(Public Pack)Agenda Document for Planning Committee, 26/01/2017

Public Document Pack

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 January 2017, at 10.00 a.m. in the District Council Chamber, South Lakeland House, Kendal

Committee Membership

Councillors

John Clough Brian Cooper Joss Curwen Philip Dixon Sheila Eccles Sylvia Emmott Gill Gardner Brenda Gray Heidi Halliday John Holmes Helen Irving Janette Jenkinson Kevin Lancaster Pete McSweeney Eric Morrell (Vice-Chairman) Phil Walker David Williams Mary Wilson (Chairman)

Wednesday, 18 January 2017

Debbie Storr, Director of Policy and Resources (Monitoring Officer)

For all enquiries, please contact:- Committee Administrator: Paul Rogers Telephone: 01539 793497 e-mail: [email protected]

AGENDA

Page Nos. PART I

1 APOLOGIES To receive apologies for absence, if any. 2 MINUTES 5 - 14 To authorise the Chairman to sign, as a correct record, the minutes of the meeting of the Committee held on 5 January 2017 (copy attached). 3 DECLARATIONS OF INTEREST To receive declarations by Members of interests in respect of items on this Agenda.

Members are reminded that, in accordance with the revised Code of Conduct, they are required to declare any disclosable pecuniary interests or other registrable interests which have not already been declared in the Council’s Register of Interests. (It is a criminal offence not to declare a disclosable pecuniary interest either in the Register or at the meeting.)

Members may, however, also decide, in the interests of clarity and transparency, to declare at this point in the meeting, any such disclosable pecuniary interests which they have already declared in the Register, as well as any other registrable or other interests.

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 prior to the start of 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 Committee Services Team on 01539 733333.

(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 DIRECTOR PEOPLE AND PLACES To determine planning applications received. (a) KIRKBY LONSDALE - SL/2016/1015 - Land off Kendal Road, Kirkby 15 - 34 Lonsdale Hybrid Application – Full Planning Application for 78 dwellinghouses, associated infrastructure including landscaping, open space, access, highway and parking arrangements, suds, drainage and land reprofiling works; and Outline Planning Application for B1 / B2 employment space with all matters reserved apart from access. (b) LEVENS - SL/2016/0888 - Land to the east of Greengate Crescent, 35 - 50 Levens Reserved Matters Application for 49 dwellings, landscaping, internal roads and footways and associated infrastructure. (c) HEVERSHAM - SL/2016/0720 - Land opposite Brant House, 51 - 64 Woodhouse Lane, Heversham Erection of two affordable dwellings. (d) URSWICK - SL/2016/1023 - Land adjacent to Daisy Hill Cottage, Great 65 - 80 Urswick Erection of new self-build dwelling and alterations to vehicular access. 7 A REPORT ON MONTHLY ENFORCEMENT ACTIVITY 81 - 88 To consider an update on planning enforcement activity between 1 November and 30 November 2016. 8 APPEALS UPDATE 89 - 102 To consider an update on performance measures and recent appeals as at 26 January 2016. 9 2017/18 BUDGET 103 - 108 To consider the latest draft budget estimates for planning services for 2017/18. PART II

Private Section (exempt reasons under Schedule 12A of the Local Government Act 1972, as amended by the Local Government (Access to Information) (Variation) Order 2006, specified by way of paragraph number)

There are no items in this Part of the Agenda. This page is intentionally left blank Item No.2 43 05.01.2017 Planning Committee

PLANNING COMMITTEE

Minutes of the proceedings at a meeting of the Planning Committee held in the District Council Chamber, South Lakeland House, Kendal, on Thursday, 5 January 2017, at 10.00 a.m.

Present

Councillors

Mary Wilson (Chairman) Eric Morrell (Vice-Chairman)

Brian Cooper Gill Gardner Kevin Lancaster Joss Curwen Brenda Gray Pete McSweeney Philip Dixon John Holmes David Williams Sheila Eccles Helen Irving Sylvia Emmott Janette Jenkinson

Apologies for absence were received from Councillors John Clough, Heidi Halliday and Phil Walker.

Officers

Mark Balderson Enforcement Officer Una Bell Assistant Committee Services Officer Samantha Bradley Planning and Enforcement Assistant Fiona Clark Planning Officer Nicola Hartley Senior Solicitor Kate Lawson Planning Officer Mark Loughran Development Control Team Leader Paul Rogers Assistant Committee Services Officer

P/69 MINUTES

RESOLVED – That the Chairman be authorised to sign, as a correct record, the minutes of the meeting of the Committee held on 24 November 2016.

P/70 DECLARATIONS OF INTEREST

RESOLVED – That it be noted that the following declarations of interest were made:-

(1) Councillors Brian Cooper and Kevin Lancaster – Minute No. P/73 (Planning Application No.SL/2016/0537);

(2) Councillor Philip Dixon – Minute Nos. P/77 and P/78 (Planning Application Nos.SL/2016/0904 and SL/2016/0960);

(3) Councillor Janette Jenkinson – Minute No. P/79 (Planning Application No.SL/2015/0001); and

(4) Councillor Mary Wilson – Minute No. P/74 (Planning Application No.SL/2016/0947.

Page 5 44 05.01.2017 Planning Committee

P/71 LOCAL GOVERNMENT ACT 1972 - EXCLUDED ITEMS

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

P/72 PLANNING APPLICATIONS

The Development Control Team Leader 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);

(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.

PUBLIC PARTICIPATION

The following Members of the Public stated that they did not wish to be recorded whilst speaking in respect of Planning Application No. SL/2016/0537 (Minute No. P/73):-

Josh Nicholson Robin Nicholson Shirley Nicholson

P/73 HUTTON ROOF - SL/2016/0537 - Dwelling for Agricultural Worker on Land on the North Side of Newbiggin Hill, Lupton (Mr and Mrs Robin and Shirley Nicholson)

Note - Councillor Kevin Lancaster declared a non-pecuniary interest in this item of business and explained that he went to school with one of the speakers, Mr Stewart Lambert, but had had no discussions with him. Councillor Lancaster remained in the meeting.

Note - Councillor Brian Cooper declared a non-pecuniary interest in this item of business and explained that he knew the applicants and, having regard to bias and pre-determination, left the meeting during the discussion and voting thereon.

The Development Control Team Leader presented the application and displayed plans and photographs which detailed the proposals.

Members’ attention was drawn to the late representations which had been circulated prior to the meeting. The Development Control Team Leader made reference to an additional late representation which had been received on the morning of the meeting which raised, in particular, issues concerning the need for the agricultural workers dwelling to overlook the farm land and the worker living close to the farm so as to supervise stock. The other issues referred to in the representation had been covered in the report.

Page 6 45 05.01.2017 Planning Committee

Michael Westgate, a local resident, spoke in opposition to the application. He informed the Committee that his property was located close to the proposed dwelling. He felt that the proposal would obstruct some of his views from his property across the rural landscape. He also felt that the proposed dwelling was too large. In referring to the need for the dwelling to overlook farm land with regard to livestock security, he informed Members that all of the windows in the dwelling faced in the opposite direction from the common land which negated the security issue. He felt that the livestock security issue in relation to the proposed dwelling should have been taken into account in the Agricultural Consultant’s report.

Ruth Power, a local resident, spoke in opposition to the application. She felt that the Agricultural Consultant’s report was an expert’s opinion and that the Planning Officer’s report was contradictory to that opinion.

John Power, a local resident, spoke in opposition to the application. He drew the Committee’s attention to the Agricultural Consultant’s report which stated that the proposal did not fulfil the requirements of the National Planning Policy Framework due to the distance of the farmstead from the proposed dwelling. John Power felt that the applicant had not demonstrated an essential need in accordance with Policy H9 for several reasons including that the proposed dwelling would not be located near the farmstead and the scale of the dwelling was too large for one worker.

Stewart Lambert, a local resident, spoke in support of the application. He felt that there was a definite need for the proposed dwelling. He stated that, of the original 18 farmsteads in Lupton, only 6 now remained. He informed the Committee that there had not been any new residential build in nearby Lupton to support farm staff. He believed there was a need to support farming in the area and that the proposal should be allowed.

Michael Westgate on behalf of Rita Young, a local resident, spoke in opposition to the application. He drew attention to the Agricultural Consultant’s report which concluded that there was not an essential need for the proposed dwelling. He felt that any approval would be against the Council’s planning policies (H9 relating to Agricultural and Forestry Dwellings in the Countryside) and H6 (relating to Development Outside Settlements Suitable for Growth).

Graham Kettleborough, a local resident, spoke in opposition to the application. He gave details of less expensive alternative options to accommodate an additional worker at or near the farmstead to the one proposed. He did not feel that the proposal satisfied an essential need.

Kathleen Savidge, a local resident, spoke in opposition to the application. She informed Members that the majority of residents in the vicinity of the proposal had objected to the application. She referred to the Parish Council’s objection which had stated that there had not been a problem in the area with regard to sheep being worried but that sheep worrying was stated to be one of the reasons for the dwelling in the proposed location. She felt that there were other more suitable locations and that the application did not meet the requirements of Policy H7 which stated that it would be more sustainable for farm workers to live in nearby villages.

Robin Nicholson, the joint applicant, responded. He informed the Committee that his son would be occupying the proposed dwelling. He drew attention to the fact that the farm had expanded to the extent that he needed his son close by to help him manage the farm. He referred to the significant number of hours that he worked and indicated that having a further worker in the locality would assist with managing this.

Page 7 46 05.01.2017 Planning Committee

Shirley Nicholson, the joint applicant, also responded. She stated that they did not own the farm so they could not expand so as to have all the workers living on site. She informed the Committee that the residential properties owned by the applicants and located close to the farm at Bloomfield, Kirkby Lonsdale were not part of the farming business and had never been supported by the business. She advised that if they were forced to use one those properties, this would have a negative financial impact on them. She stated that the farm needed three full time farm workers with two of the workers being located close to the farm which was supported by the agricultural consultant’s report. She indicated that the style and position of the proposed dwelling in full view of livestock was necessary.

Josh Nicholson, the applicant’s son, responded. He informed the Committee that he needed to be close to the farm in order to manage it properly and to allow him a proper opportunity for him to implement his plans for the future management and ongoing development of the farm. He explained that his current residential location in Kirkby Lonsdale was too far away from the farm to allow him to do this.

In further presenting the report, the Development Control Team Leader made particular reference to the six key assessment issues referred to in the report. He emphasised the reference to the need for two full-time farm workers to be resident on the farm holding but that the farm holding did not have a property suitable for the second essential worker. He further emphasised that the Agricultural Consultant did not consider that there was an essential need. The Development Control Team Leader advised that the proposal had been directed to be located in a settlement to avoid the dwelling being isolated or in the open countryside. He informed Members that, on balance, the proposed location was more appropriate for the farm than other alternatives in the area. He reminded Members that in relation to the dwellings owned by the applicant in Kirby Lonsdale, these were not currently and had not previously been part of the farm business.

The Development Control Team Leader advised the Committee that it was for Members to exercise their planning judgment in deciding whether or not there was an essential need based on the evidence before them and whether that need would be met by a rural worker living in the proposed location.

With regard to the suggestion that the proposed dwelling would be overly large, the Development Control Team Leader informed the Committee that the Council did not have a policy to specify an acceptable size. He added that he was not aware of many recent agricultural workers dwellings being under 200 square metres in size.

Some Members were of the view that taking into account the large numbers of livestock located between the farms at Haverthwaite and Grasmere, the security aspects and livestock welfare issues, that there was an essential need for the proposed dwelling and that there was no other suitable location.

A Member made reference to the design alterations and the reduction in area of the site which were positive in respect to the application.

GRANT subject to the conditions set out in the schedule referred to at Minute No.P/72.

Note – The Committee adjourned for a comfort break at 11.50 a.m. and reconvened at 12 noon when the same Members were present.

Page 8 47 05.01.2017 Planning Committee

P/74 LOWER ALLITHWAITE - SL/2016/0947 - Erection of a Dwelling for an Agricultural Worker on Land at Stribers Allotment, Haverthwaite (Mr A Riley)

Councillor Mary Wilson explained that she was a Member of Lower Allithwaite Parish Council and declared a non-pecuniary interest. She explained that there was no bias or predetermination and she remained in the meeting during discussion and voting on the item.

The Planning Officer presented the application and displayed plans and photographs which detailed the proposals.

Members’ attention was drawn to the late representations which had been circulated prior to the meeting. The Planning Officer made reference to an additional late representation from Lower Allithwaite Parish Council which had been received on the morning of the meeting. The Parish Council had indicated that it agreed with the principle of the application but did not like the size of the proposed dwelling.

Kate Jones of H and H Land and Property, the applicant’s agent, addressed the Committee. She informed the Committee that the applicant’s farm tenancy conditions only allowed close relatives to be eligible for a tenancy of a property on the farm. She stated that the applicant had been struggling to manage the farm on his own and had employed a farm worker to help him manage the farm. He needed the worker to be located close to the farm.

Alan Riley, the applicant, informed the Committee that he was finding it difficult to manage what he believed to be a growing farming business on his own and that was the reason why he had employed a farm worker.

During discussion by Members it was raised that, with the large numbers of livestock located between the farms at Haverthwaite and Grasmere, the security aspects and livestock welfare issues, there was an essential need.

In response to a question regarding a financial viability appraisal, the Planning Officer informed the Committee that although a financial viability appraisal had been requested, it had not been received from the applicant.

The Director People and Places be authorised to GRANT subject to redesign of the dwelling and the imposition of suitable conditions.

Note – The Committee adjourned for lunch at 12.50 p.m. and reconvened at 1.20 p.m. when the same Members were present, with the exception of Councillors John Holmes, Helen Irving and Eric Morrell.

P/75 KENDAL - SL/2016/0398 - Erection of 69 Dwellings (Phase 2) on Land to the West of Oxenholme Road, Kendal (Oakmere Homes (North West) Ltd)

The Planning Officer presented the application and displayed plans and photographs which detailed the proposals.

Members’ attention was drawn to the Late Representations which had been circulated prior to the meeting.

Page 9 48 05.01.2017 Planning Committee

The Planning Officer made reference to a late representation from Cumbria County Council which had been received on the morning of the meeting. The County Council was of the opinion that the surface water scheme was almost to approval stage and they recommended that if the application was approved, an appropriate condition should be attached accordingly. The reason for refusal in respect of the drainage scheme was, therefore, no longer needed.

Dennis Reed, a local resident, spoke in opposition to the application. He felt that it was wrong that the applicant would not be taking any responsibility for future flooding. He informed the Committee that at the outline stage plans indicated that there would be a buffer zone on the boundary of the site. He informed that Committee that a buffer zone had been excluded in the detailed application and was of the view that it should be reinstated.

Andrew Tait, the applicant, responded. He drew Members’ attention to the fact that most of the affordable housing would be included in Phase 2. He also reminded the Committee that the affordable housing element had been mixed within the largest part of the development which had been the Council’s requirement.

In response to a Member’s question, the Planning Officer informed the Committee that if the application was approved and the flooding measures put in place were unsuccessful, the County Council, as the Flood Authority, would need to determine what action to be taken.

REFUSE subject to the reasons set out in the schedule referred to at Minute No. P/72, with reason (4) being amended to read as follows:-

(4) Insufficient information has been submitted with regard to the provision of surface water drainage and the bridge design. There is therefore a lack of evidence available to conclude that the proposal would not exacerbate flooding within the site or elsewhere, contrary to Policy CS8.8 of the South Lakeland Core Strategy, the sustainable principles within Section 10 of the National Planning Policy Framework, and the Sustainable Drainage Systems policy within the Secretary of State’s Written Statement dated 18 December 2014.

P/76 KENDAL - SL/2016/0988 - Erection of 49 Dwellings (Phases 3 And 4) on Land to the West of Oxenholme Road, Kendal (Oakmere Homes (North West) Ltd)

The Planning Officer presented the application and displayed plans and photographs which detailed the proposals.

Members’ attention was drawn to the Late Representations which had been circulated prior to the meeting.

The Planning Officer made reference to a late representation which had been received from a local resident on the morning of the meeting which objected to the application. A Late Representation had also been received from the Environment Agency indicating that the application needed a flood risk assessment, particularly in relation to the new bridge design proposals.

Page 10 49 05.01.2017 Planning Committee

Dennis Reed, a local resident, spoke in opposition to the application. He referred to the flood risk and flooding issues on the site. He drew attention to the buffer zone which had been excluded in the detailed application and which he felt should be reinstated with landscaping. He felt it was unacceptable to move the emergency access from the north of the site to another position which he felt would compromise the safety of pedestrians and users of the cycleway. He also was of the view that the application had an overbearing effect on the Oaks and Oxenholme.

Andrew Tate of Steve Abbott Associates, the agent representing the applicant, responded. He informed the Committee that the applicant was aware of a number of issues to be dealt with, as well as the issues that had been raised by the speaker. He stated that, if necessary, he would review the affordable housing layout together with other issues.

REFUSE for the reasons set out in the schedule referred to at Minute No. P/72, with condition (4) being amended to read as follows:-

P/77 WHITWELL AND SELSIDE - SL/2016/0904 - Retention of Building and Conversion to Fishing Lodge Holiday Accommodation and Site Wc (Retrospective) on Land at High Thorn House, Selside (Mr Raymond Crawford)

Councillor Philip Dixon explained that he was a parish Councillor for Whitewell and Selside Parish Council and declared a non-pecuniary interest. He explained that he was not biased or predetermined and he remained in the meeting during discussion and voting on the item.

The Planning Officer presented the application and displayed plans and photographs which detailed the proposals.

Members’ attention was drawn to the Late Representations which had been circulated prior to the meeting.

Tim Corrie of Urban Design Consultants, the agent representing the applicant, addressed the Committee. He stated that the Notification for five huts had established the principle of agricultural buildings on site with other approvals in the area identifying tourism as suitable farm diversification. He reminded the Committee that the application had not attracted objections from statutory consultees or from neighbours.

Tim Corrie felt that the application did not contradict planning Policy T4 and met the test of the principle referred to in planning Policy CS1.2 and would have no significant landscape impact.

Page 11 50 05.01.2017 Planning Committee

He expressed the hope that Members would support the applicant’s willingness to regularise what he felt was becoming a valuable rural enterprise benefiting local employment, community cohesion and in broadening South Lakeland’s tourism offer.

The Director People and Places be authorised to carry out all necessary enforcement action to ensure the removal of the building and planning permission be REFUSED for the reasons set out in the schedule, referred to at Minute No. P/72.

P/78 SKELSMERGH - SL/2016/0960 - Siting of Three Static Caravans to be used as Self Catering Fishing Lodges on Land at High Thorn House, Selside (Mr Raymond Crawford)

The Planning Officer presented the application and displayed plans and photographs which detailed the proposals.

Tim Corrie of Urban Design Consultants, the agent representing the applicant, addressed the Committee. He made reference to the Notification of Intention plan and stated his view that the authority had not found the situation sufficiently expedient to enforce against either section of track within the four years allowed.

Tim Corrie stated that the need for screening had been highlighted as a reason for the failure of previous applications and that the proposed caravans would have no significant landscape impact. He felt that the amount of screening required would be dependent on the nature of the landscape and visual amenity effects present. The applicant would welcome a condition regarding a management plan relating for the screening and landscaping of the site to guarantee the site’s future environmental quality.

He also informed Committee Members that Policy CS1.2 states that new development in the open countryside would be an exception where there was an essential requirement for a rural location. He felt that the dependency of the applicant’s tourism coarse fishing business on the geographic location of the lake met this test. He reminded the Committee that the application had not attracted objections from statutory consultees or neighbours. He hoped that Members would support the applicant’s ambitions to develop a high quality, environmentally responsible tourism business in what was a sustainable location in continuing to benefit local employment, community cohesion and in broadening South Lakeland’s tourism offer. REFUSE for the reasons set out in the schedule, referred to at Minute No. P/72.

P/79 ULVERSTON - SL/2015/0001 - Residential Development tor up to 330 Dwellings, Vehicular Access, Infrastructure and Open Space Provision on Land at Nook Farm, Colt House Lane, Ulverston (Friesland Construction Ltd) Note - Councillor Janette Jenkinson explained that she was a parish Councillor for Ulverston Town Council and declared a non-pecuniary interest. She explained that she was not biased or predetermined and she remained in the meeting during discussion and voting on the item. The Planning Officer presented the application and displayed plans and photographs which detailed the proposals.

Page 12 51 05.01.2017 Planning Committee

Members’ attention was drawn to the Late Representations which had been circulated prior to the meeting.

The Planning Officer made reference to a late representation from a local resident which had been received on the morning of the meeting which referred to drainage issues, however remained in support of the application.

Members resolved that the Director People and Places be authorised to GRANT outline planning permission subject to finalising the terms of a section 106 agreement and the conditions set out in the schedule.

P/80 A REPORT ON MONTHLY ENFORCEMENT ACTIVITY

The Committee was presented with a report on Enforcement Activity between 1 October 2016 and 31 October 2016.

The Development Control Team Leader informed the Committee that the case referred to in paragraph 3.2.1 in the report regarding land at High Thorn House, Selside would be held in abeyance pending submission of a new planning application.

RESOLVED – That

(1) the report and the contents of Appendix 1 to the report be noted; and

(2) the actions of the officers in closing cases as set out in Appendix 2 to the report be endorsed.

P/81 APPEALS UPDATE

Members were presented with an update on performance measures and recent appeals as at 5 January 2017.

RESOLVED – That the report and the contents of Appendix 1 to the report be noted.

The meeting ended at 3.27 p.m.

Page 13 This page is intentionally left blank

Page 14 Item No.6(a)

SCHEDULE: (a) SL/2016/1015

PARISH: KIRKBY LONSDALE Land off Kendal Road

PROPOSAL: Hybrid Application - FPA for 78 dwellinghouses, associated infrastructure including landscaping, open space, access, highway and parking arrangements, suds, drainage and land reprofiling works; and OPA for B1 / B2 employment space with all matters reserved apart from access.

APPLICANT: Mr Richard Wood (Russell Armer Ltd)

Grid Ref: E: 360431 N: 478953

Page 15 Pond

E RTH LAN RAYGA Stone Beck

8 5

S Meadowgarth P

R 1

9 I t

N o

G 4 F I E

D 0

12 4

1 Glebe Cottage

5 1 74.8m

9 1 to be Gle urt Co

F Fairbank 3 A I

R 5 B Plantation A 1 N EW VI K IR FA FA

G 2

7 9 A R 4 TH D

VE 75.6m 6

Kittiwake

5 2 8 5 4

1 99 10

th a 1 2

P 8

5 77.6m 5 8

5 2

se ou F H A ree e T Th

D Brant r a

in Howe

9 1

6 9 2 4

3 E Silver Birches 6

6 V I

H R

A D

H B T

A R 2

A 32 1 K G R I 7 5 A F

Sports

Fields 5

I 3 s s u e

E IV DR 22 H RT GA IR

5 4

5 2

r St Mary's Pond

w Lowgate House

T C of E

Sport Pitch L Primary School 9

T w

0 r s 1 11

7 83.7m 8 B LOWER A

D OA R 9 AL ND KE

1 0

Pavilion A B B O T Bowling S G A

Green 4 T La E Abbot 91.6m Viletta A

83.0m Cedar House 3 95.2m Hall School 1 78.8m

29 Orchard House 82.3m 30 Courts Tollgate Cottage 7 8 FB Hill 2 2 31 Lodge Gas Gov Eaves s

one

S st

y 4 Lea

a e

Gr 2

r Terret u 84.0m 3 6 m 2 4 B 4 H Dean

6 e

e o B 2 c u 2

h s

c e 1 2 3

r o 2 2

f C

1 R 2

9 F 1

T 1

91.0m C

2 S 5

1 E

D 5 1

F 7 8

Queen Elizabeth

2 D D

A 4 O R R I

School V KIRKBY

N 4

I 1

G 2 I 1 B LONSDALE FS

Tennis 5 78.7m Courts Pavilion Playing Field "

W ELLIN Tennis GTO T Courts N COUR K IT T Y G IL L Health L A N Centre Car Pk E

The material contained in this plot has been reproduced from an Ordnance Survey map with permission of the SL/2016/1015 Controller of Her Majesty's Stationery Office. Licence No. 100024277 © Crown Copyright Land off Kendal Road : Unauthorised reproduction infringes Crown Copyright and may lead to prosecution or civil proceedings Kirkby Lonsdale

Scale 1:2500

Page 16 SUMMARY The application is a hybrid application: in part a full planning application for 78 dwellings with associated infrastructure and landscaping; and in part an outline planning permission for B1 / B2 employment use with all matters reserved apart from access on part of an allocated site on 9 Hectares of agricultural land to the north of the Kendal Road in Kirkby Lonsdale. The main issues arising from the application are whether: • The design of the development site complies with the key requirements of Policy LA2.10 and the Development Brief. • The potential impacts on offsite residential amenity to residents on Harling Bank and Fairgarth Drive. • The compatibility of the proposed layout with the existing and approved applications on the Queen Elizabeth School site. • The potential impacts on the highway network and suitable pedestrian links to the town centre. • The proposed management of surface water and protection of the existing riverine and natural features.

DESCRIPTION AND PROPOSAL Site Description The site covering around 9ha is currently used as agricultural land surrounded by trees and hedging, in part sporadic with one large oak tree in the northern part of the site. The site is allocated for up to 80 houses and 1 Hectare of B1 and B2 Employment Use in the South Lakeland District Council Development Plan Document which was adopted in 2013 and for which a Supplementary Planning Document in the form of a Development Brief was prepared and adopted in April 2015. The site is located on an area of land in the northern part of the Key Service Centre of Kirkby Lonsdale to the north of the Kendal Road (B6445). The site forms an L- shape around the sports pitches to Kirkby Lonsdale School to the east and the south and is bounded to open countryside to the west with the land rising rather sharply up east to west on a drumlin type feature. To the north is the open countryside with this part of the site gently sloping down to a small watercourse, Keartswick Beck. Parts of the site adjacent to the watercourse are in Flood Zone 2 and 3. To the east are residential properties on Harling Bank and No. 97 Fairgarth Drive which are largely separated by a large mixed species agricultural hedge and private road, apart from No.97 and Kittiwake whose residential curtilages immediately abut the proposed development site. The site is currently accessed from two points, one from the B6455 close to the A65 Junction and another entrance from Harling Bank in the north-east corner of the site. The Haweswater Aqueduct dissects the site from north to south. One of the pitches on the school site, to the east of the proposed employment site, is currently floodlit whilst a new sports hall is proposed in the northwest corner of the

Page 17 school site (SL/2016/0145) and a new floodlit rugby and athletics track has been approved to the north-eastern corner of the site (SL/2016/0877).

Proposal The application is a hybrid application: in part a full planning application for 78 dwellings with associated infrastructure and landscaping; and in part an outline planning permission for B1 / B2 employment use with all matters reserved apart from access. It is also proposed that 35% of the houses on site would be affordable houses. The site is proposed to have a main access from the B6445 close to the A65 Junction with a secondary emergency / pedestrian cycle access proposed in the north-east corner. The developable site is divided into four distinct areas: • The proposed outline site for the B1 / B2 employment use of about 3,560 sqm which would be arranged around the site entrance. • A linear avenue to the north of the proposed employment site sitting at the foot (eastern slope) of the drumlin (Plots 1 - 10). • A group of houses to the west of the aqueduct partially divided by an agricultural hedge with the western part consisting of 4 houses (Plots 11 - 14); on the drumlin slopes with associated garaging and parking to the east of the hedge and a further 24 dwellings (Plots 15 - 39); loosely grouped around a t- shaped spur road. • A group of 40 dwellings (Plots 40 - 79); to the east of the aqueduct loosely arranged around an area of open space centred around the retained mature oak tree with a spur to the boundary of Harling Bank and along the northern boundary of the QES school playing fields. The eastern and western part of the site separated by the aqueduct would be connected by a road bridge over the aqueduct with a pedestrian link to the north and along the aqueduct. On the northern boundary of the site it is proposed to excavate two water detention basins to the west and east of the existing aqueduct. It is also proposed to augment the existing water basin outside the site to the northern boundary with an extended flood basin and it is also proposed to provide a foul water connection to the north- east of the site via a pipe from a pumping station between the Haweswater Aqueduct and one of the detention basins to an existing connection on Fairgarth Drive. The proposed development provides 0.73ha of on-site public open space comprising: • a green corridor alongside the route of the aqueduct; • a central functional green space for informal recreation to the east of aqueduct; • Green landscaping and wildlife corridor (not public) along northern boundary / Kearstwick Beck; and • an amenity space / entrance landscaping within employment area.

Page 18 Previous Planning History There is no recent application in connection with this site.

CONSULTATIONS Kirkby Lonsdale Town Council: Voted unanimously against the application. Considers that an amended, scaled- down application would be more appropriate. Six areas of concern identified: Transport / traffic Concern about major increases in traffic movements occurring around same time as school traffic which was added to the traffic movements from commercial / industrial at the entrance to the development. Concerns over crossing the Kendal Road from the new pavement to the existing pavement. Play Areas No provision for play park. Drainage / flooding Half a million litres an hour proposed to be discharged into limestone bedrock at entrance to site - queries about where that would go to and concern about flooding issues from Kearstwick Beck. Pressure on existing services and utilities 12% increase in population, plus higher percentage increase in traffic movement. Concern about impact on services and infrastructure. Need especially for commercial units Inconsistencies between Transport Assessment and residential travel plan. Space at entrance should be used for more houses or general use car-parking. Overall size The edge of town development will encourage the residents to use car and threatens the very character of the town. A scaled down version would be more suitable.

Cumbria County Council:- Highways and Lead Local Flood Authority No objection from both but have made recommendations for conditions relating to: • Legal agreement in relation to No Waiting at any time restrictions on both sides of the A65 to join up to existing waiting restriction at Queen Elizabeth School and additional waiting restrictions outside St. Mary’s Church of England Primary School, • Details of internal roads and completion prior to occupation. • Pedestrian crossing assessment. • Visibility Splay distance and protected. • Full details of Surface Water Drainage.

Page 19 • New footway from entrance of development to entrance of Kirkby Lonsdale School, and • Construction Method Statement.

United Utilities: No response at the time of writing this report but have been involved in the pre- application process and it is understood that a response will be received ahead of the meeting which will be reported in the late update.

Affordable Housing: The South Lakeland Strategic Housing Market Assessment (SHMA) identified a need for 186 new affordable homes per year (930 over the next 5 years) in the Kendal Rural housing market area. Furthermore, there is a total of 72 households on the Council's Housing Register who have stated a preference for Kirkby Lonsdale (of which 27 require a bungalow). The requirement for 35% of the new homes (27 homes) on this site to be affordable will contribute towards meeting those needs. The applicant is proposing that the tenure split of the affordable homes will be in line with the Council's Affordable Housing Guidance for Developers. The latest update (January 2015) requires 50% rented and 50% sale (the proposal to provide 14 discounted sale and 13 rented is acceptable). The property type mix provides a range of homes to meet evidenced needs although no one-bed flats or two-bed bungalows are proposed. The omission of the one bed flats is, on balance of the information available, acceptable. Ideally the mix of affordable homes should include a small number of 2-bed bungalows for rent (as suggested in my pre-application advice in 2015) to meet the needs of older people.

Electricity North West: Could affect infrastructure and great care should be taken in relation to those assets in the development of the site.

Arboricultural Officer: The applicants have submitted a tree survey in accordance with BS5837 2012 which accurately represents the trees on the site. The conclusions of the tree survey report are acceptable and the proposed tree protection measures for retained trees suitable for the development proposed. I would recommend that a condition is attached to planning permission, if granted, requiring the development to be carried out in full accordance with the recommendations of the submitted tree survey report and tree protection plan. I would also recommend that all the tree protective fencing is as specified in appendix 7 of the tree report. Details of tree planting should be required by condition and positions, species, sizes, numbers, timing of planting and aftercare to be agreed in writing with the LPA prior to commencement of development.

Page 20 Neighbours / Others: Site notices were erected to the entrances to the site and outside the school which expired on the 5 December 2016 and neighbour letters were sent out. A pre- application consultation event has also taken place. There have been five representations from other interested persons including Kirkby Lonsdale Parking Group. These can be summarised as such: • Concern over surface water. • The lack of formal Play Area, any equipment should be formally identified but recognises the contribution to the existing play equipment. • Welcome attempts developers have made to negotiate acceptable changes in relation to the site boundary near to Kittiwake and No.97 Fairgarth Drive. • Want land exchange and landscaping in relation to the above boundary to be carried out as soon as possible in the development process. • Contribution should be made to “Priority Gateway” on Kendal Road.

APPLICANTS REPRESENTATIONS The applicant’s agent has submitted a number of reports with the application which include; a Planning Statement, a Design and Access, Sustainability Statement, a Transport Assessment, a Residential Travel Plan, a Landscape and Visual Appraisal, an Ecological Appraisal, a Statement of Community Engagement, a Pre-development Arboriculture Report, an Affordable Housing Statement, a Phase I Geo- environmental Site Assessment, a Phase II Geo-environmental Site Assessment, a Noise Impact Assessment, A Flood Risk Assessment and Outline Drainage Strategy Report. In conclusion the applicant’s agent in the Planning Statement has stated: “It is to be recognised that the principle of employment and housing development at the site, as well as the access and general quantum of development, are accepted by the allocation of the site. It is considered that the application submitted accords with the National Planning Policy Framework, Core Strategy and also the Development Brief for the site. Russell Armer Ltd have worked extensively with the Planning Officers under a pre- application approach and a number of meetings have been held looking at how the constraints of the site can be overcome and a quality development delivered at the site. Part of the proposal will deliver 35% affordable housing on the site and the proposal has been designed in a manner which creates a strong landscape setting for the development. Overall the proposal is considered to be of a good quality and well-designed, responding positively to the Development Brief and the varied constraints of the site, and it is anticipated that planning permission can be forthcoming.”

Page 21 POLICY ISSUES South Lakeland Core Strategy (CS): Policy CS1.1 Sustainable Development Principles notes that development should accord with a sequential approach, first using existing buildings and previously developed land within settlements ahead of other suitable infill opportunities within settlements and only then development of other land that is well located in relation to housing, jobs, other services and infrastructure. It also notes that development should minimise the need to travel and provide a choice of sustainable transport modes. Policy CS1.2 The Development Strategy states that 13% of new housing development should take place in the Key Service Centres of which Kirkby Lonsdale is one. Policy CS6.1 Meeting the Housing Requirement states that 8,800 dwellings will be built between 2003 and 2025. These dwellings will be built in locations which accord with the Spatial Strategy (Policy CS1.2). Allocations of new residential development will be identified in the Allocations of Land DPD. Consideration of unallocated sites will be assessed against a sequential approach, the prioritisation and assessment of suitability, availability and achievability of sites within the Council’s Strategic Housing Land Availability Assessment, and over available evidence and the phasing targets and overarching development strategy in Policy CS1. Policy CS6.2 Dwelling mix and type seeks to ensure the development offers a range of house types and sizes including low cost housing and lifetime homes . Policy CS6.3 Provision of Affordable Housing states that on all schemes of nine or more dwellings in the Key Service Centres, no less than 35% of the total number of dwellings proposed are affordable. Policy CS6.6 Effective Use of Land seeks an average density of 30 dwellings per hectare. Policy CS8.1 Green Infrastructure Policy states that the Core Strategy will seek to:- • Ensure green infrastructure is incorporated into new developments, particularly where it can be used to mitigate the negative impacts of the development. • Protect and enhance important open spaces within settlements to contribute towards an improved network of green corridors of value for wildlife, recreation and the amenity needs of the community. • Protect species and habitats and create new habitats and wildlife corridors where biodiversity conservation and enhancement is affected by development. Ensure the protection and enhancement of watercourses and wetlands which are important contributors to the network of blue and green corridors for wildlife, recreation and the amenity needs of the community. Policy CS8.2 Protection and Enhancement of Landscape and Settlement Character states that development proposals should be informed by and be sympathetic to the distinctive character landscapes identified in the Cumbria Landscape Character Guidance and Toolkit. Proposals should demonstrate that their location, scale, design and materials will protect and conserve the special qualities and local distinctiveness of the area.

Page 22 Policy CS8.4 Biodiversity and Geodiversity states that all development proposals should protect, enhance and restore the biodiversity and geodiversity value of land and buildings. Policy CS8.8 Development and Flood Risk states that new development will only be permitted if it can be demonstrated that: • It would not have a significant impact on floodwater storage. • Measures to minimise flood risk can be implemented. • Surface water is managed in a sustainable way. • Provision is made for long term maintenance. Policy CS8.10 Design states that the design, scale and materials of all development should be of a character which maintains or enhances the quality of the landscape or townscape and, where appropriate, should be in keeping with local vernacular tradition. Policy CS10.2 Transport Impact of New Development requires that development be designed to reduce the need to travel and to maximise the use of sustainable forms of transport. Development proposals should provide for safe and convenient access and foot, cycle, public and private transport, be served by safe access to the highway network without detriment to the amenity or character of the locality, the expected nature and volume of traffic generated by the proposal can be accommodated by the existing road network without detriment to the amenity or character of the surrounding area, local air quality or highway safety. Where a development would have significant transport implications, it should be accompanied by an air quality assessment, transport assessment and a travel plan.

Saved Policies of the South Lakeland Local Plan (LP): Saved 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. Saved Policy S3 Landscaping seeks a high standard of landscaping which incorporates existing features. Saved Policy S10 states that off-street parking will be required based on Cumbria County Council’s guidelines, but will be applied flexibly. Saved Policy S26 Sewage Treatment requires that adequate provision is made for sewage disposal.

Development Plan Document (DPD): Local Plan Land Allocations: Policy LA2.10 Mixed use Allocation North of Kendal Road, Kirkby Lonsdale allocates 8.04 Ha Land North of the Kendal Road for mixed housing (Estimated Capacity and B1 and B2 Employment Development (1.0ha). The Policy requires that:- • A Landscape and green infrastructure framework reinforcing existing hedges and tree groups, screening housing from the nearby floodlit all weather sports pitch, excluding development within 12.2 metres of the line of the Haweswater Aqueduct and protecting and reinforcing the watercourse at the north of the site.

Page 23 • Surface water not to exceed greenfield run-off rates, measures to ensure no adverse impact on the flow and quality of the River Lune and no surface water discharge to foul sewers. • A Habitat Survey and safeguarding and reinforcement of areas of biodiversity interest and any measures necessary to safeguard Great Crested Newts on nearby sites. • Avoidance of development in small area at risk of flooding at the north edge of the site. • Submission and approval of a Transport Assessment providing pedestrian cycle links through the site and to the Town Centre.

North Kendal Road, Kirkby Lonsdale - Development Brief - Supplementary Planning Document: The Development Brief for North Kendal Road SPD was adopted April 2015. This is a material planning consideration. Fig 1.3 Land Use Proposals Map sets out the land uses at the North Kendal Road site with an indication of where the main vehicular route from North Kendal Road into the site could be located. The Indicative Land Use Proposals Map identifies the location of: an employment area, 3 developable housing character areas and 5 areas of green spaces / landscaped areas. The vision for land north of Kendal Road, Kirkby Lonsdale is to create: • A new sustainable residential community, small business area and improved school and community sports facilities, well designed and energy efficient, which form an integrated extension, of a high quality design, to the historic market town of Kirkby Lonsdale. • A development which meets local and affordable housing needs, provides local employment opportunities and supports wider community needs in the area. • The site will also promote new green networks that integrate with the surrounding landscape and neighbouring communities and respect the area’s transitional open countryside setting. • An environment that is accessible to all and provides good links with Kirkby Lonsdale town centre.

National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF): Paragraph 50 states that to deliver a wide choice of high quality homes, widen opportunities for home ownership and create sustainable, inclusive and mixed communities, local planning authorities should: • Plan for a mix of housing based on current and future demographic trends, market trends and the needs of different groups in the community (such as, but not limited to, families with children, older people, people with disabilities, service families and people wishing to build their own homes).

Page 24 • Identify the size, type, tenure and range of housing that is required in particular locations, reflecting local demand. • Where they have identified that affordable housing is needed, set policies for meeting this need on site, unless off-site provision or a financial contribution of broadly equivalent value can be robustly justified (for example to improve or make more effective use of the existing housing stock) and the agreed approach contributes to the objective of creating mixed and balanced communities. Such policies should be sufficiently flexible to take account of changing market conditions over time. Paragraph 61 states that a high quality and inclusive design should address the connections between people and places. Paragraph 103 states that local authorities should ensure that flood risk is not increased elsewhere. Paragraph 109 - The planning system should contribute to and enhance the natural and local environment by protecting and enhancing valued landscapes and minimise the impacts on biodiversity and providing net gains where possible.

Council Plan 2014 – 2019: The Council has four priorities: the economy; housing; environment; and culture and wellbeing. It states that the Council will help deliver new affordable and open market housing and enhance and protect the district’s high quality environment.

Localism Act: The Localism Act 2011 is aimed at empowering local agencies and people to deliver and better the Government agenda. It is not directed to deliver less, but to deliver at levels to maximise or exceed Government’s strategic objectives. The NPPF (The National Planning Policy Framework) and Development Plan policies are not altered by the Localism Act. The Localism Act introduces local finance considerations as a planning consideration in so far as they are material to the application.

HUMAN RIGHTS ACT This application has been determined to accord with the rights and limitations of the Act in relation to Article 6 (Right to a fair and public hearing), Article 8 (Right to respect for private and family life, home and correspondence), Article 14 (Prohibition of discrimination) and Article 1 of Protocol 1 (Right to peaceful enjoyment of possessions and protection of property).

ASSESSMENT Application of Planning Policy The key issues of this application are whether: 1. The design of the development site complies with the key requirements of Policy LA2.10 and the Development Brief and specifically whether it delivers,

Page 25 an integrated extension, of a high quality design, to the historic market town of Kirkby Lonsdale with a new sustainable residential community, small business area and improved school and community sports facilities. 2. The overall design, layout and potential impacts on offsite residential amenity to residents on Harling Bank and Fairgarth Drive. 3. The compatibility of the proposed layout with the existing and approved applications on the Queen Elizabeth School site. 4. The potential impacts on the highway network and suitable pedestrian links to the town centre. 5. The proposed management of surface water and protection of the existing riverine and natural features.

1. Key requirements of Policy LA2.10 and the Development Brief The site is subject to a Development Brief SPD and a specific Policy LA2.10 in the Land Allocation DPD which set out key parameters for the form of the development to take place on the site. These matters are considered in further detail below but largely it is considered that the developer has demonstrated that the site will be developed in accordance with the requirements of both the Development Brief and Policy LA2.10. These include amongst other things:- • A new sustainable residential community, small business area which will not compromise improved school adjacent to enhanced community sports facilities which have been approved and are still in discussion, on the wider school site which is integrated into Kirkby Lonsdale. • A landscape and green infrastructure framework with open space in five broad areas which are clearly shown on the submitted plans to reinforce the existing networks. This comprises the retention and the augmentation of existing landscape features including the provision of a green network corridor to the north of the site and the use of attenuation features to the north of the site. This green area will ensure that flood risk will not be worse elsewhere off site and will also increase biodiversity across the site. • A scheme that demonstrates that surface water would not exceed green run- off rates with no proposed surface water to the foul sewage networks. • Submission of appropriate Transport Assessment and appropriate pedestrian / cycle links.

2. The overall design, layout and relationship with adjacent properties Design and layout In terms of design the proposed development is shown as being guided by both the area’s aesthetic and character with the mix of property types, styles and sizes and the extensive use of stone and slate throughout the site. The streets, open spaces and footpaths and other links give the site a clear character which is appropriate to the edge of Town setting of Kirkby Lonsdale.

Page 26 The density of housing across the whole site is around 13.5dph largely to take account of the enforced constraints of the trees, watercourse, aqueduct and the bridging of and the topography, and all in all to give the proposed site a relatively spacious feel with a sinuous tree lined avenue proposed from the Kendal Road through the employment park past an avenue of houses, (successfully employed on Vicarage Drive in Kendal), nestling at the foot of the Drumlin slope before accessing the main site. The proposed bridging of the aqueduct, the aqueduct itself, and the requirement to retain the tree and existing hedging proposed does to a large part constrain how the rest of the site is developed. The layout proposes three broad groups of houses which is considered to be sympathetic to the rural edge of town location and the adjacent developments on Harling Bank and Fairgarth Drive. Affordable Housing mix The developer despite the constraints on site, notably the bridge over the aqueduct, proposes to provide the full 35% affordable housing on site with 19 two bedroom homes and 8 three bedroomed homes, a total of 27 affordable homes with a mix of discounted sale and rent. The proposed affordable housing is shown in three distinct groups and despite their smaller size they have been well integrated into the proposed development with the extensive use of stone facing and their position ensuring that the proposed affordable housing is integrated within the development. Potential impacts on amenity of neighbouring residents Due to the presence of retained mature agricultural hedging, and the separation and orientation of properties on Harling Bank, most properties are easily separated. Through consultation at pre-application stage, a combination of enhanced screening and rearrangement of layout has ensured that there is an appropriate relationship between the proposed houses on the development site and the properties at Kittiwake and 97 Fairgarth Drive subject to enhanced planting and fencing being secured by condition. Open space At pre-application stage it was considered that given the Council’s decision to rationalise the amount of formal playgrounds in the district, that the open space on site should be more of an informal play area in a natural setting to complement the existing formal open space within Kirkby Lonsdale.

3. The compatibility of the proposed layout with the existing and approved applications on the Queen Elizabeth School site. To the south of the main housing site and to the east of plots 1 - 10 two applications have recently been approved in relation to a new sports hall and a new floodlit games pitch to the existing school playing fields. The proposed layout was considered alongside those applications in terms of neighbouring amenity and the existing lawful activity that takes place on the school playing fields. In terms of the sports hall, the new building would be located around 40 metres to the east of the proposed buildings, on elevated ground beyond a thick band of well-established planting. A noise assessment has been submitted with the application which concludes that based on the current layout of the development site and the currently available information on the existing, and the proposed activities on the Queen Elizabeth

Page 27 School (QES) site, and on likely overestimates of activity, noise levels should be acceptable. This report was carried out prior to the submission of an application for the new floodlit sport pitch and hard surface to the south of plots 66 - 75. The rear gardens to these houses would be located at a lower level with the rear of the residential properties around 35 metres to the north of the proposed edge of the floodlit area and there is potential for both noise and light nuisance from that proposed development. Officers considered these impacts and considered that the separation of the site from the housing by both a bund and landscaping to the north of the athletics track along with submission of hooding and lighting details and timing of use, would adequately control the potential noise and light nuisance in this part of the site such as used at Kendal Football Club where houses are located at around 23 metres from higher and brighter floodlights. It is considered that the overall development has been looked at comprehensively and the residential scheme would be compatible with the improved recreation facilities on the QES.

4. The potential impact upon the existing highway network and suitable pedestrian links to the town centre . A Transport Assessment has been submitted with the application which concludes that the proposed development should not have a material impact in terms of highway operation and safety. Cumbria Highways have no objection in relation to the amount of traffic the site would generate and the capacity and safety of the junction to both the Kendal Road and the A65 but have made a number of suggested requirements from the development above those proposed by the developer. These include:- The provision of a new footpath from the proposed new access to the site to the private land to Queen Elizabeth School entrance to the staff parking and sports pitches and to erect signs warning of pedestrians walking along the road. The reason is to ensure that school children have a safe route to school from the access to the site and to enable the site to be connected to a new footpath if a new one can secured on school land. At Development Brief and pre-application stage an option to provide a footpath in this direction was explored but explicitly ruled out at pre-application stage as not reasonable or necessary to make the development acceptable, following discussion with Cumbria Highways. The reason for this is that there are two acceptable routes to town, the proposed pedestrian / cycle link through Harling Bank and the proposed link to the existing footpath to the A65. The developer has stated that given the existing constraints on site on which a full 35% affordable housing and CIL payments are being made along with the cost of bridging the aqueduct the cost of providing this footpath would result in affordable housing being lost on site. Officers consider that the footpath is not necessary but will explore the option of providing an internal path if the employment part of the site is brought forward. This would enable the retention of the roadside hedge and limit the urbanising effect to the road and ensure that maximum affordable housing is kept on the site.

Page 28 The requirement to fund no waiting restrictions on the A65 to join up with the school as well as funding additional waiting limited to twenty minutes parking to the north of the Kendal Road outside St Marys School, and to carry out pedestrian crossing assessment adjacent to St Marys School and to provide a crossing if required and to construct it before development commences. At both pre-application and Development Brief stage these issues were examined and views were widely expressed that the housing and employment development would exacerbate traffic congestion and safety issues on Kendal Road in the vicinity of the two schools, and the junction with the A65. The submitted travel plan and traffic assessment has addressed these issues and it is considered that housing and employment development will have limited impact on these existing issues. Planning policy guidance limit the use of planning conditions and S106 contributions to those reasonably required to make a development acceptable. Officers consider these problems are longstanding and that the new pedestrian crossing assessment and No Waiting signs are not considered necessary to make the development acceptable in planning terms. Other suggested conditions from the Highway Authority in relation to internal road layout details, construction management, and visibility splays are considered necessary to make the development acceptable.

5. The proposed management of surface water and protection of the existing riverine and natural features Drainage A full Flood Risk Assessment and outline Drainage Strategy Report have been submitted. The Drainage Report submitted with the scheme concludes:- • Ground investigations at the site have concluded the shallow underlying superficial deposits do not have adequate permeability characteristics to develop an infiltration-based SuDS design for surface water. Surface water drainage will therefore be stored and attenuated using a range of SuDS storage techniques including swales, detention basins and partial infiltration permeable block paving. • Deep percolation testing (4.00mBGL) was carried out at the proposed site entrance and it confirmed suitable infiltration rates for deep infiltration drainage systems. It is proposed the commercial sector of the site shall be served by deep soakaways located beneath car parking areas. The first section of adopted highway will drain via conveyance swales into a deep lined soakaway system. • It is concluded that due to the topography of the site and the presence of the Haweswater Aqueduct, the residential development is to be divided into two sections. Surface water from sections B and C will discharge into Kearstwick Beck at an attenuated rate via detentions basins and flow control chambers at greenfield run off rates. • The proposed surface water drainage strategy, where practical will be designed to ensure there is no increased flood risk to the buildings on the site or elsewhere as a result of extreme rainfall, lack of maintenance, blockages or other causes.

Page 29 • Foul flows for the site will be served by a Type 3 Pumping Station located east of the aqueduct. The new rising main will discharge foul flows into an existing I-JU 150mm combined sewer in Fairgarth Drive. I-JU have advised a connection is feasible. It is concluded that UI-J will adopt the pumping station once a permanent access road has been completed. It is also proposed that the foul sewers are to be adopted by LIU under a S104 agreement. • It is recommended that in addition to the above measures, a SuDS Operations and Maintenance Plan will be made available to the site owners detailing future maintenance requirements of all sustainable drainage systems. It is considered that this is an appropriate mechanism to which both the LFRM Team and United Utilities raise no objections and have made a number of suggested conditions. It is considered that the proposed drainage has been demonstrated that both surface water drainage and foul sewage from the site is possible subject to correct installation, management and maintenance. It is proposed to cover those matters by condition and the S106 agreement Ecology and Trees An ecological survey has been undertaken which whilst finding no protected species would be affected by the proposed works has suggested mitigation measures. It is considered to be acceptable to condition the proposed mitigation measures suggested in the ecological survey as part of any approval. A tree survey has been submitted in accordance with BS5837 2012 which accurately represents the trees on the site. The conclusions of the tree survey report are acceptable and the proposed tree protection measures for retained trees suitable for the development proposed. The Arboricultural Officer has recommended that a condition is attached to any planning permission, requiring the development to be carried out in full accordance with the recommendations of the submitted tree survey report and tree protection plan, along with all the tree protective fencing as specified in appendix 7 of the tree report. Details of tree planting should be required by condition and positions, species, sizes, numbers, timing of planting and aftercare to be agreed in writing with the local planning authurity prior to commencement of development. This would be secured by condition.

Other Matters Contaminated Land Phase I and Phase II Contaminated Land Studies have taken place on site. The Phase II report concludes that “ The site is bound by residential dwellings and agricultural fields with no significant industrial developments within the locality…..the site currently poses no environmental risk to human health, controlled waters or wider environ”. It is considered in respect to contaminated land that the site is acceptable.

Page 30 Financial Benefits to Local Authorities for the development In accordance with the requirements introduced by Section 115 of the The Housing and Planning Act 2016. The financial benefits of the proposed development are estimated below. Source Benefit Community Infrastructure £391,227 - Based on assumed claim of no self-build Levy exemption. Council Tax Income £127,285 SLDC element - £101,658 (estimate based on 78 Band D equivalents). New Homes Bonus £ 123,433.60 SLDC element - £98,748 (estimate based on 78 Band D equivalents).

CONCLUSION The site is allocated for development by Policies LA1.3 of the South Lakeland Land Allocations Development Plan Document (DPD). Residential development and employment of this site on the edge of the Local Service Centre of Kirkby Lonsdale therefore accords with the aims of the NPPF and the Core Strategy to deliver homes and employment in sustainable locations. Officers are satisfied that the scale and form of the development, whilst at a lower density than the established target of 78 dwellings is appropriate in the context of the site and dealing with the constraints of the site. The development provides for a range and mix of dwelling types including affordable housing which will help meet the housing needs including affordable needs of the district. The proposal therefore accords with the strategic aims of the NPPF and the Core Strategy to deliver housing and the specific polices within the Land Allocations Development Plan Document (DPD) and is therefore recommended for approval. The following S106 obligations are proposed: 1. Affordable Housing. 2. Management and maintenance of open space and Open Space Contribution. 3. Management and future maintenance of the Surface Water Drainage infrastructure.

RECOMMENDATION: The Director (People and Places) to grant planning permission, subject to the following conditions and subject to a Section 106 agreement that allows for a full 35% affordable housing to be provided on site, Open Space Contribution and Management and Maintenance of Open Space on site and details of the management of the Surface Water Management arrangements and subject to a suitable access provision being resolved:-

Page 31 (1) The development hereby permitted in respect of housing shall begin no later than three years from the date of this decision. (2) Housing as per approved plans and design. (3) The development to which this permission relates in respect of employment must be begun not later than whichever is the later of the following dates: a) FIVE YEARS from the date of this permission; b) The expiration of TWO YEARS from the final approval of the reserved matters, or, in the case of approval on different dates, the final approval of the last such matters to be approved. Application for the approval of the reserved matters must be made not later than THREE years from the date of this permission. (4) Details of the appearance, landscaping, layout and scale (hereinafter called “the reserved matters”) shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority before any development relating to the employment land begins and the development shall be carried out as approved. (5) Construction, service and delivery traffic management plan prior to any works on site. (6) Construction works, including site preparation, earthworks, start-up of machinery, deliveries and unloading of equipment and materials shall not take place outside the hours of 8.00am to 6.00pm Mondays to Fridays and 8.00am to 1.00pm on Saturdays and at no time on Sundays, Public or Bank Holidays. (7) The development shall not commence until visibility splays providing clear visibility of 52 metres in a north-easterly direction (Kendal Road) and visibility splays to the intersection of the A65 in a south westerly direction measured 2 metres down the centre of the access road and the nearside channel line of the major road have been provided at the junction of the access road with the county highway from a point 2.4 metres back from the edge of the carriageway. Notwithstanding the provisions of the Town and Country Planning (General Permitted Development) (England) Order 2015 (or any Order revoking and re-enacting that Order) relating to permitted development, no structure, vehicle or object of any kind shall be erected, parked or placed and no trees, bushes or other plants shall be planted or be permitted to grow within the visibility splay, which obstruct the visibility splays. The visibility splays shall be constructed before general development of the site commences so that construction traffic is safeguarded. (8) No development shall begin until a scheme for the design, construction (including longitudinal and cross sections), drainage, illumination and implementation phasing of the carriageways, footways, footpaths within the site, has been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The scheme shall be designed to a standard suitable for adoption and shall be implemented and completed in accordance with the approved scheme and agreed phasing timetable. (9) The houses shall not be occupied until the estate road including footways to serve such dwellings has been constructed in all respects to base course level and street lighting, where it is to form part of the estate road, has been

Page 32 provided and brought into full operation. (10) The crossing of the Haweswater Aqueduct shall be carried out in accordance with the submitted plan Drawing No K32067/A1/113 ‘Proposed Aqueduct Crossing Plan’ and details dated the 4 August 2016. (11) No erection of superstructure shall take place until full details of both hard and soft landscape works have been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority and those works shall be carried out as approved. The details shall include:- • hard surfacing materials; • minor artefacts and structures (e.g. signs, and lighting); • communications cables, pipelines etc. indicating lines, manholes, supports); and • retained landscape features such as trees together with details of how they will be protected during construction. Soft landscape works shall include planting plans; written specifications (including cultivation and other operations associated with plant and grass establishment); schedules of plants, noting species, plant sizes and proposed numbers / densities; and an implementation programme. 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. (12) The drainage for the development hereby approved, shall be carried out in accordance with the principles set out in the submitted Flood Risk Assessment and outline Drainage Strategy Report (Ref No. K32067/01/FRA- ODR/RH Issue 01 dated 24 October 2016 prepared by RG Parkins and Partners Ltd. No surface water will be permitted to drain directly or indirectly into the public sewer. Any variation to the discharge of foul shall be agreed in writing by the Local Planning Authority prior to the commencement of development. The development shall be completed in accordance with the approved details. (13) a) No superstructure shall be erected until details of the implementation, adoption, maintenance and management of the sustainable drainage system have been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. Those details shall include a timetable for its implementation and a management and maintenance plan for the lifetime of the development which shall include the arrangements for adoption by any public body or statutory undertaker, or any other arrangements to secure the effective operation of the sustainable drainage system throughout its lifetime. b) The system shall be implemented and thereafter managed and maintained in accordance with the approved sustainable drainage details / plan. (14) The development hereby permitted shall not be commenced on the employment land apart from the access until details indicating proposed floor levels of all the new buildings and parking areas to a fixed datum point, have been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority.

Page 33 These details shall show the current and proposed contours across the whole site and shall include cross-sections of any proposed buildings across the employment site and details of any retaining structure and its maintenance. The development shall not be carried out otherwise than in strict accordance with the agreed levels. (15) Works to be completed as per recommendations in Ecological Survey Report. (16) Works to be completed as recommendations in tree report. (17) Prior to the occupation of any dwelling on the phase one part of the site, an informal pedestrian access shall be made through the hedge adjacent to Harling Bank and maintained until the formal access is put in and completed. (18) Stone sample panels prior to facing works. (19) Roof covering and sample to be agreed prior to roof covering.

Page 34 Item No.6(b)

SCHEDULE: (b) SL/2016/0888

PARISH: LEVENS Land to east of Greengate Crescent

PROPOSAL: Reserved Matters application for 49 dwellings, landscaping, internal roads and footways and associated infrastructure.

APPLICANT: Miss Siobhan Sweeney - Story Homes Limited

Grid Ref: E: 349055 N: 486187

Page 35 45.7m Brighaven

Wedgewood Hining Cottage 1 to 2 3 5

Cattle Grid Highfield Hyning

The Stables

Old Po Sharrow lice Ho use

Track Davlen Fold

10 6

HYNING COURT 1

El Sub Sta

2 2

7 8 6

2 4 1 2 Corner 3 5 Cottage

T 2 he B 0 EATHWAITE CLOSE

uare 2

6 Royal Oak 1

G 4 R 7 EE N G A T OA E KWO C

OD C R L 3 ES

1 4

9 1 a

low Vicarage

1 0

r a

e 1 D 1 1 2 g A

d O R o

L E G A R A C I V

2 Greystones East 3

5 1

1 1

7 ck

0 Tra 1

E T

GA N

El E 2 E

Sub GR Sta V i c t o r i 31 G a

r C e o C e t o n t t g 4 t a t F e o o

t 2 0

1 2

TE 5 GA 2 N 3 EE 7 GR

585

6 4 2 8 4 1

r e F e H a n o r g u m a s t e e se Hou gate 36.7m reen a G Nad as Cerris G M R E E N 4 G 0 A ar T " Silm E Gilthrigg

Play Area 5

k 1 ac Tr 3 6

Bowling

The material contained in this plot has been reproduced from an Ordnance Survey map with permission of the SL/2016/0888 Controller of Her Majesty's Stationery Office. Licence No. 100024277 © Crown Copyright Land to : Unauthorised reproduction infringes Crown Copyright and may lead to prosecution or civil proceedings east of Greengate Crescent Levens

Scale 1:2500

Page 36 SUMMARY This application is a Reserved Matters application for the development of 49 houses, on a 2.24 site to the east of Greengate Crescent in Levens, which was granted Outline Permission for 50 houses with all matters reserved apart from access (SL/2014/0822). The site is an area that has been allocated as part of the Proposed Land Allocations Development Plan Document (DPD). Key issues include the need for good design and layout to minimise impact on the landscape and neighbouring amenity, contamination risks, provision of affordable housing and managing surface water risks.

DESCRIPTION AND PROPOSAL Site Description The site sits on the eastern edge of Levens and consists of improved agricultural land which broadly slopes downwards from west to east and from north to south. The western side of the site is mainly bound by bungalows constructed in the 1970’s on Greengate Crescent and Greengate with rendered walls under clay tile roofs with limestone detailing to chimneys and walls. The other sides are bound by agricultural land with a group of mature hedging and trees to the eastern boundary, to the south is a local stone wall whilst to the northern boundary is predominantly post and rail fencing. To the northern edge is a single mature tree that is to be retained. The site is currently accessed via farmers fields to the east but the outline application approved the access to be sited between numbers 8 and 9 Greengate Crescent. This leads to estate roads to the west with pavements on either side to the south-west providing access to Levens Lane, leading eventually to the A590 and the A6 at a distance of 600 metres and 1 km respectively to the south. This access links to the centre of the village to the north. Additional access is provided via Beanthwaite Close to the north-west which provides access to the Main Street leading to the centre of the village to the south with Brigsteer Road running to the north.

Proposal This application is a Reserved Matters application for the development of 49 houses of which 17 (35%) are shown to be affordable. The site is proposed to be accessed from a single access road from Greengate Crecent. The mix of properties are shown on the layout plans. These are: • Nine x 2 bedroom two storey houses (Hawthorn arranged in blocks of three terraced houses, all affordable, eight of which would be available for affordable rent, Plots 33 - 37 and Plots 42 - 44 and one of which would be for discounted sale Plot 32). • Eight x 3 bedroom semi-detached two storey houses (Rowan, arranged in four pairs, Plots 30 - 31 and Plots 38 - 45 - all of which would be available for discounted sale). • Five x 4 bedroom two storey detached houses (Salisbury, Plots 7, 11, 15, 26 and 28). • Three x 3 bedroom detached bungalows (Banbury, Plots 1, 8 and 49).

Page 37 • Six x 4 bedroom two storey detached houses (Boston, Plots 4, 9, 12, 16, 22 and 25). • Four x 4 bedroom two storey detached houses (Grantham, Plots 3, 14, 17 and 47). • Six x 4 bedroom two storey detached houses (Taunton, Plots 2, 18, 20, 23, 29 and 48). • Eight x 5 bedroom two storey detached houses (Mayfair, Plots 5, 6, 10, 13, 19, 21 25 and 27). The proposed layout shows a single access road throughout the site with the road running through the centre with spurs off to groups of houses on either side. The scheme incorporates 49 dwellings of varying scales that range between two and five bedroom houses, which as a result generate a site-wide density of approximately 25 units per hectare. Pockets of high, medium and low density development are then distributed across the site, along with mainly two storey properties with three bungalows.

CONSULTATIONS Levens Parish Council: Does not support in its current form for the following reasons:- • Affordable housing appears to be clustered and not integrated within the development so does not comply with CS Policy 6.3 that requires affordable housing to be mixed within the development and should be more integrated. • There should be more mix between the proposed rent and proposed discounted for sale. • Query over the amount for the affordable rent. • Clarification of ownership and management of landscape and open space areas particularly to the north and south side of the site. • Plans submitted vary significantly from consultation event in terms of house sizes and types. • Site layout is more congested because of the size of some houses and concern over the number of vehicles. • Clarification is sought over whether provision has been made for management of traffic as it leaves Greengate to join the main routes into village.

Cumbria County Council:- Highways and transport Agree original condition shall remain.

Local Flood Risk Management Concern that the development has been designed without consideration for the implementation of SUDs features in line with Paragraph 51 of the Planning Practice

Page 38 Guidance “Sustainable drainage systems are designed to control surface water run off close to where it falls and mimic natural drainage as closely as possible. They provide opportunities to:- • reduce the causes and impacts of flooding; • remove pollutants from urban run-off at source; • combine water management with green space with benefits for amenity, recreation and wildlife.” Cumbria County Council would recommend that the developer take into consideration the following SuDS components and investigate their applicability to the site: Rainwater harvesting, Green Roofs, Permeable Surfacing, Infiltration, Swales, Channels and Rills, Filter Drain, Filter Strips, Bio retention area, Rain gardens, Detention Basins, Infiltration Basins, Ponds and Wetlands. With the above in mind we would like to see that the applicant looks into the opportunity to implement additional SUDs features and therefore the condition in relation to drainage should remain. Discussions are ongoing with Cumbria County Council around the acceptability of the current scheme.

SLDC Environmental Protection Officer: Same comments as 2014 application. Aware that infilled land to north may have been used as local tip site (190 metres away from site). Council has no records relating to this facility. Further intrusive investigation required to assess if there are any migration of ground gases likely to affect the residential development. Radon also concern given Limestone area. Suggested conditions relating to: • Further survey work. • Noise-works on the site. • Lighting.

Natural England: Local Planning Authorities should have regard to the potential National Park extension to which the site is within or close by with your decision guided by paragraph 115 of the National Planning Policy Framework.

United Utilities: No response to this application but to the outline application made the following comments: No Objection. Site should be drained on a separate system with foul draining to public sewer and surface water in most sustainable way according to hierarchy. Suggested condition to ensure detail of foul and surface water is secured prior to development.

Page 39 SLDC Housing Strategy Officer: I am pleased that Story have made the changes, my only comment would be concerning the ratio of 3 bed to 2 beds. A balance of 2 and 3 beds may be a more appropriate mix.

Cumbria Constabulary: The development is laid out so that all access routes are directly overlooked and rear gardens tend to be interlocked to deter intrusion. It is noted that the rear gardens are defended with 1.8 m timber fences and rear gardens tend to be interlocked to deter intrusion but the space surrounding Plots 42, 43 and 44 lacks ownership and the front curtilage defensible space with hedging is welcome.

NEIGHBOURS / OTHERS: There are seven other letters of representation. These can be broadly categorised as one of observations and comments and three letters of support. The matters covered include:- Highways • No pavements on the roadside to the southern edge of the development. Questionable over safety given size of proposed homes. • The construction of dedicated path / cycle way to Levens Lane to able safe walking to bus stop. • Traffic calming should be introduced on Greengate for the extra 100 cars per day. • Road marking concerns within Greengate and mini roundabout solution to be explored and road calming solutions. • Construction traffic should be made to park in site as no room outside existing Greengate properties. Infrastructure • Water supply, and sewerage concerns and electricity supply. Water pressure problems already. Design, Landscaping and layout • House size change ie 8 five bedroom instead of 3 results in crowding together to an unneighbourly degree. • 6 and 7 appear to be closer together and restrict the view of No.9. (in comparison to consultation scheme. • House design should include more stone. • Should be more mature specimens used in the landscaping. Amenity • Concern over impact on rear of No.9 and other properties in amended layout design and size.

Page 40 Other Matters • Concern about disturbance during construction including deliveries to site in school (drop-off and pick up) times and construction times should reflect presence of neighbouring residents. • Time limit should be added to completion.

APPLICANT’S REPRESENTATIONS The applicant’s agent has submitted a number of reports with the application. These include: • Landscaping Plan • Utility Planning Statement • Design and Access Statement • Phase Two Geo-Environmental Statement • Site Layout and topographical survey • Housing Layout including Streetscene and sections, hard surface treatments, boundary and elevational treatments • Statement of Community Involvement • Section 106 Pro-forma The Design and Access Statement concludes that the proposal complies with National and Local Policies and the distances to existing properties are acceptable. The technical assessments have assessed the potential impacts of the development and mitigation has been proposed where necessary to minimise impacts.

POLICY ISSUES: Land Allocations Development Plan Document: Policy LA1.3 of the Proposed Land Allocations DPD proposes to allocate the site for residential development. Paragraph 3.112 indicates that the site could accommodate around 50 houses.

South Lakeland Core Strategy: Policy CS1.1 Sustainable Development Principles provides criteria for new development. Policy CS1.2 The Development Strategy states that approximately 21% of new development in the district will be in the Local Service Centres of which Levens is one. The exact scale and level of development will be dependent on individual character, the impact on environmental capacity and infrastructure provision and the desire to meet the need for affordable housing. Policy CS5 The East states that provision will be made for small scale housing development in Local Service Centres of which Levens is one with a particular

Page 41 emphasis on affordable housing, 35% of new housing should be affordable, up to 55% of which should be delivered as social rented based on local need. The policy seeks to protect and enhance the diverse character and local distinctiveness by promoting high quality design, protect the network of green infrastructure and important environmental characteristics and safeguard the natural environment. Policy CS6.1 Meeting the Housing Requirement states that 8,800 dwellings will be built between 2003 and 2025. These dwellings will be built in locations which accord with the Spatial Strategy (Policy CS1.2). Allocations of new residential development will be identified in the Allocations of Land DPD. Consideration of unallocated sites will be assessed against a sequential approach, the prioritisation and assessment of suitability, availability and achievability of sites within the Council’s Strategic Housing Land Availability Assessment and other available evidence, and the phasing targets and overarching development strategy in Policy CS1. Policy CS6.2 Dwelling Mix and Type seeks to ensure that development offers a range of housing sizes and types which is easily adaptable for everyone. Policy CS6.3 Provision of Affordable Housing states that the Council will consider the appropriateness of allocating sites in every community to ensure delivery of affordable housing to meet local need. Schemes in Levens must include a minimum of 35% affordable dwellings in schemes of three or more dwellings. The Council will ensure that any planning permission is subject to appropriate conditions and / or planning obligations to secure the provision of affordable housing in perpetuity. Policy CS6.6 Making Effective and Efficient Use of Land and Buildings states that the Council will seek to make effective and efficient use of land and buildings. It will seek to ensure at least 28% of housing development takes place on previously developed land and buildings. The policy provides a target density of at least 30 dwellings per hectare. Higher densities will be sought on appropriate sites, particularly those in or adjoining Grange-over-Sands, close to transport hubs and in or adjoining Kendal. Policy CS8.1 Green Infrastructure Policy states that the Core Strategy will seek to: • Ensure green infrastructure is incorporated into new developments, particularly where it can be used to mitigate the negative impacts of the development. • Protect and enhance important open spaces within settlements to contribute towards an improved network of green corridors of value for wildlife, recreation and the amenity needs of the community. • Protect species and habitats and create new habitats and wildlife corridors where biodiversity conservation and enhancement is affected by development. Ensure the protection and enhancement of watercourses and wetlands which are important contributors to the network of blue and green corridors for wildlife, recreation and the amenity needs of the community. Policy CS8.2 Protection and Enhancement of Landscape and Settlement Character states that development proposals should be informed by, and be sympathetic to, the distinctive character landscapes identified in the Cumbria Landscape Character Guidance and Toolkit. Proposals should demonstrate that their location, scale, design and materials will protect and conserve the special qualities and local distinctiveness of the area.

Page 42 Policy CS8.4 Biodiversity and Geodiversity states that all development proposals should protect, enhance and restore the biodiversity and geodiversity value of land and buildings. It also states that development proposals that would have a direct or indirect adverse effect on nationally, sub-regional, regional and local designated sites will not be permitted unless they cannot be located on alternative sites that would cause less or no harm; the benefits of the development clearly outweigh the impacts on the features of the site and the wider network of rural habitats; and prevention, mitigation and compensation measures are provided. Policy CS8.7 Sustainable Construction, Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy states that new development will be required to meet the Code for Sustainable Homes as required by Building Regulations. Policy CS8.8 Development and Flood Risk seeks to ensure most new development is located in flood risk zone 1. New development will only be permitted where it can be demonstrated that it would not have a significant impact on the capacity of an area to store flood water, measures required to manage any flood risk can be implemented and surface water is managed in a sustainable way. Policy CS8.10 Design promotes good design which maintains or enhances the townscape, is in keeping with local vernacular and reinforces local distinctiveness. Policy CS9.2 Developer Contributions the Council will require new development to secure improvements which are necessary to make the development acceptable by planning condition or obligations. Planning obligations may also be required for maintenance payments, to meet the initial running costs of services and facilities and to compensate for loss or damage caused by development. Infrastructure contributions could include improvements to highways, public transport and Travel Plans, health care and education facilities, recreations provision, biodiversity and enhancement of public realm. Policy CS10.1 Accessing Services promotes the improvement of accessibility by improving bus and rail services, promoting a network of safe cycle and walking routes linking residential areas with employment areas, town and local centres, schools and recreational open space facilities. Policy CS10.2 Transport Impact of New Development requires that development be designed to reduce the need to travel and to maximise the use of sustainable forms of transport. Development proposals should provide for safe and convenient access and foot, cycle, public and private transport, be served by safe access to the highway network without detriment to the amenity or character of the locality, the expected nature and volume of traffic generated by the proposal can be accommodated by the existing road network without detriment to the amenity or character of the surrounding area, local air quality or highway safety. Where a development would have significant transport implications, it should be accompanied by an air quality assessment, transport assessment and a travel plan.

Saved Local Plan Policies Saved Policy C3 states that development will not be permitted which would result in the loss of the best and most versatile agricultural land. Saved Policy S2 promotes good design appropriate to the context of the area.

Page 43 Saved Policy S3 seeks a high standard of landscaping which incorporates existing features. Saved Policy S4 states that development will not be permitted on important open spaces. Important open spaces are identified on the proposals map but other unspecified sites may also be judged to form important open spaced and will be considered on their own merits as development proposals arise.

Council Plan 2013-2017: The Council has four priorities, the economy, housing, environment and culture and wellbeing. It states that: “by 31 March 2015 the Council will increase the supply of housing land enabling an increase in the number of net additional homes in South Lakeland” and that affordable homes will make up 35% or more of the total number of homes securing planning consent within the South Lakeland Planning Authority Area.

National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF): Core Planning Principles The core principles seek to secure high quality design and a good standard of amenity for existing and future occupants. Requiring good design Paragraphs 57 and 58 state it is important to achieve high quality inclusive design, including individual buildings and public and private spaces. Development should add to the overall quality of the area, establish a strong sense of place, optimise the potential of the site to accommodate development and sustain an appropriate mix of uses, respond to local character, and is visually attractive. Delivering a wide choice of high quality homes Paragraph 50 - To deliver a wide choice of high quality homes, widen opportunities for home ownership and create sustainable, inclusive and mixed communities, local planning authorities should:- • where there is an identified affordable housing need, policies should be set for meeting this need on site; and • such policies should be sufficiently flexible to take account of changing market conditions over time. Requiring Good Design Paragraph 61 states that a high quality and inclusive design should address the connections between people and places. Meeting the Challenge of Climate Change and Flooding Paragraph 103 states that local authorities should ensure that flood risk is not increased elsewhere.

Page 44 Conserving and enhancing the natural environment Paragraph 109 - The planning system should contribute to and enhance the natural and local environment by protecting and enhancing valued landscapes and minimise the impacts on biodiversity and providing net gains where possible. Paragraph 118 states that when determining planning applications, local planning authorities should aim to conserve and enhance biodiversity

HUMAN RIGHTS ACT: This application has been determined to accord with the rights and limitations of the Act in relation to Article 6 (Right to a fair and public hearing), Article 8 (Right to respect for private and family life, home and correspondence), Article 14 (Prohibition of discrimination) and Article 1 of Protocol 1 (Right to peaceful enjoyment of possessions and protection of property).

ASSESSMENT: Application of Planning Policy This is a Reserved Matters application. Approval is now sought for appearance, landscaping, layout and scale. The access together with the works within the highway necessary to facilitate the new access were approved at outline stage at which time the principle of development on this site broadly in terms of traffic and dwelling numbers were accepted. Principle of Development Levens is a Local Service Centre and is expected to attract moderate growth. Consistent with that aim, the application site is included within the Land Allocation DPD. Whilst on the edge of Levens, the site would be within the proposed extended development boundary but on a greenfield site currently used as improved agricultural land. The principle of development on this site and its acceptability in sustainable terms is therefore already established within the South Lakeland Local Plan. The Outline application established the principle for up to 50 dwellings, the access arrangements via 5.5 pavements with 2 pavements onto Greengate Crescent, the infrastructure requirements, the level of affordable housing and drainage. The decision is accompanied by detailed conditions in respect of highways, drainage, archaeology, contamination, and construction management. In terms of archaeology considerations these have been considered to be acceptable, under a different application reference (SL/2016/0857). Matters raised at Reserved Matters stage The provision of affordable housing and the housing type mix It is proposed that the scheme would provide 17 (35 %) affordable dwellings, which consist of a mixture of discounted sale and discounted rent, two and three bed properties which will be secured through a Section 106 Agreement. The proposed affordable mix was shown to be together as one block in the north-east corner of the site. Discussions have taken place with the agents to seek re-distribution of the housing through the site. This has seen four units re-distributed throughout the site

Page 45 which in effect breaks the affordable units into three discreet locations in the north- west, north-east and south part of the site. Officers are now satisfied that the amended scheme would be compliant with Core Strategy Policy CS6.3 and para 50 of the National Planning Policy Framework which require the affordable housing to be part of an inclusive and mixed community. Layout The proposed layout shows a single access road throughout the site with the road running through the centre with spurs off to groups of houses on either side. The detailed proposal incorporates 49 dwellings of varying scales that range between two and five bedroom houses, which as a result generate a site-wide density of approximately 25 units per hectare. Pockets of high, medium and low density development are then distributed across the site, along with mainly two storey properties with three bungalows. The Reserved Matters application is for 49 dwellings and therefore conforms to the outline consent approved for 50 dwellings. Whilst parts of the site are less spacious than the earlier layout namely around Plots 8 and 9 in the south-west corner of the site and around car-parking to the affordable housing they are considered overall to be acceptable given the style of housing chosen in those parts of the site and landscaping used to break up the massing of parking. The density of the scheme lower than the 30 units per acre normally required reflects the predominance of the larger 4 / 5 bedroomed detached properties to meet housing need. Design and house size Concern has been raised about the size of dwellings which has changed between consultation at outline stage and the submission of this application. As well as a high number of affordable housing of 2 / 3 bedrooms the SHMAA identifies the need for larger family housing within the area which this application seeks to deliver. It is considered in its totality the dwelling sizes proposed are acceptable and meet the requirements of the Housing Strategy Officer and Core Strategy Policy CS6.2 Dwelling Mix and Type. The proposed houses are of mainly traditional design with pitched roofs and gables. Special features to some locations include dormer windows, ground floor bay window, porch details, header and cill details. The designs proposed are ones that have been successfully used elsewhere within the district, such as Natland Mill Beck in Kendal. Whilst the prevalence of stone proposed is lesser than those other sites the house design is acceptable in this instance given the context of the design of the existing dwellings which surround the site. Amenity To the western boundary of the site there are a number of existing domestic properties on Greengate, Beanthwaite Close and Greengate Crescent. The boundaries of these properties abut the site. The potential for amenity harm to these properties was identified as a key constraint on the site and indicative layout plans were required at Outline stage. These plans have been changed by the applicants with reduction of bungalows and the reduction of numbers on site. Officers have put forward the concerns of surrounding residents to the applicants but they consider that the proposed layout is acceptable in terms of amenity. To retain as much as possible the views of the existing properties along Greengate Crescent, three dormer bungalows have been

Page 46 situated at key points along the western boundaries at Plots 49, 1 and 8. Officers consider that whilst it is recognised there will be a change to the land around the existing domestic properties and consequently a change in amenity it is considered that none of these changes are seriously detrimental for the following reasons:- • The distances from windows in habitable rooms to habitable rooms is in excess of 21 metres for all properties. • The intervention of garden land around and between the existing properties and the proposed properties, and difference of gradient between the proposed properties. • The relationship and orientation between the existing properties and the proposed properties. The closest relationships are between numbers 8 and 9 Greengate Crescent and the proposed Plots 49 and 1 respectively at the proposed entrance to the site. The closest distance between the two properties of built form is between 5 - 10 metres. However, given the position of the proposed buildings in relation to habitable rooms, the elevated nature of the two existing properties on Greengate Crescent, the height of the proposed bungalows and the position of the habitable windows in the existing properties over the rear of Plot 49 and rear gardens of Plots 1, 3, 6 and 7 are considered to be acceptable. Landscape The landscape plan sets out proposed buffer planting to the site boundaries and planting throughout the site and along the main vehicular access to enhance the landscape character. Two small sections of open space are provided at the top and bottom section of the site and these areas, along with the drainage, will be maintained by a management company. The Landscape and Visual Assessment at outline stage established that there would be negligible effect on landscape character and visual effects which would be limited to all views apart from within the very immediate vicinity due to the landform and the localised screening. This assessment was done before the extended National Park area that was very recently confirmed. The designation of Lake District National Park is over 350 metres from the site and would be very much seen in the context of additional built form. There would be some change on view into the National Park from the footpath to the southern boundary but it is considered that this viewpoint is also within the context of the built form of Levens and such a slight change is considered to be acceptable. Drainage, flood risk and waste The application is within Flood Zone 1. The Flood Risk Assessment demonstrates that the proposed development would not be liable to flooding and would not exacerbate flood risk elsewhere. The Environment Agency at the Outline stage had no objections subject to a standard sustainable drainage flood risk condition. County Council have requested that more SUDs features are included in the design. RG Parkins were commissioned to provide a surface water management solution given the lack of soil cover and the close proximity of the bedrock to the surface. Surface water run-off is recommended to be discharged by the use of perforated pipes, polypipe geocellular crates mainly to rear gardens, and permeable paving for individual houses with highways drainage going to a large 9m x 9m x 2m soakaway in the southern corner of the site which is considered to be acceptable given the site

Page 47 conditions which are similar to Underbarrow Road. It is considered that the proposed drainage solution is acceptable subject to the formal discharge of drainage conditions. In relation to foul drainage a pumping station is proposed in the south eastern corner and United Utilities have no objection to the proposal but have indicated that it would be considered necessary to limit the flow of surface water to the foul connection to a maximum 5m3 per second. These details can be secured through the discharge of drainage conditions. Contamination / Geological Both Phase I and Phase II Contaminated Land Investigation Report has reported on initial ground conditions and a contaminated land risk assessment for the site. It is concluded that additional site investigation is required as a precaution in relation to completion of a gas monitoring scheme, preparation of foundation schedule, full soakaway testing and slope stability assessment. It is considered that the contamination / geological risks are acceptable subject to the slope stability assessment being carried out as it is considered that gas and foundations would be dealt with at Building Regulations stage. There have been no material changes between adoption of the Land Allocations DPD and the outline stage and it is considered that the principles established in relation to the matters above at outline stage are still valid.

Financial benefits to Local Authorities from the development In accordance with the requirements introduced by Section 115 of the Housing and Planning Act 2016. The financial benefits of the proposed development are estimated below. Source Benefit Community Infrastructure Nil. (Outline application submitted and determined Levy prior to CIL deadline). Council Tax Income £ 99,568 SLDC element - £10780 (estimate based on 49 Band D equivalents). New Homes Bonus £ 84,378 SLDC element - £67,511 (estimate based on 49 Band D equivalents).

CONCLUSION The site is allocated for development by Policies LA1.3 of the South Lakeland Land Allocations Development Plan Document (DPD). Residential development of this site on the edge of the Local Service centre of Levens therefore accords with the aims of the NPPF and the Core Strategy to deliver homes in sustainable locations. Officers are satisfied that the scale, form and appearance of the development, whilst at a marginally lower density than the established target of 50 dwellings is appropriate in the context and constraints of the site. The development provides for

Page 48 an inclusive range and mix of dwelling types including bungalows which will help meet the housing needs including the affordable needs of the District. The relationship and orientation between the existing and proposed residential properties are acceptable. The proposal therefore accords with the strategic aims of the NPPF and the Core Strategy to deliver housing and the specific polices within the Land Allocations Development Plan Document (DPD) and is therefore recommended for approval.

S106 Obligations The following S106 obligations are proposed. 1. Affordable Housing. 2. Management and maintenance of open space. 3. Management and future maintenance of the Surface Water Drainage infrastructure. 4. Secondary School transport.

RECOMMENDATION Subject to a satisfactory conclusion to negotiations over the details, the application be GRANTED subject to an S106 Agreement and conditions relating to the following:- (1) Time condition. (2) As per amended plans. (3) Amended landscaping condition. (4) Amended Tree protection details. (5) As per amended contamination survey. (6) Stone sample panels prior to facing works. (7) Prior to roof covering sample of roof covering submitted. Informative In relation to existing outline conditions which remain pertinent to the application.

Page 49 This page is intentionally left blank

Page 50 Item No.6(c)

SCHEDULE: (c) SL/2016/0720

PARISH: HEVERSHAM Land opposite Brant House, Woodhouse Lane

PROPOSAL: Two affordable dwellings

APPLICANT: Mr and Mrs C Woodend

Grid Ref: E: 351421 N: 483441

Page 51 Woodhouse Hill

k c a r T

50.5m

58.9m

Brant House 40.7m

The material contained in this plot has been reproduced from an Ordnance Survey map with permission of the SL/2016/0720 Controller of Her Majesty's Stationery Office. Licence No. 100024277 © Crown Copyright Land opposite Brant House Unauthorised reproduction infringes Crown Copyright and may lead to prosecution or civil proceedings Woodhouse Lane Heversham

Scale 1:1250

Page 52 SUMMARY This outline application with all matters reserved seeks permission to erect two dwellings on land in open countryside within the Parish of Heversham. The proposal offers the two houses for onward sale as discounted affordable once the applicants and their family have vacated the properties. This outline application includes a possible design and layout. House one as a bungalow designed to provide for wheelchair access throughout; this would be the owner’s / applicants dwelling. House two is a two-storey barn conversion style dwelling for the owner’s son and family so that they can provide care to their parents. The main issues to consider in the determination of this application are whether the principle of development in this location is in accordance with Core Strategy Policy CS1.2 in relation to the location of housing; the personal circumstances of the applicants; the offer of affordable housing; and whether there are any relevant detailed planning considerations, such as: the impact on visual amenity and landscape character. The application has been called in for consideration at Planning Committee by Cllr Brian Cooper.

DESCRIPTION AND PROPOSAL Site Description and Location Field number 4343 is the site, stated by the applicant as being 0.10 hectares. The land slopes west for approximately 73m from an existing entrance down to a railway line embankment. There is some levelling of the land midway. The road (C5073) abuts the south boundary. A stone wall exists along all boundaries except between the land and the railway embankment. The land is open grassland with no identified current use, however, the applicant states that there have been two railway workers’ cottages in existence on the site - providing OS maps from 1899, 1920 and 1980 showing the location. A field access gate existed at the time the Informal Enquiry was submitted in 2014. The applicant has set back the gate, introduced a pedestrian gate, maintained the stone wall and laid a small amount of hard core. The access alterations are an improvement to highway safety but not to the extent required by Highways England for the unrestricted speed level on the C5073. The site is located in the Parish of Heversham, on the C5073 to B6385 approximately 250m from a cluster of Woodhouse properties to the west and approximately 160m from the first property of Woodhouse to the east. Heversham is approximately 1000m to the west. There exists a detached dwelling (Branthouse, Woodhouse LA7 7NQ) across the road to the west of the site and Hollin House, Woodhouse further east on the other side of the railway line. The surrounding land between the interspersed buildings and Heversham is largely agricultural land in open countryside.

Proposal Outline permission is sought to erect two dwellings offered as affordable housing for onward sale. All matters are reserved. An indicative layout is submitted showing

Page 53 two, 3-double bedroom dwellings. House one is a bungalow designed to provide for wheelchair access throughout; this would be the owners / applicants dwelling. House two is a two-storey barn conversion style dwelling for the owners’ son and family so that they can provide care to their parents. Two soakaways are proposed for surface water drainage and the adjoining land to the east is to be used as a foul drainage system.

HISTORICAL CONTEXT IE/2014/0069 - Informal Enquiry The siting of a detached or semi-detached dwelling in this location does not accord with Policies CS1.1 (Sustainable Development Principles), CS1.2 (Development Strategy), CS8.2 (Protection and enhancement of landscape and settlement character) of the South Lakeland Core Strategy or the Land Allocation Document. For the above reasons I am unable to support your proposal at this time. SL/2015/0857 - OPA Outline permission sought for a single dwelling – refused on 24 November 2015. Reason: The proposed development does not meet local and national planning policies for the location of new development and would adversely affect the open and distinctive character of the site. The proposal is thereby contrary to the Core Strategy Policies CS1.1, CS1.2, CS6.4, CS8.2 and the NPPF and does not warrant the exception of granting permission under CS6.6. The proposal does not meet the principles of sustainable development, provide for affordable housing or meet the criteria set out in the south Lakeland core strategy for new development within a hamlet or open countryside.

CONSULTATIONS Heversham Parish Council: Against policy therefore cannot support. Welcome the development of affordable housing within the Parish and provision for people with disabilities. The applicants proposed design suggests that the proposal would be sympathetic to a rural setting and several Councillors feel that the buildings would not be overly intrusive. Concern is raised about the access in respect of speed of traffic on a tight bend on the hill and sufficient parking within the site. However, the proposal appears to be contrary to the Local Plan policies and the draft Neighbourhood Plan. If planning permission was granted it would set a precedent that is entirely contrary to the views of the vast majority of parishioners who participated in the draft Neighbourhood Plan. For this reason the Parish Council is not able to support the application.

Page 54 Cumbria County Council - Highways: In line with housing parking guidelines 2.5 parking spaces are required for a 3- bedroom dwelling house. It is recommended that 5 spaces are provided to serve the dwellings allowing for a visitor parking space. The existing access will be utilised and should be designed and constructed to meet the standards as laid out in the current Cumbrian Design Guide. However with the intensification of the existing access they are asked to achieve a visibility splay of 2.4 x 215m. If this cannot be achieved a traffic speed survey should be provided to enable determination of visibility splays.

SLDC - Housing: The South Lakeland Strategic Housing Market Assessment (SHMA) identified 186 new affordable homes per year in the rural Kendal area. Of these, 100 for smaller 1 - 2 bed homes and 53 are for 3 + bed homes. There are no households registered for Heversham Parish and no social rented homes available. There are 66 households in need registered for Milnthorpe, being the nearest service centre, of which 58 need 1 - 2 bed homes. The proposed site is isolated not within reasonable walking distance of shops, schools or other services and is not that far from Greenside Farm in Hincaster where only 3 affordable homes were required with a commuted sum in place of any further affordable houses as it was decided that the location was too isolated for the full requirement of affordable housing. If this application is granted, an appropriate mix would include 2-bed houses.

United Utilities: In accordance with the National Planning Policy Framework the site should be drained on a separate system with foul water draining to the public sewer and surface water draining in the most sustainable way. A water supply can be made available to the proposed development. The level of cover to the water mains and sewers must not be compromised during or after construction. Water shall be separately metered. It is the applicants’ responsibility to demonstrate the exact relationship between any United Utilities assets and the proposed development.

Neighbours / Others: Objection - three letters • Busy narrow lane with no pavements and many bends. • Dangerous access due to speed of traffic on a hill and bend. • Popular cut through to the M6 from the neighbourhood and A65. • Busy with horse riders, cyclists and agricultural traffic.

Page 55 • The new development at Greenside Farm will further increase the traffic on this lane. • A number of accidents have been recorded in this location. • Highways response to SL/2015/0857 is up to date and the visibility required is not possible from anywhere on this plot of land. • NPPF - previously developed land – Annex 2: Glossary (p55) “Land which is or was occupied by a permanent structure, including the curtilage of the developed land” but excludes “land that was previously-developed but where the remains of the permanent structure or fixed surface structure have blended into the landscape in the process of time.” • Nothing different to the refused application. • Any dwellings on this site would be unnecessary and unattractive. • Affordable homes don’t mean the highways safety is any better.

Support / comment - 10 letters • Proposal is commended. • There are no affordable dwellings in Woodhouse and this will be a step towards helping local people. • Good that one dwelling is for disabled living, it will solve the applicants problems. • Having family on site will provide support and care to the applicants taking pressure off social services in the future. • Chronic shortage of bungalows leaving people trapped in larger homes. • Lack of housing for elderly or disabled living. • The bus service 552 runs from Arnside to Milnthorpe through Woodhouse only 5 - 6 minute walk away. • Self build affordable home for a local person still living at home. • Affordable homes a great idea. A welcome addition to Woodhouse. • Used the lane with children for 10 years and have no concerns about safety on the lane. A quiet road with little passing traffic. • Saddened to see the land derelict, look forward to the dwellings on this historic site, back on the land. • In 1976, remembrance of some buildings of red brick material on the site similar to other red brick properties along the line. Houses were demolished / fallen down in the mid 1950s.

APPLICANT’S REPRESENTATIONS The planning application states the reason for the proposal as:

Page 56 Mr and Mrs Woodend are selling their property in Milnthorpe to finance this proposal to enable them to provide a dwelling for their son who could not afford to buy at local prices. This however would mean that they were also homeless and so their resources would be invested in the second property. Whilst this is not strictly providing a social dwelling at this time it is providing a purpose built disabled unit which will enter the SLDC housing bank after the current occupancy. In response to the Parish Council response: comments that improvements have been made to the entrance on the advice of the planning officer (verbal comments made in respect of the existing constraints of the site). The occupants of the previous dwellings were part of the community. The proposal provides a starter home and disabled living for two families. Approval will not set a precedent because there are few brown field sites in open countryside. The development will be sympathetically built. Agent’s response to Highways and Housing Consultee responses: the Highway Authority accept that the altered access is acceptable for the development of two properties. Land under its current use could be used for heavy agricultural vehicles which would present a far greater hazard to road users than the proposed use. We accept the housing officer's statistics which identify a greater need for two bedroom properties rather than the three proposed. However, this does not take into account the projected provision of housing types for the affordable provision in other developments in the area. In our view a commercial developer is much more likely to provide standard two bedroom units as part of his undertaking than this proposal which provides a more expensive (to build) three bedroom unit and a three bedroom unit which has disabled provision. We are arguing therefore that this development will help to provide a more diverse range of housing to add to the South Lakeland District Council's affordable housing bank. The arguments regarding previous development of the site have already been clearly made. We would also add that the site is located close to a regular bus service. Medical letter from applicants General Practitioner: “I feel he (applicant) would be better suited to living longer term in a bungalow on a single level accommodation”.

POLICY ISSUES South Lakeland Core Strategy (CS): Policy CS1.1 Sustainable development principles requires that there is a need to take account of and enhance landscape character and features, directing most new development to service centres with adequate infrastructure, development should use existing buildings or previously developed land, be suitable infill within settlements and be well located in relation to housing jobs and other services and infrastructure. Policy CS1.2 The Development Strategy states outside of the development boundary of Key / Local Service Centres new development will only be permitted where it has an essential requirement for a rural location, is needed to sustain an existing business, provides affordable housing, is an appropriate extension of an existing building or involves the appropriate change in use of an existing building. Development outside of development boundaries is permitted where it would constitute small scale infilling or rounding off.

Page 57 The explanatory text to Policy CS1.2 expands the definition of infilling and rounding off as:- • Infilling – building taking place on a vacant plot in an otherwise built- up street frontage. • Rounding off – the completion of an incomplete group of buildings on land which is already partially developed, in such a way that will either complete the local road pattern or finally define and complete the boundaries of the group. Such rounding off should not: o change or distort the character or tradition of the group or the settlement in any undesirable way; o establish or give rise to the consolidation of ribbon development; o extend the grouping in such a manner that, when the development has taken place, undeveloped areas remain or further land is opened up where pressure for development is likely to occur; o cause undesirable back land development unrelated to a proper street layout; and o cause development which pre-empts the provision of public services or gives rise to demands for improvements or extension to services which may not be proposed at that time. Policy CS5 The East (including Milnthorpe and Kirkby Lonsdale) housing provision for small-scale housing development in Local Service Centres and to a lesser extent in the smaller rural settlements in order to ensure a readily available supply of affordable housing. Policy CS6.4 Rural exception policy housing development outside of the settlement boundaries in the Service Centres and where it does not constitute infilling or rounding off in the smaller villages and hamlets without boundaries will only be considered where they provide 100% affordable housing under certain criteria including the scheme demonstrating good design that is sympathetic to the local area, of a scale and style appropriate to its immediate surrounding and will be affordable in perpetuity and for people with a local connection, clear evidence of local support with regard to the views of the Parish Councils. Policy CS8.2 Landscape and settlement character states that development proposals should demonstrate that their location, scale, design and materials will protect, conserve, and where possible, enhance:- - the special qualities and local distinctiveness of the area; - distinctive settlement character; and - the pattern of distinctive features such as hedges, walls, traditional buildings, woodlands, hay meadows, wetlands, valleys, fells and rivers, and their function as ecological corridors for wildlife. Policy CS10.2 Transport Impact of New Development requires that development proposals should provide for safe and convenient access on foot, cycle, public and private transport addressing the needs of all including those with a disability.

Page 58 Development Plan Document (DPD): Local Plan Land Allocations: There are two Land allocations for housing development in Milnthorpe shown on Map 5.1 of the Local Land Allocations Development Plan Document. LA1.3 (site for up to nine dwellings) adjacent to St.Anthony’s Close and LA2.11 (site for up to 150 dwellings) on land South and East of Milnthorpe.

National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF): Para 54. In rural areas, exercising the duty to cooperate with neighbouring authorities, local planning authorities should be responsive to local circumstances and plan housing development to reflect local needs, particularly for affordable housing, including through rural exception sites where appropriate. Local planning authorities should in particular consider whether allowing some market housing would facilitate the provision of significant additional affordable housing to meet local needs. Para.55. Housing in rural villages where one village may support another. This is an isolated group in open countryside. There is evidence that development is needed to enhance or maintain its vitality. Isolated homes should be avoided unless there are special circumstances. 55. To promote sustainable development in rural areas, housing should be located where it will enhance or maintain the vitality of rural communities. For example, where there are groups of smaller settlements, development in one village may support services in a village nearby. Local planning authorities should avoid new isolated homes in the countryside unless there are special circumstances.

ASSESSMENT The key issues to consider in determining this application are:- 1. The principle of the development. 2. Personal circumstances and affordable housing. 3. Visual amenity and landscape settlement character. 4. Other considerations.

1. Application of Planning Policy - the Principle of development A recent application for one dwelling at the site was refused as it was unsustainable development in open countryside and it did not comprise infilling and rounding off in a hamlet / settlement and would adversely affect the open and distinctive character of the site contrary to Core Strategy Policies CS1.2 and CS8.2. The difference to this

Page 59 application is that two dwellings are sought; one with disability living, the other for a family member to live and support their parents disability living. Both to be offered as affordable dwellings when sold on after the applicants have vacated the site. The Core Strategy and NPPF set out sustainable development principles. Development should be sited to minimise the need to travel and in most cases this will be in existing service centres. Development should re-use existing buildings and previously developed land within settlements, utilise infill sites within settlements and be well related to housing, jobs and other services. Core Strategy Policy CS1.2 identifies a hierarchy of settlements; with development to be concentrated within Kendal and Ulverston, then the Key Service Centres, followed by a number of Local Service Centres, smaller villages and hamlets and finally the open countryside. Development boundaries have been identified for all but the smaller villages, hamlets and open countryside. The Strategy states that approximately 11% of new housing and employment development will be in the network of smaller villages and hamlets, and that exceptionally development in the open countryside will be allowed where it has an essential requirement for a rural location. This is reinforced by para 55 of the NPPF which encourages housing in rural areas where they would enhance and maintain the vitality of rural communities. New isolated homes in the countryside are to be avoided unless there are special circumstances. The site is in a rural location divorced from services and facilities. Car ownership and usage is a pre-requisite in this location and as such it does not satisfy the criteria for sustainable development. Local planning policy specifically Core Strategy CS1.2 sets out the Council’s position in respect of the location of new residential development. The first consideration is to whether the site is within a hamlet or settlement. In a recent appeal decision on a property approximately 320m east of this site, where the appeal against refusal for a detached dwelling was dismissed, (SL/2014/0790), the Planning Inspector noted that there is no definition of a hamlet in the Core Strategy however commented that if a settlement is to be treated as a hamlet for the purpose of Policy CS1.2 then it should have a centre which can then be subject to infilling or round off. There is no centre to Woodhouse which is better described as a sporadic small scale group of buildings in respect of the dwellings to the west of the site. The entrance to the site is approximately 360m from the entrance to the group of properties. The Core Strategy defines open countryside as everywhere outside the built up area (principal, key and local service centres along with smaller villages and hamlets) and includes farmsteads and sporadic, small-scale groups of dwellings. The site is in open countryside. Notwithstanding this the proposal must pass the second test of whether it amounts to small scale infilling or rounding off. The site is not a ‘vacant plot in an otherwise built- up street frontage’ which is the definition of infilling provided by CS1.2. Equally the site does not amount to ‘the completion of an incomplete group of buildings on the land which is already partially developed in such a way that would complete the local road pattern or finally define and complete the boundaries of the group’. On this basis the proposal does not comply with the definition of ‘rounding-off’ provided by Policy CS1.2.

Page 60 There is a need for affordable housing in the district and the Core Strategy makes provision for small scale housing in the smaller rural settlements in order to ensure a readily available supply of affordable housing. The refused application proposed no affordable, however this application proposes two affordable, but only after the applicants have departed. This exception is covered by Core Strategy Policy CS6.4. Policy CS6.4 supports housing in the smaller villages and hamlets only if they provide 100% affordable housing and only if they meet detailed criteria:- • There is clear evidence of local support for the scheme, having regard to the views of the Parish Councils within the Local Area Partnership. • There is clear and robust evidence of housing need. • The housing will be affordable in perpetuity and for people with a local connection. • The scheme is of a scale and style appropriate to its immediate surroundings. • There is clear evidence of the viability of the scheme. • The scheme demonstrates good design that is sympathetic to the local area.

The local authority has received 10 letters of support and three objections. Whilst the Parish Council has sympathy for the applicant it cannot support the application as they believe it is contrary to the Local Plan policies and the draft Neighbourhood Plan (1 and 2). The applicant has stated a family need. However, Housing Strategy have stated that there are no households registered on the Cumbria Choice Housing Register for the Parish of Heversham. Of the 66 households in need registered in Milnthorpe the majority seek 1 - 2 bed homes. Housing Strategy also highlight the reduced number of affordable homes included in the Greenside Farm development in Hincaster, three with a commuted sum because the location was considered too isolated for affordable dwellings. The proposal does not satisfy criteria (3). Point (4) In principle the proposal of two affordable dwellings is superficially attractive. However neither dwelling is offered for sale as affordable now. Therefore the dwellings will not add to the immediate affordable dwellings available to those registered on the local authority housing list and as such do not satisfy this criteria. Additionally, there is no way of identifying at what point in the future the dwellings will become available as affordable housing and how the saleable value of a large 4- bedroom dwelling will be capped. In terms of (5), (6) and (7) because this is an outline application all these matters would need to be dealt with as reserved matters and therefore cannot be taken account of. A number of sites have been allocated within the Land Allocation DPD to achieve additional housing, including affordable housing, over the period 2014 - 2019. The nearest allocated site to the proposal is in Milnthorpe and there will be additional sites nearby when the Arnside and Silverdale Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty Development Plan is adopted. In small villages, hamlets and the countryside, over and above existing permissions and allocations which will yield 228 dwellings, another 143 completions are expected. Planning permission has recently been granted for 22 dwellings at Greenside Farm (SL/2015/0497, SL/2015/0496 and SL/2015/0498) in relation to the former egg

Page 61 production / packing plant on the north side of nearby Greenside, approximately 550m from the site of which only three affordable are on site due to the isolated location; a commuted sum towards the equivalent of three affordable houses in the Service Centre of Milnthorpe was agreed instead.

2. S106 deliverability The Council’s solicitor has commented on the legal position: The applicant has proposed that the two dwellings will become available as affordable housing in perpetuity at some unknown point in the future once the applicants and their family have vacated the properties. Whilst a Section 106 agreement could be drawn up to secure that provision, the enforceability of such an agreement could be difficult. Consideration would need to be given as to when the properties are considered to be vacant. Would that be when the applicant no longer had a need for the disability living dwelling? If so, the Council would need to consider whether or not it would take action to seek vacation of the two dwellings and ask the existing occupiers to move out. This could lead to some reputational damaging reports in the local press. Alternatively, if the agreement is that the properties will be available as affordable housing once the applicants family choose to vacate them, there could be a substantial delay in the properties being available if ownership of the properties passes through inheritance laws. Furthermore, the properties do not belong to the Council or to a registered provider (such as a housing association). Therefore, the Council has no control over the condition of the properties which could expose the Council to cost once the properties become available as affordable dwellings. Furthermore, as the properties are not within the Council’s control and ownership, the Council would not be able to take possession proceedings to gain vacant possession should it be necessary. The affordability of a 4-bedroom dwelling in open countryside should also be considered. Given that the representations from Housing Strategy indicate that the greatest need for affordable housing is in the 1 – 2 bedroom category, it is questionable whether or not the proposed dwellings would assist the Council in achieving its affordable dwelling targets over the Local Plan period. In addition, the cost of construction of such properties (especially for a bungalow) could result in the price of the properties being set at a level which takes them out of the bracket that classifies them as affordable. The applicant considers that Core Strategy Policy CS6.6: Making effective and efficient use of land and buildings has relevance as the site has historically been the location for two railway workers cottages. The owners and residents confirm this to be the case several decades ago. Maps have been provided showing cottages on the site. However, the Council map used in Development Management from 1974 does not show any building on the site. National Policy and Local Policy CS6.6 requires local authorities to avoid inefficient use of land in accommodating new residential development thereby reducing the loss of greenfield sites to development on the edge of settlements. However the site has not been a brownfield site for a considerable amount of time and does not meet the definition in the NPPF. The site is a greenfield site in open countryside.

Page 62 3. Impact on visual and landscape settlement character. Dwellings in the vicinity are either grouped together or solitary with well-defined boundaries and separated by large areas of open countryside. Dependent on the reserved matters, it is likely that the site would continue that theme. The existing dwelling west of the site means the proposal would not be viewed in total isolation when viewed from the east or west. It would however increase development in the locality of otherwise open vistas introducing residential development into an otherwise undeveloped area. The development of two dwellings, with associated residential paraphernalia, on this greenfield site in open countryside would adversely affect landscape character.

4. Other considerations Access and parking Cumbria highways have commented that there are insufficient parking spaces shown on the indicative drawing. It is considered that the additional spaces and turning area can be provided comfortably within the site. However providing the required visibility splay would not be possible as this splay is greater than the site. Existing visibility of traffic approaching from the west is good. Visibility of traffic approaching from the south could be improved by reducing the wall height to 1 metre and setting back any landscaping. The entrance is on an ‘S’ bend therefore good driving practice should mean that traffic speed takes account of the natural restricted visibility. Highways comments have not been progressed because the proposal does not accord with the Core Strategy. If approved they would have to be dealt with as part of the reserved matters application. Surface water drainage, sewage and foul water Drawing no. 1614.05 shows the drainage proposal. This includes two soakaways, a land drain and private Klargester sewage treatment tank. Whilst United Utilities have commented that a water supply can be made available to the proposed development they have said that it is the applicants responsibility to demonstrate the exact relationship between United Utilities assets and the proposed development. In addition the applicant must demonstrate the surface water can be drained sustainably and that foul water should be drained to the public sewer. United Utilities comments have not been progressed because the proposal does not accord with the Core Strategy. If approved they would have to be dealt with as part of the reserved matters application.

CONCLUSION The proposal does not accord with national or local policy and therefore the Council is unable to support the proposal. The site has been assimilated into the landscape, has been a greenfield site for considerable time and is not a brownfield site, therefore Policy CS6.6 does not apply. The site is in an isolated location in open countryside opposite one dwelling, detached from services. It is not within a hamlet or settlement. The proposal does not meet national criteria or local policy exception criteria for new development in open countryside. Design and scale are subject to reserved matters and the designs submitted are indicative only. However,

Page 63 development in this location, particularly two storey, would introduce development in an otherwise undeveloped rural landscape. The level of harm could only fully be explored with reserved matters or a full planning application. The idea of onward sale as affordable dwellings is superficially attractive but a section 106 agreement that would comply with local policy is problematic generally and in this instance there would be severe legal impracticalities of enforcing such an agreement. Therefore it is considered that the proposal does not meet the aims and objectives of Core Strategy Policies CS1.1, CS1.2, CS5, CS6.4, CS8.2, and CS10.2; and the NPPF paragraphs 54 and 55.

RECOMMENDATION: REFUSE for the reason below:- Reason The site is in an isolated location in open countryside. The proposal does not meet national criteria or local policy exception criteria for new development in open countryside. The proposal does not accord with national or local policy for the location of housing and therefore the Council is unable to support the proposal. The location of two 3-bedroomed dwellings in open countryside will be detrimental to landscape character. It is considered that the proposal does not meet the aims and objectives of the Core Strategy Policies CS1.1, CS1.2, CS5, and CS6.4; and the National Planning Policy Framework paragraphs 54 and 55.

P & P The Local Planning Authority has acted positively and proactively in Statement determining this application by identifying matters of concern with the proposal and discussing those with the applicants agent at pre- application stage. Whilst changes have been made, the issues are so fundamental to the proposal that it has not been possible to negotiate a satisfactory way forward and due to the harm which has been clearly identified within the reason for the refusal, approval has not been possible.

Page 64 Item No.6(d)

SCHEDULE: (d) SL/2016/1023

PARISH: URSWICK Land adjacent to Daisy Hill Cottage

PROPOSAL: Erection of new self-build dwelling and alterations to vehicular access.

APPLICANT: Mr and Mrs S Swarbrick

Grid Ref: E: 327131 N: 474624

Page 65 w

e n

T B

e t t s o u o C e H s

e t u s a o o 4 o H

R B t f o r 1 C 2 e g a C t hu t k rc o ic h C LB V w ie t s e w f r g o l r U l ta a t C H o C e g a ll t i t H o

C y e s g i e a a t d 35.8m T t l a D o O k n rn C H e a o Y b u r se e C o w Daisy Hill tt o B House

Daisy Hill

Tarnside Cott

0 e

1 9 e g

g a 8 t a t

t 7 o 4 o C 0 C l . e 0m e g Tarn e r s d u E o s House a r R L te a t f W o r

nc Willow Grove e r r a

W Hagg End

Low Barn "

3 8 .

The material contained in this plot has been reproduced from an Ordnance Survey map with permission of the SL/2016/1023 Controller of Her Majesty's Stationery Office. Licence No. 100024277 © Crown Copyright Land adjacent to : Unauthorised reproduction infringes Crown Copyright and may lead to prosecution or civil proceedings Daisy Hill Cottage Great Urswick

Scale 1:1250

Page 66 SUMMARY The application seeks full planning permission for the erection of a single detached self-build dwelling on agricultural land between Daisy Hill Cottage and Urswick Hall Cottage, to the east of the village of Great Urswick. The principal issue is the location of the application site outwith the development boundary of Great and Little Urswick as defined in Policy LA1.1 of the South Lakeland Land Allocations Development Plan Document (LADPD), along with detailed considerations relating to; the impact of the development upon the character of the settlement of Great Urswick, the implications on the protected trees on site and the impact on highway safety. The application has been called in for consideration by Planning Committee by Cllr James Airey and Cllr Andrew Butcher.

DESCRIPTION AND PROPOSAL Site Description The settlement of Great Urswick takes the form of a ribbon of development which curves around Urswick Tarn. The application site is an area of open land on the northern side of the eastern arm of the settlement. The site fronts on to Church View. It has a highway frontage of 28 metres set between two dwellings; Daisy Hill Cottage to the east and Urswick Hall Cottage to the west. The site boundary extends to 520m² hectares and rises away relatively steeply from the highway. The land then rises away to pasture land to the north east. A small group of cottages are located opposite the site frontage to the south. This part of the village is characterised by traditional cottages directly adjoining the highway interspersed by open spaces. A stone wall forms the boundary with the highway, which has a 3 metre gap to allow for vehicular access, as permitted by application SL/2013/0704. There are three young sycamore trees located along the frontage, between 5- 7 metres into the site, which are protected by Tree Preservation Order (TPO No 240 0212). The application site and the adjoining land in the ownership of the applicant are laid to grass and the lawful use of the site is agricultural. At the time of writing the land appears to be being used for the storage of non-agricultural paraphernalia and there appears to be very little in the way of agricultural practices being conducted.

Proposal Full planning permission is sought for the erection of a detached two storey dwelling within the site. The dwelling is proposed to front on to the highway and be set back from the existing stone boundary wall by approx 2.7 metres (not including porch). It is located slightly to the west of the site and is to be built into the hillside at the rear. The overall height of the dwelling is 5.5m to the eaves and 7.5m to the ridge, with a footprint of 90m². There are two parking spaces proposed to the east of the dwelling; access to which will be gained directly from the highway by relocating the existing vehicular access. A vehicular access to the adjoining paddock will be retained via a ramp from the parking area.

Page 67 The proposed dwelling is of a relatively simple design with a dual pitched roof. Design features include a small traditional porch and Juliet balcony to the front elevation. The property is to be finished in a mixture of stone and render to the facades under a slate roof. The residential curtilage to the rear is to be defined by a stone wall and the remaining pasture land is to be left undeveloped. The proposal includes the removal of the three sycamore trees protected by Tree Preservation order No 240 0212. The applicant has indicated that they are willing to provide a full landscaping scheme in accordance with the requirements of the Local Planning Authority, and that the replacement trees planted can be subject to a Tree Preservation Order, if required. Surface water is to drain to a soakaway within the proposed parking area, whilst foul water is to drain to the existing sewer network.

HISTORICAL CONTEXT The site has been subject to the following planning history, as detailed in chronological order. 1994 - Outline planning permission refused for the construction of a bungalow within the site, for the following reasons:- (1) The Local Planning Authority do not consider this development to constitute either "infilling" or "rounding off". As such, this proposal is considered to be contrary to the provisions of Policy A3 of the Cartmel and Furness Local Plan. (2) Due to the elevated nature of the site, the proposed development would be obtrusive in the locality. (3) The proposed development would have a harmful effect on the mature trees which flank the road frontage of the site and are subject of a Tree Preservation Order. (4) The likely increase in traffic which would be generated as a result of the proposed access would be detrimental to the amenities of the occupiers of the existing residential property which flanks the access. 2011 - Consent granted for the removal of the three mature sycamore trees to the frontage of the site, and which were the subject of a Tree Preservation Order. There was evidence that they were not sound and were affecting the structure of the retaining stone wall. The consent was granted subject to a condition that three heavy standard replacement trees were planted within 5m of the original trees by March 2012. SL/2011/0741 - Planning permission refused for the construction of a detached dwelling and separate garage / workshop within the site, for the following reasons:- (1) The proposed dwelling would be located outside the development boundary of Great Urswick and in the absence of any justification for the development under the affordable housing exceptions policy; it is contrary to Policy CS6.4 of the adopted South Lakeland Core Strategy. (2) The development of this elevated site would result in an overbearing form of development, which would have a harmful impact on the character and appearance of Great Urswick. The acceptance of development on this site

Page 68 could lead to pressure for further development on adjacent sites to the detriment of the locality. Consequently, the proposal is in conflict with the aims and objectives of Policy CS8.10 of the adopted South Lakeland Core Strategy. The decision was subsequently appealed and dismissed by the Planning inspectorate. SL/2013/0704 - Planning permission approved for the re-grading of the field and the creation of a vehicular access. A subsequent application ref SL/2014/0129 was approved to discharge the conditions relating to this permission.

CONSULTATIONS Urswick, Bardsea and Stainton Parish Council: Recommend refusal for the following reasons:- • Location of development - outside the development boundary and part of a wildlife corridor between farm and the tarn. • Parking facilities and highway safety - inadequate parking facilities on site, access would cause highway safety issues. • Design of proposed development - the proposed style of the balcony is outside the historic character of the village and existing properties. • Protected trees - not supportive of felling and re-siting trees that are protected by TPO. Immature trees at present that will in time contribute to the street scene as the original trees did. • Archaeological significance - request that an archaeological evaluation be carried out before any development commencing. • Previous planning applications - grounds for refusal remain relevant to current application.

Cumbria Highways (CCC): Recommend refusal for the following reasons:- There is not enough parking provision on site for a 4 bedroom property in a rural location where parking on the highway already causes problems. No turning provision to enable vehicles to enter and leave the C class highway in a forward gear. Maximum gradient allowable is 1 in 20 for the first 15. Details of the measures to prevent surface water discharging onto the highway will need to be submitted.

Historic Environment Officer (CCC): Records show that the site lies in an area of archaeological potential as historic maps indicate that the medieval Urswick Hall was located on the site. Any surviving assets would be disturbed by the construction of the proposed development. Recommend that, in the event of planning being granted, an archaeological evaluation and, where assets are revealed, a scheme of archaeological recording be undertaken in advance of development. Condition suggested.

Page 69 Arboricultural Officer: Recommend refusal for the following reasons:- This site previously contained three mature sycamore trees which were protected by a Tree Preservation Order. An application was determined by the SLDC Planning Committee in early 2011 which granted the owner of the site permission to fell the three trees, subject to a condition requiring three replacement trees to be planted on the site. The replacement trees were protected by a new Tree Preservation Order (SLDC TPO No 240 2012) to ensure their protection and that they could achieve the objective of the replacement planting condition, to growing into prominent features in the local landscape replacing the amenity value previously provided by the felled trees. The trees, despite many changes on the site in recent years, have grown and are doing well. The current application is proposed in the same location as the three trees protected by SLDC TPO No 240 2012. Therefore the proposal is contrary to Policy C11. The applicant has proposed to plant replacement trees to the rear of the proposed dwelling, and that the replacement trees be protected by a new TPO. It will take many years for any replacement trees to attain a height whereby they would be visible from the adjacent highway and provide a significant contribution to the amenity of the village. Due to the impact of the development upon existing TPO protected trees I recommend the application is refused.

United Utilities: No objection subject to suggested conditions.

Others: Fourteen responses have been received objecting to the proposal from neighbours and other interested parties. The main reasons for objection are listed below:- Principle • The site is outside the Development Boundary and therefore contrary to policy. • Site has been degraded and is currently in a poor condition - not being used for lawful agricultural use. • Vehicular access to the site was granted to allow agricultural vehicles to access paddock. Proposed access is much narrower and will not cater for agricultural machinery, and is therefore not required. • Question whether the development falls within the definition of self-build. • Concern over the spread of further development. • Sufficient housing sites to meet requirement in Local Plan. • Previous reasons for refusal not changed materially. Landscape and visual amenity • Valued open space. • Greenfield site.

Page 70 • Design not in keeping with local vernacular and would detract from character of locality - in particular the balcony and gable windows. • Materials not specific enough. • Impact on the character and appearance of one of the two public access areas to the Tarn (the croft). Development Boundary makes sense in this location as it adds to the open countryside character of access via the croft to the tarn. Trees • TPO - protected trees should be retained and enhanced. Replanting elsewhere would cause landscape harm. Saplings are not unhealthy. Ecological / Geological • Proposal involves the excavation of the buttress end of the limestone escarpment known as Daisy Hill and over a fault line in Urswick Limestone Table - the outlet spring feed for the Tarn from this fault is in front of the site. Flash flooding has occurred previously and any disturbance to this may increase flooding events. Archaeological • On a site of archaeological interest. Highway Safety • Highway safety - Highway issues at Daisy Hill - narrow with parked cars and no pedestrian facilities. Poor visibility. Increase in traffic will worsen situation. • Inadequate parking provision for 4 bedroom house - would result in parking on the road. • Elevated drive - potential for surface water to drain to highway. • Access will be dangerous due to parked cars on a busy, narrow highway. Moved closer to the brow of the hill. • Existing access is for agricultural purposes. Residential Amenity • Overlooking from proposed windows. Higher than properties opposite - loss of privacy. • Reduce availability of on street parking for neighbouring properties.

POLICY ISSUES National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF): Paragraph 49: Housing applications should be considered in the context of the presumption in favour of sustainable development. Paragraph 55: Local planning authorities should avoid isolated homes in the countryside unless there are special circumstances, and to promote sustainable development in rural areas; housing should be located where it will enhance or maintain the vitality of rural communities. For example, where there are groups of

Page 71 smaller settlements, development in one village may support services in a village nearby. Paragraph 109 - The planning system should contribute to and enhance the natural and local environment by protecting and enhancing valued landscapes and minimise the impacts on biodiversity and providing net gains where possible. Residential Amenity - The protection of residential amenity in one or more of its various aspects is a material consideration in the determination of planning applications. The protection of the residential amenity of neighbouring residents is one of the Core Planning Principles of the NPPF (paragraph 17)

South Lakeland Core Strategy (CS): Policy CS1.1 Sustainable Development Principles notes that development should accord with a sequential approach, first using existing buildings and previously developed land within settlements ahead of other suitable infill opportunities within settlements and only then development of other land that is well located in relation to housing, jobs, other services and infrastructure. It also notes that development should minimise the need to travel and provide a choice of sustainable transport modes. Policy CS1.2 The Development Strategy states outside of the development boundary of Key / Local Service Centres new development will only be permitted where it has an essential requirement for a rural location, is needed to sustain an existing business, provides affordable housing, is an appropriate extension of an existing building or involves the appropriate change in use of an existing building. Policy CS6.1 Meeting the Housing Requirement states that the supply will be met by allocations within a DPD and within settlements. Policy CS6.4 Rural exceptions policy states that housing development where it does not constitute infilling and rounding off in the smaller villages and hamlets will only be considered where they are to provide 100% affordable housing under the exception site criteria. Policy CS8.1 Green Infrastructure seeks to protect important open spaces within settlements to contribute towards an important network of green corridors of value for wildlife. Policy CS8.2 Protection and Enhancement of Landscape and Settlement Character states that development proposals should be informed by, and be sympathetic to, the distinctive character landscapes identified in the Cumbria Landscape Character Guidance and Toolkit. Proposals should demonstrate that their location, scale, design and materials will protect and conserve and where possible enhance the special qualities and local distinctiveness of the area. Policy CS8.2 Landscape and Settlement Character also states that development proposals should demonstrate that their location, scale, design and materials will protect, conserve and, where possible, enhance:- - the special qualities and local distinctiveness of the area - the distinctive settlement character, and

Page 72 - the pattern of distinctive features such as hedges, walls, traditional buildings, woodlands, hay meadows, wetlands, valleys, fells and rivers, and their function as ecological corridors for wildlife. Policy CS8.10 Design states that the design, scale and materials of all development should be of a character which maintains or enhances the quality of the landscape or townscape and, where appropriate, should be in keeping with local vernacular tradition. Policy CS10.2 Transport Impact of New Development requires that development be designed to reduce the need to travel and to maximise the use of sustainable forms of transport. Development proposals should provide for safe and convenient access and foot, cycle, public and private transport, be served by safe access to the highway network without detriment to the amenity or character of the locality, the expected nature and volume of traffic generated by the proposal can be accommodated by the existing road network without detriment to the amenity or character of the surrounding area, local air quality or highway safety.

Development Plan Document (DPD): Local Plan Land Allocations: Policy LA1.1 Development Boundaries allocates a development boundary for settlements, including Great and Little Urswick. The policy states that the development needs of settlements will be met within the development boundaries defined on the policies map.

Saved Policies of the South Lakeland Local Plan (LP): Saved Policy S2 sets out the South Lakeland Design Code and requires development to take proper account of its principles. Saved Policy C11 sets out that development proposals which may cause significant damage or destruction to a tree or woodland protected by a Tree Preservation Order will only be permitted where:- 1. no alternative site is available 2. there is an overriding need for the proposal which outweighs the need to preserve the tree or woodland; and 3. mitigating measures are available to minimise damage and secure worthwhile replacement planting.

Council Plan 2014 – 2019: The broad aims of the five year Council Plan are to:- • Enable and deliver opportunities for economic growth. • Provide homes to meet need. • Improve residents’ health and well-being. • Protect the environment. It is stated “We will develop our Housing Strategy, working with our partners to help deliver housing to meet needs, working to help support the opportunities available to develop and expand self-build”.

Page 73 Under the heading ‘measures of success’, it is stated that “By 2025, we will have enabled the development of 500 self-build homes”.

Self-build and Custom Housebuilding Act 2015; and, Self-build and Custom Housebuilding (Register) Regulations 2016: The Regulations place a duty on relevant local planning authorities to keep a register of individuals and associations of individuals who are seeking to acquire serviced plots of land in the authority’s area in order to build houses for those individuals to occupy as homes. It is required that local planning authorities have regard to each self-build and custom housebuilding register that relates to their area when carrying out their planning, housing, land disposal and regeneration functions.

Housing and Planning Act 2016: The Housing and Planning Act 2016 came into law on the 12 May 2016. Section 10 of the Act places duty on a relevant local planning authority to grant permissions for enough serviced plots of land to meet the demand for self-build and custom housebuilding in the authority’s area arising in each defined base period. It is confirmed that the demand for self-build and custom housebuilding arising in an authority’s area in a base period is the demand as evidenced by the number of entries added during that period to the Self-build Register of the relevant local planning authority. The regulations enacting the provisions of the Act are yet to be prepared; therefore, limited weight is to be given to the relevant duties.

ASSESSMENT The key issues to consider in determining this application are: 1. The principle of the development. 2. The impact on landscape / settlement character. 3. Other considerations.

1. The principle of residential development in this location Policy CS1.2 identifies a hierarchy of settlements; with development to be concentrated within Kendal and Ulverston, then the Key Service Centres, followed by a number of Local Service Centres, smaller villages and hamlets and finally the open countryside. Development boundaries have been identified for all but the smaller villages, hamlets and open countryside.

Page 74 Great and Little Urswick is designated as a Local Service Centre by Core Strategy Policy 1.2, where approximately 21% of new housing and employment development will be located. It is confirmed that the “The exact scale and level of development supported will be dependent on individual character, the impact on environmental capacity and infrastructure provision, and the desire to meet the need for affordable housing as locally as possible”, and that; “Revised town and village boundaries for the Principle Key and Local Service Centres will be identified as part of the Allocation of Land DPD”. The application site is located ouwith, but directly adjacent to, the development boundary of Great Urswick as defined in the South Lakeland Land Allocations Development Plan Document (LADPD). LADPD Policy LA1.1 is clear that “Between 2010 and 2025 the development needs of these settlements will be met within the development boundaries defined on the policies map”. Paragraph 2.2 of the LADPD confirms that development boundaries outside the AONB have been reviewed not exclusively with regard to: existing housing, shopping and other urban uses; small ‘infill’ and ‘rounding off’ sites; areas with scope to improve an unsatisfactory settlement edge; and, land proposed for allocation for housing, employment or other urban or villages uses. The application site comprises an area of open countryside for the purposes of Policy CS1.2 of the Core Strategy. Policy CS1.2 is clear that “Exceptionally, new development will be permitted in the open countryside where it has an essential requirement for a rural location, is needed to sustain existing businesses, provides for exceptional needs for affordable housing, is an appropriate extension of an existing building or involves the appropriate change of use of an existing building”. The erection of a new build market dwelling in an area of countryside does not meet with the cited requirements of Policy CS1.2 of the Core Strategy. Whether or not the site can be classed as infilling, as referenced in the planning statement, is irrelevant in this situation as the infilling and rounding off element of Policy CS1.2 relates to settlements without development boundaries. Self-Build The Authority currently has 22 people on their Self Build Register. There is no one registered as showing an interest in the Great Urswick area. The Authority has reasonably approved sufficient development to meet the identified demand for self-build dwellings. Sites for dwellings exist within the development boundary of Great and Little Urswick as defined in the Policy LA1.1 and accord with the development plan, which could reasonably meet the identified demand for market self-build dwellings without the requirement to develop outwith the development boundary.

2. Impact on visual amenity and landscape / settlement character Whilst the site is categorised as Open Countryside for the purpose of planning policy, it is accepted that it is well related to the settlement and as a result does not have the sustainability issues associated with isolated developments in the open countryside. The site was purposely omitted when the local planning authority established the development boundary for Great Urswick, due to the positive contribution that the

Page 75 open nature of the site and the trees along the street frontage made to the character and appearance of the surroundings and settlement character. Despite the recent planning history on the site, the open street frontage continues to contribute positively to the character of the area and is strongly connected to the open countryside to the north, and it is considered that the infilling of this open space would have a negative impact on the street scene and settlement character. It is accepted that the trees do not provide the same amenity that the original counterparts provided before being felled, however it is appreciated that they are immature and have the potential to, in time. This issue is discussed in detail below. The proposed dwelling is sited close to, and fronting, the highway. It’s positioning and scale are in keeping with the pattern of development in this part of Great Urswick, and the house would be viewed as part of the street scene. The design and materials are largely in keeping with the local vernacular, however the Juliet balcony to the front elevation is considered to be an alien feature that would be resisted in this prominent location. In conclusion, although the siting and design of the proposed dwelling is largely in keeping with the local vernacular of the village, it is considered that the development of the site would result in the loss of an area of important open space within the streetscape. It would further degrade the amenity that the site provides within this part of the settlement and eliminate the opportunity for the protected trees that flank the site to mature. It would therefore be detrimental to the settlement character of Great Urswick, contrary to Policy CS8.2 of the Core Strategy.

3. Other considerations Trees The proposal involves the removal of three sycamore trees along the frontage of the site, which are protected by a Tree Preservation Order. The applicant is of the opinion that one of the trees in particular is suffering, and that overall they are very small and add nothing to the street scene. The trees were planted to replace three mature trees that were felled with consent in 2011. The replacement trees were required as part of this permission, and they were protected to ensure that they could grow into prominent features in the local landscape to replace the amenity value previously provided by the felled trees. The arboriculturist is of the opinion that the trees have grown and are doing well, and that the development would be contrary to the requirements of saved Policy C9. The application makes reference to the planting of replacement trees as part of a full landscaping scheme to the rear of the proposed property. It is considered that this would by no means provide an adequate replacement to meet the mitigation requirements of saved Policy C9, as the trees would be located at least 19 metres back from the highway and be largely screened from public view by the property itself. The loss or replacement of these trees would further compromise the character of the settlement. Residential Amenity The dwelling is positioned within the site close to the boundary with the neighbouring property to the west; Urswick Hall Cottage. However, there is a separation distance of 15.5 metres between the house itself and the proposed dwelling. There are two

Page 76 ground floor and one first floor windows in the side (west) elevation; it is considered that the topography, screening and separation distance is adequate to ensure no detrimental impact from overlooking. The proposed dwelling is located 11.2 metres from the neighbouring property to the east; Daisy Hill Cottage, with the proposed parking area between the two. There is one ground floor and two first floor windows proposed in the side (east) elevation. Stone walls will be used to form the boundary of the parking area which will provide some screening from overlooking from the ground floor window. The first floor windows are to serve a utility and a shower room, and so obscure glazing could be secured via condition to ensure no impact from overlooking. Given that these are not primary rooms and there is an adequate separation distance, it is considered that there would be no detrimental harm from overlooking. At the closest point, the proposed dwelling is approx 10 metres from the rear of the properties opposite to the south. The highway intersects the two sites and so it is considered that the windows within these properties are subject to public vantage, and that the proposed dwelling would not cause further harm from overlooking. The positioning and orientation of the proposed dwelling ensures that there is an adequate separation between the dwelling and the neighbouring properties to ensure that no detrimental harm is caused to the residential amenity of the neighbouring properties as a result of overshadowing or overbearing, or the amount of light infiltration. Concern has been raised over the loss of on street parking as a result of the proposal. As there would be no loss of formal designated parking spaces as a result of the proposal, it is not considered material to the consideration of the proposal. Highway Safety The proposal includes the relocation and enlargement of the existing vehicular access, and the provision of two parking spaces directly adjacent to the property. The Highways Authority is of the opinion that the provision of two parking spaces for a four bedroom house in this location is insufficient. It has been recommended that the application is refused as the parking provision is inadequate and is likely to result in vehicles being parked outside the site. The current access is to serve the agricultural field and is therefore, in theory, used on an ad-hoc basis when vehicular access is required to the field. The new access is relocated further to the east and closer to the brow of the hill, and would result in an intensification of its use. Furthermore, the parking spaces provided can only be accessed or egressed in a reverse gear as there is no turning space available within the site. The stretch of road in question has anecdotal problems with parked cars which reduce visibility somewhat, and so there is concern that this manoeuvre would cause harm to highway safety. Overall, it is considered that the proposed access and parking arrangements are inadequate and would cause detriment to the road network and highway safety in the area. If the application was to be approved, further information would be required to ensure that no surface water would drain onto the highway and that the development would not impact upon flooding in the area.

Page 77 Archaeological interest The potential for archaeological interest on the site has been alluded to, and it is considered that such could be adequately dealt with by a planning condition on the event of a planning application being approved. Comparison with other planning approvals The applicants’ agent draws comparison with two planning applications; ref: SL/2015/1146 and SL/2016/0468, in seeking to provide justification for the proposed development. The agent correctly identifies that the respective applications relate to development located outwith but adjacent to the defined settlement boundary. On this basis the agent affirms that the principle of the proposed development should be considered favourably. It is affirmed that each planning application must be treated on its merits and that the approval of an application does not set a precedent. The circumstances of the applications referred to are different and not directly comparable to the application being assessed. It is accepted that the sites referenced are located outwith the defined development boundaries, however both formed part of a domestic curtilage and were considered to be read as part of the developed extent of their respective settlements. Furthermore, there were no other material considerations against the proposals in those circumstances and so the planning balance was in favour of approval.

CONCLUSION The application site is located outwith the development boundary of Great and Little Urswick as defined in Policy LA1.1 of the LADPD in an area of open countryside. The applicant has failed to demonstrate that the proposed development has an essential need for a rural location; therefore, the principle of the development is not supported by Policy CS1.2 of the Core Strategy. The proposal is therefore contrary to policy and not acceptable in principle. It also considered that there are a number of detailed considerations relevant to the proposal that further reduce the acceptability of the development. The application site has been long considered as an important area of open space within the village, hence the reason for it not being contained within the development boundary. Development of the site would permanently remove this open element from the streetscape and the amenity it provides, as well as eliminating the opportunity for the site and amenity value to be enhanced as the protected trees mature in time. The application would therefore be detrimental to the settlement character of Great Urswick contrary to Policy CS8.2 of the Core Strategy. The proposal involves the removal of three protected sycamore trees without justification and does not provide adequate mitigation in terms of replacement planting. The proposal is therefore contrary to saved Policy C9 of the South Lakeland Local Plan. The proposal does not provide adequate parking and turning facilities within the site and therefore would cause detriment to the road network and highway safety in the area. The proposal is therefore contrary to Policy CS10.2 of the Core Strategy.

Page 78 Whilst weight must be afforded to the statutory duties of the Self-build and Custom Housebuilding Act 2015; Self-build and Custom Housebuilding (Register) Regulations 2016; and, the Housing and Planning Act 2016, it is considered that this does not override the fundamental conflicts that exist with Policies CS1.2, CS8.2 and CS10.2 of the Core Strategy and saved Policy C9 of the Local Plan.

RECOMMENDATION: REFUSE for the reasons below:- Reason (1) The application site is located outwith the development boundary of Great and Little Urswick as defined in Policy LA1.1 of the South Lakeland Land Allocations Development Plan Document, and is therefore categorised as being in an area of open countryside. The applicant has failed to demonstrate that the proposed development has an essential need for an open countryside location; therefore, the principle of the development is not supported by Policy CS1.2 of the South Lakeland Core Strategy and para 55 of National Planning Policy Framework.

(2) The proposed development would result in the loss of a valued open space that provides significant amenity to the streetscape and wider landscape. The development would therefore adversely affect the character of the settlement of Great Urswick and potentially open up further land to development pressure contrary to Policies CS1.1, CS1.2 and CS8.2 of the South Lakeland Core Strategy, and the sustainability aims of the National Planning Policy Framework.

(3) The proposed development would result in the loss of three protected sycamore trees; there is no need for their removal that outweighs the harm caused and the proposal does not provide adequate mitigation in terms of replacement planting. The proposal is therefore contrary to saved Policy C9 of the South Lakeland Local Plan and Policy CS8.2 of the South Lakeland Core Strategy.

(4) The development would have a significant adverse effect on the road network in the area as the parking and turning are considered unsuitable to serve the development; it would thereby be detrimental to highway safety and adversely affect residential amenity contrary to South Lakeland Core Strategy Policies CS7.6 and CS10.2, saved Local Plan Policies T6 and T8, and National Planning Policy Framework paragraphs 17 and 32.

Page 79 P & P The Local Planning Authority has acted positively and proactively Statement in determining this application by identifying matters of concern with the proposal and discussing those with the applicant. However, the issues are so fundamental to the proposal that it has not been possible to negotiate a satisfactory way forward and due to the harm which has been clearly identified within the reason for the refusal, approval has not been possible.

Page 80 Item No.7

South Lakeland District Council PLANNING COMMITTEE 26th JANUARY 2017 A REPORT ON MONTHLY ENFORCEMENT ACTIVITY BETWEEN 1st – 30th NOVEMBER 2016

PORTFOLIO: Not applicable

REPORT FROM: David Sykes - Director (People and Places) REPORT AUTHOR: Mark Balderson – Planning Enforcement Officer

WARDS: All

KEY DECISION NO: Not applicable

1.0 EXPECTED OUTCOME 1.1 To inform Members about planning enforcement activity between 1 November and 30 November 2016. This report aims to provide a brief and informative insight into current enforcement cases, action taken, on-going investigations and cases closed.

2.0 RECOMMENDATION 2.1 It is recommended that Members note the contents of appendix 1 and endorse the delegated actions of officers in closing cases as set out in appendix 2.

3.0 BACKGROUND AND PROPOSALS 3.1 Enforcement Activity: November 2016

Cases on hand at 1 November 2016 196 New cases 13 Total cases closed 20 Cases on hand at 31 November 2016 189

3.2 Enforcement cases for which Committee consideration is sought 3.2.1 None to report.

Page 81 3.3 An update on enforcement cases involving enforcement action: 3.3.1 An update on those cases involving formal enforcement action is attached as appendix 1. 3.4 Summary of enforcement cases which have been investigated and closed under delegated powers: 3.4.1 Officers consider it important that Members are aware of the enforcement cases that have been investigated by officers and that Members note / endorse that these cases have been closed and no further action taken. These cases are set out in appendix 2. 4.0 CONSULTATION 4.1 Not applicable.

5.0 ALTERNATIVE OPTIONS 5.1 Not applicable.

6.0 LINKS TO COUNCIL PRIORITIES 6.1 This report links to the aim of “Enhancing the environment in which we live, and supports the national performance indicators”. The National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) paragraph 207 states “planning enforcement is important as a means of maintaining public confidence in the planning system”. 6.2 Having an effective robust planning enforcement regime involving people will help make South Lakeland the best place to live, work and visit. Dealing with unauthorised development in an efficient, firm and fair manner, fosters strong links with the community, increased public confidence in the Council and value for money.

7.0 IMPLICATIONS 7.1 Financial and Resources 7.1.1 Cost implications only arise if the matter ultimately requires court or direct action in default. 7.2 Human Resources 7.2.1 The recommendations in this report do not have any staffing implications. 7.3 Legal 7.3.1 See report. 7.4 Social, Economic and Environmental 7.4.1 This report does not have any registered significant environmental effects. 7.5 Equality and Diversity 7.5.1 The 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.

Page 82 7.6 Risk Risk Consequence Controls required The failure of a Ombudsman To maintain sufficient statutory requirement maladministration resources in planning to investigate investigation. Result in enforcement and breaches of planning inappropriate forms of prioritise and co- law with an effective development, which would ordinate the investigative have an adverse impact on investigation of compliance and the character, and breaches of planning enforcement system. appearance of the control. District’s historic towns and rural landscape.

CONTACT OFFICERS Mark Balderson, Planning Enforcement Officer Tel: 01539 793353 email: [email protected]

APPENDICES ATTACHED TO THIS REPORT Appendix No. 1 A report on enforcement cases where authorisation to take enforcement action has been sought. 2 A report to provide a summary of the cases which have been resolved under delegated authority in this committee month.

BACKGROUND DOCUMENTS AVAILABLE Name of Background Where it is available document Various planning files Planning Department website: http://applications.southlakeland.gov.uk/planningap plications/welcome.asp

Page 83 TRACKING INFORMATION Assistant Portfolio Solicitor to the SMT Scrutiny Director Holder Council Committee n/a n/a 11 Jan 2017 n/a n/a Executive Committee Council Section 151 Monitoring (Cabinet) Officer Officer n/a 26 Jan 2017 n/a n/a n/a Human Leader Ward Development Resource Councillor(s) Management Services Group Team Manager Leader n/a n/a n/a 12 Jan 2017

Page 84 APPENDIX 1 The purpose of this appendix is to provide a brief summary of the on-going action of cases with committee authorisation and delegated authority.

REF No. PARISH SITE ADDRESS BREACH / CONTRAVENTION PROGRESS / NEXT STEP 11168 PENNINGTON Cowran Farm Laying a substantial amount of Officers confirm the site is being hardcore in agricultural field to used for storing a mixture of create hard-standing, used for unrelated items and farm storage of none agricultural machinery. Taking action for equipment. untidy site Section 215. 15019 KIRKBY LONSDALE Underley Hall Unauthorised works to listed Listed building Enforcement Notice building. served and took effect on the 19 Page 85 Page October 2016. No appeal has been received. The site is now in the Yorkshire Dales National Park. 13257 KENDAL 9 Allhallows Lane Breach of condition relating to Officers to continue compliance opening times. monitoring. Necessary for officers to conduct out of hours visits. 14033 KENDAL 26 Derwent Drive Erection of 1.8m fence adjacent to Case closed, officers satisfied the the highway. requirements in the Notice although not fully complied with, are satisfactory. 14060 PENNINGTON Land at Low Greaves Erection of buildings. Running Recent site visit confirms the agricultural business and repair and owners have carried out some of storage of vehicles. the requirements in the Enforcement Notice.

REF No. PARISH SITE ADDRESS BREACH / CONTRAVENTION PROGRESS / NEXT STEP 14194 LUPTON Low Row Operational development, laying of Site visit confirms the Enforcement hardcore to create a 120 metre Notice has not been complied with. road. Officers instructed legal services to commence legal proceedings. 14262 PRESTON PATRICK 1 Gatebeck Cottages Erection of 1.8 metre fence adjacent Enforcement Notice not been fully Gatebeck to the highway. complied with. Informed owners we intend to commence legal proceedings. 15102 GRANGE over SANDS Lingwood Park Excavation, laying of hard-core, The owner has submitted an Cartmel Road creation of concrete base, siting of intention of appeal to the Planning

Page 86 Page caravan for residential use. Inspectorate. Officers in negotiation with owners and agent. 15130 GRANGE over SANDS Monton, 10 cart Lane Alterations to roof of dwellinghouse. Awaiting the Planning Inspectorate’s decision on the appeal to the Enforcement Notice. 15101 KENDAL 8 River Bank Road Running a contracting business Enforcement Notice has been from dwellinghouse. served, compliance before 6 January 2017. No appeal has been made to the Notice. APPENDIX 2 A report to provide a summary of the cases which have been resolved under delegated authority in this committee month.

Closed cases between 01/11/2016 and 30/11/2016 20

Ref No Parish Site Address Allegation of Breach Reason for Closure 14063 KENDAL 12 Birkbeck Road LA9 Breach of Condition 2 to PP Planning Enforcement Notice 7PW SL/2010/0535, fence not erected. complied with. 14198 MILNTHORPE Land to the north-west of Erection of large poly tunnel Planning Enforcement Notice Highfield LA7 7DG adjacent to agricultural barn. complied with, poly tunnel removed Page 87 Page from site. 15054 KENDAL 30 Kirkbarrow LA9 5DE Unitdy residential dwelling. Property being dealt with by Environmental Health. 15164 LEVENS Land at 11 - 13 Beathwaite Erection of a building. Building removed. Close 16023 OLD HUTTON Land adjacent to Reservoir Erection of a building on agricultural Retrospective planning permission AND Road, New Hutton land. granted. HOLMESCALES 16033 KENDAL 1 Rowan Tree Crescent Siting of a touring caravan for Caravan removed. LA9 6AN residential use. 16051 LUPTON Plough Hotel, Lupton LA6 Formation of garden area and Granted permission SL/2016/0847 1PJ erection of illuminated sign. and SL/2016/0846. 16060 BURTON IN 59 St James Drive LA6 Not built in accordance with No breach - PD. KENDAL 1HY approved plans to SL/2015/1114 (materials)

Ref No Parish Site Address Allegation of Breach Reason for Closure 16062 LOWER Land south of Cartmel to Operational development - Laying of Planning permission granted. ALLITHWAITE Cark before Gateshead hardcore Farm, Cartmel LA11 7NR 16126 NATLAND Natland Millbeck Farm, 'the Unauthorised advertisement Deminimis. Café' LA9 7LH 16143 KENDAL 19 Ullswater Road LA9 Erection of timber structure. Structure removed. 6LQ 16150 ARNSIDE 11 Plantation Avenue Breach of Condition 2 attached to No breach. SL/2012/0337. 16156 BEETHAM Rose Villa, Hale LA7 7BL Breach of Condition 2 attached to Permission granted SL/2016/0819. Page 88 Page SL/2008/1210. 16160 PRESTON Oaklea, Gatebeck Road, Breach of Condition 3 attached to No breach. RICHARD Endmoor LA8 0HH SL/2013/0900. 16185 KENDAL The Ghyll, Brigsteer Road Breach of Conditions 3 (protection of Not expedient, tree protection been LA9 5DY beck), 4 (surface water), and 5 implemented. (trees) attached to SL/2013/0664. 16211 STRICKLAND 33 Chapel Field, Burneside Erection of shed. Permitted development. KETEL LA9 6QP 16214 KIRKBY Boots, 2 - 4 Market Street, Unauthorised A Board tied to sign Advertisement removed. LONSDALE Kirkby Lonsdale, LA6 2AN post advertising crossing point café. 16217 KENDAL 57 Archers Meadow LA9 Parking of commercial vehicles - No breach. 7DY material change of use. 16231 KENDAL 54 Branthwaite Brow LA9 Works to listed building without Conservation officer considers works 4TX consent (roof and pointing). acceptable. No Further action. 16236 URSWICK Lane Ends, Coast Road, Siting of agricultural building No breach. Bardsea LA12 9QZ

Item No.8

South Lakeland District Council PLANNING COMMITTEE 26 January 2017 APPEALS UPDATE

PORTFOLIO: Not applicable

REPORT FROM: David Syke s - Director People and Places

REPORT AUTHOR: Mark Shipman – Development Management Group Manager

WARDS: All not wholly w ithin a National Park

KEY DECISION : Not applicable

1.0 EXPECTED OUTCOME 1.1 The report updates Members on performance measures and recent appeals. It is anticipated that targets and objectives will continue to be achieved at the year end.

2.0 RECOMMENDATION 2.1 It is recommended that Members note the report and the contents of appendix 1.

3.0 BACKGROUND AND PROPOSALS 3.1 There have been four decisions received since the last committee. These and undecided appeals are shown as set out in appendix 1. 3.2 The Growth and Infrastructure Act 2013 sets out the legal mechanism to measure the performance of a Council to determine whether they should be placed in special measures. One of the indicators is whether more than 20% of appeals for major applications were being lost over a two year period. 3.3 There used to be a Best Value Performance Indicator relating to all appeals which measured the efficiency of planning policies; we continue to measure appeals decisions against an overall target of 33% allowed appeals. 3.4 Of the three recent allowed appeal decisions, two relate to the impact on the landscape and character of the area. In the cost decision for Dalegarth, the Inspector stated that this is a matter of planning judgement and cannot be construed as unreasonable behaviour. The third relates to the deletion of a condition restricting a free standing building to be used as ancillary accommodation and be used as a separate dwelling with a condition attached

Page 89 requiring local occupancy. None of these decisions indicate a policy failure and the appeal decision for Bush Green is included for Members information in Appendix 2.

4.0 CONSULTATION 4.1 Not applicable. 5.0 ALTERNATIVE OPTIONS 5.1 Not applicable. 6.0 LINKS TO COUNCIL PRIORITIES 6.1 This report links to the aim of “Enhance and protect the district’s high quality environment .” 6.2 Locally we have set a target of a maximum number of appeals allowed as 33%. All enforcement appeals are discounted from the indicator because it measures the efficiency of planning policy. The current overall performance, calculated from those decisions received since 1 April 2016, is 62% success in defending appeals against refusal (that is 38% allowed and this is above the 33% maximum local target). 6.3 The Government measures appeal performance on major applications over a two year period and set the target at 20%. The measure used for assessing the quality of decisions is the percentage of decisions on applications for major development that have been overturned at appeal, once nine months have elapsed following the end of the assessment period; as recorded in the data collected by the Department for Communities and Local Government (DCLG). 6.4 The percentage figure for the assessment period as a whole is used. The nine months specified in the measure are to enable the majority of decisions on planning applications made during the assessment period to be followed through to subsequent appeals that may be lodged, and for the outcome of those appeals to be known. 6.5 The assessment period for this measure is the two years up to and including the most recent quarter for which data on planning application decisions are available at the time of designation (designation is considered annually in October), taking into account the nine months to be allowed for beyond the end of the assessment period. The period under consideration is 1 January 2012 to 31 December 2014 and the figures are taken from the DCLG website.

Total major Major Total major Total Major Quality of application applications decisions major decisions decisions (% decisions not decided and non- appeal overturned overturned at determined decisions at appeal appeal) cases 140 1 141 5 2 1.4

Page 90 The quality of decision making performance is 1.4% and is well below the 20% threshold to trigger the Council being placed in Special Measures, applying this criterion. SLDC is ranked 141/336 nationally.

6.6 DCLG also publish appeal decision for “Minor and Others” combined, and the Housing and Planning Act 2016 states that this will be another measure to determine if a Local Planning Authority is to be placed in special measures. With this in mind the following extract is presented for Member’s information. The same time period is used.

Total minor Minor and Total minor Total Minor and Quality of and other other and other minor and other decisions (% decisions applications and non- other decisions overturned at not decided determined appeal overturned appeal) cases decisions at appeal 1220 0 1220 39 6 0.0

It is proposed by the Government that the target to be achieved is between 10% - 20% overturned on appeal. SLDC had 0.005% overturned and is ranked 43 / 336 nationally.

7.0 IMPLICATIONS 7.1 Financial and Resources 7.1.1 The recommendations in this report do not have any cost implications. 7.2 Human Resources 7.2.1 The recommendations in this report do not have any staffing implications. 7.3 Legal 7.3.1 Not applicable. 7.4 Social, Economic and Environmental 7.4.1 This report does not have any registered significant environmental effects. 7.5 Equality and Diversity 7.5.1 The 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. 7.6 Risk Risk Consequence Controls required Failure to achieve the Ultimately the failure to Target of maximum number of National Performance achieve Government appeals “allowed” - 33% and target of less than 20% targets in relation to majors at 20%. Ensure that of major application major appeals could sufficient resources maintained appeals being allowed result in the Council in planning so that major over a 2 year period. It being put into Special applications in particular are is anticipated that there Measures and the dealt with within targets thus

Page 91 Risk Consequence Controls required will be a target of 10 – powers to determine avoiding non-determination 20% for a quality major applications appeals. Ensure that performance indicator in being lost to central applications are determined in relation to all minor and Government / Planning accordance with policy and that other planning Inspectorate. there is a presumption in favour application appeals. of sustainable development.

CONTACT OFFICERS Mark Shipman, Development Management Group Manager – Tel: 01539 793332. Email: [email protected]

APPENDICES ATTACHED TO THIS REPORT Appendix No. 1 A table showing appeal decisions received from the Planning Inspectorate, and all appeals that are still awaiting a decision. 2 Appeal decision for Bush Green, Foxfield Road, Broughton.

BACKGROUND DOCUMENTS AVAILABLE Name of Background Where it is available document Various planning files Planning Department / website:

TRACKING INFORMATION Assistant Portfolio Solicitor to the SMT Scrutiny Director Holder Council Committee 11 Jan 2017 n/a 11 Jan 2017 n/a n/a Executive Co mmittee Council Section 151 Monitoring (Cabinet) Officer Officer (Corporate Director) n/a 26 January n/a n/a n/a 2017 Human Leader Ward Development Resource Councillor(s) Management Services Group Manager Manager n/a n/a n/a 11 Jan 2017

Page 92 APPENDIX 1

Site Description SLDC Decision Planning Inspectorate Ref Planning and start date Inspectorate South Lakeland Planning Decision Ref

GRANGE over Appeal against issue of ENFORCEMENT APP/M0933/C/16/3153405 Awaited SANDS: Enforcement Notice 15/07/16 Monton, Cart Lane SL/2016/0700

Page 93 Page URSWICK Siting of lodges (caravans), parking, Refused 19/1/16 APP/M0933/W/16/3153222 ALLOWED tarn, wildlife area and package Dalegarth, Mascalles 17/08/16 6 January 2017 treatment plant. SL/2015/1072

CASTERTON Conversion of former boarding Refused 24/6/16 APP/M0933/W/16/3156343 Awaited Casterton Lower school to provide 17 additional 9/09/16 ( INQUIRY ) School (Bronte House, dwellings (total of 20) SL/2016/0016 Crookenden House and Garner House)

DOCKER Retention of timber shed for Refused 22/7/16 APP/M0933/W/16/3156430 ALLOWED smallholding High Carley, Oldfield 19/09/16 23 December SL/2016/0467

Site Description SLDC Decision Planning Inspectorate Ref Planning and start date Inspectorate South Lakeland Planning Decision Ref BROUGHTON WEST Removal of condition 6 (Not to be Refused 11/2/16 APP/M0933/W/16/3155490 ALLOWED used as a separate residential Bush Green, Foxfield 19/09/16 23 December dwelling) attached to planning Road, Broughton in SL/2015/1165 Furness permission SL/2012/0877 KENDAL Dwelling and associated vehicular Refused 29/7/16 APP/M0933/W/16/3159337 Awaited 10 Ruskin Close access (revised scheme 10/10/16 SL/2015/0537) SL/2016/0548 Page 94 Page

KIRKBY LONSDALE Garage with first floor gym, office Non- APP/M0933/W/16/3158576 DISMISSED and balcony determination Terret Dene 10/10/16 21 December SL/2016/0337

HINCASTER Retrospective subdivision of Refused 22/4/16 APP/M0933/W/16/3157848 Awaited Yew Tree, Viver Lane dwelling to create an additional 14/11/16 dwelling SL/2015/0921

KENDAL Single storey rear and side Refused 15/7/16 APP/M0933/D/16/3160118 Awaited Ferndene, Caroline extension and front porch 21/11/16 Street SL/2016/0352

Site Description SLDC Decision Planning Inspectorate Ref Planning and start date Inspectorate South Lakeland Planning Decision Ref KENDAL Formation of roof terrace Refused 24/5/16 APP/M0933/D/16/3153794 Awaited 3 The Old Woodyard, 14/12/16 High Tenterfell SL/2016/0314

BEETHAM Dwelling Refused 24/6/16 APP/M0933/W/16/3164582 Awaited Land at Corner of 4/1/17 Arnside Lane, Hale SL/2016/0412 Page 95 Page

APPENDIX 2

Appeal Decision Site visit made on 7 December 2016 by John Dowsett MA DipURP DipUD MRTPI an Inspector appointed by the Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government Decision date: 23 December 2016

Appeal Ref: APP/M0933/W/16/3155490 Bush Green, Foxfield Road, Broughton in Furness, Cumbria LA20 6BY · The appeal is made under section 78 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 against a refusal to grant planning permission under section 73 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 for the development of land without complying with conditions subject to which a previous planning permission was granted. · The appeal is made by Mr D Palmer against the decision of South Lakeland District Council. · The application Ref: SL/2015/1165, dated 16 December 2015, was refused by notice dated 11 February 2016. · The application sought planning permission for erection of annex and installation of sewage treatment plant without complying with a condition attached to planning permission Ref: SL/2012/0877, dated 13 February 2013. · The condition in dispute is No 6 which states that: The building hereby permitted shall not be occupied at any time other than for purposes ancillary to the residential use of the dwelling known as Bush Green and shall not be sold, let or otherwise disposed of as a separate dwelling unit. · The reason given for the condition is: To ensure that the proposed development does not result in the establishment of a separate residential unit. The site is located in an area where only dwellings to meet an essential local need are permitted.

Decision

1. The appeal is allowed and planning permission is granted for the erection of an annex and installation of sewage treatment plant at Bush Green, Foxfield Road, Broughton in Furness, Cumbria LA20 6BY in accordance with the application Ref: SL/2015/1165 dated 16 December 2015, without compliance with condition number 6 previously imposed on planning permission Ref: SL/2012/0877 dated 13 February 2013, and subject to the new conditions set out in the attached schedule.

Procedural matter

2. Planning permission SL/2012/0877 describes the development as “erection of annex and installation of sewage treatment plant”. The appellant states that this is not the wording used on the original planning application form and that the description was changed without the agreement of the appellant. The evidence from the parties shows that the original wording was for a “New ancillary dwelling and treatment plant”. I saw on my site visit that the building which is the subject of this appeal is a freestanding structure, separated by some distance from the main house and that it has the characteristics of a small dwelling. To a degree, this is a semantic argument as an annex is capable of being a freestanding supplementary building. The Section 73

Page 96 Appeal Decision APP/M0933/W/16/3155490

application that forms the subject of this appeal was clear that it sought a rewording of Condition 6 to remove the requirement that the building be occupied only as ancillary accommodation to Bush Green and replace this with a local occupancy requirement. The practical effect of this, regardless of the description of the development on the original planning permission, would be to sever the relationship between the main house and the annex and to create a separate dwelling, albeit one that could only be occupied by persons meeting certain specified requirements.

3. I also note that the decision notice issued by the Council in respect of the appeal proposal describes the proposal as the ‘removal of Condition 6’ whereas the planning application form states that the application sought the condition ‘to be reworded to remove the ancillary requirement and to be replaced by a local occupancy condition and/or s106 agreement ’. The appellant again states that the description of the application was changed without their agreement and no confirmation that a revised description of the development was agreed has been provided by the Council. As the planning application specifically sought to replace the current occupancy restriction of the building with a different form of occupancy restriction, and not the complete removal of the condition to allow unfettered occupancy, I have therefore determined the appeal on the basis that the proposal seeks a variation of the condition rather than its removal.

Main Issue

4. The main issue in this appeal is whether it is necessary to restrict the occupancy of the building to purposes ancillary to the residential use of Bush Green.

Reasons

5. The appeal building is a detached, two bedroom, bungalow within the current garden are of the main house, Bush Green. It has rendered walls with the roof finished in metal roofing panels and stands on a substantial brick plinth approximately 0.9 metres high. It is located approximately 30 metres from the main house and the land on which it stands is capable of having an independent vehicular access from a private road to the west of the site.

6. Policy CS1.1 of the South Lakeland Core Strategy 2010 (Core Strategy) sets out sustainable development principles including: protecting the countryside for its intrinsic beauty; directing most new development to existing service centres; and minimising the need to travel. It also sets out a sequential approach to development. This general sequential approach has been superseded by the National Planning Policy Framework (the Framework) and consequently this element of Policy CS1 is not wholly consistent with national policy. Policy CS1.2 establishes a settlement hierarchy, which seeks to direct new development firstly to Principal Service Centres followed by Key Service Centres, Local Service Centres, then finally smaller villages and the countryside. Within this Broughton-in-Furness is identified as a Local Service Centre.

7. Policy CS1.2 states that approximately 21% of new housing and employment development will be in the network of Local Service Centres. It also sets out that new development will be permitted in the countryside where it has an essential requirement for a rural location, is needed to sustain existing

2 Page 97 Appeal Decision APP/M0933/W/16/3155490

businesses, provides for exceptional needs for affordable housing, is an appropriate extension of an existing building or involves the appropriate change of use of an existing building. The appeal building is located just outside the development boundary for Broughton-in-Furness.

8. Core Strategy Policy CS6.4 sets out a rural exception policy for affordable housing. This includes a criterion that the housing should be for people with a local connection.

9. The effect of varying Condition 6 would be to create a new dwelling, independent of Bush Green, and outside of the settlement limit for Broughton-in -Furness. This would be contrary to Core Strategy Policies CS1.2 and CS6.4 as it would not meet the exceptions set out in the former and, as the building is not being promoted as affordable housing, it does not fall within the scope of the latter.

10. Section 38(6) of the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004 requires that planning applications and appeals must be determined in accordance with the development plan unless material considerations indicate otherwise. The appellant suggests that the original planning permission for the building represents a fallback position that should be taken into account in considering the present proposal, as the building can legitimately be constructed, completed and occupied, provided that this is within the terms of the original planning permission. The existence of a fallback position would be a material consideration.

11. It is necessary to consider whether there is a realistic prospect of any fallback position being implemented. I saw on my site visit that the building is at a very advanced stage of construction, the outer shell is complete and weathertight. Internally the walls were plastered and there were fixtures and fittings in place, although the final fix of the building was not complete. The building has electrical power and drainage connections were in place. Only a small amount of further work would be required to complete the building and render it habitable.

12. The Council recognise that Condition 6 does not prevent the completion or occupation of the building in accordance with the terms of the planning permission. The appellant has not indicated that there is an intention to discontinue work on the building. From the evidence before me and the current advanced stage of construction, I can see no reason why the current extant planning permission would not be fully implemented. This would result in a new, freestanding and self-contained, residential building beyond the settlement limit for Broughton in Furness, albeit one that is subject to an occupancy restriction.

13. This is a material consideration which must be given appropriate weight in determining the appeal. In determining the weight that should be given to the fallback position, the principle question is whether the fallback scheme is less desirable than the appeal scheme.

14. Planning permission was granted for the building on the basis that it was to provide ancillary accommodation at Bush Green, originally intended for an elderly relative. The policies in the development plan do not make reference to residential annexes in the exceptions specified within them. The wording of Condition 6 merely requires that the building be occupied for purposes ancillary

3 Page 98 Appeal Decision APP/M0933/W/16/3155490

to the residential occupation of Bush Green and does not restrict it to particular individuals or indeed to family members. The building has no dependence on Bush Green for shared facilities and, even if it were occupied in accordance with the planning permission, would to all intents and purposes function independently of it.

15. Whilst this would not be inherently less desirable that what is proposed, it would be essentially similar to the appeal proposal other than the connection of the occupants to the occupiers of Bush Green. Consequently, I consider that this fallback position weighs moderately in favour of the proposal.

16. The Framework is also a material consideration. Paragraph 55 of the Framework relates to new homes in rural areas and states that new housing should be located where it will enhance or maintain the vitality of local communities. The proposal would lead to some small scale expenditure in the local economy and provide a small amount of additional housing for local people. Broughton-in-Furness is identified in the Core Strategy as a Local Service Centre which can accommodate additional residential development.

17. Paragraph 55 also states that isolated new homes in the countryside should be avoided unless there are special circumstances. Whilst the proposal does not meet any of the circumstances identified, this is not a closed or exhaustive list. Moreover, given that the appeal building is located just beyond the development boundary of Broughton-in-Furness and is within walking distance of the range of services and facilities there; is within the garden of an existing dwelling and adjacent to a small commercial development, it is difficult to see an argument that it would represent an isolated new home.

18. No specific harm that would arise from the use of the building as a separate dwelling other than non-compliance with the policy restrictions on new build outside of defined settlement limits has been identified. Nor is it suggested that one new dwelling would significantly prejudice the implementation of the development strategy set out in Core Strategy CS1.2.

19. Whilst there is some disagreement between the parties as to whether the appellant should have continued with the construction of the building following the change in circumstances with respect to the original intended occupier, it is common ground that there is no legal impediment to the completion of the building. This would result in the creation of a small dwelling that would potentially be under-occupied for long periods of time.

20. The planning application sought to replace Condition 6 with a condition restricting occupation of the building to persons with a local connection. I note the Council’s point that it does not have a policy in respect of local occupancy restriction and that at the time of the Core Strategy Examination in Public it was determined that there was an insufficient evidence base to support such a policy. Nonetheless, as the Core Strategy was adopted in 2010, this evidence was considered some time ago. The appellant has submitted evidence in the form of more recent newspaper articles which indicate that the Council clearly has concerns regarding increasing numbers of second homes and holiday lets and diminishing numbers of homes being available to local people.

21. There does not necessarily have to be a policy basis for imposing a condition on a planning permission, however, a condition must meet the tests set out in the Framework and the Planning Practice Guidance. The Framework also requires

4 Page 99 Appeal Decision APP/M0933/W/16/3155490

that consideration should be given to whether otherwise unacceptable development could be made acceptable through the use of conditions.

22. From the evidence before me, it is apparent that the Council have concerns in respect of the lack of housing for local people as a result of the demand for second homes and holiday lets in the local housing market. The appeal proposal would make a modest contribution towards the provision of housing for local people. Whilst it would not be an affordable dwelling as defined by the Framework and Policy CS6.4 of the Core Strategy, the presence of an occupancy condition will have an effect on the market value of a property. The appellant states that an occupancy condition typically reduces the market value by 30% and this is not challenged by the Council. This would make the property more accessible to local people than other properties on the open market and prevent the building from becoming a second home or holiday let.

23. Within this context there is a persuasive argument that a local occupancy condition would provide a benefit by making an additional dwelling available to local people. I have had regard to the Council’s point that in future it may be sought to have any local occupancy condition removed. However, any future application would need to be supported by compelling evidence that the condition was not necessary.

24. I am satisfied that the local occupancy condition proposed by the application meets the relevant tests in the Framework and the Planning Practice Guidance and I note that the Council also acknowledge that it reflects the wording that is used elsewhere and that it appears sound.

25. The Council suggest that it is necessary to consider the proposal against Saved Policy T4 of the South Lakeland Local Plan and Alterations – Final Composite Plan 2007. However, this policy relates to the provision of self-catering holiday accommodation and, consequently, I do not consider that it is relevant to the proposal which forms the subject of this appeal.

26. Although the proposal would not meet the requirements of Core Strategy Policies CS1, CS1.2 and CS6.4, the existence of a fallback position that is, in effect, essentially similar to the appeal proposal weighs in favour of the proposal. In addition to this, the proposal would have some benefits in terms of additional expenditure in the local economy, prevent under-occupation of a residential unit and allow the provision of a house that is available solely for local occupation. This also weighs in favour of the proposal. Although technically located in the countryside as a result of not being within a defined settlement limit, the building is not isolated. No specific harm which would arise from the proposal has been identified in the evidence. Together these factors represent material considerations that justify a decision other than in accordance with the development plan.

27. I therefore conclude that it is not necessary to restrict the occupancy of the building to purposes ancillary to the residential use of Bush Green and that Condition 6 can be replaced by a local occupancy condition.

Conditions

28. I have had regard to the local occupancy condition suggested by the appellant and consider that it is necessary to ensure that the building is occupied as proposed in the planning application by persons with a defined local need.

5 Page 100 Appeal Decision APP/M0933/W/16/3155490

29. The Council have not suggested that any other conditions are necessary. As the development has already been commenced, it is not necessary to attach a condition setting a time period for the commencement of works. The remaining conditions on the original planning permission are a condition specifying the approved plans and pre-commencement conditions relating to approval of materials and an assessment of potential land contamination. The building is practically complete barring internal fitting out and it is not suggested that the building has not been constructed in accordance with plans which have been approved by the Council or that the pre-commencement conditions have not be discharged. Condition 4 of the original planning permission required drainage arrangements to be approved and implemented prior to the occupation of the development. Whilst I saw that there are some drainage connections to the building, I do not know if this condition has been discharged. Technically it is still operative as the building is not occupied and, consequently, it is necessary to attach it.

Conclusion

30. For the above reasons, and having regard to all other matters raised, I conclude that the appeal should be allowed.

John Dowsett

INSPECTOR

Schedule of conditions

1. The dwelling house hereby permitted shall not be occupied otherwise than by a Person with a Local Connection as his or her Only or Principal Home, or the widow or widower of such a person, and any dependents of such a person living with him or her.

The Occupant will supply to the Local Planning Authority (within 14 days of the Local Planning Authority's written request so to do) such information as the Authority may reasonably require in order to determine whether this condition is being observed. In this condition the following definitions apply:

'Person with a Local Connection' means an individual who before taking up occupation of the dwelling satisfies one of the following conditions:

(1) The person has been in continuous employment in the Locality defined for at least the last nine months and for a minimum of 16 hours per week immediately prior to occupation; or

(2) The person needs to live in the Locality defined because they need substantial care from a relative who lives in the Locality defined, or because they need to provide substantial care to a relative who lives in the Locality defined. Substantial care means that identified as required by a medical doctor or relevant statutory support agency; or

6 Page 101 Appeal Decision APP/M0933/W/16/3155490

(3) The person has been continuously resident in the locality defined for three years immediately prior to: a) Needing another dwelling resulting from changes to their household, including circumstances such as getting married, divorced, having children, or downsizing. b) Undertaking full-time post-secondary education or skills training and is returning to the locality defined within 12 months of its completion, or c) Being admitted to hospital, residential care or sentenced to prison, and are returning to the locality defined within 12 months of their discharge/release, or

(4) The person is a person who – a) Is serving in the regular forces or who has served in the regular forces within five years prior to occupation; b) Has recently ceased, or will cease to be entitled, to reside in accommodation provided by the Ministry of Defence following the death of that person’s spouse or civil partner where :

i. The spouse or civil partner has served in the regular forces; and ii. Their death was attributable (wholly or partly) to that service; or

c) Is serving or has served in the reserve forces and who is suffering from a serious injury, illness or disability which is attributable (wholly or partly) to that service

'Locality' shall mean the administrative areas of the Parishes of: Duddon, Ulpha, Millom Without, Kirkby Ireleth, Torver, Coniston, Eskdale, Wicham, Askham and Ireleth, Pennington, Blawith and Subberthwaite, Lowick, Egton with Newland, Mansriggs and Osmotherley.

An 'Only or Principal Home' is a dwelling house which is occupied continuously for a minimum period of six months in every twelve- month period. For the avoidance of doubt the dwelling shall not be occupied as a second home or for holiday letting accommodation.

The obligations contained in this condition shall not be binding or enforceable against any mortgagee or any receiver appointed by such a mortgagee, or any person deriving title through such a mortgagee or receiver provided always that a successor in title of such a person will be bound by the obligations contained in this condition.

2. The development shall not be occupied until works for surface water management and the disposal of sewage have been provided on the site to serve the development hereby permitted, in accordance with details to be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The approved works shall be retained as such thereafter.

7 Page 102 Item No.9

South Lakeland District Council Planning Committee 26 January 2017 2017/18 Budget

PORTFOLIO: Not applicable

REPORT FROM: Shelagh McGregor - Assistant Director (Resources) and S151 Officer

REPORT AUTHOR: Peter Notley - Chief Accountant

WARDS: All

KEY DECISION NO: Not applicable

1.0 EXPECTED OUTCOME

1.1 It is expected that the budgets for planning services will be approved by full Council 22 February 2017 as part of the overall budget process.

2.0 RECOMMENDATION

2.1 It is recommended that the Planning Committee note the latest draft budget estimates.

3.0 BACKGROUND AND PROPOSALS

3.1 The latest draft revenue budgets for 2017/18 are attached at Appendix 1. These will form part of the overall Draft Revenue Budget due to be presented to Council for consideration and approval on the 22 February 2017. The Draft Budget Report considered by Council on the 15 December 2016 showed a balanced position for 2017/18.

3.2 The budget presented in Appendix 1 represents no change to the July 2016 MTFP assumptions. Planning fees and charges are set by statute so income budgets are based on the anticipated level of planning activity in the District. This was reviewed in detail in the prior year. This led to increases to income budgets offset by increases to the staffing budgets for several fixed term posts. This was to provide the staff resources to deliver the additional planning activity. Monitoring to date suggests that the income for 2016/17 will be in line with the budget.

Page 103 3.3 The detailed estimates will also have changed year on year due to incremental salary progression, the assumed pay award and any virements. Further changes may be required as the Budget is finalised. Corporate adjustments such as recharges and capital charges are finalised at the end of the budget process as they require final figures from the capital programme and controllable service budgets.

3.4 Officers will continue to monitor the income and expenditure budgets to ensure that the assumptions built into the MTFP continue to reflect the actual level of planning activity. In addition, an early phase of the Customer Connect programme is focussing on planning systems; any impact on planning budgets as a result of this will be reported as the detail becomes clear. This is unlikely to have a direct impact during 2017/18 but may have an impact in subsequent financial years.

4.0 CONSULTATION

4.1 The Draft Budget Report was considered by Cabinet 23 November 2016, Council 15 December 2016, and Overview and Scrutiny Committee 13 January 2017. Final budget proposals will be presented to Council for approval on the 22 February 2017.

5.0 ALTERNATIVE OPTIONS

5.1 Relevant alternative options have been considered as part of getting the overall budget together for this area. No alternative options are proposed in this report.

6.0 LINKS TO COUNCIL PRIORITIES

6.1 The budget process allocates resources in line with the Council Plan.

7.0 IMPLICATIONS

7.1 Financial and Resources 7.1.1 Fees and charges relating to planning applications are set by statute. The income budgets have been set based on estimates of the amount and type of development in the District for the next year. During the 2016/17 budget process the level of development income was reviewed for the MTFP period. Given the anticipated development in the District, the projected level of income was judged to be higher than the existing base. The income budgets were increased and a number of fixed term posts were included to deliver the additional planning activity. Monitoring to date shows that the increased income budget is in line with the 2016/17 actuals. There is budget to support the fixed term posts up to and including 2018/19. Part of the 2016/17 budget may need to be re-profiled due to the timing of recruitment.

7.2 Human Resources 7.2.1 There are no Human Resources implications of the report.

Page 104 7.3 Legal 7.3.1 There are no legal implications of the report.

7.4 Health, Social, Economic and Environmental Have you completed and Health, Yes ☐ No ☒ Social, Economic and Environmental Impact Assessment? If yes, please confirm that it is Yes ☐ No ☐ attached to the report in the appendices. If you have not completed an Impact This report contains budget proposals for Assessment, please explain your 2017/18 as part of the overall budget reasons. setting process. Specific issues that require HSEEIAs will be addressed within the final budget proposals presented to Council 22 February 2017.

7.5 Equality and Diversity Have you completed an Equality Yes ☐ No ☒ Impact Analysis? If yes, please confirm that it is Yes ☐ No ☐ attached to the report in the appendices. If you have not completed an This report contains budget proposals for Equality Impact Analysis, please 2017/18 as part of the overall budget explain your reasons. setting process. Specific issues that require EIAs will be addressed within the final budget proposals presented to Council 22 February 2017.

7.6 Risk Risk Consequence Controls required All income estimates are subject to Unbudgeted Monthly budget demand reduction or monitoring of income increase in total income received

CONTACT OFFICERS

Mark Shipman, Development Management Group Manager, [email protected], 01539 793332 Pete Notley, Chief Accountant, [email protected] 01539 793157

Page 105 APPENDICES ATTACHED TO THIS REPORT Appendix No. Appendix 1 Development Control Revenue Estimates 2017/18

BACKGROUND DOCUMENTS AVAILABLE Name of Background Where it is available document 2017/18 Budget report http://tinyurl.com/hks99pr Council 15 December 2016

TRACKING INFORMATION Assistant Portfolio Solicitor to the SMT Scrutiny Director Holder Council Committee 28/11/2016 N/A N/A 28/11/2016 13/1/2017 Executive Committee Council Section 151 Monitoring (Cabinet) Officer Officer 23/11/2016 26/1/2017 15/12/2016 28/11/2016 28/11/2016 Human Resource Services Leader Ward Manager Councillor(s) n/a n/a n/a

Page 106 Appendix 1

The purpose of this appendix is to set out the budgets for the planning service.

2016/17 2016/17 2017/18 2018/19 2019/20 Approved Working £000 £000 £000 £000 £000

Development Control

Direct Expenditure 529.9 530.5 Employees 542.7 558.3 496.2 16.4 17.0 Transport 22.8 22.8 22.8 75.7 108.1 Supplies and Services 85.7 85.7 85.7 476.2 476.2 Departmental Recharges 476.2 476.2 476.2 1,098.3 1,131.9 1,127.5 1,143.1 1,080.9 Income -621.7 -621.7 Customer Receipts -638.7 -625.3 -611.9 -621.7 -621.7 -638.7 -625.3 -611.9 476.5 510.2 Net Expenditure 488.8 517.8 469.0

Housing and Innovation portfolio This service is concerned with guiding development within the District and providing advice to the public & developers across a whole range of planning matters. It is responsible for determining planning and related applications, the majority under delegated powers. For major or more controversial applications recommendations are made to members at the monthly Planning Committee meetings. The service also undertakes the investigation and enforcement of breaches of planning control and administers and processes applications for works to protected trees and the High hedges legislation.

Page 107 This page is intentionally left blank

Page 108