siting. He also highlighted the neighbours’ concerns regarding noise and

6 81 24.2.09 Planning

lighting issues due to the proximity of the service areas to nearby retail stores. Mitigation measures were proposed to deal with these. A letter would be sent to the Hospital Authority regarding complaints over the rattling drain covers on the access road.

GRANT – subject to the conditions set out in the Schedule and an additional condition to cover the details of a surface water attenuation system.

P/127 COMPLEX PLANNING APPLICATIONS

RESOLVED – That the following applications be determined in the manner set out:-

2. SL/2008/1112 WHITWELL AND SELSIDE: Kit Crag Farm, Selside, Kendal. Erection of agricultural workers dwelling. (A Dixon and Son)

The Planning Officer advised Members that the fundamental issue relating to this application was whether it was considered that there was an essential need for an additional worker to be resident on the holding.

There were three separate livestock elements to the operation and considerable new investment had been recently made to install a large poultry unit.

The Assessment which had been commissioned from the Land Agency in the property Group at Lancashire County Council had concluded that there was no functional need. The Planning Officer commented on the concerns raised by the Assessment, and noted that it had not taken into account figures relating to extended working weeks and the frequency of out of hours call outs. It was also noted that the accounts indicated that the development could be adequately funded.

Given the scale of the operation concerned, the remote location and farm circumstances, it was felt a case could be justified.

Members felt that the application should be supported due to the evident functional need and emphasised the importance of supporting the farming community.

GRANT – subject to outline conditions and an agricultural occupancy condition.

5. SL/2008/1176 FAWCETT FOREST: Martclose, Shap Road, Selside, Kendal. Barn Conversion to three holiday units with single storey link from barn to shippon, including installation of sewage treatment plant. (Mr S Fairclough, C/O Goldseal Windows)

The Planning Officer informed the Committee that the agent had confirmed that a borehole would be used to provide an adequate water supply to the holiday units.

With regards to issues about the increased usage of the access

7 82 24.2.09 Planning

gate and concern that it might be left open, it was reported that the Highways Officer had confirmed that the gate belonged to the landowner. Therefore, a notice could be placed on it, advising people to close the gate.

GRANT – subject to the condition detailed in the Schedule and additional conditions to cover details of the water supply provision and details of the sewage treatment plant to be installed prior to occupation.

7. SL/2008/1245 GRANGE OVER SANDS: Cartmel Grange, Allithwaite Road, Grange – over- Sands. Construction of two storey extension and new kitchen with internal alterations to create 12 additional bedrooms. (Brancaster Care Homes Ltd)

The Development Control Manager reported that Grange Town Council had no objections, subject to improvements to the access being made and the use of on site soak ways for surface drainage. Similar concerns had been raised by a nearby resident who had also been concerned about the impact of the junction with Rowanside. .

GRANT – subject to the conditions detailed in the Schedule and additional conditions to cover site management during the construction period, hours of working during the construction period and details of refuse storage facilities.

P/128 LISTED BUILDING APPLICATION

RESOLVED – That the following application be determined in the manner set out:-

9. SL/2008/0833 LOWER HOLKER: Cark Manor, Cark in Cartmel, Grange over (Retrospective Sands. Installation of floodlighting to exterior of building Full Planning (retrospective). (Mr David Haythornthwaite) Application) and SL/2008/0834 (Retrospective Listed Building Consent)

Members raised concern at the applicant’s unwillingness to comply with the requirements of the conditions attached to the application considered at the Committee meeting held in November 2008. It was also highlighted that historically numerous retrospective applications had been considered for this property.

Reservations were expressed regarding light pollution and the impact of the floodlights, therefore Members elected to grant temporary permission for a trial period of two years, to enable the agreed amendments to be monitored.

8 83 24.2.09 Planning

Retrospective Planning Permission and Retrospective Listed Building Consent be GRANTED subject to the conditions as detailed in the Schedule and an additional condition stipulating that it is a temporary permission for two years.

P/129 COMPLEX PLANNING APPLICATIONS

RESOLVED – That the following applications be determined in the manner set out:-

8. SL/2008/1249 KENDAL: Martindale Builders Yard, Entry Lane, Kendal. (Full Planning Demolition of builders yard and cottage and change of use to car Application) and park. (Maple Grove Developments) SL/2008/1250 (Conservation Area Consent)

One additional letter of objection had been received, asserting that the development would exert a detrimental impact on the area and expressing concern regarding highways issues.

It was felt the scheme would not benefit or enhance the area and that the land could be utilised more creatively, therefore Members elected to unanimously refuse the application.

REFUSE

4. SL/2008/1126 KIRKBY IRELETH: Bell Hall Farm, Head Crag, Kirkby in Furness. Widening of vehicular access. (Mr Jason Keith)

A decision on this application had been deferred at last month’s Committee meeting in order to seek further clarification regarding access details.

The Planning Officer reported to Members the details of the application and highlighted the issues regarding the proposed use of the site for purposes in addition to agriculture. He also advised Members that the standard of access being proposed was far in excess of that required by County Highways. This would result in sections of the hedgerow being altered which would increase views of the existing building on the site.

Delegated to the Corporate Director (Communities) to REFUSE unless the applicant is willing to amend the proposal to the lesser Cumbria County Council Highway standards of 2.4 x 70 metre visibility splays.

3. SL/2008/1122 ARNSIDE: 2 Parkside Drive, Arnside. Single storey extension. (Mr Denis Fletcher)

A site visit had taken place and Members had now had the opportunity to assess the relationship and proximity of the

9 84 24.2.09 Planning

proposed application on neighbouring properties.

Following consideration Members concluded that the development would unacceptably effect the amenity of neighbouring residents.

REFUSE – due to unneighbourly impact on neighbouring properties due to the siting of the extension and the positioning of the windows.

P/130 STRAIGHTFORWARD PLANNING APPLICATION

RESOLVED – That the following application be determined in the manner set out:-

10. SL/2009/0010 URSWICK: Stainton Village Green, Stainton, Barrow in Furness. Footpath on edge of Stainton Village Green. (Urswick Parish Council)

The Development Plans Manager reported that issues raised by Cumbria Highways regarding the provision of ramps and drainage had now been resolved.

GRANT – subject to the following conditions:-

(1) the development hereby permitted shall be commenced before the expiration of THREE YEARS from the date hereof; and

(2) construction work shall not continue until a sample of the surfacing material for the footpath has been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority before the development is commenced. Development shall be carried out in accordance with the approved details thereafter.

Note – Councillor Brenda Gray declared a personal interest in the following item of business, by virtue of being a member of Cabinet.

10 85 24.2.09 Planning

P/131 2009/10 REVENUE BUDGET: GENERAL FUND SERVICES

Consideration was given to the 2009/10 Revenue Budget relating to the Planning Committee. The Head of Finance reported that a number of reductions had been made to the Development Control budget.

Members expressed considerable concern regarding the last sentence within paragraph four of the report, ‘Although Cabinet has agreed on this occasion that funds are met from reserves, it draws the attention of the Planning Committee to the effect that its decision can have upon limited corporate resources’.

The Committee strongly stated that financial implications were not regarded as a material consideration in the determination of planning applications.

RESOLVED – That

(1) the report be received and the draft estimates be approved; and

(2) Cabinet note, that whilst the Planning Committee would be mindful of the cost implications of its decisions, ultimately in its capacity as a quasi - judicial body, it would continue to base its decisions on the material considerations, whilst taking into consideration planning policy guidelines.

.

P/132 A REPORT ON ENFORCEMENT ACTIVITY FROM 22 DECEMBER 2008 TO 16 JANUARY 2009

Members were presented with a report on enforcement activity between 22 December 2008 and 16 January 2009. 14 new complaints had been recorded and were being investigated, of which six had now been resolved. An update on those cases involving formal enforcement action were provided for Members information

09.008: Merlewood House, Grange Over Sands

A set of ‘Listed Wall Grade II’ piers and gate of Historical Architectural Importance had been removed from a site in Grange Over Sands, subsequently they had been discovered for sale in a local salvage yard.

09.018: Large Agricultural Building on Limestone Pavement Order Land, North – West of Baycliff

This building was situated in a remote location and sited on land designated by a Limestone Pavement Order. Natural England commented that they would not support an application.

08.347: Biggins Hall, Biggins, Kirkby Lonsdale

Negotiations to overcome concerns regarding proposed materials, finishes and fenestration had taken place. The Development Control Manager advised the Committee that based on the amended proposal, the development now fell within the remit of Permitted Development Rights.

(a) RESOLVED – That

11 86 24.2.09 Planning

(1) the report be received;

(2) in respect of Case Ref 09.008 Merlewood House, Grange Over Sands, the Executive Director (Central Services) be authorised to take all necessary enforcement action to ensure the re – instatement and retention of the piers and gates to their original site;

(3) in respect of Case Ref 09.018 Large Agricultural Building on Limestone Pavement Order Land, North- West of Baycliff; the Executive Director (Central Services) be authorised to take all necessary enforcement action to secure the removal of the building; and

(4) in respect of Case Ref 08.347 Biggins Hall, Biggins, Kirkby Lonsdale, it be noted that the proposed amendments to the development constituted Permitted Development. Subject to these alterations being carried out, no further action to be taken.

P/133 APPLICATIONS CONSIDERED PREVIOUSLY BY THE PLANNING COMMITTEE AND DETERMINED BY THE CORPORATE DIRECTOR (COMMUNITIES) BETWEEN 16 JANUARY AND 12 FEBRUARY 2009

RESOLVED – That the report be noted.

P/134 APPEAL UPDATE AT 12 FEBRUARY 2009

RESOLVED – That the report be noted.

The meeting ended at 1.10 p.m.

12 AGENDA ITEM NO …………………

SOUTH LAKELAND DISTRICT COUNCIL

From: Corporate Director (Communities) To: Planning Committee – 26 March 2009

REPORT OF CORPORATE DIRECTOR (COMMUNITIES)

PLANNING APPLICATIONS FOR DECISION Page No

Index

Schedule A - Complex planning applications 1 – 79

Schedule B - Planning applications where the Corporate Director None (Communities) is seeking authority to determine

Schedule C - Applications relating to Listed Buildings None

Schedule D - Advertisements None

Schedule E - Development by South Lakeland District Council and 80 – 83 Cumbria County Council

Schedule F - Straightforward planning applications 84 – 94

Schedule G - All other submissions None

Background papers relating to the subject matter of the report For all items the background papers are contained in the files listed in the second column of the schedule index.

Note: The background papers may be inspected at the offices of the Corporate Director (Communities), Lowther Street, Kendal, Cumbria

13

14 SOUTH LAKELAND DISTRICT COUNCIL PLANNING COMMITTEE – 26 March 2009

SCHEDULE REFERENCE SECTION SITE ADDRESS NUMBER NUMBER & PAGE No.

ARNSIDE 10 SL/2009/0112 F (92) Lane House Farm, Far Arnside

EGTON WITH NEWLAND, MANSRIGGS & OSMOTHERLEY 5 SL/2009/0076 A (76) Summer Hill, Spark Bridge (FPA) & SL/2009/0077 (LBC)

GRANGE over SANDS 2 SL/2008/1173 A (32) Batemans of Grange, Station Square (FPA) & SL/2008/1174 (CAC)

KENDAL 4 SL/2008/1219 A (65) Kendal Rugby Union Football Club, Shap Road 3 SL/2008/1220 A (53) land at Oxenholme Road 8 SL/2009/0007 F (84) land off Greenside, backing onto Kendal Fell Golf Club 6 SL/2009/0030 E (80) recreation ground, Sandylands Road 7 SL/2009/0031 E (82) Low Garth, Hallgarth

MILNTHORPE 9 SL/2009/0075 F (89) Paper Mill Shop, Unit H Main Line Industrial Estate, Crooklands Road

PRESTON PATRICK 1 SL/2008/0900 A (1) land at Sillfield, Gatebeck

1 15

16 SCHEDULE A

Planning Applications

1 SL/2008/0900 PRESTON PATRICK: LAND AT SILLFIELD, GATEBECK PROPOSAL: THREE WIND TURBINES AND ASSOCIATED INFRASTRUCTURE SILLFIELD WIND CLUSTER LIMITED

26/03/09 E356660 N485760

SUMMARY: Government guidance emphasises the need for planning authorities to support and encourage renewable energy proposals that do not cause significant harm to the local environment. The three turbines, each 110 metres in height, have a maximum installed capacity of up to 7.5MW. They are to be erected on an elevated site which is part of a west-facing slope above Gatebeck. The Cumbria Wind Energy SPD identifies the site as being within an area that has the potential to support between three and five turbines. In this case, however, the combination of local landscape and visual harm outweighs the benefits of renewable energy. Collectively, the three turbines at Sillfield and the six on the nearby site at Old Hutton (currently the subject of an appeal) would create a dominant feature in the landscape which would result in an unacceptable visual intrusion. Finally, the turbines would dominate the everyday lives of residents who live nearby to an unacceptable degree. REFUSE.

CONSULTATION RESPONSES

PARISH COUNCILS Preston Patrick Parish Council: Planning permission should be refused for the following reasons:- 1. The proposed turbines would have a dramatic adverse visual impact upon the open character of the surrounding landscape and would seriously compromise the public views in the area, in particular from West View, one of the best of South Lakeland and the southern Lake District. This adverse impact would be increased further should the Armistead application eventually be approved on appeal.

1 2. The scale and visual impact of the proposed turbines would result in a totally unacceptable impact upon the lives and economic livelihood of those residents whose properties are within close proximity of the site.

Preston Richard Parish Council: Planning permission should be refused for the following reasons:- Visual Impact: There will be considerable impact on the landscape of South Lakeland and beyond which further impacts on residents and visitors alike as the turbines would be seen from several local fells, The National Parks and key view points such as The Helm and Middleton Fell. Whilst we appreciate you are fully aware of this aspect within the planning submission it is noted that the photographs have been taken whilst trees are in full foliage and the impact of the turbines seem to be somewhat underplayed. Further we are given to understand that Natural England (NE) is reviewing the boundary of the Yorkshire Dales National Parks, should the new boundary be adopted it could be adjacent to this site therefore would it not be prudent to delay until NE report their study?

Financial Impact: By permitting these turbines we will begin to see a cumulative effect as both Lambrigg and Caton windfarms which are also seen from various locations previously stated. Then to further exacerbate this effect we are awaiting the submission of the Armistead plan. As the landscape and countryside are prime tourist attraction in this area we feel strongly that tourism will be greatly diminished. Who would want to come back and look at a landscape filled with wind turbines which ultimately must impact not only on the landscape but also the flora and fauna? It will also affect Bridleways, footpaths, riding and walking being important leisure activities in our area. Is it not the case that planning for much smaller turbines on the same site was rejected in 1998 on the grounds of visual impact and effect on the countryside? As a consequence of the cumulative affect we feel tourists will look elsewhere for their leisure activities resulting in loss of earnings to B & Bs, caravan sites, hotels, retail outlets etc thus affecting the local economy.

Flora and Fauna: There is great concern over the impact on wildlife such as birds, bats and badgers and particularly endangered species namely Hen Harriers and Skylarks. There are four birds mentioned within the IUCN Red Data Book present on this site plus badger sets. Watery Lane is an ancient green lane with a specific ecology that has been conserved for years how will these turbines impact on the site?

Other objections:

1. It was felt that the developers were exaggerating the carbon dioxide savings and the electricity generated by these turbines. This raised the question of whether the benefits outweighed the damage to the environment and the residents, consensus was they didn’t.

2. What will be the impact on communications in the area? TV Radio, Emergency Services. Has this been looked at?

3. Is there any danger to and from low-flying aircraft which use this area as training?

2 4. Noise and flicker affect on nearby properties, it was felt that the method used to assess this (ETSUR-97) are out of date according to the UK Noise Association report July 2006. Why are these turbines being placed so near residential property, less than one kilometre? If this has not been assessed properly it will have a major affect on people in the vicinity and needs to be addressed before this plan is up for consideration. Some of these residents are still awaiting the outcome of the noise monitoring, will this be available to them prior to the planning meeting?

5. The roads in our areas are already in a poor state of repair and the damage caused by the building and ongoing maintenance of this site will only add to their demise what plans have been put in place to ensure the construction and maintenance will not cause any detriment to the area’s highways?

Old Hutton and Homescales Parish Council: The Parish Council opposes this application because of the severe detrimental visual impact it would have on the area for many miles around. In addition, this application, coupled with the turbines proposed for Armistead, would create a development similar in scale to that refused at Whinash.

MEMBER OF PARLIAMENT (Tim Farron MP): I have been contacted by a number of my constituents in the vicinity or sightline of Gatebeck who are opposed to the proposed wind turbines at Sillfield and I would like to add my weight to their views. The case for moving away from traditional fossil based forms of power generation is overwhelming but wind energy sites like Sillfield will add very little to the national grid in comparison to the impact they have on their neighbours. Indeed, there is no need to build these wind turbines at all. Developments in tidal and hydroelectric generation, together with the increasing access to offshore wind power, are more ambitious and should allow us to meet and exceed our climate change obligations in a way which doesn’t impact on local residents in the same way. A similar planning application was refused by the planning committee in 1998 on the grounds of the committee’s view that the aesthetic qualities of the landscape would be compromised. In order to be consistent, the committee should turn this proposal down on the grounds that nothing has changed to alter that situation except, of course, that the proposed turbines on this occasion are taller. Such is the size and scale of this development, it will be seen for miles around spoiling a wedge of land which lies between the two national parks, and which itself has been proposed for inclusion in the Yorkshire Dales, or as a separate AONB. The turbines themselves will be visible from well inside the national parks, spoiling the enjoyment of the many visitors to the area each year. A number of reports have recognised that the photomontages produced by developers underestimate the impact of wind turbines on the landscape, and I would therefore ask the committee to be wary of relying too much on these images. The visual impact of the turbines is significant given the well-used public rights of way in the area. Walkers will find that the visual impact is intrusive and this in turn will have a negative impact on tourism in the local area – something we cannot afford at a difficult time economically. The development would also reduce the enjoyment of the area for recreational purposes on the part of local families too. The construction process will bring large numbers of heavy vehicles to the site causing damage to small local roads, and putting local communities at risk. Given that Cumbria has vast water resources and the opportunity to contribute large amounts of renewable energy through hydroelectric and offshore wind generation schemes, it is very peculiar that the focus should be on relatively tiny projects like this that will add very little energy in return for a large negative impact

3 on the local community. I would therefore ask you to reject this proposal.

CUMBRIA COUNTY COUNCIL Cumbria County Council (Planning): In his report to the County Council’s Development Control and Regulation Committee on 20 January 2009 the Head of Environment concluded as follows:- (a) National and regional planning policy is promoting meeting targets for renewable energy and looking for local authorities to support proposals for renewable energy developments which do not have unacceptable impacts. Saved Policy R44 of the Joint Structure Plan relates to renewable energy schemes outside national landscape designations and supports favourable consideration if there are no significant adverse effects on landscape character, built heritage, local amenity, highways and a range of other issues. PPS1A Climate Change has been published since this policy was approved and should be taken into account when making decisions, particularly with regard to the Landscape of County Importance designation.

(b) This scheme is not sited within a national designation, nor would it unacceptably affect the special character of nearby national landscape designations. The scheme is sited within a Landscape of County Importance. The scheme is sited in a part of Cumbria where there are very few operational wind energy developments. Due to the nature of wind energy schemes some significant effects need to be judged against the environmental, economic and energy benefits that would also arise from a scheme.

(c) I have considered the findings of the SPD and have concluded that the particular characteristics of this site and the surrounding landscape would support a development of 3 turbines. The significant landscape and visual effects that would arise from this scheme would be localized to within 3.5km of the site. Despite this, I consider that when considered on its own this proposal would not cause significant adverse effects to the overall quality and character of the wider landscape and that the localized effects are outweighed by the environmental benefits associated with the renewable energy generation and carbon savings that would arise from the scheme. However, the cumulative landscape and visual effects that would arise from this proposal in conjunction with the adjacent Armistead wind proposal would be so significant that they would not be outweighed by the renewable energy generation and carbon savings that would arise from both schemes.

(d) I consider that an objection should be raised against this scheme due to the cumulative effects that would arise if it was developed in conjunction with the adjacent Armistead proposal as it is contrary to saved policies of the Cumbria Joint Structure Plan and the general development principles of the Cumbria Sub Regional Strategy.

The Committee resolved that an objection be raised due to the unacceptable significant adverse cumulative landscape and visual effects that would arise from this scheme and the proposed Armistead scheme. The cumulative effects are not outweighed by the environmental benefits associated with the renewable energy generation and carbon savings that would arise from this scheme. The scheme does not accord with saved policies R44 and E37 of the Cumbria Joint Structure Plan and the development principles of the Cumbria Sub Regional Spatial Strategy. It is considered that no objection should be raised against the principle of the proposal being developed on its own.

4 Cumbria County Council (Archaeologist): The site lies in an area of some archaeological potential and should be subject to a programme of archaeological recording.

Cumbria Highways: In the main this proposal is acceptable to Cumbria Highways; however, the following areas need to be addressed:- 1) The suitability of the construction of the bridge over the M6 motorway to take the traffic.

2) Details of the site access both during and after construction.

3) The suitability of the public highway to take this extraordinary traffic. In particular the stretch of road from Gatebeck and over the motorway bridge. It is very likely that damage will occur to this stretch of road which will need repairing; any drains/culverts will need protecting.

HIGHWAYS AGENCY: The Agency offers no objection to the development and has not raised any concerns in respect of heavy equipment being transported across the motorway bridge close to Sillfield.

NEIGHBOURING AUTHORITIES Lake District National Park Authority: To be reported.

Yorkshire Dales National Park Authority: This application will have been considered by the Authority’s Planning Committee on 10 March 2009 and Members will be advised verbally of the Authority’s formal response. In the meantime, the Deputy Head of Planning has prepared a report in which he recommends that a formal objection be made to the District Council on the grounds that the development would have a serious impact on the quality of experience currently available to recreational users of the National Park. Points of particular interest from the report are:- (a) The nearest turbine would be 6.7km from the National Park boundary at Marthwaite, near Sedbergh and some 10km from Calf Top and Holme Knott to the south of Sedbergh.

(b) The turbines would lie approximately 2km from land which is within an area of search for potential inclusion in the National Park.

(c) The turbines will be detrimental to the enjoyment of the extensive and panoramic views for Morecambe Bay and the Lake District fells from the Howgills and Middleton Fell.

(d) Whilst the Sillfield turbines would effectively lie behind the Armistead ones in views from the north west, as one moves south from Brown Knott along the Middleton Fell ridge they would gradually emerge, progressively elongating the perceived single group, until emerging in the vicinity of Calf Top as a separate entity, by which point they would have effectively doubled the width of the arc of vision dominated by wind turbines. An apparent encirclement of this part of the National Park, begun by Lambrigg and continued with Armistead, if it is approved, would thus be reinforced.

5 (e) In conclusion the turbines would prejudice significantly the very special quality of experience which may be enjoyed by recreational visitors to those parts of the National Park from which it would be most visible; it is also considered that the same adverse impact which the proposed development of the Armistead wind farm would have would be worsened by the proposed development. As it is considered that the protection of this quality of experience is fundamental to the purposes of the Authority, a formal objection should be made to South Lakeland District Council.

LANDSCAPE, ECOLOGICAL AND ORNITHOLOGICAL CONSULTEES Natural England: Natural England is a statutory agency charged with the responsibility to ensure that England’s unique natural environment is conserved, enhanced, and managed for the benefit of present and future generations, thereby contributing to sustainable development. We recognise that mitigation of climate change is essential to secure the future of the natural environment and support measures to increase the amount of energy generated from renewable resources in appropriate locations. In relation to this particular application and its associated Environmental Statement (ES) we wish to make the following comments:- Landscape and Visual Impacts: The Environmental Statement provides a clear assessment of landscape impacts and scheme design with useful photomontages and wireframes, but could also have considered further the effects on Areas of Search for National Park and Area of Outstanding natural Beauty extension which are not mentioned specifically in the ES, though some viewpoints are within these areas. The site is only about 2 –3 km from the edge of the area identified for extension of the Yorkshire Dales National Park. We consider that the conclusions reached in the ES in respect of landscape are reasonable, and that there will not be any direct significant adverse effects on designated landscapes, or on their immediate settings from this particular development. However it would be visible in views from one designated landscape to another. We agree that a grey rather than white finish would help to reduce the visibility in distant views where the development is likely to be backgrounded, and that detailed design can help to mitigate the effects on closer views. Furthermore, landform and woodland will reduce visibility from some parts of the M6. Generally, the photomontages and wireframe views show that the Sillfield cluster is likely to interfere less with views of the Yorkshire Dales escarpment than the Armistead wind farm would, and would generally be less prominent. The site is within landscape type 9b (Rolling Farmland and Heath) identified in the Cumbria Wind SPD as having a moderate capacity to accept a development of 3 – 5 turbines. However the landscape type is transitional between this and 7b (Drumlin Field), which is considered to be generally of low/moderate capacity for single turbines or a small group. The immediate surroundings of the site could not be described as remote, unspoilt or particularly tranquil due to its location in the M6 corridor where infrastructure including pylons and masts is already intrusive, and we agree that 3 turbines would be an acceptable size within this context. The actual location is within an area of drumlins which are not ideal for wind development because the scale of the landform is very small in relation to the size of the turbines. However the ES demonstrates that much thought has been put into the micro-siting and layout of the turbines, and the size of the cluster has been reduced through the EIA process, producing an acceptable design considering the nature of the terrain. The

6 drumlin landscape to the west of the site, where much of the ZTV falls, helps to break up views of the site from local roads.

Cumulative landscape effects: We agree with the ES that the cumulative effects with the nearby Armistead proposals would be significant as the two schemes are likely to be seen in some views as one development, along with other existing infrastructure in the area. We would not however agree with the conclusion in that, if Armistead was already present, the addition of the Sillfield wind cluster would not substantially increase the extent of the effects. Though we do not consider that the cumulative impacts on designated landscapes would be significant enough for Natural England to object to this particular development, we have concerns over future growth of wind energy in the M6 corridor. This is a major visitor route where perceptions of South Lakeland landscape character and quality may be adversely affected by wind farm development in the foreground of views, particularly when associated with other infrastructure. The whole area forms a gateway to areas of outstanding landscape quality.

Ornithology and Ecology: Natural England agrees with the findings of the ES in relation to Ornithology and Ecology. Due to the design of the array and the associated mitigation actions, the development is unlikely to have a significant adverse effect on these interests. We therefore recommend that all the mitigation actions suggested in the ES are conditioned as part of planning permission should the application be determined favourably. However, Natural England believes that the development should maximize opportunities for biodiversity gain in line with PPS9. We suggest that a Habitat Management Plan be agreed with the developer prior to determining the application. There are opportunities to re-instate hedgerows in the area and for appropriate land management to benefit marshy grassland within the site or nearby woodlands.

Cumbria Wildlife Trust: Cumbria Wildlife Trust would like to see a Habitat Management Plan put in place for this proposed wind farm under PPS9, maintaining, enhancing and restoring biodiversity is something that the local authority should be encouraging through planning conditions or legal agreements. Most of the land surveyed at Sillfield is of very low value for nature conservation, but there are at least 7 hectares within the application area which are higher quality habitat. The Trust would like to see a Habitat Management Plan implemented to encourage habitat restoration works in these areas. Habitat enhancement of marshy grassland and acid grassland would help to mitigate for the loss of habitat and displacement from the turbine areas for skylark, curlew and lapwing. Replacement of the hedgerow to be lost and a scheme showing how the remaining hedgerows will be managed should also be detailed in any Habitat Management Plan. The Trust would like to see a similar type of management package agreed for the Sillfield site as the one put together for the Armistead windfarm earlier this year. The applicants worked with ourselves, the RSPB and Natural England to come up with an outline management plan for the site which would have been worked up to a full Habitat Management Plan in conjunction with the three organisations had permission been granted.

Royal Society for the Protection of Birds: The RSPB supports renewable sources of energy provided that significant adverse effects on wildlife are avoided by appropriate siting and design. Renewable energy sources can contribute to modifying or reversing the deleterious changes associated with climate

7 change arising from over-reliance on fossil fuels. The proposed application does not fall within an 'alert' area for sensitive bird species or deep peat as set out in the RSPB's Spatial Planning Guides. The RSPB do not object to the proposed windfarm on land at Sillfield, Gatebeck, subject to a habitat management plan being included as a binding planning condition. This habitat management plan (HMP) should look to implement habitat restoration works to the most important semi-natural habitats on site. Such habitat enhancement work will help mitigate against the loss of habitat and any displacement from turbines for red/amber listed bird species including skylark, curlew and lapwing. Management included in the HMP should include managing water levels and grassland sward to benefit marshy grassland habitat and breeding wading birds/ skylark. In addition, 50 tree sparrow boxes should be erected on site.

Through mitigation measures such as habitat enhancement works and provision of nest boxes, the proposed scheme will be adhering to guidance as set out in PPS9.

AIRCRAFT CONSULTATIONS National Air Traffic Service: Although the proposed development is likely to impact on our electronic infrastructure, NATS has no safeguarding objection to the proposal.

Ministry of Defence: No objection.

Civil Aviation Authority: No fundamental objections.

NOISE CONSULTATION SLDC Environmental Protection Group: Following a noise consultant’s advice, the Environment Health Officer is satisfied that the turbines will not be the source of significant noise nuisance. Conditions are, however recommended which specify the day and night-time noise levels that are not to be exceeded.

TELECOMMUNICATIONS OPERATORS OFCOM: The following have microwave radio links that cross the application site: - Orange, BT, Cumbria Ambulance Service and Cable & Wireless.

BT: The windfarm should not cause interference to BT’s current and presently planned radio networks.

BT Openreach: No objection.

T-Mobile: No implications for current or planned installations.

MLL Telecom: The turbines should not affect the current link.

Vodafone: There are unlikely to be any adverse impacts on the current or proposed network.

8

Orange: There are no Orange microwave links affected by this proposal.

Cable & Wireless: No objections.

OTHER CONSULTEES Environment Agency: The Agency requests that a condition be imposed, should planning permission be granted, requiring a method statement to be agreed to ensure that the invasive weed species, Himalayan Balsam, which is present on the site is prevented from spreading and/or eradicated.

United Utilities: The Thirlmere Aqueduct passes underneath the access route which will be used by construction traffic. Protective measures, as recommended by United Utilities, must be undertaken to prevent damage to the aqueduct.

National Grid: The risk to the gas and electricity transmission networks is moderate.

Shell UK: The developer should contact Shell UK if planning permission is granted to ensure the integrity of the Shell North Western Ethylene Pipeline.

ORGANISATIONS OPPOSED TO THE TURBINES Friends of Eden, Lakeland and Lunesdale Scenery (FELLS): The key points and objections to the proposed turbines can be summarized as follows:- 1. The Council cannot make a fully balanced judgment on the landscape impact if key viewpoints are omitted, in particular from Low Park and West View, both of which will be seriously impacted. The impact on the business of West View is especially significant.

2. With 24 potential receptor properties within 1.3 km of the nearest turbine (13 less than 800 metres) FELLS consider that the loss of amenity, and peaceful enjoyment of the countryside, coupled with a risk of turbine noise and the overbearing visual impact make this scheme unacceptable.

3. The montages printed in panoramic format provide the landscape context of the proposal but fail to give councilors or the public a true impression of the visual impact. FELLS ask that single frame 50 mm images printed on A3 or A4 pages to give a 39 degree viewing angle are requested so that a realistic visual assessment can be made.

4. FELLS feel that the Level of Effect assigned for a number of the viewpoint montages is too lenient and understates the landscape and visual impact of the proposal.

5. FELLS believe that both the applicant and the Cumbria Wind Energy Supplementary Planning Document undervalue the resources of the Kendal Low Fells and Kent drumlin landscape to the County, its residents and visitors by simply viewing them in landscape terms rather than as an important local resource with a high recreational amenity value.

6. FELLS believe that the National Park Boundary Review is a significant material consideration. We believe that if it goes to Committee it should be rejected as it is likely to prejudge this review.

9 7. FELLS draw to the attention of the Planning Officer the exaggerated CO2 savings claimed. Without this understanding, the Planning Officer will not see the proposal in context and will be unable to reach the correct balance when weighing up the negative aspects of the scheme against any contribution to climate change.

8. FELLS suggest that targets for electricity generation (which are aspirational and not mandatory) should not be given undue weight in reaching the decision on this application.

FELLS believe that a standoff distance of 2 km should apply equally to England as well as Scotland and for the reasons given above the application for the Sillfield wind power station should be rejected. Conclusions: In making their recommendation, the SLDC Planning Department have to balance a raft of Government policies (National, Regional and Local) which are frequently not easy to reconcile. It is clear from these documents that while renewable energy schemes, are to be looked upon favourably, they still have to be judged on individual merit. Though PPS1 and PPS1 Supplement further encourage renewable energy schemes, they do not replace other PPSs except where there is a direct conflict in which case PPS1 takes precedence. As there is no conflict with PPS22, it follows the Key Principle 1 of PPS22 remains and requires that the benefits of renewable energy schemes must be weighed against any social, economic, cultural, visual and landscape impacts that they might have. These issues cannot be satisfactorily addressed in this scheme. Further, the proposal is inconsistent with Policy R44 of the Structure Plan, and also with Policies E36 (Landscapes of County Importance) and E37 (Landscape Character). FELLS consider that the Sillfield site is an important and integral part of a far reaching landscape which is highly sensitive to change. The proposed wind farm would stand out within this setting, with its incongruous impact, compounded by its general elevated position and the limited scale of the underlying drumlins and moorland topography. In such a case, mitigation is not possible. The only benefits of the scheme are a small and irregular supply of electricity and a marginal reduction in carbon dioxide emissions. FELLS believe that the benefits clearly do not outweigh the claimed advantages and that the application should be rejected.

A BLOT: A Blot is an action group representing residents of several parishes covered by the Kendal Low Fells. Its principal aims are to protect both the landscape and the people who live in the area from unsuitable developments such as the proposed wind generation factory. A Blot fully supports the technical objections raised by FELLS to the proposed turbines at Sillfield. Also supported is the County Council’s argument that the environment is a key asset for the County’s well-being and that a proliferation of windfarms would undermine efforts to address Cumbria’s economic problems. Attention is drawn to the fact that a pair of ravens and a pair of peregrine falcons nest in a nearby quarry. The developers and national bird groups, such as the RSPB, will often play down the possible danger to birdlife but it is known that birds, most often juveniles, are killed or injured where there are wind turbines. In conclusion, A Blot considers that the Sillfield site is an important and integral part of a far reaching landscape which is highly sensitive to change. The proposed wind farm would stand out within this setting, compounded by its general elevated position and the limited scale of the underlying drumlins and moorland topography. In such a case, mitigation is not possible. The effect on some local people would be devastating. The potential effect on the young from nearby nest sites of Ravens and Peregrine Falcons could be disastrous. The only benefits of the scheme are a small and unreliable supply of electricity and a marginal reduction in carbon dioxide

10 emissions. SLDC should support the view of Cumbria County Council in resisting the pressure to accept wind generating factories in this area. A Blot believes that the disadvantages identified clearly outweigh the benefits claimed by the developer and that the application should be rejected.

STOP (Stop Turbines: Oppose Planning – Sillfield): STOP is an organisation formed in response to this application and comprises local residents who share a keen interest in the environment and its preservation. STOP is opposed to the turbines and an executive summary of the objections has been provided. The Planning Committee is urged to read the detailed objection document in full to comprehend the intricate nature of this objection. STOP believes that this shows that the application has fundamental flaws which are apparent even to the lay person. The objections to the turbines can be summarised as follows:- (a) One of the key principles of PPS22 is that “Developers of renewable energy projects should engage in active consultation and discussion with local communities at an early stage in the planning process and before any planning application is formally submitted.” In this connection the application states that final design of the Sillfield Wind Cluster (SWC) has evolved “through sensitive design and consultation with…the local community.” Beyond a leaflet drop that did not even cover all local households, the actual consultation consisted simply of a public exhibition at Preston Patrick Memorial Hall at which the applicant’s representatives only responded to questions or comments from attendees. To date, at least one request for further critical visual information has not been followed up and an invitation to contribute to the STOP public meeting was declined. In view of this STOP considers that the applicant has failed to adequately discharge their obligations.

(b) The contribution that the proposed wind turbines would make to the National target for renewable energy would, in our opinion, be significantly outweighed by the negative impact it would have on the landscape character particularly on sensitive surrounding areas such as the Lake District National Park. STOP provides detailed arguments in respect of the key issue of disproportionate impact on landscape character raised by this application.

(c) The site is located in a sensitive open upland corridor and adjacent to both the Lake District and Yorkshire Dales National Parks, and is directly bordered by picturesque “Main Valleys” and drumlin country. In STOP’s opinion this is a beautiful example of the “interwoven nature of Cumbria’s landscape.” The impact of the development would have significant adverse consequences by virtue of the prominent setting and in STOP’s opinion, the low capacity of this area to accommodate such imposing industrial structures, which are out of scale and place in a gently undulating landscape.

(d) As the recent Armistead application (which is only 1.8km from SWC) has shown there is significant concern from official bodies, such as the National Park, over potential substantial, adverse visual impact of this development from the upland viewpoints within these nationally designated areas, eg Middleton Fell. STOP shares this concern and considers that these effects may prejudice the review of the National Parks boundaries.

(e) STOP considers there is potential for substantial adverse impact as a result of cumulative effects from other proposed / existing developments. Should the proposed 6 turbine development proceed at Armistead if would combine with SWC to effectively produce an enlarged single cluster on this high north-south running ridge. Furthermore, views from, for example, the A65 at Endmoor would encompass within an approximately 60° arc existing Lambrigg turbines in addition to Armistead and SWC. The granting of consent of the SWC (and / or Armistead) application would create a precedent, and subsequent refusals would be difficult to sustain, which would raise the spectre of a future continuous wind

11 development, stretching from Lambrigg for some kilometers possibly as far south as Farleton Fell / Hutton Roof with the obvious disastrous visual impact on the industrialisation of this beautiful landscape.

(f) The application minimises the substantial adverse effects on the area from loss of amenity and visual impact. The area is widely used by local residents, cyclists, caravan park residents and other tourists attracted by the network of footpaths and bridleways which take advantage of the substantial and beautiful views from this upland ridge and surrounding picturesque countryside. In addition, in STOP’s view, there will be a dramatic and substantial, adverse impact resulting from the cumulative effects of the potential proliferation of local turbine sites should SWC be approved, particularly when viewed fro the first time from the M6 by visitors traveling northwards at the “gateway” to the Lake District National Park. This is critical considering the potential £15.4 million lost to the tourist industry as a direct consequence of Wind Turbine developments.

(g) STOP believes the proposed development would have potential adverse consequences for the local economy and tourism. This proposal would diminish visitor enjoyment leading to a reduction of the walking and touring activity in the area thereby threatening the local tourism economy particularly should cumulative impact result from multiple developments in the future.

(h) A major concern for STOP is the significant adverse consequences for nearby residents resulting particularly from visual effects, noise and loss of amenity. The applicant, whilst reducing the number of turbines has, in fact, moved its turbines closer to the properties at Sillfield. There is increasing evidence of potentially severe effects on health and well-being of those living in the immediate vicinity of turbine clusters – this aspect is not addressed by the applicant. Furthermore, permanent loss of property value, plus disturbance and interruption during construction phases will be substantial in the immediate area. All these aspects, in STOP’s opinion, could be considered as an infringement of the Human Rights of those affected. Permanent modifications to dry stone walls, hedgerows and verges will detract from the traditional local landscape, and local receptors will suffer substantial loss of visual amenity.

(i) Ten properties lie within 800m of the site and will suffer unacceptable levels of noise, both in construction and operational phases. A very limited period of two weeks of noise measurement would seem to be no basis on which to form a clear empirical conclusion on noise impact, particularly when south-westerly winds dominated, and no data for the far more critical northerly direction was gathered. The applicant’s argument that cumulative noise effect (with the Armistead Cluster to the north) would only affect 2 properties is, in STOP’s view, another example of limited investigations resulting in incomplete conclusions being used as evidence to substantiate their case.

(j) STOP considers that the potential for adverse impact on bird life has not been adequately investigated by the applicant and is another example of limited investigation resulting in incomplete conclusions being used as evidence to substantiate the applicant’s case.

(k) With regard to ecology and nature conservation STOP has particular concerns with regard to the treatment of two protected species, namely bats and badgers. The applicant records these protected species as being present or using the site yet concludes that there will be minimal impact despite evidence of their foraging routes being in very close proximity to the turbines.

12 (l) STOP is concerned that the choice of a site in an area regularly used by civilian and military aircraft.

(m) Given the increasing number of reported accidents with wind turbines, due in part to bad design, STOP is concerned that by the applicant’s insistence of only using minimum clearance distances from public rights of way on, or close to the site.

Conclusion: From a wider perspective STOP believes that Wind Technology is not part of an effective solution to reduce carbon emissions or produce sustainable energy, as it is a fundamentally flawed approach requiring massive subsidies and the backup of traditional generation methods thereby exacerbating CO2 production. For this and the above planning reasons STOP considers that this application should be rejected by the Planning Committee of SLDC.

Friends of the Lake District (Campaign to Protect Natural England [FLD]): The applicant’s Landscape and Visual Assessment contains eight viewpoints which fall within 6km of the nearest turbine. Of these, it is noted in the cases of viewpoints 1 - 5, that ‘significant’ landscape and visual effects will result. FLD agree with the applicant’s assessment in this respect. Whilst we would also agree in respect of viewpoint 6 that sensitivity is reduced through the proximity of the M6 and A65, we would disagree with some aspects of the assessment of viewpoints 7 and 8. Viewpoint 7 is situated on the Helm, looking south-eastwards towards the site. FLD purchased the southern side of the Helm in 2007. In terms of visual impact, it is key to note that part of the southern side is designated open access. FLD intend to extend this to the remainder of the land in the near future. We agree with the applicant’s view that the effect on the visual amenity of recreational users is likely to be ‘significant’, but would wish to clarify the extension of open access to the side of the Helm upon which impact is likely to be the most severe. In terms of the effect upon landscape character from this viewpoint, we disagree with the view that the height of the turbines will be ‘contained within the vertical extent of nearer landscape features such as woodland and hills’. It is clear from the visualisations that there is currently nothing comparable in scale to the proposed development. The turbines would form a skyline feature, and be particularly prominent through their form and movement. Similarly, we would disagree that the ‘movement of the blades would be perceived in the context of the trains, traffic and other movement in the wider landscape’. Trains are relatively infrequent, and whilst traffic on the M6 is noticeable, it is not a prominent feature. The landscape is predominantly tranquil and agricultural in nature. Given these factors, in our view, the construction of the turbines would result in a fundamental change to local landscape character, and should as such be adjudged to have a ‘significant’ effect. Similarly, with regard to viewpoint 8, it is felt that the impact upon landscape character has been underestimated. The turbines would again form a skyline feature, which at this proximity is likely to have a significant impact. In FLD’s view, there is a need to identify additional viewpoints, particularly within the 6km zone, in order to fully appreciate the landscape and visual impacts of the proposal. The local area contains numerous quiet lanes and public rights of way, as well as areas of open access land. It is very popular with local cyclists, walkers and horse riders. There is a high degree of visual containment towards the centre. This would result in views of the turbines being channelled, leading to an overbearing and dominant effect. The views from the quiet lane leading from the settlement of Low Park to Halfpenny typify this. With regard to the ‘views of surrounding fell tops from the summits and into valleys from the plateau edges’, FLD would highlight Farleton Knott/Holme Park Fell. In FLD’s view, the absence of a viewpoint on the fell is a key omission. This land is owned by the National Trust, and has been designated open access. In landscape terms, it is particularly sensitive, since it has been recognised as being of AONB quality, and is under consideration for designation as such. The

13 Sillfield site is clearly visible from the northern edge of the fell, which offers panoramic views from west to east. Whilst the prominence of the M6 and A590 are noted, in our view the landscape character of the area remains of a high quality. Again, there are no existing landscape features which are comparable in terms of height. FLD would recommend that further viewpoints are identified to the east of the development. In particular, we would highlight the fells above Barbon and Middleton. This area is again currently under consideration for designation, having been recognised as being of National Park quality: The ZVI indicates that all three turbines would be visible from this area. We would disagree with the assessment from Calf Top on the boundary of the Yorkshire Dales National Park, above the area noted. The Lambrigg development illustrates the impact of wind turbines upon this landscape. It is key to note in this respect that the proposed Sillfield turbines would be notably taller and more prominent than those at Lambrigg. FLD would therefore suggest that ‘magnitude of change’ in regard to viewpoint 12 should be ‘substantial/moderate’ as opposed to ‘moderate/slight’. Part 2 of the Wind Energy SPD gives guidance on assessing cumulative effects. FLD would stress the distinction made between ‘combined visibility’ and ‘sequential visibility’. The latter refers to the effect experienced by users of roads or recreational trails, via which cumulative impact is experienced by moving between viewpoints from where wind turbines are visible. The sequential cumulative impact upon walkers traversing the ridge above Middleton and Barbon Fells has not been adequately addressed in our view. FLD would also highlight the issue of sequential cumulative impact with regard to the Walney to Wear cycle route. The respective ZTVs of Lambrigg and Sillfield are in several places coincident, or adjacent to one another. The Walney to Wear route passes through this area. Concerns are raised therefore over the sequential cumulative impacts of Lambrigg and Sillfield upon users of the route. Again, the applicants do not appear to have considered this issue. In summary therefore, in FLD’s view, this proposal raises conflict with RSS Policies EM1 and DP7, retained Structure Plan Policies E37 and R44, and Local Plan Policies C26 and 31, and as such should be refused.

The National Trust: The Trust’s interests in the vicinity of Sillfield include Sizergh Castle and its related Estate (5.6km to the west); Holme Park Fell, 5.8km to the south west; and Arnside Knott, 13km to the south west. Windfarms raise a considerable number of issues and the Trust is aware of the potential benefits arising from such developments. However, we are equally aware of the sensitivity of our precious landscapes and heritage, and on this occasion we are especially concerned about the visual impact of the windfarm as seen from the Sizergh Estate and Holme Park Fell, and to a lesser extent about the impact from Arnside Knott. The National Trust is not convinced that the proposed development accords with the relevant Development Plan background, and neither do we believe that any other material considerations have been identified such that the Development Plan should not be followed in this instance.

Yorkshire Dales Society: We believe that the visual impact of the application in this location, close to the boundary of the Yorkshire Dales National Park, will conflict with the fundamental purpose of the National Park – that is, of:- ‘Conserving and enhancing the natural beauty, wildlife and cultural heritage of the area; and promoting opportunities for the understanding and enjoyment of the special qualities of those areas by the public’. (Section 5 (1) of the 1949 National Parks and Access to the Countryside Act). We also believe that because of its likely impact on visitor/tourist perceptions, the proposal conflicts with regional and local policies designed to protect and promote the tourism industry, and its contribution to the local economy.

14 The application site is close to the boundary of the Yorkshire Dales National Park, and very close to the boundary of an area the quality of whose landscape has been recognised as worthy of consideration for extension of that National Park. The sense of remoteness and wildness that tourists can experience in and around National Parks is one of the key elements that attract them. The proposed group of wind farm turbines at Sillfield would have a serious adverse effect on the quality of that experience. The YDS agrees that there is a need – nationally, regionally and locally – for developments providing renewable energy. We do not, however, consider that there is such a need for this particular form of renewable energy, in this location, as to override the need to safeguard the purposes of the National Park, and the need to safeguard and promote the contribution of tourism to the local economy. If this application is approved, it will prejudice the possible extension of National Park boundaries. The harm done to the purpose of the National Park, and to the attractiveness of the area to tourists, will be long-lasting. We ask South Lakeland District Council to take a precautionary approach; that their judgement should err on the side of caution rather than risk damage that cannot be repaired – and to refuse this application.

Ramblers’ Association: Looking at the proposal in its wider aspects, the footpaths, bridleways and lanes to the south-east of Kendal around Gatebeck are well used by local residents, tourists and walkers for recreation. They come to the area for quiet enjoyment of the outdoors. The guidance in the Landscape Institute’s GLVIA publication indicates that the most sensitive visual receptors may include users of outdoor recreation facilities, including public rights of way users, whose attention is focused on the landscape. The large scale of the turbines (110 metres to the blade tip) would add new features or landmarks to the landscape. The Environmental Statement recognises that users of the footpath are of medium sensitivity. From close locations along the footpath mentioned the movement of the rotor blades would attract attention and open views of two of the turbines, in particular, would be obtained. They would dominate the scene at turbine heights of up to 70 metres from this close vantage point and seem out of scale with small scale landscape features. The erection of three wind turbines in the open countryside at Sillfield would have a detrimental effect on the character and quality of the landscape, a Landscape of County Importance, and cause visual harm to recreational users of the area, resulting in a loss of visual amenity for walkers in the vicinity. An objection is raised to the proposal by the Ramblers’ Association (Kendal Group).

Kirkby Lonsdale and District Civic Society: We wish to object to this application on several grounds:- 1. The quality of this “County Importance” Landscape is of a very high order and would be severely diminished by the introduction of such a large industrial site. 2. The many and varied users of this swathe of countryside would lose its tranquillity and the opportunity for quiet enjoyment that it now affords. 3. Not only would the development have a negative impact on the nearby Yorkshire Dales National Park, but our reading of the data indicates that the proposed National Park Boundary Extension would be very close indeed to the site. 4. The cumulative effect with the nearby turbines at Lambrigg , and with the more distant ones at Caton, would be substantial. 5. We have no doubt that noise, flicker and interference with aircraft navigation will all be problems with this site.

15 The recent rejection of the Armistead proposal suggests that this application should be treated in a similar manner, and we hope that it will be rejected.

South Lakes World Development Movement: WDM supported the Armistead proposal because we felt it made a significant contribution to carbon reduction, however South Lakes WDM would not support Sillfield in addition to Armistead because of the cumulative visual and other impacts, and because the information provided by the developer does not appear to address the life cycle CO2 balance (including embedded carbon in production and construction) for the development. If it were a choice between the two developments, it is felt that the 6 Armistead Turbines are more likely to provide a useful overall benefit than the 3 Sillfield ones. While it is acknowledged that this is a subjective judgement, the balance of "global" benefit to local "disbenefit" for the combined installations would seem to be disproportionate, also we would not want the cumulative resentment from successive windfarms to increase resistance to other climate change mitigation measures.

North Lancashire Bridleways Society: There is a bridleway which runs beside the site and, should this development be allowed, there will be enormous, noisy, moving turbines right beside this very quiet bridleway. Horses are easily frightened by noise and movement and because the turbines will be very near to the bridleway there will be no escape from them.

British Horse Society: (a) Wind farms are considered to be a hazard to equestrians for the following reasons: the sudden appearance of turning blades in a horse’s line of sight. the low frequency noise emitted by the turbines punctuated by the “whoomph” as the blades pass the nadir point and is sometimes said to be felt rather than heard. the shadows which sweep the ground. the sudden starting up of the turbine if the wind builds up as the horse approaches. the danger of ice falling from the blades as a horse passes by.

(b) The consequences of horses being startled by wind turbines can be fatal for horse and rider.

(c) The policy adopted by the BHS and the Countryside Agency is that there should be a gap between bridleways and turbines equivalent to three times the blade tip height of the turbine.

(d) The area between Kendal and Kirkby Lonsdale is very popular with horse riders coming into the area with their horses. The tourism industry will suffer if the wind farm is permitted.

Friends of the Earth: I am writing to express support for the proposed Sillfield project. I would like SLDC Planning Committee to consider the following points when determining this planning application. Climate scientists, politicians, and economists such as Stern, are stressing the need to cut greenhouse gas emissions as soon as possible and the Government’s Climate Change Committee have recently advised that a target of an 80% cut in green house gas emissions by 2050 is needed. Global emissions must peak and then fall within 10 years if we are to prevent what is described as 'dangerous' climate change: a 2 degree C temperature rise which would have

16 catastrophic consequences globally. These reductions are necessary for the UK to play its role in global efforts to tackle climate change, and every part of the UK has a responsibility to help meet these targets. We are very pleased that the County and District Councils now have a draft climate change policy, but Cumbria’s targets show that we need to more than double the capacity of renewable energy within the next two years. A key component of the UK's strategy to cut emissions is the target of 10% electricity generation from renewable sources by 2010. Every community must take action on climate change. If SLDC is to play its part, it must contribute to achieving national and regional targets for renewable energy generation. I understand there may be some concerns regarding the visual impact. However, these must be balanced against the future impacts of climate change on this area such as biodiversity loss, more flooding and drought and greater sea surges. National planning guidance, strengthened by the recent PPS1 supplement, clearly prioritises consideration of climate change when assessing development proposals. The PPS1 supplement states that planning decisions should: “look favourably on proposals for renewable energy, including on sites not identified in development. plan documents” “not require applicants to demonstrate either the overall need for renewable energy and distribution or for a particular proposal for renewable energy to be sited in a particular location” “avoid policies that set stringent requirements for minimising impact on landscape and townscape if these effectively preclude the supply of certain types of renewable energy, and therefore other than in the most exceptional circumstances such as within nationally recognised designations, avoid such restrictive policies” The PPS1 supplement reinforces existing national planning policy. I refer specifically to the following: PPS1 para 13 (ii) Regional planning bodies and local planning authorities should ensure that: “development plans contribute to global sustainability by addressing the causes and potential impacts of climate change – through policies which reduce energy use, reduce emissions...... promote the development of renewable energy resources, and take climate change impacts into account in the location and design of development.” PPS 22 (i) Renewable energy developments should be capable of being accommodated throughout England in locations where the technology is viable and environmental, economic, and social impacts can be addressed satisfactorily. The extracts above summarise the obligations which are now inherent on local authorities to deal with climate change via the planning process. I encourage you to approve this application and furthermore consider that you will be failing in your duty of care to the community if you do not take this excellent opportunity to allow another wind farm in this district. This area has been selected by the County Council as suitable for wind turbine development.

INDIVIDUAL SUBMISSIONS OF OPPOSITION AND SUPPORT

Objections: At the time of writing 485 letters of objection have been received. The majority of the individual objections make similar representations to those submitted by the locally-based organizations opposed to the wind turbines at Sillfield. The main objections can be summarised as follows:-

17 The turbines will exert an unacceptably harmful impact on the landscape.

The visual intrusion will be exacerbated by the elevated and prominent position and the turbines will be visible over a wide area. The site is an integral part of a landscape which is highly sensitive to change.

The site is close to areas recommended for possible inclusion in extended National Parks; an indication of the quality of the landscape. The Council cannot make a fully balanced judgement on the landscape impact if key viewpoints are omitted, in particular Low Park and West View. The quality of the landscape is undervalued by the applicant and the visual impact is understated. Planning permission was refused recently for six wind turbines on the nearby site at Old Hutton. Previously, in 1999, permission was refused for six turbines on another nearby site adjacent to Barkin House Farm. The turbines would be completely out of scale with any natural features and will be overbearing to visitors and residents alike. The size of the turbines is such that they will be an ever-present, over- powering and dominating presence which will damage the lives of neighbouring residents to an unacceptable extent. The occupiers of nearby properties will suffer from noise nuisance.

The turbines will be an oppressive presence for users of the nearby public rights-of-way. The impact on local bird and wildlife could be significant.

The approach roads are unsuitable for the heavy traffic and abnormal loads associated with the construction of wind farms. The targets for electricity generation should not be given disproportionate weight in reaching a decision on this application.

Support: At the time of writing 790 letters of support have been received, including 242 letters submitted by Green Campaigns Limited following a two-day “information point” held in Kendal town centre last October. The main arguments advanced by supporters of the turbines are:-

Climate change is the greatest threat to mankind today. It is vital that emission of man-made greenhouse gases, notably carbon dioxide, are reduced. It is essential that Cumbria meets its government targets for renewable energy; small schemes such as that proposed for Sillfield are essential to that end. It is our responsibility and our duty to ensure that we meet our national and international obligations with regard to climate change, which affects life and people all over the planet. The three turbines will make a crucial contribution towards reducing carbon emissions and towards local energy sustainability. Sustainable energy sources are critical to the health of the environment.

The Cumbria Wind Energy SPD identifies this landscape as having the capacity to accommodate between three and five turbines.

18 In locations such as Sillfield, turbines must be considered favourably and the NIMBY argument discounted. Turbines are not detrimental to the landscape nor are they unsightly.

The threat of climate change is greater than the visual impact of wind turbines.

Concerns over visual impact are subjective and must be weighed against the likely change to our landscapes and environment caused by climate change. Wind farms are not a deterrent to tourists.

The need for renewable is clear and the urgent need to mitigate against climate change outweigh any landscape effects of this particular development.

REPORT

HISTORICAL CONTEXT: At last October’s Committee meeting planning permission was refused for six wind turbines, each 100 metres tall, on land to the east of Crosslands Farm, Old Hutton. The site is about 1.8km to the north east of the current application site at Sillfield. The reasons for refusal are as follows:- 1. The proposed turbines on this prominent and elevated site would have a substantial and adverse visual impact and would thereby cause unacceptable harm to the character and appearance of the landscape and its surroundings. The development is, thereby, in conflict with the objectives of Policies DP7 and EM1(A) of the Regional Spatial Strategy for North West England; Policies R44 and E37 of the Cumbria and Lake District Joint Structure Plan; and Policies C25 and C26 of the South Lakeland Local Plan. 2. The development would exert a harmful influence on the living conditions currently enjoyed by neighbouring residents by reason of the scale, proximity and visual impact of the turbines. As a consequence, the proposal is not compatible with the objectives of Policy R44 of the Cumbria and Lake District Joint Structure Plan and Policy C26 of the South Lakeland Local Plan. 3. The turbines and their associated development would impinge, to an unacceptable extent, on the peace and quiet of the bridleway which passes through the site and, consequently, the proposed wind farm is incompatible with the objectives of Policy R44 of the Cumbria and Lake District Joint Structure Plan and Policy L10 of the South Lakeland Local Plan. An appeal has been lodged against this decision and a Public Inquiry is to be held in April. Previously, in 1998, planning permission for six wind turbines at Barkin House about 1.7km to the south of the Old Hutton site. The turbines, each 66m in height were refused consent on the grounds of their substantial and adverse impact on the landscape.

DESCRIPTION AND PROPOSAL: The site: The site is located on elevated grazing land which varies in height between 180m and 210m AOD on the generally west-facing slope of a range of low hills between the M6 and the Lune Valley. It is approximately 2.6km to the north east of Endmoor and 1.8km to the east of Gatebeck. A group of properties comprising Sillfield Farm and five other houses stand to the west; the nearest residential property being approximately 660metres from Turbine no. 1. A pair of houses, West View and Fair View, overlook the site on higher ground to the south, some 660m from

19 Turbine no. 3. There are four other farms nearby: Crosslands (to the north east), Audlands Park / Low Audlands (to the east), Far Audlands and Barkin House (both to the southeast).

The development: The development comprises:- • Three, three-bladed wind turbines with a hub height of 70metres and a height of 110metres to the blade tip. The turbine towers are constructed of tapering tubular steel with the blades constructed of fibre-reinforced epoxy. The finish is to be semi-matt pale grey. The turbines are to be installed on concrete foundations, typically 15m by 15m in area and some three metres in depth. In addition, a hardstanding or crane pad, 40m by 20m in area, will be constructed approximately 25m from each turbine foundation. Following turbine installation, the crane pads will be covered with a layer of turf to be available should maintenance work be needed in the future • A permanent, 60m high anemometer mast • A 5m wide access track. This will connect each of the turbines to the newly constructed junction with the lane which, in turn, links with the A65 near Endmoor. • An electrical control building. Cables from each turbine will be laid to an electrical control building which will house the switchgear and metering equipment. It is proposed to either convert the field barn which currently stands on the site or erect a new with a floor area of 15.5m by 7.5m. Cabling between the turbines will be laid underground to the control building from where there will be an underground link to a 33kv local distribution line some 200m distant. • A temporary construction compound. It is understood that the construction period will last for six months.

The turbines have an operational life of 25 years after which they are to be decommissioned and all above-ground structures removed. The land will be reinstated for agricultural use.

Nearby Wind Energy Schemes: There are five turbines at Lambrigg, 8km to the north, and eight at Caton Moor, 22km to the south. Planning permission for six turbines on a neighbouring site at Old Hutton was refused last October.

Generating Capacity: The turbines have a capacity of up to 2.5MW. This will provide a maximum installed capacity of up to 7.5MW. It is estimated, by the applicant, that the total output could meet the electricity needs of 4,500 households.

Landscape Setting: As with the Old Hutton proposal, the site lies in a landscape charactised as Rolling Farmland and Heath (Sub-type 9b of the Cumbria Landscape Classification). This landscape is characterised by a broad swathe of high farmland between the Kent and Lune valleys. It comprises undulating hummocky hills and hollows with occasional rocky outcrops. The land cover comprises a mixture of improved and rough pastureland and open heath, and forestry plantations and woodland shelterbelts. Killington Reservoir forms a large feature in the north- western part of the area. A strong mosaic of stonewalls is found throughout the area. The area is lightly settled with a few small villages and hamlets and scattered isolated dwellings and farmsteads connected by a series of minor roads. Electricity pylons, the M6 motorway, and telecommunications masts also form part of the landscape. The site is located towards the middle of a plateau between the Kent and Lune valleys. It comprises two small rounded hills intersected by a walled track (Watery Lane) that forms a small valley through the site. The land rises gently to the south east of the site, with broader, shallower

20 hills progressing towards the high point of the plateau to the north east. The fields are improved pasture mostly bounded by stone walls with clumps of gorse and small rocky outcrops around Sillfield Beck. Tree cover is sparse. A small traditional stone barn lies in the valley feature between the hills at the easterly side of the site. A single row of pylons runs in a north-south direction to the east of the site. The pylons are between 40m and 45m in height. Telecommunications masts are located adjacent to the motorway to the north and west of the site. A public footpath runs in a generally north easterly direction from Sillfield to join the public highway near to Crosslands Farm. For some of its length the footpath passes along the northern boundary of the site in close proximity to Turbines 1 and 2. To the east is a bridleway which runs between Far Audlands and the B6254 near to Audlands Park.

POLICY ISSUES: The development plan comprises the Regional Spatial Strategy (RSS); the Cumbria and Lake District Joint Structure Plan as extended by the RSS; and the South Lakeland Local Plan. Additional guidance on the provision of wind energy developments in Cumbria is contained in the Cumbria Wind Energy Supplementary Planning Document adopted in 2007 by both the County and District Councils.

Government Policy: Government policy and guidance specific to renewable energy is embodied in Planning Policy Statement 22 (PPS 22) entitled “Renewable Energy”; the Companion Guide to PPS 22; and the Supplement to Planning Policy Statement 1 (PPS 1) entitled “Planning and Climate Change”. National policy strongly encourages the provision of renewable energy sources to offset greenhouse gas emissions and to reduce reliance on imported energy supplies. The recent Climate Change Act requires a 26% cut in carbon emissions by 2020, rising to 80% by 2050 (based on 1990 levels). It is expected that the Government will publish its Renewable Energy Strategy in Spring of this year. The Strategy will seek to deliver EU targets that will increase renewable energy generation to cover 15% of the UK’s energy needs. The Government sees an expansion of wind energy capacity, both on-and off-shore, as being key to meeting these targets. The weight attached to the provision of renewable sources of energy by central Government is evident in the Supplement to PPSI, published in December 2007. Paragraph 40 of the PPSI Supplement states that “An applicant for planning permission to develop a proposal that will contribute to the delivery of Key Planning Objectives set out in this PPS should expect expeditious and sympathetic handling of the planning application.” One of the Key Planning Objectives is that spatial strategies should “make a full contribution to delivering the Government’s Climate Change Programme and energy policies, and in doing so contribute to global sustainability.” PPS 22 contains strong national guidance on the need for local authorities to support and encourage renewable energy proposals that do not cause unacceptable significant harm to the local environment. It also states that planning authorities should not make assumptions on the technical and commercial feasibility of schemes. The recent PPS 1 Supplement states that planning authorities should “ensure any local approach to protecting landscape and townscape is consistent with PPS 22 and does not preclude the supply of any type of renewable energy other than in the most exceptional circumstances”. It is a clear aim of Government policy to raise the proportion of electricity generated by renewables and equally clear is the Government’s expectation that the planning profession and local authority decision-makers should look favourably on renewable energy developments. Finally, PPS 22 advises that small-scale projects can provide a limited but valuable contribution to overall outputs of renewable energy and planning authorities should not reject planning applications simply because the level of output is small.

Regional Policy: The Regional Spatial Strategy contains a target for onshore wind development

21 in Cumbria of an additional 15 – 21 onshore wind schemes to provide, in conjunction with existing schemes, 210MW of installed capacity by 2010. Policy EM17 encourages schemes to be supported that are acceptable to the location and scale of the landscape character and sensitivity of the areas. It states that stringent requirements for minimising impact on landscape would be inappropriate except for the most exceptional circumstances, such as within national landscape designations. Policy DP7 states that environmental quality should be protected and enhanced, especially by:- understanding and respecting the character and distinctiveness of places and landscapes; the protection and enhancement of the historic environment; promoting good quality design; reclaiming derelict land and remediating contaminated land; maximising opportunities for the regeneration of derelict or dilapidated areas; assessing the potential impacts of managing traffic growth and mitigating the impacts of road traffic on air quality, noise and health; promoting policies relating to green infrastructure and the greening of towns and cities; maintaining and enhancing the tranquillity of open countryside and rural areas; maintaining and enhancing the quantity and quality of biodiversity and habitat; ensuring that plans, strategies and proposals which alone or in combination could have a significant effect on the integrity and conservation objectives of sites of international importance for nature conservation are subject to assessment.

Policy EM1(A) and EM1(B) states that the natural, historic and other distinctive features that contribute to the character of landscapes and places should be protected, maintained and enhanced and that the conservation and expansion of the ecological fabric should be encouraged.

Structure Plan Policy: Policy R44 relates to renewable energy developments outside national landscape designations (eg National Parks, AONBs) and supports favourable consideration if there are no significant adverse effects on landscape character, built heritage, biodiversity, the local economy, highways or telecommunications. It could, however, be argued that Policy R44 is now contrary to national planning policy and the weight to be afforded to Policy R44 should be adjusted accordingly. The conflict has arisen by the publication, of the Climate Change Supplement to PPS 1; paragraph 11 of the Supplement states that “planning authorities should have regard to this PPS as a material consideration which may supersede the policies in the development plan”. Policy E37 requires development to be compatible with the distinctive characteristics and features of Cumbria’s landscape types and sub-types. Policy E35 protects nature conservation interests and Policy E38 protects the historic environment, including archaeological sites. The site was formerly within an area designated as being a Landscape of County Importance (LCI) and subject to Policy E36 of the Structure Plan which aimed to protect such areas from development detrimental to their distinctive character. The recently published RSS has replaced a number of Structure Plan policies, including E36. As a consequence, the concept of LCIs is no longer a part of the development plan and Policy E36 has been replaced by RSS Policies DP7 and EM1.

22 Mention is made in the County Council’s recommendation of the Cumbria Sub-Regional Spatial Strategy. It should be noted that this document does not form a part of the Development Plan. It is a background document to the Cumbria Strategic Partnership’s Community Strategy which, in turn, will provide direction for the formulation of policies, including the Core Strategy of the emerging Local Development Framework.

Cumbria Wind Energy Supplementary Planning Document (SPD): Additional guidance on the provision of wind energy developments throughout Cumbria is contained in the Wind Energy SPD adopted by both the County and District Council’s last year. The SPD includes a detailed Landscape Capacity Assessment which indicates the potential capacity of different landscape areas to support wind energy development. The purpose of the SPD is to enable a consistent approach to be taken when considering the effects of wind energy development on the distinctive and, often, high quality landscape character of Cumbria. The SPD identifies the landscape in which the turbines are to be sited as having moderate sensitivity and a moderate capacity to accommodate wind energy development. It suggests the landscape has the potential to support up to 3 – 5 turbines. The capacity assessments are indicative only and with each individual development it is necessary to consider the landscape characteristics of the site and its surroundings to determine if the capacity in that area is smaller or greater than that indicated in the SPD.

Local Plan Policy: Policy C25 of the Local Plan states that “Proposals for renewable energy generation projects based on resources derived from natural physical processes … will be favourably considered where (a) the energy generation and other benefits outweigh any identified environmental impact; and (b) the proposals are consistent with established best practice. On the subject of wind energy developments, Policy C26 states that the acceptability of turbines will be judged according to whether the number, size and design of proposals can be shown to satisfy the following criteria:- (a) the proposal’s energy contribution and other benefits outweigh any significant adverse impact on:- (1) the character and appearance of the landscape, nature conservation, archaeological or geographical interests; (2) the amenity of residential properties by reason of visual impact, noise, shadow flicker or reflected light; (b) the proposal would not have a significant adverse impact on any nationally important landscape designation, including their visual amenity and setting; (c) the proposal would not cause significant damage to a site of international or national nature conservation importance; (d) effective measures are available to overcome any significant electromagnetic interference to transmitting or receiving equipment; (e) all power lines are placed underground or do not appear prominent in the landscape; (f) adequate access for construction traffic is available or could be provided without harm to highway safety, visual amenity or nature conservation interests; (g) the cumulative effect of the proposal, with existing, permitted or other proposed wind energy schemes, should not have significant adverse impact on the character and appearance of the area;

23 (h) realistic proposals are in place for the removal of redundant wind turbines and the restoration of the site. In assessing the proposals against the requirements of this policy, full account will be taken of proposed mitigating measures.

Policy C31 requires “Assessments of new proposals for renewable energy developments shall take account of the cumulative effect of the development on the area if other similar renewable energy projects have been permitted within the same area”. Policy L10 states that “…rights of way will be maintained and protected from any development that would adversely affect their character …”

HUMAN RIGHTS ACT: The provisions of the Act are relevant in so far as they relate to the right to respect for private and family life and the peaceful enjoyment of property.

ASSESSMENT

MAIN ISSUES: The main issues raised by this proposal are whether the three wind turbines would:- a) make an appropriate and necessary contribution to meeting Government targets for the production of energy from renewable sources; or b) seriously impair the qualities and special features of the landscape here; or c) unacceptably impinge on the living conditions currently enjoyed by neighbouring residents, with particular reference to visual impact, noise and disturbance; or d) unacceptably damage nature conservation interests; or e) unacceptably impinge on the peace and quiet of the public footpath and the bridleway which pass close to the application site.

Main Issue (a)

THE CONTRIBUTION TO MEETING GOVERNMENT TARGETS FOR RENEWABLE ENERGY: The three turbines have a total generating capacity of up to 7.5MW which could meet the electricity needs of up to 4500 households. PPS22 advises that projects which make a small contribution to renewable energy targets should not be refused permission simply because the level of output is small. In this context, the output from the proposed turbines at Sillfield will contribute to meeting Government targets for the production of energy from renewable sources.

Main Issue (b)

LANDSCAPE CHARACTER AND VISUAL IMPACT: There is a distinction to be drawn between landscape impact and visual impact. The former is the degree to which the site and the immediate landscape setting can accommodate change arising from the proposed development without detrimental effects on its character. The visual impact of the proposal is how it changes the character of available views and changes the visual amenity of visual receptors. Guidance on this matter indicates that the most sensitive receptors may include

24 users of outdoor recreational facilities, including public rights of way, where attention may be focused on the landscape; communities where the development results in changes in the landscape setting or valued views enjoyed by the community; and occupiers of residential properties with views affected by the development. The application includes an assessment of the landscape and visual impacts of the turbines. A consultant’s report, prepared on behalf of the Council, has confirmed that the methodology employed is in accordance with the Guidance for Landscape and Visual Impact Assessment (GLVIA), published by the Landscape Institute. Landscape Character: The site lies within landscape character sub-type 9b (Rolling Farmland and Heath) as defined by the Cumbria Landscape Classification. It is located towards the middle of a plateau between the valleys of the rivers Kent and Lune. The site comprises two small rounded hills intersected by a walled track that forms a small valley feature through the site. The land rises to the south east. In terms of designated landscapes, the site was formerly within a Landscape of County Importance (LCI). The recent publication of the Regional Spatial Strategy has, however, removed the concept of LCIs. Although no longer of direct relevance, it is perhaps worth noting that PPS 22 advises that local landscape designations should not be used in themselves to refuse permission for renewable energy developments. Nationally designated landscapes, the Yorkshire Dales and Lake District National Parks are located to the east and west respectively and the Arnside- Silverdale AONB lies to the south-west. Land some 2km to the north of the site has been assessed for inclusion within the Yorkshire Dales National Park although at present there is no immediate or short-term prospect of the area being put forward for designation. Natural England has deferred public consultation on the areas under consideration for extensions to National Parks and there is no certainty when or whether the area near to the application site will attain such designation. The potential of the area for National Park designation is not, in itself, a reason to justify the refusal of planning permission. Nevertheless, the fact that it is an area that meets the requirements for National Park designation is a material consideration as it is indicative of the particular quality of the landscape in this locality. The Cumbria Wind Energy SPD identifies this landscape as having moderate sensitivity and a moderate capacity to accommodate wind energy development. The SPD suggests that the landscape has the potential to support up to 3 – 5 turbines. It should be noted that the capacity assessments are indicative only and with each proposal it is necessary to look at the landscape characteristics of the site and it s surroundings to determine if the capacity in that area is smaller or greater than that indicated in the SPD. The applicant acknowledges that significant effects would arise within 3.5km of the site. Because of the open nature of the undulating farmland around the site and the height of the turbines the proposal would appear prominent and form a key characteristic of the local landscape. The effects would be greatest when viewed from the north eastern and north western parts of the plateau and within 1 – 2 km of the site, but would still be significant up to 3.5km from the site. From some areas effects would be limited by variations in topography and land cover; for example, from areas to the south east of the site. The applicant concludes that despite significant localised effects, the proposal would not cause a significant effect on the overall landscape character sub-type. The County Council’s Head of Environment in his Committee Report acknowledges that significant effects will arise within 3.5km of the site and that the most significant effects will arise within 2km of the site. Significance will reduce as the distance increases from the site. There will be a significant change in the local landscape to the north east of parts of Endmoor and the A65; south west of Old Hutton; and when viewed from several properties and farmsteads that are close to the site. When viewed from these places and from the local roads and footpaths, the turbines will be prominent and conspicuous by reason of their height and the open nature of the landscape. The Head of Environment considers, however, that in the majority of close views, the proposal would appear as a simple feature in the landscape and would often be seen in relation to large scale, modern agricultural buildings, pylons and telecommunications masts. The turbines would not harm the overall character of the broader landscape due to its open nature, the overall sparsity of

25 farms and residential properties, the hidden nature of settlements within the hollows of the undulating topography, and the larger scale characteristics of commercial forestry, the M6 motorway, overhead lines and pylons and telecommunications masts. From further afield, there would be limited visibility from the low-lying areas of the Lune Valley because of landform variations and intervening land cover. More open views of the turbines would be visible from the higher parts of the Lune Valley, adjacent to and within the Yorkshire Dales National Park. The closest views are about 6km distant and the proposal would form a small element in the landscape. The County Council concluded that the particular characteristics of this site and the surrounding landscape would support a development of three turbines. The significant landscape and visual effects that would arise would be localised to within 3.5km of the site and, when considered on its own, would not cause significant harm to the overall quality and character of the wider landscape and the localised effects would be outweighed by the carbon-saving benefits of renewable energy generation. The phrase “… when considered on its own …” is important and the question of the cumulative landscape and visual effects that would arise from the Sillfield and Old Hutton turbines is the subject of the section of this report entitled “Cumulative Effects.” A landscape assessment forms part of the Environmental Statement submitted with the planning application. A review of the landscape assessment, together with a report on the landscape and visual impacts of the turbines, has been prepared by a landscape consultant on behalf of the District Council. The conclusion reached in the report states: “At this preliminary stage, the impact on landscape character could have a moderate to minor adverse impact which is considered as ‘not significant’ according to GVLIA guidelines and EIA regulations.” A list of additional requirements has been recommended by the landscape consultant. The list includes a photomontage of the turbines from West View which overlooks the site from an elevated position to the south; photomontages from the public footpath which runs north west from Sillfield; and ZV1 plans for the proposed site and cumulative impacts. The additional information has been requested from the applicant company. The opinion that the turbines would not cause significant harm to the overall quality and character of the wider landscape is the same as that reached with the six turbines on the nearby site at Old Hutton. It was not a conclusion with which the Planning Committee concurred. In this case, your officer’s view is that the Sillfield turbines would be more harmful to the wider landscape than those at Old Hutton. This is particularly so from the west and also from the east where a fine panoramic view of the Lake District fells and Morecambe Bay can be seen. Unlike the Old Hutton site, landscape detractors such as high voltage overhead lines and pylons have less of an impact on the landscape character and although the motorway passes nearby, it is not particularly evident. In order to be consistent with the Old Hutton decision, Members are advised to consider critically the effect of the three, 110m high turbines on the character of the landscape, notwithstanding the advice received from the County Council and the landscape consultant. Visual Impact: The visual impact of the proposal is how it changes the character of available views and changes the visual amenity of visual receptors; ie, people who would see the turbines. There are a number of individual houses and farmsteadings with direct and close views of the turbines: Sillfield Farm and its neighbouring properties to the west of the site; West View and Fair View to the south; and Crosslands Farm to the north east. The Council’s landscape consultant has advised that these properties, and their occupants, will incur a major adverse visual impact which is “significant” in accordance with recognised guidance. From these properties the turbines will be dominant in view and the footpath which runs alongside part of the site from Sillfield would be severely affected. From Far Audlands Farm, Endmoor and Old Hutton the visual impact is classed as “moderate” and from Crooklands and the M6 as “minor”. The degree of visual impact within 4km of the turbines would be mainly moderate with major visual impacts close to the site. The County Council also agree that significant adverse visual effects would arise within 2 – 3km of the site but consider that such effects are localised and are outweighed by the benefits that would

26 arise from the generation of renewable energy. The County Council raises no objection on the ground of visual impact of this scheme on its own. The scale and nature of wind turbines is such that they will rarely, if at all, have no significant visual effects whatsoever. An adverse effect on one or more receptors does not necessarily render a project unacceptable in environmental terms. However, it is clear from the representations received that neighbouring residents are concerned over the impact of the turbines upon views enjoyed from their properties and on views enjoyed by the wider community. There are six houses at Sillfield, the nearest being 660m from Turbine 1, and a pair of houses (West View and Fair View) which overlook the site, a similar distance from Turbine 3. These are all sensitive receptors and at these distances the magnitude of the impact would be very significant. There will be significant visual harm in respect of the amenities currently enjoyed by the occupiers of these affected properties. Members will have seen the proximity of the Sillfield properties during the site visit and will have seen the site from West View and Fair View. Recreational users of the public footpath which connects Sillfield with the lane to the north of the site and the bridleway to the east would be likely to be highly sensitive receptors. The turbines would be dominant features and the footpath would be severely affected. It is evident that there will be significant visual harm in respect of local residents and recreational users. The protection of the amenities of local residents and visitors to the area are matters which carry considerable weight. Members are advised that the combination of local landscape and visual harm outweighs the benefit of contributing to national and regional targets for the production of renewable energy. Cumulative Impact: The proximity of the proposed turbines to other wind farms is assessed by looking at the visual impacts and this, in turn, is assessed by the inter-visibility of turbines. There are two operational wind farms and one proposed wind farm within 30km of the Sillfield site. The operational schemes are at Lambrigg, 7.5km to the north east (5 turbines) and at Caton Moor, 21km to the south (8 turbines). The proposed scheme is at Old Hutton, 1.8km to the north east, where planning permission has been refused for six turbines; an appeal has been lodged against this decision. When considering cumulative effects, the Cumbria Wind Energy SPD does not specify any acceptable distances that should be maintained between individual schemes to prevent significant adverse cumulative effects. Instead, the SPD states that the cumulative effects must be assessed on a case-by-case basis. Because of the distance between Sillfield and Caton Moor the cumulative effects would be negligible and although Lambrigg is closer, the intervening topography would limit views. There will be no significant cumulative visual effects in conjunction with the turbines at Lambrigg or Caton Moor. In contrast, the cumulative visual effects that would arise from the three turbines at Sillfield and those nearby at Old Hutton would be significant and unacceptable. Although the Old Hutton turbines have been refused planning permission, an appeal has been lodged and it is valid to consider the cumulative effects. The two wind farms would be seen intermittently, sequentially and in combination when viewed from a variety of locations. From the south west and north east they would appear as a single large wind energy development, particularly when viewed from some of the properties within 2km of both sites. From the north west and south east, they would appear as separate but closely sited developments. The cumulative effect of the two schemes would be significant when experienced from individual properties, farmsteadings, parts of some settlements and by recreational users within an area up to 3.5km from the site. Collectively, the two schemes, comprising nine turbines, would form a dominant feature in the local landscape and would result in unacceptable visual effects. Cumulatively, nine turbines would be introduced into an area of pleasant, undulating countryside; they would be visible from a number of viewpoints, often appearing as a single large cluster of turbines. The joint scale of the two schemes would be beyond the landscape capacity of the Wind Energy SPD and the renewable energy generation benefits do not outweigh the

27 significant adverse cumulative effects. Members are advised that the County Council has raised an objection on the ground of cumulative impact.

Main Issue (c)

THE EFFECT ON THE LIVING CONDITIONS OF THOSE LIVING NEARBY: There are residential properties in relatively close proximity to the turbines. There are six houses at Sillfield to the south west of the site; the nearest property is some 660m from Turbine 1. West View and Fair View overlook the site from higher ground to the south, some 660m from Turbine 3. At the site visit, Members were able to see the relationship between the houses at Sillfield and the turbines and viewed the site from West View / Fair View. In addition, there are four farms nearby: Crosslands (and Crosslands Cottage), Audlands Park, Far Audlands and Barkin House. Noise and shadow flicker caused by the turbines, together with the sheer size and scale of the installations, have the potential to be disturbing and detrimental to the living conditions currently enjoyed by the occupiers of the nearby properties. Noise: The Companion Guide to PPS 22 advises that “… wind farms should be located so that increases in ambient noise levels around noise-sensitive developments are kept to acceptable levels with relation to existing background noise. This will normally be achieved through good design of the turbines and through allowing sufficient distance between the turbines and any existing noise-sensitive development so that noise from the turbines will not normally be significant”. There are two distinct types of noise source within a wind turbine: the mechanical noise produced by the gearbox, generator and drive-train; and the aerodynamic noise produced by the passage of the blades through the air. An acoustic consultant, appointed by the Council’s EHO, has confirmed that the turbines will not cause significant noise nuisance. Should permission be granted, however, conditions are recommended to ensure that specified noise levels are not exceeded. Shadow-flicker and reflected light: Under certain combinations of geographical position and time of day, the sun may pass behind the rotors of a wind turbine and cast a shadow over neighbouring properties. When the blades rotate, the shadow flicks on and off: the effect is known as “shadow-flicker”. Should permission be granted a condition can be attached requiring remediation in the event that this becomes a significant problem for nearby residents. Turbines can also cause flashes of reflected light, which can be visible for some distance. It is possible to ameliorate the flashing but it is not possible to eliminate it. Careful choice of blade colour and surface finish can help to reduce the effect; light grey, semi-matt finishes are often used. The scale of the Turbines: It is inevitable that structures of the height and scale proposed will substantially alter the outlook from houses in the locality. They will also have the potential to exert an overbearing or domineering effect on the outlook from these properties. This is a material consideration in the determination of this application and one of the purposes of the site visit was to acquaint Members with the position of the nearest houses to the turbines. Householders with properties close to the turbines have made strong representations in opposition to the wind farm. Of particular concern and anxiety is the proximity of the turbines to their properties. It is evident that the outlook from nearby houses will be substantially changed. The houses at Sillfield together with Fair View and West View (visited by Committee Members) will be particularly affected as they are the closest properties to the turbines. The development will also be in plain view of Crosslands Farm, Audlands Park, Barkin House and Far Audlands, although it should be noted that land within the application site is owned by the last-named farm.

28 The nearby residential properties and farmsteadings, are all sensitive receptors and, at the distances involved from the turbines, the magnitude of the impact will be significant, and in the closest instances, very significant. The turbines will dominate the everyday lives of residents who live and work nearby. Members are, however, reminded that an individual effect on one receptor (i.e. residential amenity) does not immediately make a project unacceptable in environmental terms. Whether or not the proposal is acceptable requires a balance between the various relevant planning policies and material considerations, although Members will recall that the proximity of two houses close to the Old Hutton turbines was a significant factor in the Committee’s decision to refuse permission for, amongst other reasons, the harmful influence the development would exert on the living conditions enjoyed by the occupiers of the affected properties.

Main Issue (d)

NATURE CONSERVATION: Natural England has confirmed that the development is unlikely to have a significantly adverse effect on ornithological and ecological interests. All the mitigation actions suggested in the Environmental Statement should be made a condition of planning consent. In addition, the development should maximise opportunities for biodiversity gain by means of a Habitat Management Plan should planning permission be granted. Both the Cumbria Wildlife Trust and the RSPB share the views expressed by Natural England.

PUBLIC RIGHTS OF WAY: In addition to the lanes to the north, south and east there are two public rights-of-way in the vicinity of the proposed turbines. The nearest to the site is the footpath which runs north east from Sillfield to join the lane near Crosslands Farm. Turbines 1 and 2 will be closest to the footpath at 125m and 95m respectively. At these distances users of the footpath will be severely affected by the proposed wind farm. A bridleway passes through Far Audlands Farm to the east of the site and follows a generally northerly direction to join the B6254 at Audlands Park Farm. The turbines will be in plain view from the bridleway. The effect of the turbines on users fo the footpath and the bridleway is a material consideration and, in order to be consistent with the Old Hutton application, is a matter of significance. One final point concerns the recommendation, from Cumbria Highways, that turbines should be positioned a safe topple distance from a public right-of-way. In this case it should exceed the 110m height of the turbines. Turbine 2 is not consistent with this advice.

OTHER ISSUES: Highways: Cumbria Highways has not advanced fundamental opposition to the proposed turbines although there will be considerable disturbance to roadside verges and hedges. The lane between the site and the A65 crosses over the motorway; the Highways Agency has raised no objection to the proposal.

Archaeology: The site lies in an area of some archaeological potential. A number of earthworks survive that are the remains of post-medieval industrial and agricultural activities. The site should be subject to a programme of archaeological evaluation and recording. This can be achieved by a condition, should planning permission be granted.

Telecommunications: No objections have been received from those telecoms operators that have responded.

29 Aircraft: No objections have been received from the Ministry of Defence, the National Air Traffic Service or the Civil Aviation Authority.

Thirlmere Aqueduct: The aqueduct passes underneath the access route that will be used by construction traffic. Protective measures will need to be undertaken to prevent damage should planning permission be granted.

CONCLUSION: National and regional planning policy promote targets and look to local planning authorities to support proposals for renewable energy developments which do not exert unacceptable impacts. One of the key principles of PPS22 requires that proposals should demonstrate how any environmental and social impacts have been minimised through careful consideration of location, scale, design and other measures. The scale and design of the turbines is exactly what is to be expected of such a proposal and so the key issue in that part of the guidance is the question of location. Policy R44 of the Structure Plan supports the favourable consideration of renewable energy schemes provided there are no significant adverse effects on landscape character, built heritage, local amenity, highways and a range of other issues. Modern wind turbines, because of their scale and magnitude, will inevitably give rise to significant physical effects. It has to be borne in mind, however, that an individual effect on one receptor does not necessarily render a particular wind farm proposal unacceptable in environmental terms. The acceptability, or otherwise, of a particular proposal requires a balance to be drawn between the various relevant planning policies and material considerations. Government guidance places considerable weight upon the provision of renewable energy in its overall energy policy and local planning authorities are left in no doubt that they should look favourably and sympathetically upon renewable energy developments. In this case, the balance of competing considerations needs to take into account landscape and visual impact and an assessment of the specific impact of the turbines in this particular location. Three turbines, each 110m in height would be incongruous and unacceptably out of scale with the local landscape. When viewed from the west, the turbines will be prominently sited in the foreground of the low hills above Endmoor. When seen from the east they will be conspicuous in the panoramic view of the Lake District fells and Morecambe Bay. Closer to the site the turbines would exert a significant visual impact and it is this combination of local landscape and visual harm that outweighs the benefit of contribution the turbines would make towards national and regional aims and targets for the production of renewable energy. The final aspect of landscape and visual impacts is that of cumulative effects. Whilst there will be no significant cumulative effects in conjunction with the Lambrigg or Caton Moor wind farms, the joint scale of development with the Old Hutton turbines would be significant and harmful. Cumulatively, the nine turbines would be visible from a number of viewpoints, often appearing as a single large cluster of turbines. Collectively, they would exceed the landscape capacity of the Wind Energy SPD. There are residential properties close to the proposed turbines and the magnitude of the impact will be significant. The turbines will dominate the everyday lives of those who live and work nearby. The scale and proximity of the turbines is such that they will detract to an unacceptable degree from the living conditions currently enjoyed by the occupiers of the affected properties. Finally, the turbines would impinge to an unacceptable extent on the peace and quiet of the public footpath and the bridleway in the vicinity of the site.

RECOMMENDATION: That planning permission be REFUSED for the following reasons:-

30 1. The proposed turbines on this prominent and elevated site would have a substantial and adverse visual impact and would thereby cause unacceptable harm to the character and appearance of the landscape and its surroundings. The development is, thereby, in conflict with the objectives of Policies DP7 and EM1(A) of the Regional Spatial Strategy for North West England; Policies R44 and E37 of the Cumbria and Lake District Joint Structure Plan; and Policies C25 and C26 of the South Lakeland Local Plan.

2. The significant cumulative landscape and visual effects that would arise from the three wind turbines at Sillfield and the six turbines on the nearby site at Old Hutton (which is currently the subject of an appeal following the refusal of planning permission) would be unacceptable because of the combined scale of the two proposals. Collectively, the two developments would become large scale and prominent features in the landscape. The joint scale of the two wind farms would be beyond the landscape capacity of the Cumbria Joint Wind Energy Supplementary Planning Document and would cause a significant adverse effect on the landscape character. As a consequence, the proposed turbines are in conflict with the objectives of Policies DP7 and EM1(A) of the Regional Spatial Strategy for North West England; Policies R44 and E37 of the Cumbria and Lake District Joint Structure Plan; and Policies C25 and C26 of the South Lakeland Local Plan.

3. The development would exert a harmful influence on the living conditions currently enjoyed by neighbouring residents by reason of the scale, proximity and visual impact of the turbines. As a consequence, the proposal is not compatible with the objectives of Policy R44 of the Cumbria and Lake District Joint Structure Plan and Policy C26 of the South Lakeland Local Plan.

4. The turbines would impinge, to an unacceptable extent, on the peace and quiet of the public footpath and the bridleway which pass close to the proposed turbines. The development is, therefore, incompatible with the objectives of Policy R44 of the Cumbria and Lake District Joint Structure Plan and Policy L10 of the South Lakeland Local Plan.

31

2 SL/2008/1173 (FPA) & SL/2008/1174 (CAC)

GRANGE OVER SANDS: BATEMANS OF GRANGE, STATION SQUARE, GRANGE OVER SANDS PROPOSAL: ERECTION OF SUPERMARKET, FORMATION OF NEW CAR PARKING AND SERVICING AREA, LANDSCAPING, RECONSTRUCTION OF ADJACENT CAR PARK, INCLUDING FLOOD MITIGATION MEASURES AND NEW ACCESS ARRANGEMENTS 26/03/09 MR G BOOTH (E H BOOTH & CO LTD) E341140 N478261

SUMMARY: The need for a supermarket in Grange over Sands has been identified by the South Lakeland Retail Study. It is considered that the proposals meet the requirements of national guidance with regard to the location and potential impact on the vitality and viability of the town centre and will enable a significant amount of retail expenditure to be retained in the town. The proposals will enhance the character and appearance of the Conservation Area and will improve flood mitigation and the highway layout.

GRANGE over SANDS TOWN COUNCIL: No objection, subject to the following: 1. The recommendations contained in the Environment Agency letter dated 26 February 2009 being implemented in full. 2. The recommendations contained in the Brian Campbell Associates Road Safety Audit dated January 2009 being implemented in full. 3. The recommendations contained in the Cumbria Highways letter dated 2 March 2009 being implemented in full.

CUMBRIA HIGHWAYS: The proposals are broadly acceptable to Cumbria Highways provided that the application is appropriately conditioned. Some of the drainage works proposed and changes to the road layout will be in the public highway, which will require a separate agreement with Cumbria Highways. The proposed changes to waiting restrictions would be subject to a public process, the outcome of which is not certain. Conditions requested include: • Provision of the visibility splay at the service yard exit. • Provision of visibility splays at the junction of the access roads with the highway. • Provision of ramps at the junctions to enable wheelchairs, pushchairs etc to manoeuvre kerb lines.

32 • Provision of a scheme for the parking of construction works during construction. • The access and parking/turning requirements shall be substantially metbefore building work commences on site so that the constructional traffic can park and turn clear of the highway. • Provision, implementation and review of a travel plan.

CUMBRIA COUNTY COUNCIL (STRATEGIC PLANNING CONSULTATION): A response has been received from Transport and Spatial Planning advising that the proposal is not considered to be a Category 1 application. The County Council will therefore not be responding.

ENVIRONMENT AGENCY: Response with regard to Flooding The site is located within Flood Zone 3 as defined in PPS25 Development and Flood Risk. The site is at high risk of flooding with a 1% or greater annual probability of fluvial flooding, or a 0.5% or greater annual probability of tidal flooding occurrence. The proposed development could be classified as “less vulnerable” which PPS25 suggests that this form of development is compatible with Flood Zone 3.

The site is vulnerable to fluvial, surface water and groundwater flooding and in some instances is subjected to tide locking. It is well documented that parts of the current site and Windermere Road have a historical flooding problem. Windermere Road tends to flood more frequently than the proposed supermarket and car park site itself. Flood frequency in the last few years at Windermere Road has increased and it was believed that a collapsed culvert upstream might have been a contributory factor. This culvert was replaced in early 2006 and may have reduced flood risk, however, the Ornamental Gardens and Windermere Road still flooded in October 2008. It is understood that the mechanism for flooding at the site is due to a combination of groundwater flooding, surface water flooding and an under capacity of storage on the current site. Looking at historical evidence the greatest frequency of flood events seems to be from overland flow down Windermere Road caused by the upstream culvert at Hazel Bank being surcharged. The effect of this is that large volumes of flood water travel down Windermere Road. Downstream of the Lindale Road culvert the watercourse discharges to an ornamental duck pond. This pond can become tide locked causing increased flooding upstream during a fluvial flood event. However, at the proposed site, were the pond to become tide locked, there would be no increased flood risk and the additional on-site storage would be beneficial compared with the present situation. Current storage comprises of a 1000m³ storage lagoon, 90m³ void under the Bateman site and the combined storage capacities of the culvert sections and short open culvert between the Windermere Car Park and Batemans. The effective capacity of the storage lagoon is likely to be significantly less than its design capacity of 1000m³ at present due to silt deposits and vegetation. Under the proposed scheme the storage lagoon capacity would be reduced to 540m³. Additional storage would be provided under the Windermere Road car park via a series of culverts, which would provide another 1283m³ of storage. It is proposed that there would be a number of gullies on the edge of Windermere Road to divert some of the flow down Windermere Road into this storage. There would be further storage increase provided by the upgraded culvert immediately upstream of Lindale Road. This would be beneficial for two reasons. The first is that it provides additional storage during surcharge and the second is that it is compatible with a possible Agency Flood Alleviation Scheme (FAS) for Grange over Sands – effectively future-proofing the proposal. The

33 full benefit of this upgraded culvert is restricted at present as modelling found that increasing the capacity of this culvert section would increase flood risk to properties downstream. This would be contrary to PPS25, which stipulates that flood risk must not be increased elsewhere. To mitigate against this risk the current culvert capacity would be maintained as at present via a throttle immediately upstream of the manhole at Lindale Road. Should the Agency’s FAS go ahead this throttle would be removed further reducing the flood risk to the current site. It is proposed that the “Tributary of the Un-named Drain under Windermere Road” Main River is diverted via a new culvert immediately upstream of the car park storage effectively creating a new section of Main River. This in turn would carry the main flow via a culvert to the lagoon section with a smaller overflow into the proposed storage under the car park. In the event of surcharge to the culvert at Lindale Road this section of culvert would also provide additional storage. The short culvert section discharging from the lagoon will be upgraded as part of the proposed works. It will also allow as much flow as possible to pass through the proposed storage and into the culvert beneath Lindale Road. At this point the proposed throttle in the section of upgraded culvert immediately upstream of Lindale Road would become active and maintain discharge to the current levels so as not to increase flood risk downstream. The on-site storage capacity would increase from 1090m³ to 1823m³ (not including the extra capacity provided by the upgraded culverts). The loss of 400m² of permeable land would marginally increase surface water run off requiring 10m³ of additional storage. This is accounted for within the additional storage proposed. The footprint of the proposed development is different to the current site layout. Effectively there would be a barrier on the right-hand side of the Un-named Drain under Windermere Road between the car park and Bateman site were the water to rise above bank crest levels. During extreme flood events the flow could go either over the existing culvert between the store and the proposed stone wall along the eastern boundary or out through the new site entrance. Although the new geometry of the site may have changed the additional storage provided by the proposal would still reduce the risk of fluvial flooding overall. The Agency believes that the proposed finished floor levels of 7.35m AOD, which are consistent with the current levels, should be maintained or raised. It is assumed that the car park / store vehicular access on Windermere Road and Lindale Road are maintained at the current levels so as not to increase flood risk elsewhere. Raising or lowering these levels may affect flood risk elsewhere and the Agency would therefore request to be consulted further if any of the proposed levels are to be changed. The proposed development and associated flood risk management works will not increase the flood risk along Windermere Road or elsewhere in Grange over Sands. In fact the provision of increased storage capacity could reduce the flooding problem in the immediate vicinity of the proposed store. By maintaining a throttle in the Lindale Road culvert the same volume of water as at present will pass downstream, on this basis the flood risk downstream of the proposed development remains as existing. The proposed development will only be acceptable if the measures as detailed in the Flood Risk Assessment and plans submitted with this application are implemented and secured by way of a planning condition on any planning permission. The Environment Agency also recommends the following: 1. SLDC are satisfied that there are sufficient gullies on the edge of Windermere Road to transfer some of the flow down Windermere Road into storage.

2. The proposed boundary wall adjacent to Riggs Close be extended along the fence line to the North East corner of the site.

3. Consideration should be given to reinstating a connection with the spring upstream of Eggerslack Terrace. This will further reduce flood risk as there

34 will be reduced flow under the houses on Windermere Road and a dry weather base flow will flow to the lagoon.

Response with regard to contaminated land The removal of the tanks and impacted soils is acceptable as a form of remediation. Additional samples should be adequate to be taken from around the tank area. However, the detail of the proposals should be submitted and forwarded to the Environment Agency. The proposals contained in the Contaminated Land Report, for further geotechnical investigations should be carried out and incorporated into a revised risk assessment. Oil separators should be incorporated in the design of the car park.

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION GROUP (SLDC): Flooding Issues The latest proposals meet the requirements to both provide storage to offset the development and additional storage to reduce the flood frequency to the surrounding area. The recommendations made by the Environment Agency with regard to gullies and the boundary to Riggs Close has been covered within the detail of the application. The application provides a satisfactory improvement in flood storage and will not adversely affect any local residents in terms of flooding. Amenity Issues It is proposed to carry out deliveries at 7 am for a period of 10-15 minutes, which would allow fresh food to be available on the shelves when the store opens at 8am. The Environmental Health Officer is concerned that residents of Riggs Close may consider the hours between 7 am and 8 am as sleeping hours. Bedrooms of dwellings on Riggs Close are facing onto, and are close, to the proposed delivery area. In similar developments, complaints have been received with regard to noise generated at this time. However, the existing use generates noise levels that could justifiably result in complaints. The information supplied suggests that there would be an improvement in amenity for the majority of the day and cessation of the potentially intrusive night-time noises. An advice note to the applicant with regard to the management of noise made during the delivery period before 8 am has been requested. Environmental Health also has additional powers should a statutory nuisance arise. The concerns would be alleviated if a condition were to be attached to any planning consent prohibiting delivery vehicles driving onto or off the site and loading or unloading vehicles/roll cages etc between 10 pm and 7 am Monday to Saturday. There will be no problems caused by the refrigeration plant and that the general operations of the proposed development (including deliveries) in the normal working day should not cause a problem. It is noted that artificial lighting will be provided. A condition requiring a detailed report is submitted to demonstrate compliance with the ILE guidance. Contaminated Land Issues Conditions requiring further investigation and assessment with regard to the removal of the underground fuel tanks are requested.

ENGLISH HERITAGE: English Heritage does not wish to offer any comments on this occasion.

35 NATURAL ENGLAND: The location of the proposal in relation to Morecambe Bay, a European protected site, means that the application must be determined in accordance with the requirements of the Conservation (Natural Habitats &c) Regulations 1994 (the Habitat Regulations). Natural England originally objected to the proposal due to the insufficient information with regard to the removal of the existing fuel tanks. It has however been acknowledged that this can be dealt with by condition and the objection has been withdrawn. It is recommended that the re-landscaping of the pond is sympathetic to local diversity by using native, locally sourced species and ideally retaining the existing marginally plants. Water level managed to ensure sufficient water capacity to allow amphibians to breed would be beneficial.

GRANGE DISABILITY ACTION: Because of the length of the car park another safe pedestrian/wheelchair access point is needed onto Windermere Road. A dropped kerb should be provided at and opposite each pedestrian entry/access point on Windermere Road. Appropriate tactile paving should be provided at each pedestrian crossing/entry point for the sight impaired. More large bays for disabled drivers should be provided next to the store.

UNITED UTILITIES: No objection provided the surface water is drained on a separate system, with only the foul drainage connected into the foul sewer. If surface water is allowed to be discharged to the public surface water system the flow may need to be attenuated to a maximum discharge rate determined by United Utilities. Surface water run-off rates should not increase from the current rates for the existing site.

3P’s GROUP: Concern has been raised with regard to the original layout of the car park, which does not allow for proper use of the four coach parking spaces. The movement of the entrance/exit of the car park will mean a considerable extra walk for coach passengers to reach the safety of the pavement. This will inconvenience visitors and be likely to prejudice the Heritage Lottery Funding Bid.

GRANGE CHAMBER OF TRADE AND HOTELIERS ASSOCIATION: Objections are raised primarily regarding the loss of trade Grange businesses will suffer and the possible closure of some shops. In particular they fear the loss of Threshers, one or more of the butchers, a greengrocer, a delicatessen, a baker and one of the two convenience stores. Should these shops close, the heart of Grange will be lost as it is likely that they would be taken over by service providers or gift shops. Concern is also raised that shoppers will desert Grange by driving through from Allithwaite or not bothering to travel further if arriving from Lindale. The town will lose its bustling busy town centre. The increased traffic in the Windermere Road and at the roundabout is of concern as the area is already busy and was the scene of a fatal accident a couple of years ago. They object to the loss of parking on Windermere Road by the shops and loss of parking spaces in the car park for visitors. The car park will primarily be for Booths shoppers, even with the increased spaces and will be insufficient for visitor use. Concern that the proposals will merely move the flooding problem elsewhere. It is believed that a major source of the problems is that the duck pond has not been cleaned out.

36 LAKE DISTRICT NATIONAL PARK: No comments relating to the application have been received.

OTHER: Objections Objectors to the scheme have produced a postcard. 107 (9 in addition to letters by the writer) of the cards have been received. It is argued that: • The proposal would take market share from the small food shops in Grange, which will make it hard for them to make money to survive. If the food shops close other services may follow, including banks, the library and post office. Throughout the country supermarkets have killed off small towns. • The most tourist friendly part of the town will be dominated by the development, reducing attractiveness of Grange to tourists with negative implications for the local tourism businesses. • The site is a long steep walk from anywhere else in Grange and everyone will drive there. The store is not in the town centre and this files in the face of planning law. • The proposal will create huge local job losses. Research shows that for every supermarket opened an average of 276 local jobs are lost. • Grange is only special now because there is no supermarket.

29 letters of objection have been received. Reasons for objection include: • The Core Strategy states a small supermarket in the town centre will enhance viability. PPS6 defines edge of centre as a location well connected to the primary shopping area and within 300m. The site is not in or on the edge of the town centre, the main food retailers are uphill approximately 650m away and are not easily accessible from the site. The existing food shops are in a flat area easily assessable on foot. Once people have shopped at Booths there will be no incentive for them to walk up the hill to spend money in other shops or facilities. • Grange has a vibrant and efficient retail provision, there is very little that cannot be obtained in Grange through local shops. Grange already has facilities for main shopping which people of all ages use. • Grange is unique with individual shops and this should be emphasised. The Local Development Framework – Core Strategy states that Grange should have a tourism/leisure emphasis for regeneration and environmental enhancement all of which are being dealt within the Heritage Lottery Bid. A supermarket would not supply this emphasis. • Concerns with regard to the accuracy of the retail statement. It is argued that Trading figures for Grange are not available. The estimated leak of trade and amounts of trade enjoyed by the Spar and Co-op are based on false assumptions. The retail study took no account of brand of supermarket proposed. • There is a strong leakage to Asda and Morrisons, rather than Booths in Kendal as they are cheaper and provide petrol. People will make decisions based on price rather than location. There is also an increase in Tesco and Asda delivery’s as working families shop on line – Booths do not deliver.

37 • Those most likely to use the Booth store are those that choose a shop based on quality rather than price, i.e. the people currently using the many high quality shops in Grange. • Many retired people go out for the day and combine shopping. There are also bus services for people who don’t drive and like an outing. Others shop on their way to and from work. Provision of a supermarket in Grange will not change such people’s habits. • Many of the small shops in Grange are family owned and cannot compete with Booths opening hours. Much of the supposedly additional trade will come at times when the small shops are closed. The proposal will also draw much of the top-up trade currently undertaken in Grange. • Only 10% of the Grange population live in the ‘Low Town’area. Grange has the highest population of over 65’s in the whole pf Cumbria so they are not going to walk with bags of shopping a kilometres up Main Street and beyond. People will visit by car thereby not reducing carbon emissions as claimed. • Due to the car park, distance out of the town centre the proposal will draw trade away from existing town centre retailers. • The national retail situation is precarious and the slightest knock could have detrimental consequences for the town. • Kirkby Londsale, Ulverston and Carnforth all lost shops when Booths moved in. Other services move in but retail choice is restricted. Surveys have found that supermarkets result in a decline in the number of shoppers frequenting traditional town centres and a significant decline in the level of business activities undertaken by existing retailers. Between 1997 and 2002 more that 13,000 specialist stores closed. • The effect of Booths cannot be compared with that of Kirkby Lonsdale because the location is different and the store does not interfere with access to the town. • The application site is a greater distance from the town centre that the Berners site is. Retail development was rejected at the Berners site due to the distance from the town centre. Berners is more easily accessible and has a larger area for parking. • The proposal will result in a loss of jobs in Grange. Booths do not use local banks, banks close as shops close and any new jobs created will be poorly paid. • The supermarket is likely to impact upon shops and post offices in smaller settlements. • The supermarket will not enhance the attractiveness of Grange for Tourists. Tourists are currently attracted to Grange by the unique small shops and seaside resort. They will not be attracted by empty shops. • The proposal would have a negative impact on the view to the Grange Hotel, which is a significant public view. Similarly views from the hotel would be harmed and plant on the roof should be camouflaged. • The development would degrade the very pleasant environment and the character of the Conservation Area creating a more urban place. The proposed store is far too large in scale for the site and dwarfs the surrounding shops and houses and will not fit into the highly distinctive context of this part of Grange. • The traffic survey was taken in November which is quieter than summer

38 months. The Chamber of trade carried out a survey in July 2008. It showed 10 vehicles per minute used the roundabout, which would be significantly increased by the development and the holiday development under construction at Merlewood. • Grange already struggles to cope with traffic and the area around the site is already busy with shops, Doctors surgery and car park, any increase in traffic will cause further congestion, disrupt the flow of traffic and create hazards for pedestrians. There have been accidents at the roundabout. Delivery vehicle exit on blind bend, cross both carriageways in one of busiest parts of Grange. • The proposal would result in a loss of visitor parking as the car park is not big enough for the store, staff parking and delivery vehicles, let alone shopper’s cars. The small increase in car space numbers will not be sufficient for the majority of Booths customers who will come by car. • The loss of on street parking will jeopardise the businesses on Windermere Road and reduce residential parking. • The coach parking spaces proposed will not be useable. The pedestrian crossing and the bus stop would be too close to the roundabout the repositioning of the access points would harm traffic flow and access to driveways on Windermere Road. • Proposal will increase flooding at Windermere Road and the Main Street car park affecting houses and businesses. Booths may ensure that the store does not flood but not necessarily to the benefit of their neighbours. • Equipment must be quiet to ensure that there is not a long-term problem for residents and no recycling skips should be allowed. • The proposal is likely to cause disturbance to neighbours due to deliveries particularly early in the morning. • If the related proposal for Batemans Garage to move to Lindale were to go ahead, the only development allowed on the site should be a petrol filling station to save residents and visitors a long and environmental damaging journey to fill up.

Letters of objection have been received on behalf of the Spar and the Co-operative Group. The Spar claims to be the main grocery store in Grange and in their experience the impact is much greater than the prediction. Evidence from County Durham shows that the arrival of a new supermarket cuts the turnover of the local Spar by 20%. The pre ‘credit crunch’ figures cannot be accepted as reliable. Grange residents will still have to visit Kendal for higher order services so they are likely to shop at the same time. Thus the claw back will be less than expected. Those forced to stay in Grange to shop will have a choice therefore to transfer allegiance to Booths from existing food shops. The Co-operative Group highlight four key objections: • The proposal conflicts with PPS6 and the Grange over Sands Regeneration Study. Booths is neither independent nor does it encourage the growth of the existing businesses as recommended by the Regeneration Study. • The store is not located within the Town Centre, which will jeopardise the vitality and viability of the Town Centre. The majority of traffic will not enter the town but stop at Booths thereby reducing pedestrian flows in the town centre and diverting trade from the existing retailers. The town centre is under served by parking, therefore the offer of parking will deter shoppers from visiting the existing town centre.

39 • The claw back figures quoted are grossly misjudged and as such have not factored in the impact the store will have. In a Retail Capacity Study (2005) on behalf of Booths in Lancaster a claw back figure of 25-35% was expected. An extract from the study is quoted, “.. the prospects of expenditure ‘claw-back’ are greatest where a large store is being introduced in an area where there is currently no such provision. …. In the case of a new Safeway in Fakenham, 46% of the store’s trade derived from expenditure claw-back’. If the claw back figure is reduced to 50%, a trade shortfall of £2.1m for the store would occur, which would be made up from local trade resulting in a loss of 46.6% to existing shops. • Booths is not diverse or inexpensive enough to compete for the leaked trade. The small store cannot compete with bulk shopping locations such as Asda in Kendal therefore will serve as a top-up store placing it in direct competition with the existing food shops in the town centre. The offer will not contribute towards diversifying the mix of shops.

Support Five of the aforementioned cards have been received with alterations indicating support for the scheme. 29 letters of support have been received. Reasons for support include: • Notwithstanding the high profile and vigour of the opposition, the protesters represent a minority of the regions residents. The KOGS GROUP and local traders shout down the silent majority. • A quality grocery store is needed, as there is dissatisfaction with current shopping facilities. Grange traders need competition to spur them to improve facilities. It is sadly possible that the supermarket could create problems for a handful of traders but this is the nature of trade. • Existing shops do not offer the range and variety of produce a Booths store would provide. Those who prefer to shop in local shops can continue to do so. • Choice for main shopping in Grange is minimal. The Co-op and Spar are in effect little more than crowded convenience stores with limited choice and access both inside and out. A high proportion of Grange residents shop in Kendal or Ulverston. A Booths store would allow them to shop locally. • Specialist butchers and bakers would continue to attract shoppers and tourists as they offer a more specialist range. Many shops provide services, which would not be affected by a supermarket such as the toyshop, cafes, furniture and real estate. • Tourists come for more than shopping and the proposal will enhance the town as it has done in Kirkby Lonsdale. The proposal will increase spending in Grange and is exactly the kind of development needed for Grange to move forward as it must if it is not be decline. • Loading obstructs the roads at the junction of Grange Fell Road and outside the Co-op. The position of the store would ensure additional lorries do not have to travel through Grange and would reduce congestion in Kents Bank Road. • The proposal will prevent the need to travel. Time and fuel needed to travel to Kendal and Ulverston is costly. • A supermarket is needed to serve the new houses / growth proposed by the Local Development Framework.

40 • Apart from residents who live on the flat area at Kents Bank Road anywhere in Grange is a long steep walk. • Booths have offered careful consideration to traffic management. Removal of the parking bay will reduce the risk of accidents due to restricted views. • The site is close to the railway station and will bring customers in from a wide catchment area. • Design is sympathetic to Grange architecture and would be an improvement on the present garage. • Grange is a nice place in decline. A third of the shops are excellent a third mediocre and a further third shabby. It is impossible to do a proper shop in Grange – the Co-op has no car park and the ramps are awkward. Congestion around the Co-op is dangerous. • Booths will create jobs, the small shops that may close employ few anyway. • The ageing population needs convenient local shopping and the proposal will make Grange more attractive and practical for families. • The proposal will provide flood control measures. • The surgery will be moving which will reduce congestion at Windermere Road. • The proposal would benefit residents of the surrounding villages. • At the pre-application stage, Booths carried out a public exhibition and consultations via a mail shot and questionnaire. Out of a total of 784 responses, 84.8% supported the proposals and 15.2% were against.

Observations Eight letters raising various observations have been received. Comments include: • The 2.5m high boundary wall should run along the whole of Riggs Close to ensure privacy. • In the summer the car park is often full. • Flooding worsened once the Windermere Road car park was built. This is an ideal opportunity to rectify problems caused by previous development. • The bus stop in Windermere Road is not necessary as the X35 stops in the Station forecourt. • A traffic light controlled crossing should be provided on Windermere Road. • Deliveries must be prevented at night. • Windermere Road has a weight restriction and it would not be beneficial to allow lorries to use this route as an entrance. • Increase in traffic could make manoeuvring into driveways more difficult. • Could residents parking be provided?

HISTORICAL CONTEXT: The planning history at the site relates to various alterations at the Bateman’s site including signage, redevelopment of the parking area, filling station and showroom areas. The current public car park was granted permission in August 1997. The area has a history of flooding which is explained in the Environment Agency’s observations.

41 DESCRIPTION AND PROPOSAL: The site is located at the eastern end of Grange over Sands adjacent to the junction of Station Square and Windermere Road. It is opposite the ornamental gardens and less than 100m from the railway station and bus stop. To the east of the site there is a small estate of bungalows which bound the existing service and sales area. There are retail and service properties opposite on Windermere Road together with residential properties. The southern part of the site currently consists of a large car show room, external car show area and a repair garage. The main part of the building is fairly attractive with traditional materials, although there are some flat roof extensions to the side and rear. The northern part of the site consists of the public car park which is owned and operated by SLDC. The car park is one way and accessed at the northern end of the site and exited at the south. It is proposed to demolish the existing buildings on site, erect a supermarket, alter the layout of the public car park and incorporate additional flood storage and changes to the culvert system. The design of the proposed building reflects that of nearby architecture and materials. It is a large structure running the width of the site along Station Square and approx 30m along Windermere Road. The main eaves height is 4.5m with a ridge height varying between 9 and 10m. This would be 1.55m above the highest point of the existing building. The structure would be separated from the properties on Riggs Close by a delivery yard and access route with a 2.5m high wall erected along the boundary. The public car park would be re-arranged to create two access and exit points and additional parking within the current garage site. The layout would include a new pond for storage and a boardwalk feature together with landscaping. Underneath the car park flood water storage would be provided together with alterations to the culvert system. A range of technical documents have been submitted in support of the application, including a Retail Assessment, a Flood Risk Assessment, an Ecological Assessment, a Transport Assessment, an Acoustic Report and Report on pre-application public consultations.

POLICY ISSUES: South Lakeland Local Plan: Retail and Employment Policy Policy R6 states that within the shopping centre of Grange over Sands favourable consideration will be given to small-scale retail development in suitable locations subject to no adverse effects on the surroundings. While the majority of the site is used for the sale of cars, a section provides car repair and servicing. Policy E6 states that the change of use of employment land will not be permitted except where the existing use is unneighbourly because of traffic generation, noise, or disturbance to amenity; or the change of use would assist a move to more suitable premises in the vicinity. Environment and Conservation Policies C6 and C7 state that proposals which may affect a European or Ramsar site or a Site of Special Scientific Interest will be subject to rigorous examination. Where development would directly or indirectly have an adverse effect on interests of nature conservation it will not be permitted. Policy C10 seeks to ensure that development does not adversely affect protected species. Policies C15 and C16 seek to ensure that development does not harm the setting of listed buildings and either enhances or preserves the special character and appearance of Conservation Area.

42 Flood Risk Policy C22 states that development will not be permitted in areas at risk of flooding unless: a) appropriate flood protection or compensation schemes can be provided; and b) measures are also provided to prevent an unacceptable increase in flood risk to areas further downstream due to additional surface water run-off. Policy C24 states that development which requires the extensive culverting of watercourses, or has a significant adverse impact on the land drainage interest of the adjacent area. Transport Policies TR5 and S10 state that when considering development for town centre sites, the associated car parking will be determined based on the following factors: a) the County-wide guidelines;

b) availability of public parking space in the vicinity;

c) the likely impact on traffic flows and highway safety;

d) accessibility by other forms of transport;

e) the advice of PPG13 and the Local Transport Plan.

Policy S10 states that the guidelines will be relaxed in circumstances which have good access to other means of travel other than the private car. Policies TR6a, S11, TR7 and TR8 seek to ensure that opportunities for disabled access, pedestrians and cyclists are provided. Policy Tr10 requires the submission of Travel Plans for major new retail developments. Design Policy S2 states that the design of new buildings should take account of existing distinctive local character. This should not exclude good local contemporary architecture. Attention should be paid to public views onto, over or out of the site. Views should not be significantly harmed and opportunities should be taken to enhance them. The design and materials of new buildings should relate to those around them and be well proportioned with appropriate architectural detail and decoration. Policy S3 requires a high standard of landscaping. Policy S17 requires that development take account of opportunities to reduce energy needs. Policy S19 states that development should incorporate new works of art.

Grange over Sands Regeneration Study: The study forms part of the evidence base for the Local Development Framework. It states, ‘the overall spatial strategy for Grange over Sands aims to maintain and enhance the vitality and viability of the town centre as well as promoting new development at the Berners/Lido sites. This will create a new focus and cluster of facilities and attractions at the southern end of the town that will strengthen Grange as a Key Service Centre’. It is stated that the Local Development Framework Core Strategy should designate a ‘town centre area’ including the retail areas in Kents Bank Road, Yewbarrow Terrace and Main Street and maintain a suitable mix of shops and appropriate uses in that area.

43 The Study describes five character areas around Grange over Sands. The site is within the area described as Main Street and Low Town and states that this forms ‘an important gateway to the town and a hub for visitors’. It goes on to state that ‘Grange over Sands is a highly compact town. The background is residential but the town centre and the Low Town area round the Station and Main Street Gardens provide a range of facilities that are very well placed to their surroundings.’ With regard to transport links the study states, ‘there is also a wider network of green links, both footpath and cycleways, that link from the town to the wider South Lakes area. The natural centre for the wider network seems to be the Low Town Area.’ It recognises that there are, ‘problems associated with the private car on a built environment which was never expected to cope with the volume of traffic or scale of car parking required to meet the expectations of residents and visitors.’ Business interviews were carried out as part of the study. These indicated a large percentage of retailers are well established and have been trading for a considerable time.

Character Appraisal for Grange: The Character Appraisal for Grange has been adopted as a technical document. The Appraisal identifies the existing building on site as one which has a largely neutral impact on the special architectural or historic character of the area.

South Lakeland Retail Study – Quantitative Assessment (October 2007): The study was commissioned by South Lakeland District Council to provide an independent district wide retail assessment to inform the emerging Local Development Framework. An initial analysis indicated that Grange over Sands and Milnthorpe retained so little convenience goods expenditure that they really fell within the Kendal Secondary Catchments Area. It concludes that there is a qualitative need for small supermarkets in Grange over Sands and Milnthorpe. It notes that PPS6 Annex A advises that even local centres, which both these centres are bigger than, can be anchored by small supermarkets so there is no question of appropriate scale. The study states that, ‘the small Booths stores in Kirkby Lonsdale and Windermere take a significant market share of the convenience goods expenditure in the surrounding postcode sector for both main food and top-up shopping trips and this could be replicated at Grange over Sands and Milnthorpe.’ ‘Clearly the small supermarkets in Kirkby Lonsdale and Windermere are capable of competing in those parts of the Secondary Catchments Area with the larger supermarkets in Kendal and enable more expenditure to be retained locally.’ ‘The two postcode sectors in the vicinity of Grange over Sands (LA11 6 and LA11 7) generate c.£17m convenience goods expenditure of which around 79% leaks back to Kendal (60%). A small supermarket slightly smaller (c. 1,200 sq m gross) that those in Kirkby Lonsdale or Windermere would have a convenience good turnover of c. £6-8m (depending on operator) drawn from the surrounding area and would account for around a third (35%) of the local expenditure as the Kirkby Lonsdale store does in the three immediate postcode sectors. This would mean that, combined with the existing stores in the Grange over Sands area that currently retain 21% of expenditure, c. 55% of expenditure would be retained locally assuming local stores maintain their market share. This is a similar level of trade to that currently retained in the Kirkby Lonsdale area and is considered to be realistic.’ The study concludes that the priority should be to satisfy the need in Grange over Sands and Milnthorpe for sustainability reasons.

44 Cumbria and Lake District Joint Structure Plan: There are a number of Structure Plan policies that have been extended but have not been replaced by the RSS. Policy ST4 states that major development proposals will only be permitted where the benefits outweigh detrimental effects, where the proposal complies with national standards and best practice for environment, safety and security and alternative location giving less harm have been fully considered and rejected. Grange over Sands is designated as a key service centres where development should be focused by Policy ST5. Policy E38 seeks to ensure that development preserves or enhances the character and appearance of Conservation Areas.

North West of England Regional Spatial Strategy (RSS): Policies within the RSS promote sustainable communities and economic development. Policy DP5 states that development should be localised to reduce the need for travel and to enable people to meet their needs locally. Policy RDF2 states that development in rural areas should be concentrated on Key Service Centres and should be of a scale appropriate to the needs of local communities. Policy W5 states that retail investment of an appropriate scale will be encouraged to maintain and enhance viability and to ensure that centres meet the needs of the local community.

The South Lakeland Local Development Framework - Core Strategy Preferred Options: While the Local Development Framework is still in the early stages this document should be afforded consideration. The preferred locational strategy relates to a hierarchy of settlements with Grange over Sands being designated as a Rural District Centre. Policies will require that developments are of a scale appropriate to the centres position within the hierarchy.

Planning Policy Statement 6: Planning for Town Centre (PPS6): The Government’s key objective for town centres is to promote their vitality and viability by: • planning for the growth and development of existing centres; • promoting and enhancing existing centres, by focusing development in such centres and encouraging a wide range of services in a good environment, accessible to all. • Other objectives that need to be taken into account are: • enhancing customer choice by making the provision for a range of shopping and local services, which allow genuine choice to meet the needs of the entire community, and particularly socially excluded groups; • supporting an efficient competitive retail sector;

This states that, “It is not the role of the planning system to restrict competition, preserve existing commercial interest or prevent innovation”. Local Authorities should consider whether there is a need to avoid over-concentration of growth in the higher level centres. When assessing proposed development Local Planning Authorities should require applicants to demonstrate:

45 a) In an edge of or out of centre location the applicant must demonstrate the need for the development. Wherever possible this should be based on the assessment carried out for the development plan document. Local Planning Authorities should consider provision for genuine customer choice by ensuring an appropriate distribution of locations is achieved which meets the needs of the whole community. b) That the development is of an appropriate scale to meet the identified need. c) That there are no more central sites for the development. d) That there are no unacceptable impacts on existing centres. Local Planning Authorities should take account of the centres role in the hierarchy, the likely effect on investment needed to safeguard the vitality and viability of the centre, the likely impact on trade/turnover and vitality/viability of the existing centre (an example of a positive impact could be clawback expenditure), changes to the range of services provided by the centre, impact on vacant properties in the primary shopping area, potential changes to the quality, attractiveness, physical condition and character of the centre and to the role in the economic and social life of the community, the implications of proposed leisure and entertainment uses for the evening and night-time economy of the centre. e) That locations are accessible.

Planning Policy Guidance Note 15: Planning and the Historic Environment: The guidance seeks to ensure that development protects the setting of listed buildings and either protects or enhances the special character and appearance of conservation areas.

HUMAN RIGHTS ACT: The provisions of the Act are relevant in so far as they relate to the right to respect for private and family life and the peaceful enjoyment of property.

ASSESSMENT: There are five main issues that need to be considered: • the retail assessment; • flooding; • impact upon the highway network and safety; • impact on the Conservation Area; • neighbours amenity.

Retail Assessment The principle issue is whether a supermarket in this location would harm the vitality and viability of the town centre. PPS6 sets out six main issues for consideration when assessing retail development. a) The need for development Local Authorities should assess the need for retail development, preferably based on an assessment carried out for a development plan document. The South Lakeland Retail Study was carried out in October 2007 to inform the Local Development Framework. The study identified capacity for further retail development in the South Lakeland area and a high level of convenience good expenditure leakage (79%) from the Grange over Sands area to stores in Kendal.

46 PPS6 states that local authorities should provide customer choice by ensuring an appropriate distribution of locations is achieved. The Study concludes that the most appropriate way of meeting these criteria is to distribute the provision of additional retail floor space between the main centres. This should allow for customer choice and reduce the need for travel between centres. In assessing need, the likely future demand should be considered. Grange over Sands is identified as a Key Service Centre where development should be focused. In view of this status, the town needs a range of services of varying scales. It is likely that the town will be subject to growth following land allocations in the LDF. There is also significant development currently under construction at Merlewood and planned at the Berners Site. Development allocations and ongoing projects should enhance Grange’s role as a visitor destination and increase demand for services. It is therefore considered that the need for a small supermarket in Grange over Sands has been clearly established. b) Securing the appropriate scale of development The study identifies capacity for a small supermarket within Grange over Sands. It suggests a store of 1,200 square metres gross, which is slightly smaller than stores in Kirkby Lonsdale or Windermere. The proposal would have a larger gross floorspace of 1,516 square metres than suggested but the net sales area of 929 square metres is smaller than the stores in Kirkby Lonsdale (1,220 sq m) and Windermere (1,639 sq m). The proposed store would be of sufficient size to offer a range of goods need to generate the claw back levels identified. c) Site selection PPS6 requires that a sequential test be applied to development proposals for sites on the edge of, or in an out of town location. In assessing the position, the specific characteristics of Grange over Sands need to be taken into account. Grange over Sands has a long and linear form, with shops and services running from Yewbarrow Terrace/Windermere Road in the east to the small terrace of shops at the far end of Kents Bank Road. This area extends to approximately 1km. There are a range of services opposite the site, including a dentist, a bakery, lawn mower repair shop plus cafes and other shops. Objectors argue that the shops and cafes serve the tourist trade rather than providing local facilities. It is acknowledged that the main food retailers are located within an area of approximately 250m around the junction of Main Street and Kents Bank Road and that there is a gap of approximately 250m and a steep hill between the Yewbarrow Terrace / Windermere Road area and the remainder of the centre. It is however considered that the range of retail and service facilities in the area form an integral part of the service offer in Grange over Sands. The Regeneration Study for Grange over Sands recommends that the Yewbarrow Terrace area be included within a designated town centre area. The retail assessment submitted with the application considers a variety of vacant, underused and developed sites in Grange over Sands. The test concludes that there are no more central sites of a scale large enough to accommodate a store of the size required to fulfil the need identified by the South Lakeland Retail Study. Sites such as the Kents Bank Road car park, St Charles field and the garage are constrained in terms of size and relationship with adjacent properties. The Kents Bank Road car park provides well used parking in this part of the town. The library site is constrained by the size of the site, trees and it is not envisaged that the library would be relocated and is an important local facility. All these sites are also constrained by the road system. Kents Bank Road is heavily parked and congested, access for delivery vehicles problematic and currently causes blockages. In responding to the early Core Strategy consultations, the congestion in this area was highlighted by members of the public. Introduction of a further retail store in this area is therefore likely to exacerbate such problems. Finally, the Berners Site was considered. Several letters of objection have highlighted the Berners site as having better links to the Kents Bank Road area than the site subject to this application. However, a programme for an alternative form of development is currently taking place and it will not be made available for future retail development.

47 A reduction in the footprint or disagregation of the types of goods on offer, would not serve the need identified by the South Lakeland Retail Study. d) Assessing impact The main issue for consideration is the impact that development of a supermarket on this particular site would have upon the vitality and viability of retail and service provision within Grange over Sands. PPS6 suggests a range of issues, which should be taken account of when assessing this issue. The number of vacant units within a town centre can provide a good indication of how the town centre is performing. At the time of writing this report, there was only 1 vacant café unit. This low level has remained consistent in recent years. When property has come onto the market it has been quickly sold or let demonstrating a healthy demand. There is a good range of independent shops, the only multiple occupiers are the Co-op, Spar and Threshers. The centre provides food shops, clothes shops, newsagents, a toyshop, hardware goods plus a range of financial, health and beauty services. Main shopping and linked trips with a variety of services can take place within the centre, a practice that may appeal to smaller households. However, the South Lakeland Retail Study identifies significant leakage to larger centres. The figures provided in the Retail Study are based upon 2005 figures. The 2007 figures, indicate a lower rate of growth. However, retention of a significant level of the expenditure outflow is still possible. A store of the size proposed is likely to have a similar retention expenditure level to Kirkby Lonsdale (55%). In a survey carried out on behalf of the applicant, only 15% said that they do their main shopping in Grange and 45% carry out top up shopping. 60% of those who currently do their main shopping outside Grange over Sands said that they would shop in the town. The applicant has assessed their proposals based upon this empirical data thus a 60% clawback and an expenditure retention level of 67.9%. This level is ambitious, particularly given the current economic climate. However, a lower claw back level of 46.3% has also been examined which would generate a retention level of 57%, which is line with that considered appropriate by the South Lakeland Retail Study. These levels would allow for a viable store without reduction of the expenditure available to existing traders. As the store would provide a new supermarket of a scale and range not currently available in Grange over Sands, it is likely to generate a high level of claw back and as a consequence additional use of shops in services in the town. Objectors consider that the proposal would not be of sufficient size, provide a large enough range of goods or be cheap enough to attract customer away from the larger stores in Kendal. It is also claimed that a Booths supermarket would sell a range of goods already available in Grange over Sands thereby creating direct competition for traders. PPS6 states that competition should not be discouraged and that choice should be provided. The proposal may directly compete with the small Co-operative store, particularly given the problems with access to the range of goods available. However, it is considered that many of the independent food retailers, which provide goods of high quality, have established a reputation and attract custom from a wide area, would not be unduly affected. By attracting additional main food shopping, a large range of services would benefit from increased custom in the town. Objectors claim that the steep hill between the site and other parts of the town will not encourage linked trips. They also claim that due to the location on the way into Grange over Sands people will park at the site and not venture beyond. The gap between the site and next group of shops beyond Yewbarrow Terrace is approximately 350m along accessible footpaths. The distance between the site and other shops and services is therefore nearer than that within the larger centres. Given the range of facilities and attractions within Grange over Sands such linked trips are likely to be generated despite the hill and the distance. It should also be noted that the supermarket in Kirkby Lonsdale is approximately 230m up a steep hill from the main town centre with no shops in the area between. The supermarket in Windermere is in a location with similar characteristics to this site and the supermarket in Ulverston in an out of town location. In all these instances, the centres have thrived in recent years. The development of a supermarket in this location is unlikely to affect public and private investment. The Regeneration Study identifies tourism development as an important sector for

48 development. Objectors claim that the proposal would jeopardise this aim and the Heritage Lottery Bid. However, an appropriately designed store would not harm the character of the Conservation Area or the regeneration concepts, which underpin the lottery bid. Private investment is more difficult to pin point, however, the retention of expenditure within Grange over Sands linked trips is could enhance other service providers and thereby investment. A representative of the Co-operative Group has drawn attention to an appeal which was dismissed in relation to replacement of an out of town store with an out of centre store in Honiton, Devon. The scheme had a net sales area of 5000 metres square with 500 free parking spaces, whilst significantly off-set by the closure of other stores, the resulting store was larger in scale than the application under consideration. The scheme also did not benefit from a recent retail study carried out in preparation for the development plan nor was the town identified as in need of a supermarket to fulfil its role as a Key Service Centre. While there are some parallels, it is not considered that this appeal decision is directly comparable. e) Ensuring locations are accessible The site in close proximity to the train and bus stations, it is therefore easily accessible by public transport. A weekly shoppers bus would be provided by the applicant to replace that which currently runs to Ulverston. Whilst, there is a steep hill between the site and much of Grange over Sands, it is accessible by foot. The Regeneration Study identifies the area around the site as a centre for green links to the wider South Lakes. The site is considerably closer to the local population than the supermarkets in Kendal and Ulverston thereby reducing travel distances to an appropriately sized supermarket significantly. Provision for disabled persons parking and cycle storage is made close to the store. The site is easily accessed by car and is in a location, which will ensure that delivery vehicles will not need to travel through the congested parts of Main Street and Kents Bank Road. Flooding The implications of the development in terms of flooding have been considered by the Environment Agency and Environmental Protection. The detailed assessments and conclusions are outlined in above. It is concluded that the proposed development will not increase the flood risk along Windermere Road or elsewhere in Grange over Sands and could reduce the flooding problem in the immediate vicinity of the proposed store. Highways The Highway Authority have advised that the proposals are acceptable subject to a number of conditions that have been outlined above and in the recommendation section. The location of the proposed supermarket is appropriate in terms of traffic generation. A large proportion of main shopping trips are undertaken outside Grange over Sands and the development will reduce the travel distances necessary. Local traffic from Grange over Sands and the immediate area already has to pass the site to exit Grange over Sands. Traffic from further afield will not need to enter the congested part of Grange over Sands such as Main Street and Kents Bank Road. There are however accessible and safe footway links to the shops elsewhere in the town. The alterations proposed to the access points, the roundabout and within the highway are accepted by the Highway Authority as appropriate. It has been highlighted that the proposed footpath alongside the car park is 1.2m wide rather than 2m as recommended by the Cumbria Design Guide. There is no footpath along this area at present and an increase in the width would have implications for the number of spaces attainable within the car park. It is considered that the provision of the footpath, even if under the recommended width will be beneficial to pedestrian safety. PPG13 recommends that developers should not be required to provide more spaces than they wish and provision should be reduced where there is a range of transport options available. The layout of the car park makes the best use from the land available. The number of spaces within

49 the car park would increase from 72 spaces to 113 and retain 4 coach parking spaces. The Transport Assessment indicates a peak demand for parking in relation to the supermarket of 72 but the number is more likely to be within the mid 60’s. While there are frequently many empty spaces in the car park, there are times in the summer when the car park is used to capacity. There is however an under-utilised car park at Berners. Once the development at Berners and regeneration of the lido takes places, it is likely that a larger proportion of tourists would use parking at the far side of the town. Impact on the Conservation Area The existing building has been identified as having a neutral impact on the character of the Conservation Area. The presence of vehicles for sale on the frontage has a harmful visual impact and does not provide an attractive entrance to Grange over Sands. The design of the proposed building has been influenced by the nearby listed buildings at the Station, Grange Hotel and Yewbarrow Terrace. It is well designed and incorporates frontages along both Station Square and Windermere Road. The site surroundings are of a scale that can accommodate a large building and the proposal relates well to the nearby buildings. Grange Hotel is situated on the hill behind the site and provides a dominant feature within the Conservation Area, particularly when viewed from the Ornamental Gardens. However, much of the original building is obscured by trees with the more modern extension remaining prominent. Efforts have been made to minimise the height of the building, it will reduce views of the hotel. However it is considered that the design and scale of the proposed building will benefit the appearance of the site and that of the Conservation Area. The careful treatment of the car parking area, boardwalk and inclusion of landscaping will ensure that the Conservation Area is enhanced by the proposals. Amenity Members will have visited the site prior to the Committee meeting to assess the relationship with the surroundings. The proposed building is higher than the existing building and nearer to the boundary with properties on Riggs Close. The building would be between 5.5m and 9m from the boundary and approximately 12m from the rear of the nearest property and 15m from the others. The majority of the elevation facing Riggs Close would be 4m to the eaves level, although a section to the rear of numbers 3 and 4 would have an eaves level of approximately 6.8m above their ground level. A 2.5metres high wall is proposed along the boundary to screen the delivery area and access from the properties. Given the proximity of the existing building and the orientation to the west of Riggs Close, it is considered that neither the scale of the building, or the proposed boundary wall would adversely affect the outlook or create adverse overshadowing. The work to the car park will not increase land levels and it is intended to retain the hedging along the boundary with 5 Riggs Close. The alterations will ensure that the privacy of properties on Riggs Close is protected. The existing site is commercial in nature and currently has car deliveries during the night. The noise levels which will be generated by deliveries do meet the technical guidelines, including the advice in PPG24 with regard to sleeping hours. However, concern has been expressed with regard to deliveries at 7 am which may be considered to be a sensitive time by adjacent residents. However given the existing noise levels of the site and night-time deliveries it is likely that overall disturbance will be improved. Other issues The contamination on site can adequately be dealt with although conditions are needed with regard to additional testing and Method Statements. The proposal will result in the loss of an existing retail car sales and associated repair outlet. However, it is considered that the need for a supermarket in Grange over Sands identified by the South Lakeland Retail Study and the benefits this will bring with regard to customer choice, retention of expenditure, reduced travel and enhancement to the Conservation Area outweigh this

50 loss. It is more likely that an alternative site could be found for the employment land (car repair garage) than a supermarket via the LDF process. Subject to mitigation measures the proposals would not adversely affect ground water of the interests of Morecambe Bay. Conclusion The need for a supermarket in Grange over Sands and the potential benefits were identified by the South Lakeland Retail Study carried out on behalf of the Council. The main issue with regard to the impact of a supermarket is the location of the site. It is sequentially the best available site and has safe and accessible footway links to the remainder of the town and public transport provision. As Grange over Sands is has a good range of shops including independent specialist retailers, it is not considered that the development of a supermarket in this location would harm the vitality and viability of the town centre. It is also likely that retained expenditure will result in additional linked trips being carried out in Grange over Sands. The alterations to the flood storage system are considered beneficial and the improvements to the roundabout and footpaths along Windermere Road will benefit all highway users. The scale and design of the building is appropriate and will enhance the special character and appearance of the Conservation Area without harm to the amenities of local residents.

RECOMMENDATION: Subject to a satisfactory conclusion to negotiations with regard to delivery times - 1) Planning permission (SL/2008/1173) be GRANTED subject to conditions relating to the following: (1) Standard time limit. (2) Amended plans and documents. (3) Maximum net sales area. (4) Restriction of opening and delivery times to between 7 am and 10 pm only. (5) Provision and maintenance of the flood mitigation measures. (6) Approval and implementation of a scheme for further investigation, risk assessment and mitigation in relation to contaminated land and the removal of the fuel tanks. (7) Grampian condition with regard to the implementation of the proposed works and changes to traffic regulations within the highway. (8) A scheme for the management of the construction phase to include the provision of access, parking, turning, siting of cabins and storage during construction. (9) Phasing scheme for the development. (10) Provision and maintenance of the car parking layout, access and exit points. (11) Provision and maintenance of the visibility splays at all access and exit points. (12) Provision and review of a green travel plan. (13) Provision and maintenance of pedestrian routes through the car park. (14) Provision and maintenance of the boardwalk. (15) Landscaping. (16) Screening of the site during construction and development phases.

51 (17) Materials for the building, walls and hard surfacing. (18) Colour of the equipment on the roof. (19) Conditions to prevent blanking out of the windows facing Station Square and Windermere Road. (20) Detail of various parts of the design, e.g. windows, roof overhang, canopy, railing, boardwalk, gates to service yard. (21) Detail of the seating and provision of artwork within the site. (22) Provision and maintenance of the wall along the boundary with Riggs Close. (23) Restriction of windows in the first floor and roof slope facing Riggs Close. (24) Restriction of noise level of plant at boundary. (25) Lighting scheme. (26) Time of construction. (27) Method for the protection of hedges and trees to be retained during development.

RECOMMENDATION: 2) Conservation Area Consent (SL/2008/1174) be GRANTED subject to conditions relating to the following: (1) Standard time limit. (2) Demolition to be linked to redevelopment of the site. (3) Screening of the site.

52

3 SL/2008/1220 KENDAL: LAND AT OXENHOLME ROAD, KENDAL PROPOSAL: ENGINEERING OPERATION TO RE-GRADE THE SITE TO FORM TWO FULL SIZE RUGBY PITCHES AND FLOODLIT TRAINING PITCH; WITH CLUBHOUSE, PARKING AND LANDSCAPE WORKS MORBAINE LIMITED

26/03/09 E352880 N490150

SUMMARY: Issues in determining this application are whether this represents a justified and appropriate form of development within the designated ‘Green Gap’ between Oxenholme and Kendal, whether the design, scale and mass of the proposed building is appropriate, whether the overall finished character and appearance of the site will be satisfactory, whether parking, access and predicted traffic generation can be satisfactorily accommodated, and whether the development would lead to unacceptable adverse impacts upon residential amenity, primarily along Oxenholme Road and other nearby residential areas.

KENDAL TOWN COUNCIL: Approval of a single application, at this time, might prejudice the determination of the future of the present Rugby Club at a time when the Planning Authority is reviewing potential of all land and open space in the town. Related to that, the last Planning Inquiry of this area stated that it was necessary to retain (part of) the area as a visible green belt between the town and village of Oxenholme. A building and car park surrounded by a baffle bank with trees, is landscaping of a built site not a green belt.

CUMBRIA COUNTY COUNCIL (STRATEGIC PLANNING AND HIGHWAYS): The application has been deemed to be a Category 1 proposal by the County Council, for which a single strategic and highways comment will be made. Comments will be reported verbally to members at the committee meeting, although it is understood that there is likely to be an objection on highways and sustainability grounds.

ENVIRONMENT AGENCY: No objections subject to imposition of conditions requiring full details of surface water drainage scheme based on sustainable drainage principles, together with a working Method Statement to cover all construction site drainage and pollution prevention works.

53 NATURAL ENGLAND: The proposed development will not materially or significantly affect Natland Beck and the River Kent SAC provided all construction work is carried out in such a way as to prevent any pollution, contamination or silt run off. Conditions recommended.

UNITED UTILITIES: No objections; identifies numerous requirements for applicant to independently address.

KENDAL CIVIC SOCIETY: We have some sympathy with Kendal Rugby Club in seeking to upgrade their present ground and clubhouse, but we feel that this is not the appropriate site for their new development. The reasons being: 1. The application site is part of an area identified in the adopted Local Plan as Green Gap

2. The applicant claims that the vast majority of the site will remain open in character

3. Incompatible materials – artificial stone

4. It is claimed that problems of noise

5. With a clubhouse of this size and the need to provide income

6. When the application for development on the Burton Road Triangle was soundly thrown out by the Inspector at the 2004 Planning Inquiry

Rugby pitches on their own might be acceptable in this Green Gap, but not the ugly clubhouse and its surrounding car park, and without those money-making facilities the pitches would not be viable, and the whole application should therefore be refused.

CAMPAIGN TO PROTECT RURAL ENGLAND – FRIENDS OF THE LAKE DISTRICT (FLD): A number of concerns relating to the following broad areas: Landscape issues: the site lies within area 7b ‘Drumlin Field’ as defined by the Cumbria Landscape Classification. The Classification notes that ‘this is a medium scale landscape with a strong form which is sensitive to urban development, recreational pressure…and other intrusive developments’. Structure Plan Policy E37 and RSS Policy EM1 seek to ensure that development is appropriate to landscape character. No major concerns over the proposed playing fields in this respect, but the clubhouse, parking area and floodlighting would clearly have a marked impact, raising conflict with these policies. FLD strongly opposed the development of the ‘Oxenholme Triangle’ during the last review of the South Lakeland Local Plan, largely on landscape grounds. Whilst it is noted that the application site differs, many of the landscape issues raised at that time are of direct relevance to this proposal. During the Local Plan Inquiry in 2003, the Inspector considered the landscape value of the Oxenholme triangle from a number of perspectives. He recognised the value of the area to both residents and visitors, concluding that it is ‘a treasured landscape, which would be highly sensitive to change’. The section of the A65 which forms the western boundary of the triangle was highlighted as an important ‘green visual Gateway to the Lakes’. The impact upon tourists was further highlighted by the Inspector, stating ‘In my opinion, visitors’ enjoyment of the special

54 qualities of the Lake District would be seriously impaired (by the development of the site). This could have serious repercussions on Kendal’s tourist trade…’ The development of the site was also considered in terms of urban coalescence. The differing characteristics of Kendal and Oxenholme were highlighted. Whilst it was noted that ‘development at this site would not result in physical coalescence of the adjacent settlements’, it was considered that ‘it would result in a strong sense of visual coalescence that would erode the distinct and separate characters of Kendal and Oxenholme. It was further noted that development of the site would inevitably result in ‘substantial pressure for further development in the remaining part of the Green Gap’. The Green Gap Policy, C2, remains part of the adopted Development Plan. In FLD’s view, the points made by the Inspector are of direct relevance to the application site. Justification for relocation: FLD appreciate the importance of the Rugby Club to the town, and can understand that the Club may have financial reasons for wishing to relocate. However, in purely land use terms, the move is questionable. There does not appear to be any reason that the existing site cannot be refurbished. In addition, the proposed retail re-use of the Shap Road site by Morbaine Ltd would conflict with PPS6 guidance, which seeks to promote the viability of town centres. Development Plan Policy is clear in stating that there must be an essential locational need for a recreational development to be situated in a Green Gap. This need has not been demonstrated in our view, raising fundamental conflict with this policy. Transport Issues: National and local planning policy promotes a shift away from reliance upon the private car. The proposed site is clearly located in a position which would enable significant modal shift to public transport. In light of this, we would question whether the proposed car parking provision is excessive. It is noted that the figures are based upon estimates derived from demand at the current site. Shap Road is not as well served by public transport however. The proposed car parking provision should be reassessed in light of this therefore.

SLDC ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION MANAGER: No objections - recommends imposition of conditions relating to control of noise.

OTHER: A total of 190 letters of objection have been received, 178 of which are based on pro-forma letters. The objections received can be summarised as follows: This application would be building in the Green Gap; the findings of the 2003 Inquiry are still valid as nothing in that green gap or the surrounding area has changed. The Inspector’s report regarding the unsuitability of the site applies equally to the above application in-so-much that the land should not be developed. Such development would set a precedent and a complete ‘infill’ of the remaining land would soon follow. Submitted reports relating to noise and disturbance only refer to rugby related activities between the hours of 7am and 11pm on match days and training sessions. They seem to take no account of functions/private parties that are a key part of the club’s income. There will be functions on several nights each week running until midnight or beyond, leading to noise from people, vehicles, and antisocial behaviour which would unacceptably adversely affect residential amenity. The houses in the area are downwind of the site. Exhaust fumes from vehicles will drift across nearby houses and gardens.

55 Traffic increase problematic because Oxenholme Road is quite narrow with two sets of traffic lights. Queuing will result and Hayclose Road will be used as a bypass. Traffic increase on these roads and on Helmside Road would be to an unacceptable and dangerous level; there would also be increased vehicular movements on the surrounding local highway network. Parking is a particular problem on Oxenholme Road. Danger to pedestrians. Other activities such as early morning car boot sales will lead to substantial disturbance. All the Inspector’s comments at the June 2003 Public Inquiry regarding the Green Gap and its open landscape disagree with the principle that a sporting complex including clubhouse/social function facilities and car parking does maintain a visual gap, especially since the Spatial Strategy identifies land adjacent to The Oaks for further housing. A problem occurs in the existing grandstands of under-age drinking and possible drug taking. This could be exacerbated by availability of alcohol from ASDA. This would cause an antisocial nuisance/intrusion to local residents. Provision of 200 car spaces will be inadequate for big matches, leading to parking overspill into residential areas. The present Rugby Club site at Shap Rd provides a better facility for the suggested Sports Village concept with its existing surroundings – it gives ‘critical mass’ to sporting activities by proximity to the school and Jubilee Playing Fields which are held in trust. The Oxenholme Road site does not offer attributes of a sports village and does not offer the opportunity for such a critical mass because of topographical constraints, and any further development would conflict with the landscape assessment made by the last planning inspector. This development appears to be in addition to the SLDC ‘Spatial Strategy’ which identifies land adjacent to The Oaks for possible housing and possibly re-introducing the business park/factory site into the triangle. Thus there is a real danger of the whole Green Gap being overdeveloped. Proposed LDF suggests Green Gap is maintained but the area is one identified for possible development for the LDF; if this is built the Green Gap will already be significantly reduced so no more land should be allocated for development. A bridleway will need to be re-routed and will be less scenic for users. Concerns over drainage and whether the proposed attenuation system will be sufficient. Mill Brook is stated as having known flood problems. Light pollution will inevitably result from the floodlit training pitch. The car park lighting would cause landscape impact as well as light pollution and would be in regular use. Intrusive from The Helm, Oxenholme Road, Burton Road and the surrounding countryside. Loss of habitat will occur for on ‘red list’ house sparrow and ‘amber list’ lapwing. Statement that ‘sufficient habitat in the vicinity’ is not good enough. It seems to be a policy to expand Kendal ad-infinitum which will harm its character.

56 The retail park on the existing rugby club site will harm the vibrancy of town centre; if the rugby club must relocate, the existing site should be used for local/affordable housing and not for retail. The justification for this development is purely driven by money; there appears to be plenty of space to develop the current site relatively easily. Kendal does not need another retail development. Local Plan Policy L3 offers no support for the proposal when read in conjunction with the accompanying text, despite suggestions by the applicant’s agent. The development would harm the view from houses and reduce property values. If the town is to be presented as a tourist destination, need to be mindful of its appearance as a small town closely surrounded by countryside. This is a particularly important area as it is the introduction for tourists arriving by car and train. Loss of privacy because house fronts directly on to the proposed site; hundreds more visitors would be intolerable. The tree line frontage would overshadow house opposite, which faces due south.

190 letters of support have been received, 187 of which are based on a pro-forma letter. Of these, 132 letters have been signed but the respondents have not included their address. The points raised in these letters can be summarised as follows: Kendal RUFC is deeply embedded in the community, with strong local support and the majority of players are recruited from the Kendal area. The club survives largely on goodwill and volunteer effort. It has been based at Mint Bridge since 1925/6. The club operates a National League team, two additional senior teams, 4 junior teams and a ladies section. Players are increasingly associated with sports development in local schools. The existing clubhouse, changing rooms and stand are in poor condition, extremely costly to run and will deteriorate further. The two playing pitches are unable to accommodate the number of teams, and are very expensive to drain and resurfaced. Upwards of £700k needs to be spent on immediate repairs, which the club has no way of raising. The redevelopment of the Mint Bridge site for retail purposes will generate funds needed to facilitate the Club’s relocation to Oxenholme Road, to secure its long-term future. The new facilities would meet all current and future requirements. The new club would provide a valuable asset for the community; it will be made available for other local sports clubs and schools, and it will extend the work being carried out by the Club within schools and the community. The clubhouse would also include administrative facilities for such purposes. People choose to live next to the Rugby and Cricket Club in Lancaster because it provides a safeguard against development; the residents of Oxenholme Road should have understood this. Disturbance is rare.

57 The local community and business people owe a great deal to the Rugby Club for helping to put Kendal ‘on the map’. Away supporters often return to Kendal for holidays, supporting the local economy. On and off pitch trouble is extremely rare.

One letter of comment was received from a member of the public, stating that they had no objections to the rugby club but other activities should be very limited.

HISTORICAL CONTEXT: A previous application to relocate the Rugby Club to this site was made in 1987 (ref: 5/87/0964). This was withdrawn before any decision was made. It is also relevant to note the findings of the Public Inquiry into objections to proposed modifications to the South Lakeland Local Plan 2006, which was held in mid-2003. The Inspector recommended that a site put forward by the Council, for inclusion in the Local Plan as a local employment site, should not be allocated. The Inspector concluded that the site, which was in the southernmost corner of the Green Gap adjacent to Burton Road, ‘…would result in the undesirable and irrevocable loss of a rural greenfield site. The Inspector gave significant weight to the visual as well as symbolic importance of the Green Gap, recognising this area is important to avoid the coalescence of Kendal and Oxenholme. Although the site which is the subject of this application is different to that considered by the aforementioned Public Inquiry, many of the considerations are relevant to the determination of this application.

DESCRIPTION AND PROPOSAL: This proposal seeks full planning permission for the creation of a new rugby club for Kendal Rugby Union Football Club (KRUFC). The site is 4.9 Ha in area, all of which is previously undeveloped agricultural land. The proposal abuts Oxenholme Road to the north, from where both a pedestrian and vehicular access will be created, between the junction with Hayclose Road and the entrance to Oxenholme Station. The development would comprise of the following: • two-storey clubhouse (with a footprint of approx 663 sqm) consisting of changing rooms, weights room, bar, terrace, function room, stand and other ancillary accommodation; • 205 car parking spaces, including 12 disabled spaces; • four coach parking spaces; • new vehicular access; • two standard rugby pitches; • floodlit training pitch; • two cycle spaces; • screened bin store; and • landscaping to surround car park

58 The site itself is reasonably level, sloping gently downwards towards the north west. As such, some re-grading of the land will be necessary in order to accommodate three flat pitches. Immediately to the south east, the land rises steeply towards Oxenholme railway station, and much of the embankment has mature tree cover. There are residential properties along the northern side of Oxenholme Road for its entire length, the nearest of which are approximately 75 metres from the proposed clubhouse. To the north and west is open agricultural land, including the popular ‘strawberry fields’. The site is not within the settlement boundary for Kendal or Oxenholme, but falls within the designated Green Gap between Kendal and Oxenholme, as does all other adjoining agricultural land.

POLICY ISSUES: Policy C2 of the Local Plan states that in order to prevent the coalescence of settlements and retain their distinct and separate characters, development will not be permitted in Green Gaps the development is essential for the needs of agriculture, forestry, local infrastructure or recreation AND it cannot be located elsewhere AND it does not cause significant harm to the open character of the Green Gap area. Local Plan Policy L3 states that in larger settlements and villages, favourable consideration will be given to proposals for sport or recreation to meet the needs of the local community, where all of six criteria can be satisfied which cover issues of landscape impact, residential amenity, access and parking, scale and design, and ensuring it does not conflict with aims to protect land. Although the site in question is not within either Kendal or Oxenholme, it is in close proximity and the requirements of Policy L3 should still be applied. The Authority has adopted guidelines for the design of all new development. Policy S2 of the South Lakeland Local Plan sets out the South Lakeland Design Code and requires development to take proper account of its principles. Local Plan Policy L3 requires all new development to incorporate a high standard of landscaping. Policy C5 of the Local Plan states that development which will incorporate external lighting will need to demonstrate that light spillage is minimised, and in edge of town or village locations, landscaping measures will be provided to screen the lighting installation from view from neighbouring countryside areas. Local Plan Policy S10 states that off-street parking will be required based on Cumbria County Council’s guidelines, but will be applied flexibly. The provisions of the Act are relevant in so far as they relate to the right to respect for private and family life and the peaceful enjoyment of property.

ASSESSMENT: As there are a number of issues which require further assessment, for clarity each matter will be considered in turn under separate sub-headings.

Principle of the proposed development in the Green Gap: With the specifics of Policy C2 in mind which relates to safeguarding the Green Gap, it is important that this application can demonstrate that (1) it is essential for the needs of rugby union in the area that Kendal Rugby Club develop a new ground and clubhouse facilities, (2) that other options for the siting of this development have been considered and that there are valid reasons as to why they have been rejected, and (3) that it will not significantly harm the open character of the Green Gap or compromise it’s functions and purpose.

59 Both the applicant’s agent and KRUFC itself have supplied a great deal of information to explain why there is an essential need to relocate from their long-established site on Shap Road. The reasons are two-fold; firstly, the club does not have the financial ability to make the upgrades to the existing clubhouse and pitches, which KRUFC consider to be essential; the sale of their current site would fund this proposal which would undoubtedly provide modern, higher quality facilities and pitches. Secondly, it is claimed that the current area of land is too small to allow the required expansion, as a third pitch is required as well as improved car parking and clubhouse facilities. Although the applicants agent claims that the approach of redeveloping existing club sites to fund a relocation is commonplace in sport, this ignores the policy presumption against development of any kind in this Green Gap location, unless there is a demonstrable essential need. The financial status of KRUFC alone is inadequate justification to allow this development to proceed within the Green Gap, and the financial position of the club does not in itself suggest that there is an essential need to relocate in the Green Gap. It is acknowledged that the rugby club is valued in Kendal, but in planning terms the financial position of the club is insufficient, in isolation, to justify overriding the provisions of Local Plan Policy C2. Were it not for the club’s financial constraints the existing site could be significantly enhanced. There is greater merit in the arguments put forward relating to the club’s operational needs and strategic plans to develop itself further, both in terms of the Club’s league position and its aim to provide further leisure/sport opportunities for the wider community. Again, ‘ambition’ is not the same as an essential need, but it is evident that the KRUFC’s Shap Road site is a constraint to the Club’s growth, and the physical limitations of the site are likely to exacerbate this over time. The justified need for the club to relocate is generally supported by the findings of the ‘South Lakeland Open Space, Sports and Recreation Assessment’ published in February 2008. This study assessed the quantity and quality of rugby union facilities in South Lakeland LDF area in relation to present and future demand. The study highlighted the following points of relevance to the consideration of this application in terms of the current and anticipated need for new and additional rugby union facility provision in Kendal: • Rugby Union is important in South Lakeland with higher than the national average for participation rates, with participation focused in the Kendal and Kirkby Lonsdale areas.

• facilities at Kendal RUFC are considered to be in need of updating, particularly in light of the club’s desire to develop a youth team. The changing facilities are outdated and the stand is antiquated. The Club want to develop a third generation synthetic turf pitch (3G STP) or other second pitch as the current second pitch is out of use.

• existing facilities at Kendal RUFC are played at 1 match per week over capacity based on the current quality of the pitch. This is based on use of both pitches.

• the number of junior teams is expected to increase over the next couple of seasons based on club development and the popularity of the community coaching sessions (from February 2008) with a 5% increase over the next five years.

60 • 0.4 additional senior teams are expected to be generated in Kendal by 2012 and 0.2 additional junior boys teams based on Team Generation Rates (TGRs) of 1:1551 for senior men and 1:486 for junior boys. (The study advises that the same rates are applied for women and girls where female team play exists). Assuming these TGRs are roughly correct and participation rates remain the same as the population grows, Kendal could anticipate a deficit of 1.9 senior pitches and 1.5 junior pitches in five years time based on current pitch quality.

It is accepted that KRUFC are unlikely to be able to raise the funds to sufficiently improve the current site, and to reiterate, the Club is of the view that their Shap Road site is inadequate in any event. Whether or not there is an essential need for the Rugby Club to relocate is marginal, but on balance the arguments behind the justification for the needs of recreation appear to be sufficient to satisfy the first requirement of Policy C2. A second requirement in assessing the basic principle of the proposed Rugby Club within the Green Gap is that the development cannot be located elsewhere. The applicants agent has explicitly stated that no alternative sites are available and has referred to sites which were investigated and dismissed at Scroggs Wood, Appleby Road, Natland Road and Kentrigg. The latter site suffers from access and flooding issues, whilst it is stated that the landowners of the remaining sites were unwilling to sell the land for this purpose. As this proposal clearly requires a substantial amount of land (approximately 12 acres) no other potentially suitable sites were identified, and no further sites can be suggested. On this basis, it is accepted that there are no obvious alternative solutions at this moment in time, thereby satisfying the second requirement of Local Plan Policy C2. The final requirement of Policy C2 which the proposal must satisfy is that the development would not cause significant harm to the open character of the ‘Green Gap’ area. Although the development would inevitably alter the character of the site, this is not an ‘in principle’ consideration under Policy C2. The proposed pitches would undoubtedly retain the open character of the site, with ‘built’ development being confined to the corner of the site adjacent to Oxenholme Road. The clubhouse and car park surrounded by extensive landscaping would be harmful to the open character of the site, when viewed from Oxenholme Road between Hayclose Road and the railway station. The position of the building and landscaping would not, on balance, cause significant harm to the open character of the wider Green Gap area however. It would not restrict the most important public views of and through the Green Gap. The view from Burton Road, heading north towards Kendal, would be largely unaffected by this development. Similarly, views towards Kendal and Scout Scar from Oxenholme Road, when heading northwards, do not fully open up until after Hayclose Road. The clubhouse and landscaping, when heading towards Oxenholme along either Burton Road or Oxenholme Road, would be seen with an immediate backdrop of a steeply rising embankment which is heavily wooded, and also in reasonably close proximity to residential properties on Oxenholme Road. The development would not break the skyline from this direction and as the building and landscaping would be in the corner of the Green Gap, the overall open character of the Green Gap area would not be significantly harmed. It is acknowledged that the Inspector, who dismissed the allocation of a triangle of land for employment use adjacent to Burton Road, made numerous references to both the visual and symbolic importance of the Green Gap. Although relevant considerations, this proposal is both on a different and arguably less prominent site, and it is of a materially different character. The development would not lead to significant visual or physical coalescence between Kendal and Oxenholme, and having regard to the above assessment, the findings of the Inspector at the Local Plan Inquiry cannot be directly transferred to this proposal; the final criterion of Policy C2 is satisfied by this development.

61 Residential amenity issues: A large number of objections received focus on the noise and disturbance to local residents which is anticipated to result from this development. The potential for noise and disturbance from this development would be from three main sources: (1) General crowd noise and a significant increase in pedestrian and vehicle movements on match days. (2) Noise, disturbance and possible antisocial behaviour resulting from night time use of the clubhouse and bar for functions; and (3) use of the car park for early morning car boot sales and other similar events. In relation to (1), general crowd noise for two hours or so, which would usually occur no more than once a week, would not have a significant adverse impact upon the amenity of nearby residents. There would be a significant increase in vehicular movements in the vicinity, although the applicants have argued that the car parking provision will be adequate, avoiding overspill onto Oxenholme Road and other residential areas. Although traffic movements would be significantly greater on match days, this would be limited to a relatively short period of time, and so this concern is not shared. More careful consideration must be given to the potential implications of (2) above. It is likely that KRUFC will seek to regularly hire the clubhouse for a variety of functions, including parties or discos which may finish late at night (subject to the building securing the necessary license for such events, if granted planning permission). Oxenholme Road is almost exclusively a residential road, and so it is particularly sensitive to this type of activity. Whilst the acoustic insulation of the building itself can be controlled by imposing a suitable condition to avoid music and other noise escaping from the building, it is impossible to control the behaviour or noise generated by patrons when leaving the premises late at night, both by pedestrians and in vehicles. It is reasonable to assume that, on occasion, disturbance to local residents will result, and it is also possible that antisocial behaviour may occur from time to time. It would be unreasonable to restrict the operation of the clubhouse to prevent such functions as these are an essential source of revenue for KRUFC, so this unavoidable potential impact upon the amenity of nearby residents has to be balanced against the benefits this development offers to the wider community. It must be borne in mind that the licensing authority have the power to revoke licenses if regular problems occur, and the current Rugby Club on Shap Road is used in a similar manner, which is also close to numerous residential properties. On this basis the proposal is, on balance, considered to be acceptable. The final key concern of this nature, identified in (3) above is regarding other potential uses of the car park, for events such as car-boot sales which may commence very early on weekend mornings. In the event that planning permission is granted, it is recommended to impose a condition to restrict usage of the car park for any other purposes between the hours of 23:00 hrs and 09:00 hrs to prevent unacceptable disturbance from such events/activities. One nearby resident has raised concerns that the landscaping and tree planting would overshadow their property on the opposite side of Oxenholme Road. The shortest distance between the proposed planting and neighbouring properties is 15 metres, so the screen planting would not have a significant overshadowing effect, even when mature. Highways issues and car parking provision: At the time of writing this report the strategic planning and highways comments had not been received from Cumbria County Council. It is understood however that there may be a fundamental objection to this development on sustainability and highway safety grounds. This will be reported verbally at the Committee meeting if received beforehand. The following initial assessment is made in the absence of this response. A total of 205 car parking spaces are proposed, including 12 disabled spaces, together with spaces for four coaches. In comparison, the car park at the existing Shap Road club site is able to accommodate approximately 170 cars.

62 There have been known parking difficulties at the existing club site on big match days, and this is reflected in the proposed modest increase in car spaces. This site is relatively accessible by different modes of transport, being in close proximity to Oxenholme railway station and a bus route which provides direct links to Kendal town centre. The site is also easily accessible by bicycle. The level of car parking provision therefore appears to be a reasonable balance between addressing an existing shortfall of parking and recognising that this site is more accessible by other modes of travel. A Transport Statement was submitted alongside the application and this suggests that the increase in traffic which would result from this development could be satisfactorily accommodated by the local highway network. A further material consideration is that the majority of traffic generated would be confined to match days only. There is an ongoing problem with car parking along Oxenholme Road immediately to the north of the station. This is because many commuters using the train avoid using the station car park because of its substantial charge. If this on-street parking was to continue, this would unacceptably restrict visibility from and of the proposed access to the Rugby Club. Design, materials and appearance: The design and form of the proposed clubhouse has been revised during the application process, in order to ensure the building is appropriate for what is a semi-rural context. In order to reduce the perceived mass of the buildings, a double apex roof is proposed, which creates two gables to both side elevations. On both sides, one gable would be rendered and one would be clad in natural stone, again giving the building the appearance of two adjoining buildings. This is successful in partially disguising the mass of what is effectively a substantial cube-shaped building. The use of a double apex roof also allows a steeper pitch angle to be achieved, which allows the use of a natural slate covering. The revised design of the building is appropriate to its setting, and although this is a particularly substantial building (being approximately 26m in width, 30m in length and 10.5m in height) it successfully incorporates elements of the vernacular, local materials, and architectural interest. There is an integrated spectators stand at first floor level overlooking the pitches, whilst the principal elevation facing onto Oxenholme Road has a distinctive glazed entrance area. The design of the building is appropriate and satisfies all the requirements and design code established by Policy S2 of the South Lakeland Local Plan. In considering the above, the development satisfies Local Plan Policy C5. The Environment Agency has required the imposition of conditions to require full details of surface water drainage provision to be submitted and agreed prior to commencement of development. The applicant has demonstrated that it is feasible to attenuate the discharge of surface water to an acceptable level, so the details of how this is achieved can reasonably be addressed in this way. Conclusion: In conclusion, the application presents a number of issues which are finely balanced. Whilst the Rugby Club has presented a strong argument in support of its case that there is an essential need to improve and expand their existing facilities (and why this is possible only through its relocation), and that the proposal will in part preserve the Green Gap, there is the alternative view that the building and car park in particular will cause significant harm to the open character of the designated area. There are also concerns over the impact this development will have upon residential amenity. In addition, the position of Cumbria County Council on strategic arguments relating to the sustainability of the location and the technical highway implications are unclear. In the circumstances, a verbal update will need to be made on the latter before a final recommendation can be made.

63 RECOMMENDATION: Corporate Director (Communities) to update Members on the issues concerned and arising from the Members site visit along with the strategic planning and highways response from Cumbria County Council.

64

4 SL/2008/1219 KENDAL: KENDAL RUGBY UNION FOOTBALL CLUB, SHAP ROAD, KENDAL PROPOSAL: REDEVELOPMENT OF SITE TO FORM RETAIL DEVELOPMENT WITH ASSOCIATED CAR PARKING AND SERVICING FACILITIES MORBAINE LIMITED

26/03/09 E352029.6 N494061.7

SUMMARY: The key issues in determining this application are whether there is both a quantitative and qualitative need for an out-of-centre retail development of this nature and whether the site is acceptable from a highways perspective, focusing on sustainability, accessibility, and effect on the local highway network. As the application is outline only, all matters are reserved for subsequent approval, except for vehicular access, which is to be determined at this stage. A planning application has been received to relocate the Rugby Club to a site on Oxenholme Road, Kendal. This other proposal (SL/2008/1220) is also to be determined by the Planning Committee at the 26 March meeting. It is concluded that a case has not been made for the redevelopment of the site for retail purposes. REFUSE.

KENDAL TOWN COUNCIL: Refuse – It is felt very strongly that this site should be earmarked for housing, recreation and light industry, not retail which will be detrimental to the continued viability of the town centre. The future development of this land should be considered in the context of the emerging Local Development Framework, at a time when the Planning Authority is reviewing the potential of all land and open spaces in the town and assessing housing and other development needs in relation to the land available. Further comments were received on 17 February 2009, providing clarification on the Town Council’s decision to reject the application. This stated that there were concerns that this proposal for out-of-town retailing is contrary to the Climate Change Strategy to which SLDC is a signatory through the Local Authority Agreement, namely that development should seek to reduce the carbon footprint of the area.

CUMBRIA HIGHWAYS: An objection is raised to the application on the grounds that insufficient information has been

65 submitted to demonstrate that the proposal satisfies Joint Structure Plan Policies T30 and T31, and Local Transport Plan (LTP) Policies LD4, LD5, LD7 and LD8. The Transport Assessment and Travel Plan are not agreed as there are a number of issues to be addressed and further information required. Until these issues have been addressed and information provided it is not possible to state that the proposal satisfies Joint Structure Plan Policies, T30 and T31 and LTP Policies LD4 and LD5. A Road Safety Audit and the designer’s response have not been provided in respect of the proposed alterations to the highway. As such the proposal does not comply with LTP Policy LD8 and fails to satisfy LTP Policy LD7. While cycle parking is shown on the layout drawing, no details with regards the number of spaces to be provided has been included. In addition the TA/TP gives a commitment to maintaining the cycle parking with any further enhancements to security and protection from the weather that may be possible in the future. However, in order to fully comply with LTP Policy C3, the cycle parking provision should be secure, sheltered, appropriately located and signed from the outset. Notwithstanding the above, the Planning Authority will need to- 1. ensure that if planning permission is granted for the re-development of the application site for any alternative use 2. ensure that an independent retail assessment is carried out to verify that the assumptions in the submission are correct 3. attach a negative condition in any planning consent requiring an archaeological evaluation 4. ensure that the potential issues of flood risk are satisfactorily addressed by this application

ENVIRONMENT AGENCY: No objections subject to imposition of condition requiring full details of a surface water drainage scheme to be based on sustainable drainage principles. General conservation advice also provided.

KENDAL FUTURES BOARD: Object – the proposals could threaten the vitality and viability of Kendal town centre. It undermines the Kendal Economic Regeneration Action Plan (KERAP) strategic project ‘Thriving Town Centre’. Furthermore, as a partner in Kendal Futures, South Lakeland District Council is committed to promoting and delivering the KERAP. Feedback from town centre retailers is that there is great concern over more retail development on edge of town sites. Current retail vacancy rates for Kendal town centre are 12% compared with the national average of 10.35%. Furthermore with the impending opening of K village next year a large square footage will again become vacant in the town centre. The National Retail Planning Forum produced a report that found that despite the job gains when a large supermarket opens, on average there is a net loss of 276 full time jobs within a 15km zone around the store, through the closure of smaller specialist food retailers and other small businesses that previously serviced the small shops. Furthermore, it is the smaller grocery shops and suppliers that generate greater employment numbers. The Board would support this area being developed for incubator or light industrial units for new start businesses or for businesses wishing to expand from adjacent industrial sites. Should planning permission be granted for a retail development on this site then it should be restricted to the sale of bulky goods only. Non-bulky goods being sold from this proposed retail park will impact on the town centre by prejudicing future investment decisions and displacement through existing

66 occupiers moving away from the centre. Also concerned about town centre traffic movements. This type of out of town development can only attract customers with cars. It will have limited visits via public transport and therefore would give further rise to traffic problems in the town centre and affect air pollution levels in key areas, detrimental to the sustainability of existing town centre traders. The proposal directly contravenes PPS6 guidance.

OTHER: A total of 11 letters of objection have been received. The concerns raised are summarised as follows: The development would be highly detrimental to the well-being of business in Kendal; other food stores such as Booths and M&S are facing a serious downturn in trade. Kendal cannot support another retail park. Whilst competition is good, too much competition will dilute the customer base with dire consequences for the commercial future of Kendal. Planning strategy should be looking to attract trade to the town centre, not to expand the outskirts. High levels of traffic would be generated, leading to congestion, pollution, pedestrian safety with a school being opposite, difficulties over access and at nearby junctions. Employment / industrial land is needed, not retail. A better use would be for low-cost residential development with a local occupancy requirement. The development will lead to faster runoff of rain and flood water, increasing probability of flooding across the Mintsfeet Estate. If development takes place roundabouts are needed and the lane leading to sports fields at the rear should be upgraded. This is a green field and should be kept as such for recreational use. Existing retail park (with Morrisons etc.) already has empty units which have been vacant for some time, which implies that there is not demand in this part of town. Already have K Village under development; we do not need another retail park on the outskirts. The height of buildings would overshadow houses on Finley Close. Loss of view from house. Support the concept of redeveloping the site because it is inadequate for the club, but object to the proposals because jobs created would be in the lower pay bracket, and would generate less jobs than industrial uses. Unsustainable due to reliance upon the car; a mixed use could improve sustainability. Character and visual amenity of the town is continually being threatened by new development. Retail developments have no validity as a tourist destination.

67 If development does take place, it should not have a petrol station, café, 24hr opening, and no mezzanine floors. It should also be restricted to sale of food only and no delivery vehicles should be based there.

In addition to the 11 individual letters of objection, a petition containing 76 signatures was received, objecting to the development for the following reasons: (1) impact upon the town centre; (2) traffic; (3) safety issues from increased traffic and proximity of school; and (4) flooding. One letter of support has been received from a local resident, which states that the development would improve the range of services and consumer choice, together with improving enhanced employment opportunities. This letter does however state that 24 hour opening should not be permitted, and queries what steps are to be taken to control lighting usage and delivery times and whether the development will incorporate on-site renewable energy production.

HISTORICAL CONTEXT: There are no previous planning applications of any relevance which relate specifically to the proposal site.

DESCRIPTION AND PROPOSAL: The site is located north of Kendal Town centre, and is bounded by a car showroom located to the east on Shap Road, industrial units located to the north on Mint Bridge Road, and housing located to the south on Finlay Close. On the east side of Shap Road is an existing out-of-centre retail development, which includes the Morrison’s Foodstore, and other non-food retail uses and car showrooms. Queen Katherine School is situated nearby on Queen Katherine Avenue. Playing fields and sports grounds lie to the west of the application site. The application proposes a total of 10,682 sqm of new retail floor space on the KRUFC site. Of this floorspace, it is proposed to construct a foodstore of 5109 sqm (55,000 sqft) gross and up to 5,573 sqm (60,000 sqft) gross non – food retail floorspace. The non-food retail floorspace is shown on the illustrative plan as two 1,161 sqm (2 x 12,500 sqft) gross units, a DIY unit of 2,322 sqm (25,000 sqft) gross, plus a 929 sqm (10,000 sqft) garden centre. 420 car parking spaces would be provided, with the main vehicular access located on Mint Bridge Road, which forms the northern boundary of the site. A service yard would be provided to the rear, with access also from Mint Bridge Road. This would be sited well away from the rear of the residential properties in Finley Close. It is intended that the Mint Bridge Road junction with Shap Road would be improved. 20 cycle spaces would be provided, plus recycling facilities. All the existing structures on site would be demolished to make way for the new retail units. The illustrative plan shows an L-shaped layout of retail units, all linked by a paved pedestrian route to their frontages. A wide area of landscaping would be provided to the southern boundary of the site, to provide screening of the development from residential properties on Finley Close. The application indicates that scheme would create 150 full-time and 150 part-time jobs. The applicant states that the foodstore would be occupied by one large national foodstore operator currently seeking representation in Kendal. The final unit sizes and configuration of the non-food element of the scheme would be subject to retailer requirements.

POLICY ISSUES: Planning Policy Guidance (PPG17): Planning for Open Space, Sport and Recreation

68 Emphasises the need to protect existing formal recreation facilities from development but does recognise that opportunities may arise to relate existing facilities provided the new facilities are as accessible and at least equivalent in terms of size, usefulness, attractiveness and quality. Planning Policy Statement 6: Planning for Town Centre (PPS6) The Government’s key objective for town centres is to promote their vitality and viability by:
planning for the growth and development of existing centres;
promoting and enhancing existing centres, by focusing development in such centres and encouraging a wide range of services in a good environment, accessible to all. Other objectives that need to be taken into account are:
enhancing customer choice by making the provision for a range of shopping and local services, which allow genuine choice to meet the needs of the entire community, and particularly socially excluded groups;
supporting an efficient competitive retail sector;
improving accessibility by ensuring new development is accessible and well served by a choice of transport. This states that, “It is not the role of the planning system to restrict competition, preserve existing commercial interest or prevent innovation”. Local Planning Authorities should actively plan for growth and manage change in town centres by selecting appropriate existing centre as to accommodate the identified need for growth. This includes making better use of existing land and buildings and where necessary, extending centres. Local Authorities should consider whether there is a need to avoid over-concentration of growth in the higher level centres. When assessing proposed development Local Planning Authorities should require applicants to demonstrate: a) In edge of or out of centre location the applicant must demonstrate the need for the development. Wherever possible this should be based on the assessment carried out for the development plan document. Local Planning Authorities should consider provision for genuine customer choice by ensuring an appropriate distribution of locations is achieved which meets the needs of the whole community. b) That the development is of an appropriate scale to meet the identified need. c) That there are no more central sites for the development. d) That there are no unacceptable impacts on existing centres. Local Planning Authorities should take account of the centre’s role in the hierarchy, the likely effect on investment needed to safeguard the vitality and viability of the centre, the likely impact on trade/turnover and vitality/viability of the existing centre (an example of a positive impact could be clawback expenditure), changes to the range of services provided by the centre, impact on vacant properties in the primary shopping area, potential changes to the quality, attractiveness, physical condition and character of the centre and to the role in the economic and social life of the community, the implications of proposed leisure and entertainment uses for the evening and night-time economy of the centre. e) that locations are accessible. South Lakeland Local Plan Policy L1 indicates that all playing fields and formal recreational facilities will be protected from development unless, amongst other criteria, a suitable replacement facility is provided in an accessible location within the same area of need and demand.

69 Policy R2 states that further retail development outside Kendal Town Centre will not be allowed, unless evidence is provided to demonstrate that the development would not have an adverse impact upon the vitality and viability of the town centre, and subject also to numerous criteria. The Authority has adopted guidelines for the design of all new development. Policy S2 of the South Lakeland Local Plan sets out the South Lakeland Design Code and requires development to take proper account of its principles. Local Plan Policy S10 states that off-street parking will be required based on Cumbria County Council’s guidelines, but will be applied flexibly. Policy S3 requires a high standard of landscaping. Policy S17 requires that development take account of opportunities to reduce energy needs. Other Policy Documents The South Lakeland Retail Study 2007 – 2015 was produced in October 2007. This document assessed capacity for additional retail and leisure development within the sub-region and is intended to inform the emerging Local Development Framework.

HUMAN RIGHTS ACT: The provisions of the Act are relevant in so far as they relate to the right to respect for private and family life and the peaceful enjoyment of property.

ASSESSMENT: Cleary the existing Rugby Club ground provides an important and invaluable facility to support rugby provision in the area. It goes without saying that unless there is clear evidence that a suitable alternative is available and can be provided, that its development for alternative uses could not be supported and contrary to long established national and local policies. Members will be aware that an application for an alternative proposal at Oxenholme Road, Kendal, (ref: SL/2008/1220) is also on this agenda. Setting this aside, the main issues relate to whether there is a justified quantitative and qualitative need for a retail development of the nature proposed in this location, whether the proposals satisfy any/all other requirements of PPS6 and whether there are any other significant highways implications and concerns. Retail Assessment A critique of the Retail Statement, which was prepared by White, Young, Green (WYG) on behalf of the applicants, has been completed by the Council’s retained Retail Consultant who compiled the South Lakeland Retail Study (SLRS) in 2007. The detailed findings of this critique form the basis of this report as set out below. Quantitative need: PPS6 (3.10) advises “a needs assessment prepared in support of a planning application should, wherever possible, be based on the assessment carried out for the development plan document, updated as required, and in the case of retail development should relate directly to the class of goods to be sold from the development”. WYG claim to present an update of the SLRS quantitative assessment but this is factually / technically incorrect. The WYG statement does not represent an update as it is simply an assessment based on an alternative set of expenditure figures. Had WYG undertaken an update of the SLRS using Experian 2007 expenditure growth rates then it would have found less quantitative need for new convenience goods floorspace than identified in the SLRS, not more as suggested in the WYG statement.

70 WYG are also incorrect when they state there are no commitments or outstanding planning applications in South Lakeland. There is a proposed Booths store in Grange that is the subject of a current planning application and there are potential sites elsewhere that if not brought forwards ahead of the LDF may be designated as areas of search / development sites where convenience goods retailing in a small to medium sized supermarket would be an acceptable use. In addition, the Booths store that was trading at the time of the SLRS survey in 2005 has been replaced by a larger store, yet this obvious area for an update, in addition to the expenditure figures, was not completed by WYG. It is probable that the Booths store will have diverted some of the overtrading at the two out-of-centre superstores that much of the quantitative need, identified in the SLRS, is based upon. The case put forward to demonstrate a quantitative need for a retail development for comparison goods appears to be as equally exaggerated as the convenience goods assessment. However, unlike convenience goods, the SLRS did find a degree of longer term quantitative need for comparison goods in Kendal once all commitments are built out in the short to medium term. The case for additional comparison goods therefore rests more on satisfying the sequential approach and impact tests than demonstrating need. In conclusion on quantitative need, WYG have not produced an update of the SLRS in compliance with PPS6 (3.10) therefore the SLRS can be relied upon to consider the quantitative need merits of this proposal. Clearly there is insufficient convenience goods capacity identified in the SLRS to support the proposal, once commitments and development to be promoted through the LDF are brought forward. With regard to comparison goods, the SLRS does identify medium to longer term capacity but this is beyond the five year study period of the WYG assessment. There is no quantitative need for the retail element of this proposal. Qualitative need: The qualitative need case is based upon overtrading in the existing out-of- centre supermarkets. However, as indicated above this overtrading may have been reduced by the relocation of Booths to a larger store. In addition, WYG give no consideration to the geographical imbalance that will arise from the proposal (i.e. two superstores very close to each other on the NE side of town that can’t be accessed by many Kendal residents without going through the already congested town centre). There is much more of a qualitative need for new convenience goods floorspace in the smaller towns of the district in terms of social inclusion and accessibility as recommended in SLRS than in Kendal. Appropriate scale: Very little consideration of this PPS6 policy test has been given in the retail assessment which accompanies the application. However, having regard to the existing retail provision in Kendal, this proposal is of an inappropriate scale. It is apparent from the above analysis that a superstore development of the scale proposed would be inappropriate for a centre the size of Kendal and its catchment area over and above existing provision. Sequential approach: The sequential approach within PPS6 establishes the principle that if it is possible to disaggregate the proposed retail element into four units, and if just one of these can be accommodated in a sequentially preferable site, then the whole scheme fails this particular PPS6 policy test. The Woolpack Yard is the largest town centre site that may be capable of accommodating this quantum of retail floorspace. It is also possible that there are now vacancies in the town centre that can accommodate a floorplate of this size, such as the former Woolworths unit. Moving away from the centre there are edge-of-centre sites such as the Canal Head area which might not be capable of accommodating all the proposed floorspace, but could be developed for part of it. The WYG report claims that smaller stores such as those proposed / recommended for Grange and Milnthorpe cannot compete effectively with a superstore therefore dis-aggregation cannot be considered. This assertion is strongly contested; the SLRS survey results from Kirkby Lonsdale and Windermere demonstrate that smaller stores can help retain local mainfood expenditure

71 particularly when compared to the market share of centres that currently don’t have such facilities, such as Milnthorpe and Grange. In addition, out-of-centre sites can be prioritised. If the Canal Head site is considered to be out-of- centre it would still be a sequentially preferable out-of-centre site. In addition there is the cricket club site which is also much closer to the town centre and next to the railway station. Development plans can phase the release of sites to ensure that sequentially inferior sites are not developed ahead of them. This approach may be adopted in the emerging LDF to protect sites such as Woolpack Yard as well as those in smaller centres such as Milnthorpe and Grange. In conclusion on the sequential approach, the retail element of the proposal fails this PPS6 (3.4) policy test as one or more units could be accommodated in sequentially preferable sites or premises in or around Kendal town centre. In addition the proposals may be contrary to PPS6 (2.46) and the phased release of sites in Milnthorpe and Grange in the emerging LDF. Impact: PPS6 (3.22) advises that there are several aspects of impact that Local Planning Authorities should consider in determining applications for retail development, considered in turn below. The Spatial Planning Strategy - The spatial planning strategy for the area is both the RSS and the adopted Local Plan, both of which direct retail development into town centres and the proposal is contrary to this objective. The emerging LDF is based on the recommendations of the SLRS, which directs convenience goods development to town centres and to the two smaller centres of Grange and Milnthorpe in particular. This proposal would put that strategy at risk as the SLRS only identifies finite quantitative need and there is not capacity for the proposal and supermarket developments in these two centres. In terms of the comparison goods element of the proposal, the SLRS found no short to medium term quantitative need for new floorspace in Kendal due to the level of unbuilt commitments. The proposal is therefore reliant upon longer term expenditure growth that might prevent sequentially preferable sites designated in the emerging LDF coming forward at a later date contrary to guidance in PPS6. Likely Effect on Future Public or Private Sector Investment - A number of sequentially superior sites such as Woolpack Yard exist, which would contribute to the vitality and viability of Kendal town centre. Developers of town centre sites require policy protection from Local Planning Authorities to discourage out-of-centre development that has many perceived and real trading advantages over in-centre development. Permitting this development would discourage investment in the centre and so the proposal also fails this PPS6 (3.22) impact test. Impact on the Viability of Existing Centres within the Catchment Area – The SLRS survey shows that large stores also have a considerable market share of top-up market that town centre stores and independents rely upon. Therefore, the 7.5% impact (stated by WYG) on town centre stores including Booths is probably understated and almost certainly unacceptable. In addition there will be the impact on other centres in the catchment area such as Grange and Milnthorpe which, if the proposal prevents smaller supermarkets being developed there due to lack of capacity, then the proposal will have an even wider impact. The superstore is likely to have a considerable area of floorspace given over to the sale of non- bulky goods in direct competition with the town centre. In addition the retail park will also compete directly with the town centre even if it is strictly restricted to bulky goods as there are several town centre stores retailing these goods. Nationally, high street stores are fairing much worse than the supermarkets in the current recession and the town centre is clearly nowhere near as healthy as WYG suggest. The impact of the proposal on key anchor stores such as Booths would be unacceptable and would spin-off negatively into the rest of the centre.

72 Finally, in terms of cumulative impact the proposal is unacceptable due to the growth of out-of- centre floorspace on the NE side of Kendal which would be in direct competition with the town centre. The proposal would add to the critical mass of this competing retail destination and discourage investment and trips into Kendal town centre. Impact on the Number of Vacant Properties in the Primary Shopping Area - The number of vacancies has risen again since the March 2008 ‘Goad survey’ that WYG base their health check upon. If this proposal was permitted further vacancies would be expected to arise in the centre, as retailers discouraged by the prospect of increased out-of-centre competition, with all its perceived and real trading advantages, disinvest in the town centre. Highways Issues and Accessibility Vehicular access would be via Mint Bridge Road, which is accessed via a T-junction on Shap Road. Cumbria Highways have raised numerous concerns in relation to the proposed revisions to the highway configuration and the contents of the submitted Transport Assessment and Travel Plan. None of these issues represent irresolvable constraints to the acceptability of proposed development, although at the time of writing this report the issues raised remain outstanding. These matters would be capable of being addressed through the inclusion of suitable conditions. The site suffers from relatively poor accessibility, and the provision of 420 car parking spaces clearly indicates that visitors would be heavily reliant upon the private car. Due to the nature of the proposed development, it is highly likely that other modes of transport would be little used. This development would lead to increased congestion on the one-way system through the town centre, particularly because most prospective customers live beyond a reasonable walking distance from the site. As the site is also beyond walking distance from the town centre itself, this would also result in the site becoming an entirely separate destination, similar to the nearby retail park where Morrisons is based, where reliance on the car is immediately apparent. The site can be reached from the south only by negotiating the one-way system, or by travelling through the Sandylands estate, which already suffers from some congestion from motorists using the route as a ‘rat run’. As the development would cater for 420 car-borne visitors at any one time during peak periods, this would have a significant adverse impact upon the local highway network. The site does propose cycle parking facilities but this would not be sufficient to ensure adequate modal shift to mitigate against the anticipated significant reliance upon the car. A bus loop service (no. 43A and 43C) exists along Shap Road, linking the town centre to the adjacent retail park via Appleby road, although this is likely to make only a negligible contribution to modal shift. The overall likely effect on travel patterns and car use would be to the detriment of Kendal’s local highway network, contrary to the provisions of Local Plan Policy R2. Other Issues This application is in outline only with all matters except access reserved for subsequent approval. It is nevertheless necessary to consider whether a development of this nature and scale can be accommodated on the site without having an unacceptable impact upon the character and appearance of the area, or without leading to unacceptable harm to the amenity of nearby residential properties. The indicative layout demonstrates that a sufficient gap between the proposed buildings and dwellings on Finley Close is capable of being provided, to prevent the development exerting an overbearing influence upon these properties. The proposal would be likely to lead to some increased disturbance to residents on Finley Close, Mint Bridge Road, and Shap Road, as a direct consequence of the significant increase in vehicle movements, although this would not be so severe as to warrant a refusal of planning permission. There are no design details available at this outline stage although the indicative layout suggests that buildings would be sited to the west of the site, set back some distance from Shap Road,

73 between which would be the car park and an existing car dealership (Pye Ford). In general terms a development of this nature would be unlikely to have a significant adverse impact upon the character and appearance of the area, as it would be seen in the context of industrial buildings to the north and southwest. The site is entirely within Flood Zone 1 (the lowest probability of flooding) with the exception of the extreme northwest corner of the site, which falls within Zone 2. Whilst the development itself is unlikely to flood therefore, the Environment Agency has recommended that conditions be imposed to require further details on how surface water would be drained and attenuated, to ensure the likelihood of flood risk elsewhere is not increased. Conclusions Clearly Members will appreciate that there needs to be evidence of the availability of a suitable alternative provision for the Rugby Club for any new development to be considered positively. If this is not forthcoming, then permission for this proposal should be refused irrespective of any other considerations. Setting this aside, the fundamental objection to this development is based on the principle of a retail use on the site due to the impact this would have on the town centre, and the significant policy conflict which would arise as a result. The overall impact of the proposal on Kendal and other centres in the catchment area is wholly negative. There are no positive impacts for the town centres arising from this development. The SLRS can be relied upon to consider the quantitative need merits of this proposal. Clearly there is insufficient convenience goods capacity identified in the SLRS to support the proposal once commitments and development to be promoted through the LDF are brought forward. With regard to comparison goods, the SLRS does identify medium to longer term capacity but this is beyond the five year study period of the WYG assessment. There is no quantitative need for the retail element of this proposal. The applicant has given no consideration to the geographical imbalance in provision that will arise from the proposal or that some of the overtrading that forms their main qualitative need has been alleviated by the new Booths store. There is much more of a qualitative need for new convenience goods floorspace in the smaller towns of the district as recommended in SLRS than in Kendal. The relocation of Rugby Club is not a qualitative need issue, and is not a recognised material consideration set out in PPS6 that may be taken into account. There is no quantitative or qualitative need for the retail element of this proposal. When considered with existing retail provision in the town and catchment area it is of an inappropriate scale. The proposal fails the sequential approach to site selection. The impact of the proposal on the town centre and other centres within the catchment area would be wholly negative. The site is not particularly accessible by any mode of transport to most residents in the town. There are no other material considerations in favour of this proposal. The proposal therefore fails all the PPS6 policy tests, together with Policy R2 of the Local Plan. There are no irresolvable concerns regarding the physical impact of the proposed development, particularly as this is an outline application with all matters (except access) reserved for subsequent approval.

RECOMMENDATION: REFUSE for the reasons below: Reason (1) The proposed development is unacceptable by virtue of there being no demonstrable quantitative or qualitative need for the retail element of this proposal; it is of an inappropriate scale; the proposal fails the sequential approach to site selection; the impact of the proposal on the town centre and other centres

74 within the catchment area would be wholly negative; the site is not particularly accessible by any mode of transport to most residents in the town and would have a heavy reliance upon access by the private car. In the absence of any other material considerations in favour of this proposal the development fails all the PPS6 (3.4) policy tests together with Policy R2 of the South Lakeland Local Plan.

Reason (2) The proposed development would represent an unsustainable form of development by virtue of its heavy reliance upon visitors accessing the site by private car. The development would lead to a material increase in traffic congestion on the local highway network, contrary to the provisions of Policy R2 of the South Lakeland Local Plan.

In addition, should permission not be forthcoming for the alternative proposal at Oxenholme Road, Kendal (application SL/2008/1220) a further reason would apply -

Reason (3) The proposed development would result in the loss of an important long established sports ground and facility with there being no opportunity for its suitable replacement. As such this would be contrary to the principles of PPG17 Planning for Open Space, Sport and Recreation and the provisions of Policy L1 of the South Lakeland Local Plan.

75

5 SL/2009/0076 (FPA) & SL/2009/0077 (LBC)

EGTON WITH NEWLAND: SUMMER HILL, SPARK BRIDGE, ULVERSTON PROPOSAL: ALTERATIONS AND CHANGE OF USE OF DWELLING AND FLAT TO CREATE 5 APARTMENTS, WITH NEW PORCH EXTENSION TO NORTH ELEVATION AND ENGINEERING WORKS

MR & MRS CAMPBELL 26/03/09 E330221.6 N483989.2

SUMMARY: Alteration and conversion of a listed residential property to create five apartments. Conversion details considered to be acceptable. Issues raised regarding private water supply.

EGTON WITH NEWLAND PARISH COUNCIL: No objections.

CUMBRIA HIGHWAYS: No objections, providing that the improvements to the vehicular access indicated on the plan are implemented prior to the occupation of the dwellings.

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION GROUP (SLDC): No objection in respect of the proposed drainage details. Comments in respect of the private water supply to be reported.

OTHER: Three letters have been received from the neighbouring resident, landowner and tenant farmer who are concerned about the adequacy of the private water supply to serve the proposed development. The existing supply serves Summer Hill Cottage and a cattle trough which provides water for up to 25 cows plus 25 calves and a bull. There have been issues with the water supply in the past with shortages in the summer months. The neighbouring resident has provided information in respect of the water supply and is concerned that the design of the existing system makes him vulnerable to reduced pressure and shortage in times of dry weather. He has also supplied a report from a civil engineer who concludes that from his investigations, the supply is unlikely to be adequate for the proposed increase in demand and that further investigations shall be undertaken to assess whether the supply from this spring source or other sources could be developed to increase capacity of the existing system.

76 The landowner also has concerns about the impact of the development on the listed building and concerns have been raised regarding the lack of passing places on the drive.

HISTORICAL CONTEXT: Summer Hill is a large country house set in extensive mature grounds and is located in open countryside to the west of Spark Bridge. Originally built as a private house in the late 18th century, it is listed Grade II. The property is accessed via a private driveway, which also serves a neighbouring dwelling to the north of the site. In 1989 planning permission was obtained to site eight holiday log cabins within the grounds. Only five of these currently remain. In 2004, planning and listed building consent was granted for the remodelling of one end of this substantial Grade II Listed Building to create a separate dwelling for the current owners. The part of the building affected related to a later 20th century extension to the original property. The owners have subsequently attempted to sell the main house which includes a self contained flat, and the property has remained vacant for the last two years and is showing signs of deterioration. In August 2008 Listed Building Consent was granted for a number of major external repairs to the roof and chimneys of the main house and this work is currently in progress.

DESCRIPTION AND PROPOSAL: The current applications for planning and listed building consent seeks to convert the main house and flat into five self contained apartments. No extensions are proposed other than a small porch on the rear elevation at basement level. Externally, the sash and casement windows, many of which have been modified or replaced in the 20th century would be reinstated, the remains of the verandah would be restored to incorporate a pitched leaded roof, and the remains of a 20th century former conservatory to the south east corner of the building would be removed. The proposed accommodation would be arranged over the three floors comprising one, one- bedroomed apartment and four two-bedroomed apartments. The basement, accessed from the rear elevation would be converted to two units, one of the units also partly occupying the ground floor. The main entrance to the house on the ground floor would be retained as the access to the largest apartment which would incorporate the ornate entrance hall and some of the principal reception rooms. Two further apartments would occupy the first floor accessed from the basement entrance via the main staircase. The scheme involves a number of modifications to the internal layout, to enable the subdivision of the building and the provision of kitchens, bathrooms etc. However the main rooms and circulation spaces would be retained. An Historic Building Appraisal report and PPG15 Statement has been submitted with the application, which sets out the historical development of Summer Hill and the impact of the proposal upon the historical and architectural significance of the building. Parking for the existing and proposed dwellings would be provided to the rear and side of the property within remodelled courtyard areas. A total of 13 spaces are indicated and an accompanying landscaping proposal includes surfacing of these parking areas with granite sets and stone paving, together with proposed landscaping treatments for the grounds in the immediate vicinity of the building. The main entrance to the site would be retained as existing, with some of the overgrown vegetation removed to improve visibility. The five remaining holiday lodges located in an enclosed paddock immediately to the rear of the main house would be reduced to two as part of the proposal, with a third remaining as a store. Two new parking spaces, separate from the other parking areas would be created to serve the lodges.

77 The two existing septic tanks which serve the site would be retained. The Environmental Protection Officer has confirmed that there is adequate capacity within these tanks to serve the development as proposed. The site is served by a private water supply and the applicant has provided further details of the nature of this supply. Given the concerns that have been raised by other third party users of the water supply, the Council’s Environmental Protection Officer has been asked to advise as to whether there is sufficient capacity in the water supply to serve the proposed development without adversely affecting the existing users.

POLICY ISSUES: Planning Policies Guidance Note 15 sets out the Government’s policy relating to listed buildings. It sets out the requirement of local planning authorities to “have special regard to the desirability of preserving the building or its setting or any features of special architectural or historic interest which it possesses”. It also advises that the best way of securing the upkeep of a historic building is to keep them in an economically viable use, and that a balance must be sought between achieving an economically viable use against any adverse effects of the changes that the use would entail. Policy C15 of the Local Plan has regard to preserving a Listed Building, its setting or any features of special architectural or historic merit. Policy H12 of the Local Plan specifies the criteria which must be satisfied for the residential conversion of redundant buildings in the open countryside.

HUMAN RIGHTS ACT: The provisions of the Act are relevant in so far as they relate to the right to respect for private and family life and the peaceful enjoyment of property.

ASSESSMENT: The principle of allowing the subdivision of this substantial dwelling and flat to create a total of five apartments is considered to be acceptable and will be in line with the Council’s policy regarding residential conversions. The applicants have unsuccessfully attempted to sell the property as a single unit for some considerable time and its conversion to apartments seems to be the most appropriate economically viable use for the building. It should be noted that the number of units involved falls below the threshold of the IPATH requirements for the west of the District and therefore the units created would be available for sale on the open market. Overall, the details of the scheme are sympathetic to the architectural and historic interest of the listed building and will, in many aspects, enhance the visual appearance of the property. The response from the Environmental Protection Officer regarding the private water supply will be reported at the meeting. Members will note that the reduction in the numbers of holiday lodges will be beneficial in this respect, but further investigation may be required. Subject to this aspect being satisfactory, the proposal is recommended for approval.

RECOMMENDATION: Subject to a satisfactory conclusion to negotiations over the details - 1) Planning permission (SL/2009/0076) be GRANTED subject to conditions relating to the following:

78 (1) Standard time limit. (2) Inventory of architectural features to be retained and measure for their protection during building work. (3) Joinery details of replacement and modified windows and doors. (4) External landscaping treatment and management of grounds. (5) Reduction of holiday lodges to two. (6) Condition in respect of the water supply if considered appropriate. (7) Historic building photographic survey prior to any alterations.

(2) Listed Building Consent (SL/2009/0077) be GRANTED subject to conditions relating to the following: (1) Standard time limit. (2) Inventory of architectural features to be retained and measure for their protection during building work. (3) Joinery details of replacement and modified windows and doors. (4) Historic building photographic survey prior to any alterations.

79

SCHEDULE E

Development by South Lakeland District Council of Cumbria County Council

6 SL/2009/0030 KENDAL: RECREATION GROUND, SANDYLANDS, SANDYLANDS ROAD, KENDAL PROPOSAL: INSTALLATION OF LIGHTING COLUMNS TO PLAY AREA SOUTH LAKELAND DISTRICT COUNCIL

26/03/09 E352483 N493223

SUMMARY: Installation of lighting columns to play area. The proposal is relatively low key, and sufficiently far from residential properties that the lighting should have no adverse effects on neighbours. GRANT subject to conditions.

KENDAL TOWN COUNCIL: Approve, provided lights are switched off no later than 10.00pm.

NEIGHBOURS: No observations received.

DESCRIPTION AND PROPOSAL: The proposal is to erect a series of four 8 metre high lighting columns, one at each corner of the existing Multi Use Games Area on the playing fields, close to the corner of Sandylands and Jenkin Rise. The columns are to be green powder coated, and set back about 3 metres from each corner of the MUGA.

POLICY ISSUES: Protection of residential amenity.

80 HUMAN RIGHTS ACT: The provisions of the Act are relevant in so far as they relate to the right to respect for private and family life and the peaceful enjoyment of property.

ASSESSMENT: The proposal to illuminate the existing games area is accompanied by details of the light levels anticipated on and around the games area. It is clear from this information that the lights are unlikely to have any direct effect on neighbouring residential properties, particularly since all the closest properties are on the opposite side of roads that are themselves well lit. The lighting will therefore not have a direct effect on the amenity of nearby residents, but the suggestion from the Town Council that the lights be turned off at 10pm does have some merit, as the use of the open air facility beyond that time may act as a focus for late night activity to the detriment of the neighbours.

RECOMMENDATION: GRANT subject to:- Condition (1) The development hereby permitted shall be commenced before the expiration of THREE YEARS from the date hereof. Reason (1) To comply with the requirements of Section 91 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 as amended by Section 51 of the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004.

Condition (2) The lighting shall not be illuminated between the hours of 10pm and 8am. Reason (2) In the interests of the amenities of nearby residents.

REASON FOR GRANTING PLANNING PERMISSION: The lighting will have no detrimental effect on the amenities of nearby residents.

81

7 SL/2009/0031 KENDAL: LOW GARTH, HALLGARTH, KENDAL PROPOSAL: INSTALLATION OF LIGHTING COLUMNS TO PLAY AREA SOUTH LAKELAND DISTRICT COUNCIL

26/03/09 E350943 N494096

SUMMARY: Installation of Lighting Columns to play area. The proposal is relatively low key, and the lights are directed away from the closest residential properties and should have no adverse effects on neighbours. GRANT subject to conditions.

KENDALTOWN COUNCIL: Approve, provided lights are switched off no later than 10.00pm.

NEIGHBOURS: Two objections received, on the grounds of potential light pollution and claiming that the lighting will attract anti-social behaviour.

DESCRIPTION AND PROPOSAL: The proposal is to erect a series of four 8 metre high lighting columns, along one side of the existing Multi Use Games Area on the playing fields, between Low Garth and the rear of properties in Overdale Close. The columns are to be green powder coated, and evenly spaced set back about 2 metres from the north east side of the MUGA, facing south west.

POLICY ISSUES: Protection of Residential Amenity.

HUMAN RIGHTS ACT: The provisions of the Act are relevant in so far as they relate to the right to respect for private and family life and the peaceful enjoyment of property.

82 ASSESSMENT: The proposal to illuminate the existing games area is accompanied by details of the light levels anticipated on and around the games area. It appears from this information that the lights are unlikely to have any direct effect on neighbouring residential properties, particularly since the lighting is designed to point away from the closest properties (on Overdale Close) and the land rises from the facility up to the properties on Low Garth. The lighting will therefore not have a direct effect on the amenity of nearby residents, but the suggestion from the Town Council that the lights be turned off at 10pm does have some merit, as the use of the open air facility beyond that time may act as a focus for late night activity to the detriment of the neighbours.

RECOMMENDATION: GRANT subject to:- Condition (1) The development hereby permitted shall be commenced before the expiration of THREE YEARS from the date hereof. Reason (1) To comply with the requirements of Section 91 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 as amended by Section 51 of the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004. Condition (2) The lighting shall not be illuminated between the hours of 10pm and 8am. Reason (2) In the interests of the amenities of nearby residents.

REASON FOR GRANTING PLANNING PERMISSION: The lighting will have no detrimental effect on the amenities of nearby residents.

83

SCHEDULE F

Straightforward Planning Applications

8 SL/2009/0007 KENDAL: LAND OFF GREENSIDE, BACKING ONTO KENDAL FELL GOLF COURSE PROPOSAL: ERECTION OF BOOSTER PUMPING STATION UNITED UTILITIES

26/03/09 E350809 N492482

SUMMARY: Erection of a booster pumping station, Land off Greenside, Kendal. The proposal is visually acceptable, and in the proposed location should have no adverse impact on neighbouring residential premises. GRANT subject to minor modification of position.

KENDAL TOWN COUNCIL: Approve.

CUMBRIA HIGHWAYS: The access road is not a public highway, but is a public right of way, and should not be obstructed.

CUMBRIA COUNTY COUNCIL: Footpath 536038 runs adjacent to the site, this route should not be obstructed at any time or the safety of its users compromised during the development.

COUNTY ARCHAEOLOGIST: The first edition of the OS Map shows that there was a limekiln on the site of the proposed pumping station from at least the mid 19th century. Although there are no remains of the limekiln visible above ground, it is considered likely that such remains survive below ground and that these would be damaged and destroyed by the proposed development. I would suggest that the ground works associated with the development should be subject to a programme of archaeological recording. This recording should be carried out during the course of the development (a watching brief) and should be commissioned and undertaken at the expense

84 of the developer. This programme of work can be secured through the inclusion of a condition in any planning consent.

RAMBLERS’ ASSOCIATION: The building proposed is not unlike some of the garages on the opposite side of the public footpath, except that some thought has been given to the quality of the materials. The building will not affect the right of way, and the Ramblers Association Kendal Group has no objections to the development.

NPS (NORTH WEST): Disappointed that United Utilities has been unable to find a site off the Town Green, and that in pursuing a location on the Town Green the development is not located in the corner behind Greenside houses where we suggested. The proposed location is not convenient for the Council, and we suggest withdrawal of the application.

NEIGHBOURS AND INTERESTED PARTIES: There have been a number of objections from nearby residents. Their concerns are expressed in a variety of ways, but can be summarised as falling within three areas of concern: i) There will be noise and disturbance affecting nearby houses and gardens arising either from the operations involved in construction, or subsequently as a result of noise potentially arising from the operation of the pumping station itself. ii) The appearance of the proposal, its design and visual impact close to houses, and within a conservation area. iii) The loss of an open amenity, with the plants and associated wildlife.

In addition, many residents have raised the issues of this land allegedly being Kendal Fell Trust land, Town Green, and Protected Open Space. None of these designations are planning designations, and any consideration of those designations is not properly part of the planning considerations.

DESCRIPTION AND PROPOSAL: The proposal is to erect a pumping station, contained within a building measuring 4.4metres x 4.9metres, and 4.5metres high to the ridge. The building is to be constructed of random coursed stone, with a slate roof, and is to be set on a level site within a shallow depression to be created on the west side of this access track to the golf course. The site shown in the application is shown as 10m deep and 11m wide, to accommodate the earthworks and facilitate landscaping. No details of the landscaping are included in the application, other than an expressed intention to plant trees, with Rowan or Birch being suggested. This site is approx midway between the back of the houses fronting Greenside, and the golf course. The distance between pumping station and houses is over 30metres, and the rear gardens extend to about 20m distant from the proposed building. On the opposite side of this unadopted access road are a number of private garage buildings, constructed of a variety of materials. The site itself is overgrown with bramble, with only small saplings within the area of the proposed development.

85 POLICY ISSUES: Policy C16 of the Local Plan reflects the statutory duty of the Local Planning Authority to have special regard to the desirability of preserving or enhancing the character of a Conservation Area. Policy S2 of the Local Plan sets out the South Lakeland Design Code and requires development applications to take proper account of its principles. Policy S3 (Landscaping) of the Local Plan sets out the need to provide quality landscaping for new developments. Policy C19 of the Local Plan supports the archaeological investigation of development sites by proper assessment.

HUMAN RIGHTS ACT: The provisions of the Act are relevant in so far as they relate to the right to respect for private and family life and the peaceful enjoyment of property.

ASSESSMENT: The site forms part of an overgrown triangle of land bounded by the rear of houses fronting Greenside, an access road leading to the golf course from Greenside, and a track leading from the end of this access alongside the golf course to the site of the lime kiln currently being restored fronting Greenside. This triangle of land is within the area designated as Conservation Area but is outside the area designated as Important Open Space that includes this part of the golf course. The site of the proposal within this triangle does give scope for the impact of the building to be minimised. The height of the building will to a small degree be disguised by setting the base into the surface, so that it will sit in a shallow saucer shaped excavation. The regeneration of brambles, or supplementary planting, can minimise the impact of the building visually, and the traditional construction does mean that its’ appearance will improve upon that of many of the garages on the opposite side of the access. Although the construction work will inevitably cause nuisance, that is not a reason for refusal, although potential noise nuisance from the pumping operations is a valid planning concern. Details of the noise levels have been obtained from the applicants, as follows: “Outline design for the pump gives a requirement for a 1.1kW motor to drive the pump. The manufacture's data for the required Grundfos CR unit gives the "Airborne noise emitted by pumps with motors fitted by Grundfos" as 55 dB (A). Subjectively this is equivalent to a male speaking voice. Consideration to attenuation is given in the simple form as follows which is consistent with BS 8233 clauses 5.5.3 & 6.7. Given the mass of the foundations, walls with no windows or vents but with a heavy steel door located to face away from properties, the least attenuation will be through the roof. The typical attenuation and worst case for the type of construction given by Table 11 BS 8233 is 34 dB. Therefore the approximate noise level outside the proposed pumping station would be 55 – 34 = 21 dB <30 dB required for bedrooms and nearly achieves the requirement for a recording studio. Further clause 5.5.3 of BS 8233 gives a 6 dB reduction for each increment of distance doubled. The distance to the nearest property is approximately 36m. Allowing, say, a reduction of 3 dB for each increment to provide a worse case than may be achieved and assuming the 21 dB would be 1m from the new building then the distance could be incrementally doubled five times within the 36m. Therefore, the noise attenuation would be 3 x 5 = 15 dB giving 21 – 15 db = 6 db at a point OUTSIDE the nearest property. These are simple calculations but hopefully serve to show there will be no noise nuisance from the proposed Pumping Station”

86 On the basis of this information it seems clear that the proposal should cause no problems for neighbours or passers by as a consequence of noise from the pumps. In relation to potential alternative sites, the Council is not in a position to advise United Utilities on those matters, but is required to consider the proposal submitted. If it is acceptable, the availability or otherwise of alternative sites is irrelevant, and by the same token if it is unacceptable it is not the Councils’ responsibility to suggest alternative solutions. I understand that the area has habitually been used as a public amenity, and that a rectangle of land the size of a double garage will be lost to that purpose. The site is outside the area of protected open space designation, and there is no suggestion of any species protection issues. The loss of this small area of bramble patch is not, in my view, a justification for refusal of a proposal required for the provision of adequate fresh water supplies, if there are no other significant adverse impacts. With regard to the impact visually on neighbours, and on the character of the Conservation Area, this proposal is an acceptable one. The use of appropriate traditional materials, and the limited scale of the proposal are in its favour, although in the location currently proposed, immediately adjacent to the carriageway, the impact on the street scene is more significant than if the proposal were set back some 2.5metres in common with the garages facing on the opposite side of the street. If that amendment were made, although the land take would be increased, the impact on the character of the Conservation Area would be neutral, given appropriate natural landscaping.

RECOMMENDATION: The Corporate Director (Communities) to grant permission subject to the receipt of amended drawings showing the building set 2.5metres back from the site frontage, and subject to the conditions listed below. Condition (1) The development hereby permitted shall be commenced before the expiration of THREE YEARS from the date hereof. Reason (1) To comply with the requirements of Section 91 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 as amended by Section 51 of the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004.

Condition (2) An archaeological watching brief shall be undertaken by a qualified archaeologist during the course of the ground works of the proposed development, in accordance with a written scheme of investigation which has been submitted by the applicant and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. Following its completion, 3 copies of the report shall be furnished to the Local Planning Authority. Reason (2) To afford reasonable opportunity for an examination to be made to determine the existence of any remains of archaeological interest within the site and for the investigation and recording of such items.

Condition (3) No development shall take place until there has been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority a scheme of landscaping, which shall include indications of all existing trees and hedgerows on the land, and details of any to be retained, together with measures for their protection during the course of development. Reason (3) In the interests of the amenity of the area.

87 Condition (4) Within six months from the date when the building hereby permitted is substantially completed trees/shrubs shall be planted on the land in accordance with the approved details of landscaping. Any trees/shrubs which are removed, die, become severely damaged or diseased within five years of their planting shall be replaced in the next planting season with trees/shrubs of similar size and species to those originally required to be planted unless the Local Planning Authority gives written consent to any variation. Reason (4) To protect and enhance the character of the Conservation Area.

REASON FOR GRANTING PLANNING PERMISSION The proposal is visually acceptable, and in the proposed location should have no adverse impact on neighbouring residential premises.

88

9 SL/2009/0075 MILNTHORPE: PAPER MILL SHOP, UNIT H MAIN LINE INDUSTRIAL ESTATE, CROOKLANDS ROAD, ACKENTHWAITE, MILNTHORPE PROPOSAL: CHANGE OF USE OF PART OF PREMISES TO FACTORY SHOP THE PAPER MILL SHOP

26/03/09 E351413 N481766

SUMMARY: The use of a small area for relocation of the shop, will not harm the vitality or viability of town centres, will not create further unsustainable development and will improve business practices. GRANT

MILNTHORPE PARISH COUNCIL: Comments to be received by 9 March 2009.

CUMBRIA HIGHWAYS: Cumbria Highways have some reservations about the location for this development. This is a working industrial estate some distance from the nearest village of Milnthorpe. The development will be dependent on additional car journeys to the site. This is not the most sustainable of locations in terms of traffic. Secondly the area to the front of the building is a service yard shared with large vehicles, there are therefore concerns for the safety of visitors. The applicant should ensure separation of cars and HGV’s.

HISTORICAL CONTEXT: Planning permission has been granted for various alterations to the buildings at Mainline Industrial Estate but there is no history relevant to the determination of this application.

DESCRIPTION AND PROPOSAL: Mainline Industrial Estate is located to the east of Milnthorpe and approximately 4.5km from Junction 36 of the M6. The estate consists of a number of large buildings used for a variety of industrial, warehousing and office businesses. The building subject to the application is located toward the front of the estate with parking and loading areas accessed directly from the main road. The building currently provides 2250 square

89 metres of warehouse/industrial space and 210 square metres of associated office space. It is used by The Paper Mill Shop, a subsidiary of Croppers plc. It is proposed to change the use of 90 square metres into retail space in order to sell paper products stored at the site directly to the public. A section of the loading area to the front of the building would be made available for visitor parking and access.

POLICY ISSUES: Planning Policy Statement 6: Planning for Town Centres seeks to focus new retail development within town centres to protect vitality and viability. Policy E6 of the South Lakeland Local Plan seeks to protect employment land and buildings.

HUMAN RIGHTS ACT: The provisions of the Act are relevant in so far as they relate to the right to respect for private and family life and the peaceful enjoyment of property.

ASSESSMENT: The Paper Mill Shop purchases “out of spec” paper from the parent company (Croppers plc) transports it to the building at Mainline Industrial Estate for processing into a variety of products and storage prior to distribution to its retail stores. Products from other suppliers are also sold at the retail outlets to widen the range. One of the retail outlets is currently located at Burneside Mill, the main Croppers plc manufacturing centre. The operations at Burneside Mill are being compromised by the use of an area of the manufacturing floor for the retail outlet. The application seeks to move the retail outlet from the Burneside site to the Mainline site. The advantages for the business would be three fold. The area presently in use for retail at Burneside would be used to reorganise the layout of machinery and reduce damage to the paper being cut at the site, thereby reducing non-saleable paper and costs. Secondly, the products would not need to be transported back from the Mainline site for sale at Burneside. Thirdly, reduce the rent payable to the parent company for the space at Burnside and allow employees at the Mainline site to operate the retail area as and when required. The shop at Burneside attracts people from a wide area who generally arrive by car. The agent argues that as customers come from a considerable distance, there is no correlation between the location and the availability of the shop. It is stated that it is not anticipated that there will be greater vehicle journeys generated by relocating to Milnthorpe and indeed, as quite a bit of the custom is know to approach via the motorway, the premises will actually be closer than the current ones. Provision of an out of town retail premises would normally be contrary to the thrust of planning policies. However, the retail element is already in an out of town location and attracting customers from a considerable distance. Relocating the shop would not therefore jeopardise the function of the town centres nor is it likely to increase travel for customers. As the proposal would remove the need to transport paper back to Burneside, it is considered that the scheme would not constitute an additional unsustainable use. In addition to the above, the proposal will allow both The Paper Mill Shop and the parent company, Croppers Plc to make improvements to their industrial and storage facilities, and financial savings. In the current economic climate, development to make such improvements should be encouraged where there is no harm to the vitality or viability of the town centres or the employment land provision.

90 The applicant is exploring methods of separating visitors from the loading area at the front of the property. The outcome will be reported at the planning Committee. In conclusion, the use of the small area to transfer retail provision, will not harm retail provision in the town centres, will not create further unsustainable development and will improve the business practices. It is therefore considered that the proposal is justified due to the individual circumstances.

RECOMMENDATION: Subject to a satisfactory conclusion to negotiations over the parking details, the application be GRANTED subject to conditions relating to the following - (1) Standard time limit; (2) The permission being personal to the applicant company; (3) Provision of visitor car parking; (4) Separation of visitor parking and loading.

91

10 SL/2009/0112 ARNSIDE: LANE HOUSE FARM, FAR ARNSIDE PROPOSAL: GENERAL PURPOSE AGRICULTURAL BUILDING MR EDMUND ALBERT

26/03/09 E345098 N476410

SUMMARY: This stone and slated building, to be built adjacent to Lane House, would not cause significant harm to the character or appearance of this part of the AONB. Grant.

ARNSIDE PARISH COUNCIL: Comments to be received by 13 March 2009.

THE NATIONAL TRUST: The Trust has no objection to the barn and indeed would welcome it. Visually, subject to issues of materials, design and scale such a barn would be an improvement as the site is currently unsightly and cluttered with machinery and materials. A barn built close to the house, as proposed, would form a cluster and would not be out of keeping with similar clusters of farm buildings at Hollins Farm and Far Arnside. A condition to prevent the outside storage of materials and machinery should be attached should permission be granted.

COUNTRY LAND AND BUSINESS ASSOCIATION: The CLA supports this application to build a general purpose farm building which is essential for the operation of this smallholding.

NATIONAL FARMERS UNION: There are important operational needs for the building which would enhance the landscape. It would also remove the need for the outside storage of materials and machinery.

AONB MANAGER: To be reported.

HISTORICAL CONTEXT: Planning permission for a similar proposal was refused, under delegated powers, in January 2007 for the following reasons:

92

1. In the absence of evidence to the contrary the Local Planning Authority does not consider that there are any over-riding operational needs which would justify the erection of an agricultural building in this Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty. As a consequence, this proposal conflicts with the aims and objectives of Policy S23 of the South Lakeland Local Plan.

2. The siting of the proposed building will have an adverse impact on the character and appearance of the surrounding countryside which is designated as an Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty, contrary to Policy E37 of the adopted Cumbria and Lake District Joint Structure Plan and Policies C1 and S23 of the South Lakeland Local Plan. These policies seek to protect the open countryside from the intrusion of unnecessary built forms.

DESCRIPTION AND PROPOSAL: The proposed building is to be stone-faced and roofed with slate. It has a floor area measuring 10 metres by 8 metres and will stand 5.5 metres high to the ridge and 2.5 metres to the eaves. It is to be built adjacent to Lane House in the hamlet of Far Arnside. The applicant runs an 11-acre smallholding from Lane House and the building will serve two functions. Firstly, as an area for sheep-handling and, secondly, for the storage of farm equipment and machinery.

POLICY ISSUES: The site is within the Arnside-Silverdale AONB and Policy C1 of the Local Plan requires high priority to be given to the conservation and enhancement of the character and qualities of the landscape and to the protection of the landscape from inappropriate change and development. Policy E37 of the Structure Plan states that development should be compatible with the distinctive character and features of Cumbria’s landscape types. On the subject of agricultural buildings, Local Plan Policy S23 states that they should have no significant adverse impact on: (a) the visual amenity of the local area, in terms of siting, profile, roof-pitch, and colour; taking into account the need for additional landscaping;

(b) the amenity of any residential nearby properties;

(c) local nature conservation interests.

In considering proposals, the District Council will also have full regard to the operational needs of agricultural businesses.

HUMAN RIGHTS ACT: The provisions of the Act are relevant in so far as they relate to the right to respect for private and family life and the peaceful enjoyment of property.

ASSESSMENT: It is recommended that planning permission be granted for this general-purpose agricultural building. Although it is similar to that refused planning permission in January 2007, this latest application differs from its predecessor in two respects. Firstly, it is accompanied by a detailed appraisal explaining the agricultural need for the building. Secondly, the design has been

93

improved and the building now features a conventional double-pitched roof in contrast to the asymmetric configuration previously proposed. Its siting is such that it will appear as a stone and slated outbuilding adjacent to Lane House and, in this position, it will be part of a group of buildings. It will not be prominent in view nor appear out of place in this part of the AONB.

RECOMMENDATION: GRANT subject to: Condition (1) The development hereby permitted shall be commenced before the expiration of THREE YEARS from the date hereof. Reason (1) To comply with the requirements of Section 91 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 as amended by Section 51 of the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004.

Condition (2) The whole of the building shall be faced with natural limestone. A sample panel of the proposed stonework shall be erected on the site for the further written approval of the Local Planning Authority before any building works are commenced. Reason (2) To ensure that the building is compatible with the objectives of Policy S23 of the South Lakeland Local Plan.

Condition (3) The roof shall be covered with slate being blue/grey in colour and of similar texture to those mined within the County of Cumbria a sample of which shall be submitted to and agreed in writing with the Local Planning Authority before any development work commences on site. Reason (3) To ensure that the building is compatible with the objectives of Policy S23 of the South Lakeland Local Plan.

REASON FOR GRANTING PLANNING PERMISSION: The building is compatible with the objectives of Policy S23 of the South Lakeland Local Plan.

94 SOUTH LAKELAND DISTRICT COUNCIL

Planning Committee

Date of Meeting: 26 March 2009 Part I Report From: Corporate Director (Communities) Agenda 7 Report Author: Mark Balderson Item No: Planning Enforcement Officer Report Title: A Report on Enforcement Activity from 16 January 2009 to 16 February 2009

Summary To inform Members about enforcement activity between 16 January 2009 and 16 February 2009. This report aims to provide a brief and informative insight into current enforcement cases. If there are any specific enforcement cases that Members would like to be updated on at the next Planning Committee meeting, please contact Mark Balderson, Enforcement Officer, or Simon Fawcett, Enforcement Assistant. Recommendations That Members note this report. Report

1. Enforcement Cases which have been resolved 5 outstanding cases from the enforcement caseload have been resolved between 16 January 2009 and 16 February 2009.

2. New Enforcement Cases Between 16 January 2009 and 16 February 2009, 45 complaints have been recorded and are presently being investigated. 25 of these cases have been resolved.

3. Enforcement Cases for which Committee consideration is sought No cases for Members consideration.

4. An Update on Enforcement Cases involving formal action

There are no cases to report. See table below.

Alternative Options Not Applicable Material Considerations Finance The recommendations in this report do not have any cost implications.

17 Risk Risk Consequence Controls required The failure to have an Result in inappropriate forms of To maintain sufficient effective planning development which would have an resources in planning enforcement system. adverse impact on the character and enforcement and prioritise and appearance of the District’s rural co-ordinate the investigation of landscape. breaches of planning control.

Staffing The recommendations in this report do not have any staffing implications. Sustainability This report does not have any registered significant environmental effects. Links to Corporate Plan The control of development is a significant factor in achieving a “High Quality Environment” under Section 3.4 of The Corporate Plan. Links to Strategic Plan This report has no links to the Strategic Plan. Equalities and Diversity Not applicable. Community Safety The recommendations in this report do not have any community safety implications.

Background Documents Document: Various Planning & Contact: Mark Balderson, Planning Enforcement Officer or Enforcement files Simon Fawcett, Enforcement Assistant

Date: 18/03/2009 Version No: Amended by: 2 18 APPENDIX A Committee: Planning Date of Meeting: 26 March 2009 Report Title: A Report on Enforcement Activity from 16 January 2009 to 16 February 2009

Planning Enforcement Progress Report REF NO. PARISH SITE ADDRESS BREACH/CONTRAVENTION PROGRESS 06/068 ALDINGHAM Low Sunbrick Farm, Aldingham Installation of Upvc windows in Members recently reconfirmed listed building enforcement action. Advice being sought from Conservation Officer. 09/018 ALDINGHAM Land opp Burling Quarry, Baycliffe. Erection of large agricultural Section 330 notice served. building 08/017 BEETHAM Heron Cottage, Shore Line Removal of wall and creation of Owner has confirmed the use of vehicle access the access has ceased. He has recently erected a more permanent fence. Monitoring 08/207 BEETHAM 3 Watersedge, Shore Line Erection of unauthorised Balcony Enforcement Notice served to front elevation 19 December 2008, effective 30 January 2009. Compliance date 30 March. 05/060 GRANGE OVER SANDS Blawith Lodge, Windermere Road, Replacement windows Discussions ongoing with new Grange over Sands owner. Works are underway. Monitoring site. 05/232 HELSINGTON Low Chambers Tenement, Siting of static caravan Planning Contravention Notice Brigsteer served. 05/249 HELSINGTON Low Chambers Tenement, Untidy site Planning Contravention Notice Brigsteer served

19 REF NO. PARISH SITE ADDRESS BREACH/CONTRAVENTION PROGRESS

07/208 HOLME Land West of Moss Lane Construction of chalet/cabin and Enforcement Notice not fully creation of large pond complied with. Considering prosecution. In consultation with Legal. 07/156 KENDAL Bridge View, Burton Road, Kendal Creation of extra dwelling unit Enforcement Notice has been held in abeyance as the owners have now submitted an appeal. 07/267 KENDAL Skewmount, High Tenterfell, Decking/Structure in Enforcement Notice served Kendal Conservation Area requesting removal of decking and sub structure, compliance date 29/03/09. Appeal lodged against Notice. 08/132 KENDAL 32 Hawthorn Gardens, Kendal Breach of Section 106 Tenant moved out. Monitoring Agreement. Owner not using sale. property as sole main residence. 08/134 KENDAL 57 Burton Road, Kendal Unauthorised development. Enforcement Notice served Construction of 3 metre wall requesting that they remove all adjacent highway parts of the wall and fence that exceeds 1.2 metres above ground level, compliance date 30/03/09. 08/144 KENDAL Beech Hill Hotel, 40 Greenside Unauthorised UPVC windows in Enforcement Notice served. Kendal Conservation Area Compliance under negotiation. 08/210 KENDAL 177 Highgate, Kendal. Cash in a Advertisement harmful to Discontinuance Notice served. Dash. Conservation Area Notice takes effect on the 26/3/09 compliance date 25/4/09 06/329 KIRKBY IRELETH Land Adjacent to Bell Hall Farm, Storage of agricultural machinery Enforcement Notice appealed. Head Cragg, Kirkby in Furness and vehicles within field Appeal hearing held on the 3/3/09 Awaiting response from Planning Inspectorate.

Date: 18/03/2009 Version No: Amended by: 4 20

REF NO. PARISH SITE ADDRESS BREACH/CONTRAVENTION PROGRESS 08/347 KIRKBY LONSDALE Biggins Hall, High Biggins, Kirkby Unauthorised erection of roof Resolved that the dormer meets Lonsdale, LA6 2NP dormer. the requirements of the GPDO subject to measures stated in letter from builder 20/2/09. 07/025 LOWER ALLITHWAITE Priory Close, Cartmel Internal alteration to listed Prosecution stayed, Company building gone bankrupt. Owners have said they will do the works. Monitoring. Schedule of mitigating works under discussion. 08/224 LOWER ALLITHWAITE Blenket Caravan Park, Jack Hill Unauthorised construction of Enforcement Notice served took timber chalets. effect 27 January 2009. Period for compliance 2 months. The owner has submitted an appeal confirmed by Planning Inspectorate. 07/179 NATLAND Millennium House, Natland Unauthorised development. Enforcement Notice complied Separation of ancillary building to with, fence has been removed. create another planning unit. 04/263 PENNINGTON Whinfield Works, Whinfield Use of site for the storing of scrap Pursuing enforcement action. Ground, Lindal in Furness cars Discussions ongoing with owners to find a solution. 08/041 PENNINGTON Unit 1, Greenmoor Farm, Unauthorised use of unit as Appeal against Notice dismissed. Pennington, Ulverston vehicle repair workshop Notice upheld with variation to compliance period from 2 month to 6 month.

Date: 18/03/2009 Version No: Amended by: 5 21

REF NO. PARISH SITE ADDRESS BREACH/CONTRAVENTION PROGRESS 08/345 SKELSMERGH Holme House, Garth Row Lane, Unauthorised development Enforcement powers authorised. Kendal involving the construction of Planning Contravention Notice caravan/chalet structures and served on owner returned, business uses, and ancillary Information indicates the works. necessity to serve further PCN’s 08/090 URSWICK Beckside Holdings, between Unauthorised use of agricultural Section 330 Notice served. Scales and Stainton. land. Enforcement powers authorised. In negotiation with owner to remove the boat, trailer and caravan.

Date: 18/03/2009 Version No: Amended by: 6 22 SOUTH LAKELAND DISTRICT COUNCIL

Planning Committee

Date of Meeting: 26 March 2009 Part I Report From: Corporate Director (Communities) Agenda 8 Report Author: Mark Balderson Item No: Planning Enforcement Officer Report Title: A report on the outstanding enforcement caseload between 1 January 2004 and 16 February 2009

Summary To inform Members about the outstanding enforcement caseload between 1 January 2004 and 16 February 2009. This report aims to provide a summary of the number of enforcement cases currently unresolved. Recommendations That Members note this report. Report Outstanding complaints received between 1 Jan 2004 and 16 Feb 2009 123

ALDINGHAM No of Complaints for this Parish 5

ARNSIDE No of Complaints for this Parish 2

BEETHAM No of Complaints for this Parish 14

BROUGHTON WEST (Duddon) No of Complaints for this Parish 1

BURTON IN KENDAL No of Complaints for this Parish 1

CASTERTON No of Complaints for this Parish 2

DOCKER No of Complaints for this Parish 1

GRANGE OVER SANDS No of Complaints for this Parish 10

HELSINGTON No of Complaints for this Parish 2

HEVERSHAM No of Complaints for this Parish 1

HOLME No of Complaints for this Parish 5

23 KENDAL No of Complaints for this Parish 17

KIRKBY IRELETH No of Complaints for this Parish 1

KIRKBY LONSDALE No of Complaints for this Parish 6

LOWER ALLITHWAITE No of Complaints for this Parish 10

LOWER HOLKER No of Complaints for this Parish 7

NATLAND No of Complaints for this Parish 1

NEW HUTTON No of Complaints for this Parish 2

OLD HUTTON AND No of Complaints for this Parish 2 HOLMESCALES

OSMOTHERLY No of Complaints for this Parish 1

PENNINGTON No of Complaints for this Parish 6

PRESTON PATRICK No of Complaints for this Parish 5

PRESTON RICHARD No of Complaints for this Parish 1

SKELSMERGH No of Complaints for this Parish 4

STAINTON No of Complaints for this Parish 1

STRICKLAND KETEL No of Complaints for this Parish 3

ULVERSTON No of Complaints for this Parish 7

URSWICK No of Complaints for this Parish 4

WHITWELL AND SELSIDE No of Complaints for this Parish 1

Alternative Options Not applicable. Material Considerations Finance Not applicable.

Date: 18/03/2009 Version No: Amended by: 2 24 Risk Risk Consequence Controls required The failure to have an Result in inappropriate forms of To maintain sufficient effective planning development which would have resources in planning enforcement system. an adverse impact on the enforcement and prioritise and character and appearance of the co-ordinate the investigation of District’s rural landscape. breaches of planning control.

Staffing Not applicable. Sustainability This report does not have any registered significant environmental effects. Links to Corporate Plan The control of development is a significant factor in achieving a “High Quality Environment” under Section 3.4 of The Corporate Plan. Links to Strategic Plan This report has no links to the Strategic Plan. Equalities and Diversity Not applicable Community Safety Not applicable

Background Documents Document: Various Planning and Contact: Mark Balderson Enforcement files Planning Enforcement Officer

Date: 18/03/2009 Version No: Amended by: 3 25

26 SOUTH LAKELAND DISTRICT COUNCIL

Planning Committee

Date of Meeting: 24 March 2009 Part I Report From: Strategic Director (Customer Services) Agenda 9 Report Author: Mark Balderson Item No: Planning Enforcement Officer Report Title: A Report on Enforcement Activity for 2008

Summary This is a brief report to inform Members about enforcement activity during 2008. The report will advise of the following: (1) Number of complaints received (2) Number of Notices served (3) Number of Prosecutions (4) Number of resolved cases (5) Number of outstanding cases.

Recommendations That Members note this report. Report 1 Complaints received in 2008: 362 (This represents an increase of 3 cases on last year’s total of 359) 2 Number of Notices served • Planning Contravention Notices ...... 6 • Section 330 Notices (Requisition for Information) ...... 25 • Breach of Condition Notices ...... 2 • Section 215 Notices (Land that adversely affects the amenity of the area) .. .. 0 • Enforcement Notices ...... 12 • Total Number of Notices Served ...... 45 • Prosecutions ...... 0 • Injunctions ...... 0 (Not all of these Notices relate to cases received in 2007) 3 Number of complaints (received in 2008) resolved 313 (This figure relates to cases received in 2008 only. Other cases were resolved from previous years). The total number resolved in 2008 including cases from previous years was 404.

27

4 Number of complaints outstanding from 2008 49 • Awaiting planning decision or works to comply with planning approval ...... 4 • Awaiting compliance date to Enforcement Notice/Appeal ...... 6 • Still under negotiation/investigation ...... 20 • Monitoring further development or awaiting compliance ...... 19

Alternative Options Not applicable Material Considerations Finance The recommendations in this report do not have any cost implications. Risk Risk Consequence Controls required The failure to have an Result in inappropriate forms of To maintain sufficient effective planning development which would have resources in planning enforcement system. an adverse impact on the enforcement and prioritise and character and appearance of the co-ordinate the investigation of District’s rural landscape. breaches of planning control.

Staffing The recommendations in this report do not have any staffing implications. Sustainability This report does not have any registered significant environmental effects. Links to Corporate Plan The control of development is a significant factor in achieving a “High Quality Environment” under Section 3.4 of The Corporate Plan. Links to Strategic Plan This report has no links to the Strategic Plan. Equalities and Diversity Not applicable. Community Safety The recommendations in this report do not have any community safety implications.

Background Documents Document: Various Planning and Enforcement files Contact: Mark Balderson Planning Enforcement Officer

2 28 SOUTH LAKELAND DISTRICT COUNCIL

Planning Committee

Date of Meeting: 26 March 2009 Part I Report From: Corporate Director (Communities) Agenda 10 Report Author: Andrew Roe Item No: Development Control Manager Report Title: Applications considered previously by the Planning Committee and determined by the Corporate Director (Communities) between 13 February and 13 March 2009 Summary To note the decisions made by the Corporate Director (Communities) as attached. Recommendations Note the Report. Report See attached print out. Alternative Options Not applicable. Material Considerations Finance The recommendations in this report do not have any cost implications. Risk There are no identified risk raised by this report. Staffing The recommendations in this report do not have any staffing implications. Sustainability This report does not have any registered significant environmental effects. Links to Corporate Plan This report links to the aim of providing a “High Quality Environment” under Section 3.4 of the Corporate Plan. Links to Strategic Plan This report has no links to the Strategic Plan. Equalities and Diversity The Draft Statement of Community Involvement takes account of the equalities issues in seeking to define South Lakeland’s community and interests relevant to the Local Development Framework which will influence the determination of planning applications. Community Safety The recommendations in this report do not have any community safety implications.

29 Background Documents Document: Various Planning Files Contact: Andrew Roe Development Control Manager

Date: 18/03/2009 Version No: Amended by: 2 30 Applications dealt with by the Corporate Director (Communities) under delegated powers between 13 February and 13 March 2009

Parish BARBON Application No Site Address Proposal Applicant Application Type

SL/2008/0969 BARBON METHODIST CHAPEL CONVERSION OF VACANT METHODIST CHAPEL MR W BROEKHUTZEN FULL PLANNING BARBON INTO SINGLE DWELLING LA6 2LS Grant with Conditions Condition (1) The development hereby permitted shall be commenced before the expiration of THREE YEARS from the date hereof. Reason (1) To comply with the requirements of Section 91 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 as amended by Section 51 of the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004. Condition (2) This planning permission relates to the following drawings: (a) Ground floor layout: drawing no. K2244/21a, deposited with the Local Planning Authority on 27 February 2009; (b) First floor layout: drawing no. K2244/22 deposited with the Local Planning Authority on 18 September 2008. (c) North elevation: drawing no. K2244/17, deposited with the Local Planning Authority on 18 September 2008. (d) South elevation: drawing no. K2244/18a, deposited with the Local Planning Authority on 27 February 2009. (e) East elevation: drawing no. K2244/19, deposited with the Local Planning Authority on 18 September 2008. (f) West elevation: drawing no. K2244/20a, deposited with the Local Planning Authority on 27 February 2009. Reason (2) To ensure an appropriate form of development. Condition (3) The dwelling hereby permitted shall be occupied as the sole or main residence by an Approved Person. In this condition an "Approved Person" shall be deemed to be a person who has immediately prior to such occupation: (i) been continuously resident in the Locality for three years; or

(ii) been permanently employed or has a firm permanent job offer in the Locality; or

(iii) been employed in the Locality on a fixed term contract of no less then one year in duration or has a firm job offer in the Locality on a fixed term contract of no less then one year in duration; or

(iv) is self employed in a viable business based in the Locality; or

(v) has completed a post secondary education course within the past 3 years outside the administrative area of the Council (hereinafter referred to as "the District") and prior to attending such course lived in the District for a period in excess of 3 years; or

(vi) is currently in the Armed Forces, in prison, in hospital or similar accommodation outside the District and for whom such location is beyond their control, and immediately before moving to such accommodation lived in the District for a continuous period of at least 3 years; or

(vii) needs to live in the District because he/she is ill and in need of support from a relative who lives within the District; or

(viii) needs to live in the District in order to give support to a relative who is ill and needs support and lives in the District; or

(ix) has spent most of his/her life living in the District and left the District less than 10 years prior to his/her intended first occupation of the dwelling (for this purpose "most of his/her life" shall mean over half of his/her life up to the point that he/she left the District, or a continuous period of 20 years up to the point that he/she left the District); or

13- Mar- 09 Page 1 of 4

31

(x) has spent at least 10 years of his/her school education living in the District but has left the District in excess of 10 years prior to his/her intended first occupation of the dwelling; or

(xi) is the widow or widower of the previously Approved Person resident in the dwelling; or

(xii) in the case of a civil partnership is the survivor of the previously Approved Person resident in the dwelling together with any person living in the dwelling as a member of his/her household.

In this condition, of "Locality" shall be deemed to comprise the following:

(i) the District; and

(ii) the administrative area of the Barrow in Furness Borough Council; and

(iii) the administrative area of Shap Parish Council; and

(iv) the administrative area of Shap Rural Parish Council; and

(v) the administrative area of Orton and Tebay Parish Council; and

(vi) the administrative area of Thornton-in-Lonsdale Parish Council; and

(vii) the administrative area of Burton-in-Lonsdale Parish Council; and

(viii) the administrative area of Ingleton Parish Council; and

(ix) the administrative areas of Lancaster City Council excluding the areas of the parishes of Overton, Cockerham, Thurnham, Ellel and Over Wyresdale.

Reason (3) To ensure that the conversion is consistent with current housing policy. Condition (4) As illustrated on drawing no. K2244/20a the dining room window in the west elevation of the building shall be permanently glazed with obscured glass. Reason (4) To prevent the neighbouring property from being overlooked. Condition (5) The vehicle parking arrangements, illustrated on drawing no. K2244/21a, shall be laid out and the vehicle hardstanding surfaced with a bound material before the dwelling hereby permitted is occupied and shall thereafter be retained. Reason (5) To ensure the provision of an off-road parking space. Condition (6) Notwithstanding the provisions of the Town and Country Planning General Permitted Development Order 1995 as amended, (or any Order revoking and re-enacting that Order) express planning permission shall be obtained for any development falling within Classes A, B or D of Part I, Schedule 2 of that Order. Reason (6) To ensure that subsequent extensions or alterations will not detract from the appearance of the building or affect the privacy of the neighbouring dwelling. Condition (7) All the window frames and door frames to be installed shall be of timber construction. Reason (7) To ensure an appropriate form of fenestration. Condition (8) Before any development hereby permitted is commenced details of the method of opening of each window frame to be installed shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The development shall not proceed except in accordance with the approved details.

13- Mar- 09 Page 2 of 4 Date: 18/03/2009 Version No: Amended by: 4 32 Reason (8) To ensure an appropriate form of fenestration. Condition (9) The whole of the building shall be roofed with natural slate. A sample of the slate to be used to cover new areas of roof or to be used for replacements shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority before any building works commence. Reason (9) To ensure the use of an appropriate roofing material. Condition (10) All new stonework shall be undertaken in a manner which matches the stonework of the existing building in terms of the type of stone used and its method of laying, coursing, jointing and mortaring. Reason (10) To ensure an appropriate standard of stonework. REASON FOR GRANTING PLANNING PERMISSION The conversion is compatible with Policies H5, H11 and S2 of the South Lakeland Local Plan.

Parish LUPTON

Application No Site Address Proposal Applicant Application Type

SL/2008/1133 THE OLD BARN EXTENSION TO BUSINESS PREMISES WITH MRS DOROTHY WIGHTMAN FULL PLANNING COW BROW REPLACEMENT PACKAGE SEWAGE TREATMENT LUPTON LA6 1PJ PLANT Grant with Conditions Condition (1) The development hereby permitted shall be commenced before the expiration of THREE YEARS from the date hereof. Reason (1) To comply with the requirements of Section 91 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 as amended by Section 51 of the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004. Condition (2) This planning permission shall enure for the benefit of the interior design business operated by Dorothy Wightman only and on the discontinuance of the occupancy of the premises by that business the use hereby permitted shall cease. Reason (2) To maintain control over the future use of the premises. Condition (3) The building hereby permitted, together with the existing building, shall be used only for the purposes described in Planning Application SL/2008/1133; namely, as an interior design studio; as a workshop for upholstery and the cutting and sewing of fabrics and the assembly of furniture ready for upholstery; the display of fabrics and furnishings; and the storage of fabrics, furnishings and furniture. Retail sales shall be restricted to goods produced in the workshops within the applicant’s premises and goods which are ancillary to the applicant’s interior design business. Neither the building hereby permitted nor the existing building shall be used for general retail sales as permitted by Class A1 of The Town and Country Planning (Use Classes) Order 1987, as amended. Reason (3) To ensure that the premises are used as a design studio, workshops, display space and storage space for the applicant’s interior design business and to prevent the premises from being used for retailing in the context of Class A1 of the Use Classes Order. Condition (4) All the elevations of the building hereby permitted shall be faced with natural stone laid in a manner which matches the existing building in terms of the type of stone used and its method of coursing, jointing and mortaring. A sample panel of the proposed stonework shall be erected on the site for the further written approval of the Local Planning Authority before any building works commence. Reason (4) To ensure an appropriate external appearance in accordance with the objectives of Policy S2 of the South Lakeland Local Plan. Condition (5) The roof shall be covered with slates being blue/grey in colour and of similar texture to those mined within the County of Cumbria a sample of which shall be submitted to and agreed in writing with the Local Planning Authority before any development work commences on site.

13- Mar- 09 Page 3 of 4

Date: 18/03/2009 Version No: Amended by: 5 33 Reason (5) To ensure an appropriate external appearance in accordance with the objectives of Policy S2 of the South Lakeland Local Plan. Condition (6) No development shall take place until details of existing and finished site levels and finished floor and ridge levels of the building hereby permitted have been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The development shall not proceed except in accordance with the approved details. Reason (6) To ensure an appropriate external appearance in accordance with the objectives of Policy S2 of the South Lakeland Local Plan. Condition (7) Details of all the new window frames to be installed in the building hereby permitted, including their method of opening, shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority before any building works are commenced. The development shall not proceed except in accordance with the approved details. Reason (7) To ensure an appropriate form of fenestration in accordance with the objectives of Policy S2 of the South Lakeland Local Plan. Condition (8) Details of the materials to be used to surface the vehicle turning and delivery area and parking areas shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority before any building works are commenced. The development shall not proceed except in accordance with the approved details.

Reason (8) To ensure that appropriate surfacing materials are used.

REASON FOR GRANTING PLANNING PERMISSION:

The proposal is compatible with the aims and objectives of Policies E7 and S2 of the South Lakeland Local Plan.

13- Mar- 09 Page 4 of 4

Date: 18/03/2009 Version No: Amended by: 6 34 SOUTH LAKELAND DISTRICT COUNCIL

Planning Committee

Date of Meeting: 26 March 2009 Part I Report From: Corporate Director (Communities) Agenda 11 Report Author: Lawrence Conway Item No: Corporate Director (Communities) Report Title: Applications determined by Cumbria County Council

Summary To inform Members of the applications determined by Cumbria County Council. Recommendations That Members note this report. Report

1. 5/08/9013 PARISH: EGTON with NEWLAND Site: land adjacent to A5902, opposite Crakeside Business Park Proposal: new wastewater treatment works GRANTED CONDITIONALLY

2. 5/08/9015 PARISH: ULVERSTON Site: corner of field at junction of Pennington Lane and A590 Proposal: underground wastewater pumping station with above ground control kiosk, associated access and landscaping GRANTED CONDITIONALLY

3. 5/09/9001 PARISH: ULVERSTON Site: Victoria High School, Springfield Road Proposal: removal of existing single storey extension and erection of two storey office extension and erection of covered walkway

GRANTED CONDITIONALLY

Alternative Options Not applicable.

35 Material Considerations Finance The recommendation in this report does not have any cost implications. Risk There are no identified risks raised by this report. Staffing The recommendations in this report do not have any staffing implications. Sustainability This report does not have any registered significant environmental effects. Links to Corporate Plan This report has no links to the Corporate Plan. Links to other Strategic Plan This report has no links to the Strategic Plan. Equalities and Diversity The recommendations in this report do not have any equalities implications. Community Safety The recommendations in this report do not have any community safety implications. Background Documents Document: Planning files Contact: Lawrence Conway Corporate Director (Communities)

Date: 18/03/2009 Version No: Amended by: 2 36 SOUTH LAKELAND DISTRICT COUNCIL

Planning Committee

Date of Meeting: 26 March 2009 Part I Report From: Corporate Director (Communities) Agenda 12 Report Author: Andrew Roe Item No: Development Control Manager Report Title: Appeals update at 13 March 2009

Summary To provide Members with information about the receipt and determination of planning appeals. • Appendix A – New appeals and appeal decisions between 13 February and 16 March 2009. • Appendix B – Current appeals still outstanding. • Appendix C – Appeals determined during 2009.

Recommendations That Members note this report. Report See attached Appendices A, B and C. Alternative Options Not applicable. Material Considerations: Finance The recommendations in this report do not have any staffing implications. Risk There are no identified risks raised by this report. Staffing The recommendations in this report do not have any staffing implications. Sustainability This report does not have any registered significant environmental effects. Links to Corporate Plan This report links to the aim of providing a “High Quality Environment” under Section 3.4 of the Corporate Plan. Links to other Strategic Plan This report has no links to the Strategic Plan.

37 Equalities and Diversity The Draft Statement of Community Involvement takes account of the equalities issues in seeking to define South Lakeland’s community and interests relevant to the Local Development Framework which will influence the determination of individual planning applications. Community Safety The recommendations in this report do not have any community safety implications.

Background Documents Document: Various planning files Contact: Lawrence Conway Corporate Director (Communities)

2 38 APPENDIX A

Committee: Planning Date of Meeting: 26 March 2009 Report Title: Appeals update at 13 March 2009

NEW APPEALS AND APPEAL DECISIONS BETWEEN 13 FEBRUARY AND 13 MARCH 2009

NUMBER LOCATION PROPOSAL

Lodged

SL/2008/1092 KENDAL: Detached dwelling and garage Land at Brigsteer Road to rear of Elmhurst Delegated: Refuse

SL/2008/0900 PRESTON PATRICK: PRESTON PATRICK: Land at Sillfield, Gatebeck Land at Sillfield, Gatebeck Appeal against non- determination

SL/2006/0299 LOWER ALLITHWAITE: Construction of two timber framed buildings with raised concrete bases Blenkett Wood Farm, Jack Hill, and slate roofs Allithwaite Enforcement: Enforcement Notice

Dismissed SL/2008/0793 PENNINGTON: Appeal against Enforcement Notice - Time given to comply with Notice is too Unit 1, Green Moor Farm, Pennington ( short – 2 months)

Enforcement: Enforcement Notice

3 39

40 APPENDIX B

Committee: Planning Date of Meeting: 26 March 2009 Report Title: Appeals update 13 March 2009

CURRENT APPEALS STILL OUTSTANDING - Updated 13 March 2009

Planning Local Planning Planning Inspectorate Appeal Reference Site Description Appellant Authority Reference start decision and date date Type of Appeal SL/2006/0299 LOWER Construction of two timber Mr David Ashraf Enforcement APP/MO933/C/09/2096118 13/02/09 ALLITHWAITE: framed buildings with raised Khan (Full Planning Written Reps concrete bases and slate Application) Blenkett Wood roofs Farm, Jack Hill, Allithwaite SL/2007/0530 CARTMEL: Replacement windows in Mr J Forbes Enforcement APP/M0933/F/07/2040739 19/04/07 Listed Building (Enforcement) Site at The Square (Appeal against Enforcement Action)

Written Reps SL/2007/1424 PENNINGTON: Use of unit as vehicle repair Mr Martin Turner Refused APP/M0933/A/08/2080995/NWF 22/07/08 workshop (Renewal 14/02/08 (Full Planning Unit 1, Green Moor Written Reps SL/2006/1221) Application) Farm, Pennington Committee 14/02/08 Officer Recommendation – Refuse

41 SL/2008/0254 NEW HUTTON: Conversion of outbuilding to Mr & Mrs Wightman Refused APP/MO933/A/08/2092313/WF 16/12/08 dwelling 11/06/08 (Full Planning Birks Farmhouse Written Reps Application) Delegated SL/2008/0318 OLD HUTTON: Erection of 6 wind turbines, H J Banks & Co Ltd Refused APP/MO933/A/08/2090274/NWF 17/12/08 control room, anemometer (Martyn Earle) 10/11/08 (Full Planning Land to east of Local Inquiry – 28 April to mast and associated access Application) Crosslands Farm Committee 06 May 2009 tracks 30/10/08 Officer Recommendation - Gracon (recommendation overturned at Planning Committee) SL/2008/0781 KIRKBY Golf driving range Mr Philip Pease Refused APP/MO933/A/08/2091772/NWF 2/01/09 LONSDALE: 26/09/08 (Full Planning Written Reps Application) Land to south of Committee Scaleber Lane 25/09/08 Officer Recommendation - Refuse SL/2008/0883 KENDAL: Change of Use from office to Mr T Shepherd Refused APP/M0933/A/09/2094501/NWF 19/01/09 flat (Retrospective) 09/10/08 (Retrospective Bridge View, Burton Written Reps Full Planning Road, Oxenholme Delegated Application)

SL/2008/0900 PRESTON Erection of 3 wind turbines Sillfield Wind Cluster Appeal against APP/MO933/A/09/2099304/NWF 12/03/09 PATRICK: and associated Limited non-determination (Full Planning Public Inquiry infrastructure Application) Land at Sillfield, Gatebeck

Date: 18/03/2009 Version No: Amended by: 5 42 SL/2008/0960 KIRKBY IRELETH: Appeal against Mr R Carruthers & Enforcement APP/M0933/A/08/2084849 15/09/08 Enforcement Notice re Mr J Keith APP/M0933/C/08/2084850 (Enforcement) Bell Hall Farm Change of Use of Head Cragg Hearing agricultural land to allow the Kirkby in Furness storage and hiring out of agricultural equipment SL/2008/1027 BARBON: Extensions Mr & Mrs D Maloney Refused APP/M0933/A/09/2097145/WF 09/02/09 22/12/08 (Full Planning Parson Hill, Barbon Written Reps Application) Committee 18/12/08 Officer Recommendation – Director to Report SL/2008/1092 KENDAL: Detached dwelling and The Russell Armer Refused APP/MO933/A/09/2097971/WF 20/02/09 garage Pension Scheme 14/01/09 (Full Planning Land at Brigsteer Written Reps Application) Road to rear of Delegated Elmhurst SL/2009/0055 KENDAL: Appeal against Enforcement Jonathon Richard Enforcement APP/M0933/C/09/2093773 19/01/09 Notice re: erection of a Martindale (Enforcement) Skewmount, High Written Reps timber deck with surrounding Tenterfell, Kendal balustrade and enclosed storage area

Date: 18/03/2009 Version No: Amended by: 6 43

44 APPENDIX C

Committee: Planning Date of Meeting: 26 March 2009 Report Title: Appeals update at 13 March 2009

APPEALS DETERMINED DURING 2009 - Updated 13 March 2009

Planning Index Planning Inspectorate Reference Site Description Officers Decision of Planning Reference Appeal Recommendation Inspectorate No. (decision made by Start date Committee or under delegated powers) SL/2008/0232 09/01 APP/M0933/A/08/2079913/WF KENDAL: New single dwelling Refused - 17/04/08 DISMISSED house with adjacent car 09/07/08 Land off Back Lane, 13 Jan 09 parking space and Committee – Kendal parking space for 18 17/04/08 Castle Crescent Officer Recommendation - Refuse SL/2008/0793 09/02 APP/M0933/C/08/2081277/WF PENNINGTON: Appeal against Enforcement Notice DISMISSED Enforcement Notice - issued 18/08/08 Unit 1, Green Moor 27 Feb 09 (Time given to comply Farm, Pennington with Notice is too short – 2 months)

Date: 18/03/2009 Version No: Amended by: 7 45