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, 25 March 2010, at 10.00 a.m. in the Council Chamber, South Lakeland House, Kendal
Note – Plans will be available for inspection in the Council Chamber from 9.15 a.m. on the morning of the meeting.
Committee Membership Councillors Alan Baverstock Jane Carson Brian Cooper Joss Curwen Colin Davies Sheila Eccles Sylvia Emmott Clive Graham Brenda Gray Frank Hodson Janette Jenkinson Kevin Lancaster Sonia Lawson Paul Little (Chairman) Ian McPherson (Vice-Chairman) Maureen Nicholson David Williams Mary Wilson
17 March 2010 (date of despatch) Debbie Storr, Corporate Director (Monitoring Officer)
For all enquiries, please contact:- Committee Administrator: Janine Jenkinson Telephone: 01539 733333 Ext.7493 e-mail: [email protected]
1
2 AGENDA Page Nos. PART I 1. APOLOGIES To receive apologies for absence, if any. 2. MINUTES 5 - 14 To authorise the Chairman to sign, as a correct record, the minutes of the meeting of the Committee held on 25 February 2010 (copy attached). 3. DECLARATIONS OF INTEREST To receive declarations by Members of personal and prejudicial interests in respect of items on this Agenda. If a Member requires advice on any item involving a possible declaration of interest which could affect his/her ability to speak and/or vote, he/she is advised to contact the Monitoring Officer at least 24 hours in advance of the meeting. 4. LOCAL GOVERNMENT ACT 1972 – EXCLUDED ITEMS To consider whether the items, if any, in Part II of the Agenda should be considered in the presence of the press and public. 5. PUBLIC PARTICIPATION Any member of the public who wishes to ask a question, make representations or present a deputation or petition at this meeting should apply to do so in writing by noon on the day before the meeting. Information on how to make the application can be obtained by viewing the Council’s Website www.southlakeland.gov.uk or by contacting the Democratic and Member Services Manager on 01539 717440. (1) Planning Applications Planning applications for which requests to speak have been made. (2) Agenda Items Agenda items for which requests to speak have been made. 6. REPORT OF THE CORPORATE DIRECTOR (COMMUNITIES) 15 - 68 To determine planning applications received. 7. A REPORT ON ENFORCEMENT ACTIVITY FROM 25 DECEMBER 2009 TO 69 - 76 22 JANUARY 2010 To inform Members about enforcement activity between 25 December 2009 to 22 January 2010 and to authorise enforcement action as recommended on the individual cases referred to. 8. A REPORT ON THE OUTSTANDING ENFORCEMENT CASELOAD 77 - 80 BETWEEN 01 JANUARY 2004 AND 22 JANUARY 2010 To inform Members about the outstanding enforcement caseload between 1 January 2004 and 22 January 2010. 9. A REPORT ON ENFORCEMENT ACTIVITY FOR 2009 81 - 82 To inform Members about enforcement activity during 2009.
3 10. APPLICATIONS CONSIDERED PREVIOUSLY BY THE PLANNING 83 - 84 COMMITTEE AND DETERMINED BY THE CORPORATE DIRECTOR (COMMUNITIES) BETWEEN 16 FEBRUARY AND 12 MARCH 2010 To note the decisions made by the Corporate Director (Communities). 11. APPEALS UPDATE AT 12 MARCH 2010 85 - 96 To provide Members with information about receipt and determination of planning appeals. 12. APPLICATIONS DETERMINED BY CUMBRIA COUNTY COUNCIL 97 - 98 To inform Members of the applications determined by Cumbria County Council. PART II Private Section (exempt reasons under Schedule 12A of the Local Government Act 1972, as amended by the Local Government Act (Access to Information) (Variation) Order 2006, specified by way of paragraph number) There are no items in this part of the agenda.
4 Item 2 81 25.2.2010 Planning
PLANNING COMMITTEE
Minutes of the proceedings at a meeting of the Committee held in the Council Chamber at South Lakeland House, Kendal, on 25 February 2010, at 10.00 a.m.
Present
Councillors
Paul Little (Chairman) Ian McPherson (Vice-Chairman)
Jane Carson Brian Cooper Joss Curwen Colin Davies Sheila Eccles Sylvia Emmott Brenda Gray Frank Hodson Janette Jenkinson Sonia Lawson Maureen Nicholson David Williams Mary Wilson
Apologies for absence were received from Councillors Alan Baverstock and Kevin Lancaster. Officers
Graham Darlington Conservation Officer (part) Barry Jackson Planning Officer (part) Janine Jenkinson Assistant Democratic Services Officer Kate Lawson Area Team Leader (West) Matthew Neal Solicitor to the Council Andy Roe Development Control Manager
P/116 MINUTES
RESOLVED – That the Chairman be authorised to sign, as a correct record, the minutes of the meeting of the Committee held on 28 January 2010.
P/117 DECLARATIONS OF INTEREST
RESOLVED – That it be noted that the following declarations of interest were made:-
(1) Barry Jackson - Minute P/121 (Planning Application No.SL/2009/0977); and
(2) Matthew Neal - Minute P/120 (Planning Application No.SL/2010/0013).
P/118 LOCAL GOVERNMENT ACT 1972 – EXCLUDED ITEMS
RESOLVED – That the item in Part II of the Agenda be dealt with following the exclusion of the press and public.
5 82 25.2.2010 Planning
P/119 PLANNING APPLICATIONS
The Development Control Manager submitted a Schedule of Planning Applications and his recommendations thereon.
RESOLVED – That
(1) the applications be determined as indicated below (the numbers denote the Schedule numbers of the application);
(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.
Note – Matthew Neal, Solicitor to the Council, declared a personal and prejudicial interest in the following item of business, by virtue of his involvement with the Catholic Church. He left the Council Chamber during the discussion and voting thereon.
P/120 PUBLIC PARTICIPATION
Planning Applications
RESOLVED – That the following application, for which representations have been received from members of the public, in accordance with Minute 1810 (1996/97), be determined in the following manner:-
10.SL/2010/0013 SKELSMERGH: Dodding Green, Mealbank, Kendal. Variation of Condition 2 on Planning Permission SL/2007/1164 Re: modification of ratio of new members to experienced mentors.
Maria Radice, spoke in support of the application. A full copy of her representation is available on the Democratic Services file.
Ian Kell, spoke in objection to the application. A full copy of his representation is available on the Democratic Services file. In addition, he presented to the Chairman of the Committee a letter from Cumbria Drug & Alcohol Action Team (DAAT) which outlined their professional concerns regarding the application.
The Development Control Manager reported the full content of the letter to the Committee. DAAT had expressed their wish to engage with the Cenacolo community, initial contact had been established and there appeared to be willingness from both sides. Regarding the planning application they had recommended an extension of one year to the temporary conditions. A full copy of the letter is available on the Democratic Services file.
Members were advised that there was no information or evidence to show that the operation working under the current condition had produced problems or a detrimental impact to surrounding residents.
6 83 25.2.2010 Planning
A discussion took place regarding the intake of new members and some concern was expressed due to the fact that the number of incoming members had not been tested to the maximum approved capacity.
On balance, Members were of the opinion that the scheme was acceptable and supported the application.
GRANT
P/121 COMPLEX PLANNING APPLICATIONS
RESOLVED – That the following applications be determined in the manner set out:-
4.SL/2009/1041 ULVERSTON: Rascals Day Nursery, North Lonsdale Road, Ulverston. Erection of six dwellings with parking spaces. (Mr M Wood)
The Area Team Leader (West) reported that the application as originally submitted had been amended. The unit to the rear of the main terrace had been removed and the end unit enlarged to form two, two bedroomed flats. It was considered that the amendments would address the visibility issues raised by Cumbria Highways as well as reducing the impact of the development and creating an improved layout.
An update on consultee responses received was reported to the Committee. The Environment Agency had advised that the Flood Risk Assessment report required updating to incorporate additional information following the floods that had taken place in November 2009. United Utilities had recommended that conditions relating to surface water drainage arrangements be attached to the application. The Council’s Environmental Protection Group had requested further information relating to flood risk and drainage matters.
Concerns were raised regarding the location of the proposal in a flood risk zone. The Committee supported the principle of residential development on the site. Overall, it was felt the application was acceptable, subject to the flood and drainage details proving satisfactory.
The Corporate Director (Communities) to GRANT, subject to the agreement of Flood Risk Assessment details and surface water drainage details.
8.SL/2009/1139 BARBON: Parsons Hill, Barbon. Extensions and alterations. (Mr & Mrs D Maloney)
The Planning Officer provided Members with a summary of the historical context of the application. A previous Appeal in relation to the extension of Parsons Hill had been dismissed.
A letter received from the Architect was reported to the Committee. The letter asserted that the criticisms raised in
7 84 25.2.2010 Planning
relation to the previous application had been addressed. With regards to the issues of design and scale, raised by the Inspector, it was felt these had been misguided and incorrect and therefore these matters should not constitute a material consideration for the determination of the current application.
The Committee was presented with photo images of the property, that had been provided by the Architect.
Members were of the opinion that the proposal would have a detrimental impact on the amenity of neighbouring residents and the character and appearance of the surrounding area.
REFUSE
1.SL/2009/0836 KENDAL: Ground Floor, 70 Highgate, Kendal. Removal of Condition 3 (cooking fried foods etc) on Planning Permission SL/2008/0844. (Mr Chris Tudor-Whelan)
The main issue for consideration was whether the extraction/filtration system could overcome any potential smell nuisance without creating noise problems and without detriment to the special character of the Conservation Area.
Members felt that suitable conditions could be attached to the application to overcome the concerns raised by surrounding occupants.
GRANT
5.SL/2009/1070 HOLME: 4 Turners Close, Holme. Extensions and alterations. (Mr Mark Hayton)
Consideration of this application had been deferred at the Committee’s previous meeting in order for Members to visit the application site.
The Planning Officer read out a letter of objection received from a nearby neighbour. Concerns raised related to the height and scale of the development and the loss of privacy.
Overall, the development was considered acceptable, subject to further negotiations relating to the first floor window in the rear elevation of the two-storey extension.
The Corporate Director (Communities) to GRANT, subject to the approval of amended details regarding the first floor flat window on the rear elevation.
11.SL/2010/0041 KENDAL: Boundary Bank, Boundary Bank Lane, Kendal. Construction of access bridge from Boundary Lane to OS field No. 3738. (Mr E Holmes)
The Planning Officer summarised for the Committee the details of the proposal and advised Members that it represented an
8 85 25.2.2010 Planning
appropriate form of development.
It was reported that Kendal Town Council approved of the application.
GRANT
Note – Barry Jackson, Planning Officer declared a personal interest in the following item of business, by reason of living near to the application site.
2.SL/2009/0977 KENDAL: 14 Cross Lane, Kendal. Five three – storey dwellings. (Mr Don Lewthwaite)
Members indicated support, in principle, for the loss of an employment premises and the re-use of the site for residential housing.
However, concerns were raised in relation to the height of the development and it was felt that the scheme needed to be reduced to a significantly lesser scale, particularly on the eastern elevations.
REFUSE – due to the scale, massing and overbearing impact on neighbouring properties.
3.SL/2009/0980 OSMOTHERLY: Netherhouses Farm, Osmotherley, Ulverston. Erection of silage building. (Messrs F and S A Edmondson)
Consideration of this application had been deferred from the previous meeting to allow the Committee to undertake a site visit. Members had now had the opportunity to view and assess the impact on the landscape.
Overall, it was felt that the development was situated in a suitable location and would not exert a detrimental impact on the surroundings or neighbouring properties.
GRANT – subject to appropriate conditions including the use of dark coloured roof materials and the details of finalised floor levels for the building being agreed.
6.SL/2009/1111 KIRKBY IRELETH: Longlands Caravan Park, Kirkby Croglin, Kirkby-in-Furness. Change of use of former quarry to form extension to existing caravan park to site an additional 38 static holiday caravans. (Holker Group of Companies)
The application had been withdrawn prior to the Committee meeting.
WITHDRAWN
7.SL/2009/1132 LOWER ALLITHWAITE: Part of OS 8270, Blenket Farm, Jack Hill, Allithwaite, Grange–over-Sands. Erection of two agricultural buildings, formation of yard areas and agricultural access with associated landscaping (retrospective)
9 86 25.2.2010 Planning
With regards to the comments received from Lower Allithwaite Parish Council, concerning the use of the buildings, the Area Team Leader (West) reassured Members’ that officers had visited the site on a number of separate occasions and she was able to confirm to the Committee that the existing buildings were being used in connection with the farming business.
Members felt that a site visit would be beneficial in order to assess the impact of the proposed development.
DEFER FOR SITE VISIT
9.SL/2009/1142 KENDAL: 2 Milnthorpe Road, Kendal. (Conservation Area Consent & Proposal – (SL/2009/1142) Demolition of existing outbuilding. SL/2009/1143 Demolition of the existing rear flat roof extension and toilets (Full Planning extension to the public house. Conversion of the existing public Application) house to create 6 flats. Construction of extension to public house to create 3 flats. Construction of 9 houses, access road and car parking spaces. Removal of existing trees.
Proposal – (SL/2009/1143) Extension to and conversion of public house to form 9 self contained flats, erection of 9 dwellings with access road, garden areas and car parking spaces and demolition of outbuilding and extensions.
The Development Control Manager reported that the proposal followed the withdrawal of an earlier scheme involving the demolition of the public house. This revised scheme retained the building and was regarded as a more acceptable alternative. It would provide much needed housing including an appropriate level of affordable housing based on detailed site evaluations.
With regards to the issues relating to the retention of the public footpath, the Solicitor to the Council advised Members that due to the established use of the footpath link between Kirkland and Kirkbarrow details for footpath provision would be subject to further negotiations as part of the Section 106 Agreement.
The Development Control Manager reported to the Committee that the Environment Agency had verbally indicated that it had no objections.
Overall, Members felt that the proposed development was of an appropriate design, sympathetic to the character of the Conservation Area and represented a welcome reuse of the building.
The Corporate Director (Communities) be authorised to GRANT Planning Permission subject to a Section 106 Agreement in relation to the provision of affordable housing and resolution of the footpath issue and subject to appropriate conditions.
10 87 25.2.2010 Planning
The Corporate Director (Communities) be authorised to GRANT Conservation Area Consent regarding the demolition of minor buildings on the site providing it be linked to the implementation of an approved planning scheme.
P/122 STRAIGHTFORWARD PLANNING APPLICATIONS
RESOLVED – That the following application be determined in the manner set out:-
12.SL/2009/1120 GRANGE OVER SANDS: 4 Sedgwick Court, Cart Lane, Grange over Sands. Extensions and alterations. (Mr & Mrs A Calvert)
The Area Team Leader (West) reported that in response to negotiations regarding the window design a letter had been received from the Architect. The Architect advised that the applicant wished for the application to be considered by the Committee as submitted. The letter asserted that overall the application would not adversely impact on the amenity of adjoining properties.
Members expressed concern regarding the size and design of the windows on the rear. The Committee highlighted the applicants’ unwillingness to accept the Planning Officer’s recommendations.
REFUSE – due to the design and disproportionate size of the window at first floor which could lead to perceived loss of privacy.
P/123 STONECROSS MANSION, ULVERSTON – URGENT WORKS NOTICE
Members gave consideration to a report regarding the ongoing deterioration of a Grade ll Listed Building and sought authorisation to serve an Urgent Works Notice upon the owners of the site.
Officers had serious and ongoing concerns that the building would continue to be harmed through physical deterioration unless concerted action was taken to ensure that the building was made waterproof and the dry rot outbreak eradicated. It was asserted that to not serve the notice would certainly result in an accelerated worsening of the building’s condition.
Note - Additional information was provided in a Part II Appendix which was excluded from inspection by members of the public in accordance with Section 100(B) of the Local Government Act 1972, as amended by the Local Government (Access to Information) (Variation) Order 2006, and, in all the circumstances of the case, it was considered that the public interest in maintaining the exception outweighed the public interest in disclosing it. Copies of the Appendix were excluded, as it contained information as described in Schedule 12A of the Act as follows:-
In accordance with Section 100B(2) of the Local Government Act 1972, copies of this Appendix are excluded from inspection by members of the public as it contains information which reveals that the authority proposes to give under any enactment a
11 88 25.2.2010 Planning
notice under or by virtue of which requirements are imposed on a person (paragraph 6)
RESOLVED – That
(1) the relevant officers be authorised to serve an Urgent Works Notice upon the owners of Stonecross Mansion, to enable the Council to undertake the necessary repair work and recover the costs from the owner; and
(2) the decision of the Council meeting held on 16 February 2010 (Minute No. C/094 (2009/10) refers) relating to the funding of the repair works be noted.
P/124 ENFORCEMENT ACTIVITY FROM 30 NOVEMBER TO 25 DECEMBER 2009
Members were presented with a report on enforcement activity between 30 November and 25 December 2009. Fifteen outstanding cases from the enforcement caseload had been resolved. Sixteen new complaints had been recorded and were being investigated, of which seven had been resolved.
09.344: Land adjacent Moss End Farm, Crookland, Milnthorpe
The Committee was advised that a large static caravan was sited in the field adjacent the new development at Moss End Farm, Crooklands. Confirmation had been received from the owners of the farm that the caravan was being used as permanent residential accommodation. Members’ authorisation was sought to cease the use and removal of the caravan.
10.044: Sunlight Service Group, Shap Road, Kendal
Members authorisation was sought for the removal of four large porta-cabin units. A Temporary Planning Permission granted in January 2009 had now expired and the cabins remained in situ. A Planning Permission to extend the previous permission for a further 12 month period had been refused consent.
RESOLVED – That
(1) the report be received;
(2) in respect of Case Ref - 09.344: Land adjacent Moss End Farm, Crookland, Milnthorpe, the Corporate Director (Monitoring Officer) be authorised to take all necessary enforcement action to cease the use and removal of the caravan; and
(3) in respect of Case Ref -10.044: Sunlight Service Group, Shap Road, Kendal, the Corporate Director (Monitoring Officer) be authorised to take all necessary enforcement action to remove the unauthorised cabins.
P/125 APPLICATIONS CONSIDERED PREVIOUSLY BY THE PLANNING COMMITTEE AND DETERMINED BY THE CORPORATE DIRECTOR (COMMUNITIES) BETWEEN 19 JANUARY AND 15 FEBRUARY 2010
RESOLVED – That the report be noted.
12 89 25.2.2010 Planning
P/126 APPEALS
Members thanked the Development Control and Legal Services Departments for their work in relation to the application SL/2008/0900 land at Sillfield, Gatebeck Sillified.
RESOLVED – That the report be noted.
P/127 PROPOSED AMENDMENTS TO THE SCHEME OF DELEGATION FOR PLANNING COMMITTEE
Consideration was given to a report that detailed proposed adjustments to the scheme of delegation of functions from the Planning Committee to officers. The Solicitor to the Council requested further amendments to the Annex further to the publication of the agenda. Members’ authorisation for the following amendments was sought: at point 1.2 to include powers of entry in relation to Tree Preservation Orders high hedges and protected hedgerows and at point 2.1 to include powers to make and confirm stopping up and discussion order including Orders made under section 118 of the Highways Act 1980.
RESOLVED – That, subject to the inclusion of the amendments as detailed above, the scheme of delegation to the Corporate Director (Communities), as detailed in the Constitution be amended as set out in the Annex to the report.
The meeting ended at 1.30 p.m.
13
14 AGENDA ITEM NO ……6……………
SOUTH LAKELAND DISTRICT COUNCIL
From: Corporate Director (Communities) To: Planning Committee – 25 March 2010
REPORT OF CORPORATE DIRECTOR (COMMUNITIES)
PLANNING APPLICATIONS FOR DECISION Page No
Index
Schedule A - Complex planning applications 19 - 68
Schedule B - Planning applications where the Corporate Director None (Communities) is seeking authority to determine
Schedule C - Applications relating to Listed Buildings None
Schedule D - Advertisements None
Schedule E - Development by South Lakeland District Council and None Cumbria County Council
Schedule F - Straightforward planning applications None
Schedule G - All other submissions None
Background papers relating to the subject matter of the report For all items the background papers are contained in the files listed in the second column of the schedule index.
Note: The background papers may be inspected at the offices of the Corporate Director (Communities), Lowther Street, Kendal, Cumbria
15
16 SOUTH LAKELAND DISTRICT COUNCIL PLANNING COMMITTEE – 25 March 2010
SCHEDULE REFERENCE SECTION SITE ADDRESS NUMBER NUMBER & PAGE No.
ALDINGHAM SL/2009/1138 A (55 – 56) Canterbank Farm, Leece
ARNSIDE SL/2009/1135 A (47 – 54) Hollins Farm, Far Arnside
GRANGE over SANDS SL/2010/0084 A (57 – 60) Greaves Wood Lodge, Allithwaite Road
KENDAL SL/2010/0103 A (61 – 64) Former Webbs Garden Centre, Burneside Road
LOWER ALLITHWAITE SL/2009/1132 A (44 – 46) Part of OS8270, Blenket Farm, Jack Hill
PRESTON RICHARD SL/2009/0601 A (19 – 43) Land to north of Woodhouse Lane, Deepthwaite, Milnthorpe
NATLAND SL/2010/0110 A (65 – 68) Adjacent to 8 Watercrook Farm
1 17
18 SCHEDULE A
Complex Planning Applications
SCHEDULE No: 1
SL/2009/0601 (FPA)
PRESTON RICHARD: DEEPTHWAITE, MILNTHORPE
PROPOSAL: ERECTION OF AUCTION MART AND ASSOCIATED AGRICULTURAL BUSINESS UNITS;
CONSTRUCTION OF ACCESS; DRAINAGE FACILITIES; 25/03/2010 ALTERATIONS TO E352330 N483530 B6385 NEAR TO CROOKLANDS BRIDGE
L & K GROUP PLC
SUMMARY: Although a rural location for the auction mart is capable of being supported in principle there are difficulties associated with the site at Deepthwaite. Namely, the adequacy of the road network, the physical impact of the development on the landscape and its effect on the living conditions of neighbouring residents.
PRESTON RICHARD PARISH COUNCIL: The Parish Council opposes the application for the following reasons: 1. The Auction Mart and ancillary buildings will be detrimental to the landscape. The size of the main building being situated on the highest ground would be obtrusive and impossible to blend in by landscaping thus changing the area from a rural landscape to a business park. The Council feel that insufficient thought has gone into the impact of this development on the surrounding area. 2. On a more practical point this area is in part a reed bed and has flooded several times in recent years. Should this development go ahead there would be a serious threat of contamination to Stainton Beck as all of the adjacent fields are a flood plain. 3. Crooklands Bridge currently cannot cope with the amount of traffic using it, the road usage has increased significantly in recent years due to development at Milnthorpe Business Park, the Show Field activities and new holiday sites in the area. Any further increase in commercial traffic will lead to further congestion on the road itself and at the junction with the A65. The Council appreciates that this aspect has been
19 considered within the plans however they feel straightening the access from the adjoining field is a poor attempt to overcome the problem when realistically we are dealing with a single width road. The bridge has been damaged again recently and will possibly have to be closed again for running repairs to avoid further structural damage. 4. The Location of such a large project in this green field site is totally impractical using access via single track ‘B’ roads, which are already over used, with no existing sewerage, mains electricity or gas and no public transport for staff or customers. This development would have a devastating effect on the people, environment and surrounding countryside. There are many more sites locally which could accommodate this development without having to put a strain on traffic, environment and established businesses, these sites would lend themselves to such a development as many services are already in place. The Council therefore feel not all aspects have been explored thoroughly before choosing this site.
PRESTON PATRICK PARISH COUNCIL: The Parish Council is strongly opposed to the application for the following reasons and recommends refusal: 1. The application does not include any direct vehicular access onto the A590(T) Kendal Bypass and therefore virtually all traffic entering and leaving the site will have to use the B6385 Milnthorpe - Crooklands road. This will inevitably lead to an increase in traffic using Crooklands Bridge, particularly livestock transporters and other trailer- pulling vehicles. The Grade II Listed bridge is single track with poorly aligned approach roads and a substandard junction with the A65, opposite the Crooklands Hotel. There has been a long history of problems with vehicles damaging the bridge, particularly by large vehicles originating from the nearby Mainline Industrial Estate. This has led to periods of closure and re-routing of traffic into the narrow surrounding lanes, causing considerable disruption to road users and to local residents. Whilst it is noted that some realignment of the B6385 is proposed on the approach to the bridge from the west this is a totally inadequate response to the problems and will do little to reduce them. It is the Parish Council's view that Crooklands Bridge is totally unsuitable to deal with the additional vehicular traffic movements that would be associated with the Auction Mart proposals. 2. The Parish Council is also of the view that the junction of the B6385 and the A6 in the centre of Milnthorpe is also unsuitable to deal with the scale of additional traffic movements proposed. 3. The proposed buildings are of such a scale and mass that they would be detrimental to the landscape character of the surrounding area, contrary to development plan policies.
HEVERSHAM PARISH COUNCIL: The Council’s concerns are in three main areas: 1. The development of the Kendal Auction Mart close to junction 36 of the M6 would set a precedent for further development in the immediate area of the junction. In particular, it may set a precedent for expansion of activities at the auction mart if it became a brown field site. The current planning application is for a cattle auction and saleroom. Many other auction marts have car boot sales which generate large
20 volumes of traffic. Is the capacity (1,000 store cattle and 6,000 sheep) of the proposed mart realistic? If business is less than expected there will be pressure to expand activities (as at Rheged). Conversely, if it is more there will be pressure to expand the site. 2. Access to the site is very difficult. Kendal Auction Mart cites access problems as one of its reasons for wanting to move. It appears to be proposing a site where there are different, but equally severe problems. Crooklands bridge is a known problem and is listed. Access from the other direction via the B6385 would be through Milnthorpe – often at peak times. The short stretch of Woodhouse Lane from the proposed access and its junction with the B6385 is inadequate for an increase in traffic – some of it heavy. Heversham parishioners are particularly worried about the proliferation of traffic on the section of Woodhouse Lane running through Heversham. It is very narrow and unsuitable for large vehicles, and is the route from the west suggested by many Satnavs. Deepthwaite Bridge is believed to be listed. Future expansion of activities (eg car boot sales) would increase traffic volumes through Heversham. Heversham Parish Council suggest that, if planning permission is granted, it should include conditions that the access is constructed in such a way that it is impossible to turn right coming out of the auction mart, or left going in. 3. Effect on the environment and character of the area. We feel that exhaustive research needs to establish that the reed bed system will be able to cope in all circumstances. There is evidence of regular flooding in recent times. If it cannot cope, flooding, and the effect on the beck’s in the area will be very severe. The building of such a large and high building on a green field site will impact significantly on the landscape and character of the area. In particular, the public view from Farleton Fell will be impaired.
MILNTHORPE PARISH COUNCIL: Members of Milnthorpe Parish Council are very disappointed that they find the application no more acceptable than the original much criticised Gateway Scheme. The Members expected this application to be a simple Auction Mart, but this is an enormous building and there is the potential for it to develop into the full Gateway Scheme in time. It must be remembered that this is a greenfield site. There is an alternative site north of Moss End Farm near to junction 36 which will be developed even if the auction mart is built at Deepthwaite, it would make sense to industrialise that area which has better traffic access and have the auction mart there too. It is a pity L & K got this far with the Deepthwaite plans before the Moss End opportunity became available. It must also be noted that the site is a “Landscape of County Importance” and can be seen from Farleton Knott. How can such a large building which includes a 150 seat restaurant , offices for rent, antique saleroom, three business units plus 270 parking spaces be justified, it would cause loss of public views from several view-points. The B6385 is already busy and the traffic congestion through Milnthorpe and many of our narrow rural roads would be dangerous and unacceptable, especially at Crooklands Bridge, Milnthorpe crossroads and congestion in many of our narrow lanes surrounding the site. It is scandalous that £216,000 in grants from SLDC, CCC and the NWDA have been donated so far to a private enterprise, this is public money. The Members feel that this development is being rushed through before any consultation on sites for the Local Development Framework are considered.
21 HINCASTER PARISH MEETING: Object to the proposal on the following grounds: (1) Location is a greenfield site in an area classified as a Landscape of County Importance and if developed would be changed forever. (2) Access to the site is clearly going to impact on the narrow lanes and byways in the area already used by walking groups, cyclists and horseback riders. The route suggested in the application ie via Crooklands Canal Bridge is unrealistic in terms of those accessing the site from the Western Lake District. (3) Daily journeys for employment purposes and deliveries will exacerbate the above issue. (4) Traffic impact will be increased by further development on site for associated purposes eg car boot sales, furniture and carpet sales etc. (5) No public transport available and none proposed.
(6) Flood risk and overflow from proposed reed bed is a real environmental hazard for Stainton Beck and the River Bela. Local knowledge raises fears of contamination of these waterways when flooding occurs. (7) Noise from the site will impact on the near neighbourhood from traffic movements and use of steel gates / barriers penning of animals. (8) Floodlighting will have a huge impact on the area, particularly during winter months.
Altogether an ill-conceived plan affecting the lives of may people in this area and not providing any social or economic benefit whatsoever.
STAINTON PARISH COUNCIL: Stainton Parish Council have no objections but we do have some concerns about the old historic bridge opposite the Crooklands Hotel and hope that consideration will be taken into account about this historic bridge.
HOLME PARISH COUNCIL: No objection.
BEETHAM PARISH COUNCIL: No objections in principle but the following important issues need to be fully addressed and monitored: • the danger of consequential pollution to Stainton Beck and River Bela. • the severe limitations of the canal bridge at Crooklands as a means of access from the A65 (for a significantly increased number of heavy vehicles) without either major improvement or, alternatively, the construction of a new larger bridge.
22 CUMBRIA COUNTY COUNCIL (PLANNING, HIGHWAYS and ARCHAEOLOGY): Whilst objections are raised to the development, the County Council recognises that important community and economic contribution which the auction mart facility makes to the District. The County Council is, therefore, keen to work with the District Council and the applicant in seeking to resolve the issues raised. The objections raised by the County Council to the application as originally submitted can be summarised as follows: (1) The proposed development is located in open countryside and the applicants have not demonstrated that the scale of development is essential for this rural location. The proposal fails to satisfy the sustainable locational criteria set out in the Cumbria Strategic Partnership’s (CSP) Sub Regional Spatial Strategy Development Principles (SRSpS) and is contrary to saved and extended Cumbria and Lake District Joint Structure Plan (JSP) Policy ST5. (2) Insufficient information has been submitted to demonstrate that the proposal satisfies saved and extended JSP Policy T30 and Cumbria County Council’s Local Transport Plan (LTP) Policies LD4, LD5, LD8 and C3. A supplement to the originally submitted Transport Assessment has been produced by the applicant’s highways consultant in order to answer the criticisms made by the County Council. The County Council’s latest advice is that there are still outstanding highway safety issues and that the Transport Assessment, and its supplement, fails to satisfy Structure Plan Policy T30 and Local Transport Plan Policies LD4, LD5, LD7 and LD8. The Highway Authority, therefore, objects to the proposed development. There are particular concerns over: • The adequacy of the bridge which carries the B6385 over the canal close to its junction with the A65 opposite the Crooklands Hotel. The narrow width of the bridge effectively creates one-way working with the possibility of vehicles waiting to cross the bridge backing up onto the A65. The road is to be re-aligned on the opposite side of the bridge to improve driver visibility and figures have been provided to illustrate that arrivals and departures are spread throughout the day, with no mass arrival or departure in a singe hourly period. The accuracy of these figures is, however, questioned and clarification is needed to demonstrate that queuing from the bridge onto the A65 will not occur. Because of the uncertainty over the figures provided, it is not clear whether the proposed arrangement will accommodate the traffic generated by the auction mart. Further information is required in order to clearly demonstrate the acceptability of the proposal and a Road Safety Audit should be provided. • The increased use of Woodhouse Lane and its junction with the B6385. A Road Safety Audit is required for the site access and proposed highway improvements. • The accessibility of the site. The roads around the site are narrow with limited passing places; accessibility by public transport and on foot is not feasible; and there is limited accessibility by bicycle and a limited catchment area for cycling. (3) In its current form, the proposal would be contrary to saved and extended JSP Policy E37 because collectively the main auction mart building and the 3 additional units proposed would significantly increase the overall footprint of the site beyond that of the local farmsteads, and would introduce a layout that does not reflect the compact/clustered nature of the local farmsteads.
Notwithstanding the above, should the District Council be minded to grant planning permission, it is recommended that they should:
23 • restrict the operation of additional units to uses that are complementary to the main function of the site as an auction mart; • restrict the type and frequency of retail sales that can operate from the application site to prevent any adverse impact on the vitality and viability of the key and local service centres within the surrounding area; • in respect of ecological issues ensure that further advice on these matters from Environment Agency, Natural England and / or Cumbria Wildlife Trust be fully taken into account; • ensure that the potential issues of capacity in the low-lying wetland to accept the surface waters from the development site in a high rainfall event are satisfactorily addressed having taken advice from the Environment Agency; • ensure that the potential issues of sewage treatment are satisfactorily addressed having taken advice from the Environment Agency; • attach a condition for a programme of archaeological works to be commissioned and undertaken at the expense of the developer.
HIGHWAYS AGENCY: The TA assessed the impact of the development on the surrounding roads and junctions but not on the trunk road network. There are concerns over the assessments carried out on the local roads but this is a matter for Cumbria Highways, not the Highways Agency. The deficiencies identified include: the traffic impact methodology does not take into account seasonal variations, such as lambing; the five year assessment to 2014 used in the TA might be acceptable on the local highway network but new guidance states that for the strategic road network future year assessments should normally be ten years, 2019 in this case; the TA uses Low Growth Factors in the assessment of future year scenarios but it’s widely accepted that Low Growth Factors are not to be recommended to be used any more. It should be noted, however, that as the auction mart is relocating from Kendal, a significant proportion of traffic attracted to the new site would already be generated by the auction mart in Kendal and would be using the road network around the new site. Notwithstanding the above, the overall trip numbers expected to be generated by the auction mart, particularly at peak times of day, would not be material even if all the trips generated used Junction 36 on the M6. It is concluded, therefore, that the development would not be expected to have a material impact on the strategic road network, and the Highways Agency raises no objections.
CUMBRIA VISION Cumbria Vision supports the proposed auction mart. The success of this project will be instrumental in delivering key objectives for Kendal, South Lakeland and Cumbria. The release of the current site for housing will be key to the overall success of the Kendal Regeneration Action Plan by providing a mix of new housing stock with a high proportion of affordable houses and local occupancy. The new auction mart will be a key asset to the rural community, not only in the immediate area but will contribute to the rural economy across the county. Over 750 farm businesses utilise the services of the Auction Mart; this along with the diversified activities of North West Auctions will make a significant contribution to the local economy. Allied to this, the aspiration to build an exemplar Eco Auction Mart and potentially the largest straw bale building in the country will demonstrate Cumbria’s commitment to the Low Carbon Economy and provide an opportunity for international recognition.
24 REGIONAL ASSEMBLY (NW): Under the Schedule of Regionally Significant Planning Application Criteria, 4NW does not consider this proposal to be regionally significant.
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION MANAGER (SLDC): Potential problems caused by noise, dust, air quality and light pollution, both during the construction and operation of the auction mart, need to be resolved and conditions should be attached if planning permission is granted, to require the following: • a scheme for the control of dust and noise during the construction phase;
• a noise assessment to illustrate the impact of the auction mart on nearby residential properties; • a lighting scheme to illustrate lux levels across the site and at the nearest residential properties; • details of the hours of operation;
• details of the wood chip-fired boiler to be installed;
• an assessment to show the effect of the increase in traffic levels on air quality at certain identified locations.
UNITED UTILITIES: No objections.
ENVIRONMENT AGENCY: The proposed development will only be acceptable if: (a) it is undertaken in accordance with the submitted Flood Risk Assessment and addendum; and (b) the surface water run-off is limited so that it will not exceed the run-off from the undeveloped site and will not increase the risk of flooding off-site. The Environment Agency’s preferred solution is for a connection to the mains sewer but the applicant’s drainage consultant has argued that such a connection would be prohibitively expensive. The Agency has requested a feasibility study from the applicant to consider the practicality and cost of such a project. In addition, the Environment Agency has requested (from the applicant) an ecological assessment of the pond and open water channel on the site. Finally, the Agency draws attention to the fact that Stainton Beck supports salmon, trout, bullhead, otter and crayfish. It must be ensured that the discharge from the auction mart or any works associated with the development do not cause damage to the watercourse.
25 NATURAL ENGLAND: Natural England originally objected to the development on the grounds that there was insufficient information submitted with the application to adequately demonstrate that there will not be a negative impact on the biodiversity interest of Stainton Beck. The additional information submitted in response to Natural England’s criticisms is sufficient for the objection to be removed. There is sufficient information to demonstrate that European protected species will not be directly negatively affected and, at this stage, Natural England has no objection to the proposed development. Bats A detailed justification has been provided for deviating from the good practice guidelines and the survey work conducted substantiates the conclusions reached. Otters The proposed mitigation measures should be made a condition of planning permission. Stainton Beck Any discharge into Stainton Beck must be authorized by the Environment Agency. An objection may be raised when Natural England is consulted by the Environment Agency in respect of the application for discharge consent.
CUMBRIA WILDLIFE TRUST: This application raises concerns about the potential for pollution of Stainton Beck and the River Bela, both of which are important for their aquatic species (white clawed crayfish, salmon and trout). Cumbria Wildlife Trust considers that the effluent arrangements described in the application do not adequately demonstrate how they will effectively treat the effluent produced during potentially adverse conditions. Problems with reedbed functionality are likely to arise during periods of flooding or at times when the reedbed is frozen during cold weather. At these times, effluent may arrive in the watercourse without proper treatment and so cause pollution of Stainton Beck and the River Bela. Local knowledge indicates that the area proposed for the reedbed floods on a regular basis. This could cause effluent which is not fully treated to flow into Stainton Beck during periods of high water levels. There is no discussion of adverse conditions or situations in the planning application and how they will be dealt with by the applicant. Has the issue of flooding been considered by the applicant, and if so, what measures are to be taken to prevent this from happening? The same goes for effluent treatment in freezing weather which can reduce the effectiveness of reedbeds by 25% or more. How will this situation be addressed if it arises? Cumbria Wildlife Trust therefore objects to this application on the basis that there is not enough information provided by the applicant to show that the development will not cause damage to the biodiversity interest of Stainton Beck during periods when the reedbeds are under sub-optimal conditions.
MILNTHORPE ANGLING ASSOCIATION: The proposal to use a natural system to deal with the effects of effluent run off appears to us, whilst no doubt effective in normal conditions, to be a system which does not guarantee to be without potential risk of pollution. In the various planning application documents the risk of a pollution incident appears not to have been considered or assessed, although the Ecological Survey does acknowledge that such an event is a possibility. The potential risk from factors which could affect a water based method of dealing with effluent run off such as extremes of drought, flood or temperature, do not appear to have been considered, but in our opinion should be part of a risk assessment.
26 Stainton beck is a small but important tributary of the Bela, contributing approximately one third of the Bela’s combined flow. Like most small streams in the area, being largely rain fed, they are subject to significant variation in flow and in times of low rain fall can become severely reduced in volume. This makes the river’s eco system particularly vulnerable. We know from experience that this severely affects the invertebrate life and the in stream vegetation. There is a rapid growth of algae which occurs when river levels are low and which would increase with any additional nutrient enrichment. This would affect Stainton Beck and given the relatively short distance to its confluence with Peasey Beck, we would expect this influence to extend in to the river Bela. None of the reports appear to provide information about the chemical constitution of the outflow discharging into Stainton Beck, which we believe to be an omission, and have therefore assumed the worst possible case, which is that it will be an enriched outflow. Normal operations appear to us to pose a potential threat to upsetting the balance of the river’s eco system. A serious pollution incident, given the size of the site would be catastrophic. Whilst the Ecological Survey mentions white clawed crayfish, it fails to consider the wider aspects of the ecology of the Stainton and Bela system. The survey should consider the following issues and the impact of normal operations and a serious breakdown in the waste system: • the importance of the system as a wild trout river and a spawning river for sea trout and salmon; • the invertebrate life of the river. The Bela system represents one of the richest and healthiest rivers in south Cumbria; • the in stream vegetation particularly ranunculus. The Bela system, running off lime stone, represents a unique river system with features more usually found on southern chalk streams.
SOUTH CUMBRIA RIVERS TRUST: The Trust is a charity whose purpose is to protect, conserve and rehabilitate the aquatic environments of South Cumbria. We wish to lodge an objection to the proposed relocation of the Auction Mart to Deepthwaite. Our specific objection relates to the proposed effluent arrangements that would appear designed to add to the nutrient load of Stainton Beck, a major tributary of the River Bela. Although Stainton Beck flows through a farmed catchment and undoubtedly already receives nitrate and phosphate from diffuse agricultural run off, the beck as it approaches Deepthwaite looks to be in pristine condition. The catchment also determines that catastrophic flooding events are rare and the stream bed is composed largely of clean, silt- free gravels that harbour a highly diverse invertebrate fauna that in turn, sustains large shoals of minnows, sticklebacks and bullheads. Although quite common in other South Cumbrian water courses, the sheer profusion of these species makes Stainton Beck a very special water course, certainly one of the richest in the whole of South Cumbria. With such a vibrant ecosystem predators such as kingfishers and otters are common. It is an unusually rich and healthy habitat that demands protection and is every bit as important as the presence of the key sentinel species, migratory salmon and sea trout and the white-clawed crayfish. Thanks to the installation of a very effective fish pass on the River Bela, salmon and sea trout are ascending the rivers in increasing numbers and using Stainton Beck in particular, to spawn. However, the proposed development appears to treat one of our finest water courses as a means of transporting a pollution load seawards.
27 BRITISH WATERWAYS: British Waterways has no objections to the auction mart itself, but has the following comments to make with regard to the proposed highway improvements. The comments do not seek to address the possible need for traffic signals to control the increased amount of traffic using the bridge on market days, as it is assumed that this will be considered by the Highway Authority. 1. The proposed new road alignment is an improvement on the existing, but the risk of a long trailer or HGV striking the north west corner of the Crooklands Bridge parapet could be reduced further or possibly eliminated by increasing the sweep of the approach road from the Milnthorpe direction. 2. The hatched area in the middle of the road should be removed.
3. Road markings are indicated but could be improved.
4. Road signage is not shown. Signs and markings should make it clear that the bridge is very narrow and on a tight bend. 5. The area of obsolete road is noted to be altered forming a raised verge (presumably soft). The existing stone boundary wall against which this raised verge will be formed may need to be raised. 6. The NW corner of the bridge parapet is still unprotected against vehicle strikes. In addition to the proposed heavy duty raised kerb at the edge of the proposed verge, steel crash barriers should be installed. 7. In addition to 5 above, other warning could be placed behind the kerb to reinforce the need for HGVs to move away from the kerb when approaching the bridge.
LANCASTER CANAL TRUST: (a) The principal access to the site is via A65 and B6385 passing over Crooklands Bridge. The bridge is a Grade II Listed Structure. (b) The Lancaster Canal Trust (LCT) has no comments about the main development site. However, the Trust’s concerns about the proposed development are in connection with (i) the safety of Crooklands Bridge and (ii) the access to the canal just north of the bridge, including parking on the several unofficial lay-bys on the northeast side of B6385 between the bridge and the easternmost entrance to Westmorland Show ground. (c) In the Transport Assessment it is clear that the accident statistics cover only road traffic accidents involving personal injury and do not include the numerous incidents in recent years of vehicles striking the parapet on Crooklands Bridge. While these incidents have so far had no element of personal injury, there is the potential for serious (even fatal) injury when very large coping stones have been dislodged and fallen into the canal. (d) The conclusion that there are ‘no recurring accident / problem types’ is clearly not true. Over the past 3 years the LCT has been in correspondence with both CCC and SLDC and been represented at several meetings in connection with the recurring problem of bridge strikes. (e) Nevertheless, having apparently ignored the existence of this problem, the assessment records that ‘the highway authority expressed concern about the traffic impact of the development at the canal bridge’. The developer has proposed certain alterations to the B6385 to improve visibility and alignment at the west side of the
28 bridge. (f) The LCT wholeheartedly supports the principle of the road realignment. However, we believe the work currently proposed is not adequate to ensure the safety of the bridge. (g) It is clear that both parapets of the bridge are still vulnerable to the least deviation from the ideal swept path for HGVs. The LCT considers that a longer straight section in the western approach to the bridge is necessary. (h) The LCT notes that the as part of the proposed realignment of the road, it is intended to remove the current facility to park on the verge. The Lancaster Canal is popular with local residents and visitors alike for recreational activities, including the operation and enjoyment of the Trust’s trip boat during the summer months at the stables and jetty beside the road at this point. (i) This verge, along with two similar lay-bys nearby, represents one of the few opportunities for roadside parking for quite some distance around. It is extensively used by the general public as a convenient access to the canal side. (j) The LCT is concerned that removal of this facility will force canal users to seek alternative, less safe, parking locations nearby, creating hazards to road users including pedestrians. The Trust would therefore wish to see this road realignment used as an opportunity to increase not decrease the availability of safe parking near the canal.
SOUTH LAKELANDERS OPPOSED TO GATEWAY (SLOG): SLOG is a group of 100 + private individuals from across South Lakeland including village and town residents, farmers, businesses and leisure users originally formed to oppose the Gateway project. It accepts that Kendal Auction Mart will benefit by moving site but objects strongly to this site at Deepthwaite. In a statement accompanying the application the applicant’s agent has set out the 6 main criteria for a new auction mart site. Of these 6 criteria SLOG believes that the Deepthwaite site fails to meet adequately 4 of them, meets another but only with severe adverse landscape implications and meets just 1, all as set out below: Criterion 1- “large site capable of accommodating a substantial range of buildings” The Deepthwaite site meets this requirement. However the site is part of the unique Low Drumlin fields of South Lakeland and is very sensitive to change. SLOG believes that the large scale of the development in the open countryside does not reflect the distinctive character of the area and that it will cause great landscape harm, and harm to well established planning policies relating to large scale development in such areas. Criterion 2- “adjacent agricultural land available for lairage” This criterion would appear to be capable of being met. Criterion 3- “good access in the macro sense to all of South Cumbria, North Yorkshire and parts of North Lancashire” Whilst the site is close to the M6 and the A65 the immediate approach roads and surrounding network of narrow lanes are totally unsuitable to handle the volume of traffic such as cattle trucks, tractors and trailers, general business traffic etc that would be associated with an Auction Mart and 3 letting units. SLOG considers the submitted traffic assessment to be fatally flawed. The traffic figures given grossly underestimate the amount of traffic that would visit the site as they are based on figures derived from a small November Auction day as opposed to being derived from a more typical Auction day. Neither is any allowance / estimate made regarding traffic likely to be generated by other
29 activities such as car boot sales, furniture / machinery auctions and seminars and trade growth. SLOG’s Traffic Consultants, White Young Green, have reviewed the assessment and have concluded as follows: • Traffic information is inadequate for a robust assessment to be made.
• Crooklands Bridge is not suitable to accommodate the additional traffic that will be generated. • The improvements proposed at the bridge will increase the likelihood of queuing back to the A65 where the visibility is poor, and hence an increase in the risk of accidents. • The access from the B6385 Crooklands - Milnthorpe road at Woodhouse Lane has substandard visibility and this is likely to increase the risk of road accidents. • There is an increased risk of pedestrian accidents as the widening of Woodhouse Lane to accommodate the swept paths of HGV’s will remove any pedestrian refuges. • There will be a major reduction in overall accessibility as compared to a site closer to Kendal.
It is considered that this criterion has not been met. Criterion 4- “lack of immediate neighbours who might be disadvantaged by noise and activity associated with the auction mart” There are a number of residential properties in very close proximity to the site and the lack of any detailed noise, dust, air quality and light pollution assessments relating to the possible impacts on these properties and a response from the Council’s Environmental Protection Unit that such issues will be dealt with prior to work commencing on site, presumably by condition, is a major concern. SLOG’s view is these issues must be dealt with prior to the determination of the application to avoid damaging compromises having to be made at a later stage. It is considered that this criterion has not been met. Criterion 5- “land available to deal in a sustainable way with foul effluent and surface water drainage” SLOG’s consultant reports that the proposed sewage disposal plan is the cheapest available. Furthermore some of the sewerage is located in the flood plain which poses a bio-security and pollution risk. Reed beds do not function when flooded and solid wastes could be carried into the river. The reed bed is an important part of the sewage disposal process, not ‘a final polishing’, as within the proposed system this is what would make the water clean enough for river discharge. SLOG feel it is against the public interest that the applicant has actively decided not to apply for a surface water discharge licence with their main application despite encouragement from all quarters to do so. This means the Environment Agency and Natural England have been unable to comment upfront on detailed water pollution issues i.e. the exact make up of site effluent and their right to object has been effectively suspended. Stainton Beck, into which the discharges will go, is a very clean watercourse, making up one third of the flow of the Bela and containing protected Crayfish and Bullhead. It is one of the few rivers in Cumbria / UK where sea trout and salmon populations are actually increasing. Discharging site effluent from 8000 sheep and 1000 cattle into one of our finest rivers is a most surprising plan and in our view an unacceptable plan. It would appear to us that this criterion has not been met.
30 Criterion 6- “a site which is not in any way subject to flood risk” SLOG has provided the Environment Agency with information concerning flooding on the site which shows that two sides of the site flood with only a relatively small area (3.5 ha) being entirely free from flood risk. It is this flooded area into which the foul effluent is to be drained. This in turn will give rise to issues of bio-security and watercourse pollution. It would appear that this criterion has not been met.
SLOG’s conclusion The proposal fails to meet 4 of the 6 main criteria laid down by the applicants themselves for a new Auction Mart site, and will have a significantly detrimental impact upon the local landscape, highway safety, local residents and important nature conservation interests. There is no proven need for a specifically rural location for a new Auction Mart and the retrospective sequential analysis of other sites carried out by the applicants does not truly reflect the actual locational process gone through by them. The most appropriate method to identify a new site would be via the sustainable LDF site allocations process and consequently this application should be refused.
FRIENDS OF THE LAKE DISTRICT: Saved Structure Plan Policy E37, and RSS Policy EM1 seek to ensure that development respects local landscape character. The applicant’s Landscape and Visual Appraisal concludes that whilst the proposed auction mart is a large structure, it is comparable in scale and design to farmsteads located in the general vicinity. It is the applicant’s view that local landform restricts views into the site, thus minimising visual impact. FLD would concur that local topography and vegetation are likely to restrict more distant views of the site, although an assessment from elevated viewpoints characteristic of the vicinity, such as Warth Hill and Farleton Knott, would be welcome. The development is comparable to adjacent farmsteads to an extent but, it is clear that the auction mart building in particular is to be of a significant size. In terms of overall massing, its impact is likely to be greater than that of a typical modern farm building. In addition, a significant amount of hardstanding car parking is proposed. This is not characteristic of this landscape type or open countryside areas in general, and is likely to result in a significant impact, particularly in close proximity to site in the short to medium term. RSS Policy DP9 highlights the importance of maintaining and enhancing the tranquillity of the open countryside and rural areas. Impacts upon tranquillity have not been fully explored in our view. These are likely to be more significant than those associated with a typical agricultural development. The Landscape Strategy highlights the network of small lanes as a key characteristic of this area. These are popular with local cyclists, walkers and horse riders. The additional traffic generated by the development is likely to impact upon the tranquillity of these lanes. In addition, issues of light pollution also form an important consideration when considering impacts upon local character. Given the proposed hours of operation, this may be an issue in winter months. PPS7 and RSS Policy RDF2 restrict significant development in the open countryside, partly due to the landscape and visual impacts associated with such developments, but also for reasons of sustainable access. In landscape and sustainable access terms therefore, a site closer to Kendal is likely to be preferable. PPS7 and RDF2 also recognise the importance of the agricultural industry. FLD acknowledge the key role farmers play in maintaining the landscape quality of the county.
31 We have welcomed the opportunity to discuss the development of the proposal informally with the applicants over the past 18 months. FLD appreciate the need for a new auction mart, and would concur with the applicant’s arguments regarding the inappropriateness of the existing site. In planning terms, the Sandylands site would be better developed for an alternative purpose, such as housing. These factors form important material considerations in our view. FLD welcome the proposed sustainable construction techniques, which are supported by RSS Policy DP9 and the PPS1 Supplement Planning and Climate Change. In conclusion, in our view, given the complex policy issues this proposal presents, it would be more appropriate for a site to be identified through the Local Development Framework process, particularly given the impending consultation on the Council’s Allocations DPD. This would enable the most appropriate site in sequential terms to be selected.
NATIONAL TRUST: No objections.
KENDAL AND DISTRICT CYCLE SCENE: Object to this proposal on the grounds that the proposed Auction Mart is located on one of the 'quiet lanes' south of Kendal which are used extensively by local and visiting cyclists for recreational cycling. Not only does National Cycle Route 6 pass close to the site, but the lanes between Kendal and Milnthorpe are frequently used for cycle orienteering events. The traffic generated by the development itself, and its use for events such as car boot sales, will consist of large numbers of cars and car/trailer combinations, which will not be prevented from short cutting to the site through the network of small lanes by advisory traffic warning signs. Satnavs will also direct traffic through the lanes. Woodhouse Lane is a minor road totally unsuitable for high volumes of traffic, and the proposed development would increase the traffic levels on the popular and well used National Cycle Route 6 which passes through Woodhouse and attracts visiting cycle tourists. The Transport Assessments submitted with the application, make no reference to the impact of the development on the safety of cyclists. KDCS is concerned that routes which are popular with local and visiting cyclists because of their relative safety and quietness will become subject to unacceptable and unsafe levels of traffic. For this reason KDCS wishes to register an objection to the proposal.
HEVERSHAM PRIMARY SCHOOL: The headmaster has written to express his belief that the proposal will prove to be an unacceptable risk to children travelling to and from school due to increased road use from vans and lorries trying to access the mart, particularly when using satellite navigation systems. Heversham village has poor footpaths and the roads are already busy in the mornings and at the end of the school day with buses to and from Dallam school without added auction mart traffic.
32 NATIONAL BEEF ASSOCIATION: Cumbria is a renowned stock rearing area and the quality and quantity of stock from this area is vital to the beef industry. South Lakeland residents must support its farmers and the provision of the proposed simple but effective auction mart located close to the main highway routes will benefit farmers and the customers using the site far better than its existing outdated town centre site, adding value and prosperity.
NATIONAL SHEEP ASSOCIATION: Well-located, modern marts, with appropriate facilities to meet the high animal welfare requirements, are vital if the sheep sector is to move forward. Many other auction marts throughout the country have relocated in recent decades and all have located close to main highway routes for the swift transportation of livestock and ease of access to market by farmers travelling with stock from outlying rural locations. The new mart shows a simple logic in design and easy access for customers to deliver and collect livestock. It is welfare minded in respect of animal handling around the mart and provides trading space for agri-businesses that rely wholly on the farmer customer for their trade. It is a low-carbon building that not only provides an exemplar of its type but also incorporates vital cost-saving efficient rainwater harvesting, sustainable effluent disposal and carbon-neutral heating.
COUNCILLOR BINGHAM: Councillor Bingham represents the Lower Kentdale Division on the County Council, is a District Councillor and is also a Parish Councillor for Milnthorpe. As a local resident and as a public representative, Councillor Bingham has written to oppose the application for the following reasons: • The highways network is unsuitable and an increase in traffic flow would have a detrimental effect on the relatively narrow highways and already seriously congested areas. The most vulnerable areas are Crooklands Bridge, the centre of Milnthorpe and Heversham where residents are very concerned that an auction mart would increase traffic though the village. • The development would be harmful and damaging to the landscape. The site is on drumlin meadow land which is worthy of protection. It is visible from the Lancaster Canal. Heversham Head and other lower hills to which the public have access and from Farleton Knott. • The site has a high water table and is liable to be waterlogged.
• The site has probably been occupied and / or cultivated since pre-historic times and a detailed on-site historical and archaeological survey is essential prior to development being permitted. A desk-top survey would not be sufficient.
OTHER: Approximately 200 letters of objection have been received together with two petitions containing a total of 84 signatures. The main grounds of objection can be summarized as follows:
33 • Crooklands Bridge is inadequate for the volumes of traffic generated by the auction mart; • the lanes in the vicinity of the site will be unable to accommodate the traffic generated by the development; • the location is unsustainable being in the open countryside outside a key service centre; • the site is not accessible by public transport;
• a development of the scale proposed would be inappropriate and materially harmful to the character and appearance of the landscape; • the reed bed drainage system will pollute Stainton Beck;
• the area where the reed bed is to be established is susceptible to flooding which, in turn, will cause the beck to become polluted; • noise pollution;
• the premises will be used for car boot sales, markets and craft fairs;
• the development is premature in advance of the Local Development Framework;
• neither the economic nor social arguments put forward are sufficient to justify an exception being made to current Local Plan policy; • there is no evidence that other, potentially suitable sites for the auction mart have been considered.
Approximately 30 letters of support have been received. The major grounds for supporting the application are as follows: • the auction mart should move from Kendal because of traffic congestion and noise disturbance suffered by neighbouring residents; • the move from within a largely residential area of Kendal to a new site closer to major roads and the M6 will benefit the town by allowing the present site to be developed for housing and by removing traffic; • there is an essential need for modern facilities for livestock sales in the area;
• the location is more convenient for both the auction mart and its customers and will complement the Carlisle and Penrith, auction marts; • the new auction mart will secure rural employment and will provide a vital trading and social facility for the agricultural community; • a vibrant rural economy needs purpose-built, sustainable markets near to the motorway network.
HISTORICAL CONTEXT: The site of the proposed auction mart previously formed a part of a more extensive application site for a development known as the South Lakeland Gateway Project. The Gateway Project consisted of two elements: (a) a Rural Resource and Gateway Centre which included an auction mart, light industrial and general industrial factory units, a regional information centre, a restaurant, retail floorspace, meeting rooms, offices, car parking and a
34 transport interchange for 20 coaches; and (b) a Showfield Centre related to the Westmorland County Showfield based at Lane Farm on the eastern side of the A590. Built development here would comprise a permanent show ring, a storage building, an amenity block, car parking and a two-storey building to house conference and training facilities, offices, foyers and viewing galleries. The Rural Resource and Gateway Centre was to be built on the west side of the A590 and it was intended that the Gateway Centre and Showfield Centre would function together as an integrated facility and visitor attraction for the South Lakes area. The two elements of the site were to be joined by a pedestrian bridge over the A590. The application, submitted in 2006, was withdrawn before being considered by the Planning Committee. In May 2007 the Planning Committee gave authority for permission to be granted for the residential redevelopment of the current auction mart in Kendal. The development comprises 105 dwellings, of which 52 are to be affordable. The planning permission is dependent on an Agreement to secure the delivery of the affordable units, public open space and play equipment and a £20,000 contribution to the provision of play facilities in the locality. The Agreement has not yet been signed and, consequently, the planning permission has not been issued.
DESCRIPTION AND PROPOSAL: The site extends to 9 hectares and the proposed development comprises: • A livestock mart with two sales rings and an adjacent stock-penning area. The building, which covers a floor area measuring 98 m by 84 m (8232 sq m), will also contain an auction sales room, a café, kiosks for use by agriculture-related companies on sales days, and offices, including lettable office floor space. The building has ridge heights of 8 m and eaves heights of 5.5 m, which drop to 2.8 m on the front elevation over the offices and auction rooms. It is a steel-framed building and the front section, containing the sales rings, auction rooms, offices and café, will feature external walls of straw bale construction finished with a lime mortar render painted white with timber cladding at fascia level. The roofs are to be covered with green-coloured sheeting. At the rear, the external walls of the livestock pens will be formed by pre-cast concrete panels. • Nine docking bays are to be constructed at the rear of the building adjacent to the livestock pens together with an area for the parking of lorries. The ground around the other three sides of the building is to be hard-surfaced and used for vehicle parking. Over 200 parking spaces are to be provided together with 100 spaces for lorries and trailers. External lights are to be installed. An access and an exit are to be constructed from the lane to the south east of the site. • Three, free-standing lettable units are to be built between the livestock mart building and the western boundary of the site. Unit 1 (1290 sq m) is to be used by a company that supplies, repairs and maintains tractors and other agricultural vehicles; Unit 2 (1540 sq m) is to be used by a firm of agricultural merchants; and Unit 3 (795 sq m) is to be used as an agricultural-related rural workspace. All three buildings are to be constructed of rendered blockwork walls and covered with green-coloured sheeting roofs. • Foul drainage from the building and from the livestock pens is based on a sustainable drainage system with an outfall to Stainton Beck. Following the washdown of the livestock pens, using retained roof-water from underground storage tanks, the effluent is passed through a separator unit to take out most of the solid material. It is then passed through a specialist treatment plant and then through reed beds before flowing into the adjacent water-course and eventually into Stainton Beck.
35 • The B6385 is to be re-aligned to assist the movements of HGVs over the canal bridge opposite the Crooklands Hotel. Currently, the B6385 forms a right angle bend prior to passing over the bridge and the re-alignment will allow a HGV to negotiate the bend without crossing the central hatching and will enable the driver to see whether an oncoming vehicle is passing over the bridge. The application site is located in the open countryside to the north of the B6385 Crooklands- Milnthorpe Road and comprises several small fields bounded by hedges and wire fences. It occupies a relatively level area separated from the B6385 by fields, some 120m in width which are outside the ownership of the applicant company. It is bounded to the east by the A590 dual carriageway and to the west by the lane from the B6385 which passes through the nearby hamlet of Deepthwaite, to the north west of the site. There are fields to the north. The landscape character of the area combines features of the drumlins (“whaleback” hills) to the north with the less distinct, lower drumlins to the south. The nearest house in the hamlet of Deepthwaite is some 130m from the western boundary of the application site, adjacent to the three free-standing industrial units. Two houses and a garden centre, Woodlands Nurseries, stand on the southern side of the B3685 opposite the application site and a farm, Milton Moor, lies to the south east.
PLANNING POLICIES: Regional Spatial Strategy (RSS) The RSS was published in September 2008 and its principles reflect national policy in promoting development in sustainable locations. Relevant policies include: Policy DP1: promotes sustainable communities and economic development. Policy DP4: gives priority to building on existing concentrations of activity and infrastructure. Policy DP5: promotes the location of development so as to reduce the need to travel and to be accessible by public transport, by walking and by cycling. Policy DP7: seeks to protect environmental quality by, among other means, respecting the character and distinctiveness of places and landscapes; ensuring that development respects its setting; and maintaining the tranquillity of open countryside and rural areas. Policy EM1 (A): states that planning proposals should identify, protect and maintain distinctive features that contribute to landscape character in the Region. Policy RDF2: indicates that development in rural areas will be concentrated in key service centres. Exceptionally, however, new development will be permitted in the open countryside where it has an essential requirement for a rural location which cannot be accommodated elsewhere. The quoted RSS principles support the concentration of most development in or adjoining key, or local, service centres where most jobs, services and infrastructure are already located, rather than in a rural location such as Deepthwaite. In the context of RSS Policy RDF2, it could be argued that the scale and nature of the auction mart may justify a rural location, taking account of factors including: • the desirability of not locating an auction mart in close proximity to residential areas, taking account of noise and periodic significant traffic generation. These factors affect the suitability of the auction mart’s current site, but do not in themselves preclude consideration of potentially suitable sites on the edge of (or even within) the key service centres, where they are suitably located in relation to existing development and transport routes;
36 • the majority of those using the auction mart (typically livestock farmers) are clearly based in rural areas, and therefore a rural location is arguably suitable in principle for a largely agricultural business. A rural site would mean auction mart traffic would be removed almost entirely from an urban area, compared to sites within or on the edge of a town. To justify an exceptional rural location, however, the principles of sustainability require a sequential approach to the consideration of alternative locations adjoining or closer to a key service centre, such as Kendal or Milnthorpe.
Cumbria and Lake District Joint Structure Plan (JSP) Policy ST5: identifies key service centres to be the focus of development. In South Lakeland, the key service centres are Kendal, Ulverston, Grange over Sands, Kirkby Lonsdale and Milnthorpe. The location of the auction mart, being in the open countryside, fails to satisfy the locational criteria outlined in Policy ST5. Development will only be permitted in the open countryside if there are exceptional and justifying circumstances; such as development which is fundamental to delivering positive change to the local economy. Policy T30: The development is of a scale which requires a Transport Assessment under the provisions of Policy T30. Policy E37: states that development should be compatible with the distinctive characteristics and features of Cumbria’s landscape types and sub-types. The main auction mart building is of a similar scale to some of the larger farmsteads but the three additional buildings will, collectively, significantly increase the overall footprint of the development beyond that of the local farmsteads. As a consequence the proposal is contrary to the objectives of JSP Policy E37. Policy E35: states that development which is detrimental to nature conservation interests (other than those of national and international importance) will not be permitted unless the harm caused to the value of those interests is outweighed by the need for the development. Policy E38: requires measures to be taken to identify, record, protect, conserve or enhance areas, sites, buildings and settings of archaeological, historic and architectural importance. Where harm occurs, an exception can be made if the harm is outweighed by the need for the development.
South Lakeland Local Plan Policy E7: states that favourable consideration will be given to suitable employment-related development in rural areas provided that the proposal: (a) is of a scale in keeping with its surroundings;
(b) does not detract from the amenity of residential areas;
(c) is not detrimental to the character or appearance of the landscape or settlement; and
(d) does not give rise to unacceptable levels of traffic.
Local Development Framework (LDF) In considering the case for treating the auction mart as exceptional development in the open countryside, it is also necessary to consider the implications of the proposal for the Kendal Area Strategy (Policy CS2) of the Proposed Submission Core Strategy, as the application will involve relocating the auction mart from Kendal. Policy CS2 requires over 3000 new homes
37 and 21ha of employment land to be provided by 2025. The Kendal Transport Assessment addresses the key issue of accommodating this level of development on the town’s road and transport network, and Policy CS2 incorporates the study’s development and mitigation strategy. The Council is presently assessing site options in detail for housing, employment and other purposes, prior to public consultation on preferred sites in the coming months. Firstly, given the Core Strategy’s challenging development targets for Kendal, and the limited sites available, (particularly brownfield sites) the relocation of the auction mart will release an important 1.7ha brownfield site for housing purposes. Furthermore, if the auction mart were relocated in a rural area, this would help ensure that the limited sites in Kendal are available to meet the town’s core housing and employment requirements. The proposed auction mart site at Deepthwaite represents almost half of the Core Strategy’s proposed employment land requirement for Kendal. Assuming a site of a similar size, locating the auction mart site within or on the edge of Kendal, is likely to reduce options for employment land in particular. This could risk the achievement of a key objective of the Core Strategy to provide sufficient employment land in Kendal, including strategic and business park sites, which are important in diversifying the town’s economic base and attracting higher earning jobs. Secondly, the capacity of Kendal’s road and transport network is important for the proposed development strategy for Kendal. The removal of the auction mart from its current site at Appleby Road will have benefits for capacity of roads in the Appleby Road/Shap Road area (where the Transport Assessment highlights particular problems) but also for traffic circulation in Kendal as a whole. As with the issue of Kendal’s limited supply of sites, a rural location for the auction mart would also reduce traffic circulation and increase road capacity in the town and therefore contribute to the implementation of the Kendal Area Strategy’s priorities for delivering new land for housing and employment.
HUMAN RIGHTS ACT: The provisions of the Act are relevant in so far as they relate to the right to respect for private and family life and the peaceful enjoyment of property.
ASSESSMENT: The major planning issues raised by this application are: • Whether the auction mart justifies a rural location.
• The effects of the development upon the character and appearance of the surrounding landscape. • The accessibility of the site and the adequacy of the local road network.
• The impact of the development on the living conditions currently enjoyed by nearby residents. • The adequacy of the proposed drainage arrangements and the impact of the development on Stainton Beck. • The risk of flooding.
38 • Archaeology.
Whether the auction mart justifies a rural location The application site is open countryside for policy purposes and it is a widely held objective that development should be concentrated in places where a range of services can be reached by means of transport other than the private car. It is for this reason that JSP Policy ST5 and RSS Policy RDF2 seek to direct development to key service centres. RSS Policy RDF2, however, states that, in exceptional circumstances, development in the open countryside will be permitted where there is an essential requirement for a rural location. Factors that indicate that a rural location is appropriate for an auction mart include the desirability of avoiding residential areas, taking into account noise and periodic, significant traffic generation and the fact that the majority of those using the auction mart are rural- based . In addition, the nature or the auction mart’s business is such that sustainability objectives are not of direct relevance; wherever it is located, the great majority of those attending sales will arrive in their own vehicles, typically towing trailers. The Core Strategy of the Local Development Framework requires over 3000 new dwellings and 21 ha of employment land to be provided by 2025. In this context, the relocation of the auction mart should be supported because it will release an important 1.7 ha brownfield site for housing. Secondly, relocating to a rural site will ensure that the limited sites in Kendal are available to meet the town’s core housing and employment requirements. The application site extends to 9 ha which represents almost half of the Core Strategy’s employment land requirement for Kendal. Locating the auction mart within or on the edge of the town is likely to reduce options for employment land in particular. This could jeopardize a key objective of the Core Strategy which is to provide sufficient employment land in Kendal, including strategic and business park sites, which are important in diversifying the town’s economic base. Thirdly, the removal of the auction mart from its current site will have benefits for the capacity of Appleby Road and Shap Road and also for traffic circulation in the town as a whole. A sequential test has been undertaken by the applicant’s planning consultant to demonstrate that there are no other, more suitable sites available closer to the key service centres and main transport routes. The scope of the test was agreed with the District Council. The exercise revealed that there is no site that is available which scores more highly than the application site and, in particular, there is no site available within or on the edge of existing urban centres. In summary, and taking into account RSS Policy RDF2 and the emerging LDF Core Strategy, there is a good case for supporting the relocation of the auction mart to a rural site.
The effects of the development upon the character and appearance of the surrounding landscape Although the buildings are straightforward in appearance and materials and share certain characteristics with farm buildings, the scale of the development is such that it will intrude to a significant extent into the countryside surrounding the site. The main building extends to some 8200 sq m and will be surrounded by a substantial expanse of hard surfacing to be used for the parking and manoeuvring of vehicles and trailers. In addition, three, free- standing commercial units are to be built adjacent to the western boundary of the site. Collectively, the buildings and the hard surfacing will constitute a significant form of built development which would contrast unfavourably with the compact nature of the local farmsteads. The visual impact and effects on the landscape would be such that the proposal would be contrary to Development Plan policies, notably RSS Policies DP7 and EM1(A) and JSP Policy E37. The scale of the development is such that it will not respect its setting or 39 maintain the tranquillity of a rural area nor will it be successfully integrated into the landscape. If, however, Members accept the argument that a rural location is appropriate, it follows that the resultant development will inevitably be highly visible within the landscape and damaging to its character and appearance.
The accessibility of the site and the adequacy of the local road network The site lies to the north of the B6385, Milnthorpe-Crooklands road, close to where it crosses the A590 dual carriageway. Access to the auction mart is from Woodhouse Lane which runs north westwards from its junction with the B6385 to Deepthwaite and Hincaster. Cumbria Highways has objected to the proposed auction mart on the following highway- related grounds:- (a) The adequacy of the bridge which carries the B6385 over the Lancaster Canal close to the junction with the A65 opposite the Crooklands Hotel. (b) The increased use of Woodhouse Lane and its junction with the B6385.
(c) The accessibility of the site.
In respect of (a), Crooklands Bridge is a listed structure constructed of coursed limestone and dating from about 1818. It is a component of the planning application that the B6385 is to be re-aligned and straightened it its approach to the canal bridge from the west. Because of its restricted width the bridge effectively creates one-way working and, because of parapet walls, the crest of the bridge and its current alignment, forward visibility between drivers approaching from opposite directions is very restricted. Visibility when approaching from the west will be improved by the re-alignment of the road. On the eastern side of the bridge forward visibility is reasonable but there is a distance of only 35 metres between the bridge and the A65 junction; as a consequence, there is limited capacity to accommodate vehicles queuing to cross the bridge and there is the danger that vehicles will be stationary on the A65. The application includes figures intended to illustrate that arrivals and departures will be spread throughout the day, with no mass arrival or departure in a single hourly period. The accuracy of these figures has been questioned by the County Council and clarification has been requested to demonstrate that queuing from the bridge to the A65 will not occur. Because of the uncertainty over the figures provided in the application, the County Council is not able to advise whether the proposed arrangement will accommodate the traffic generated by the auction mart. Road Safety Audits, requested by the County Council, are being prepared by the applicant’s highway consultant in respect of the canal bridge and the site access from Woodhouse Lane. In respect of (c), the roads around the site are narrow with limited passing places, accessibility by public transport and on foot is not feasible and there is limited accessibility by bicycle. As noted earlier in this report, the great majority of those attending sales will, by the nature of their business, arrive in their own vehicles. Whilst employees of the auction mart may travel by methods other than the private vehicle, it is unlikely that the auction mart’s customers will do so. The Committee is reminded that in addition to the two livestock rings the auction mart will also contain two auction rooms. Traffic will be generated not only by livestock sales but also by auctions and possibly car-boot sales. The difficulties associated with the vehicular access to the site, in particular with Crooklands Bridge, indicate that the B6385 is inadequate to accommodate the likely increase in the volume of traffic generated by the auction mart. The adequacy of the local road network is
40 fundamental to the proposal and the advice of the County Council is central to reaching that decision. It is expected that the requested Road Safety Audits will have been submitted to and assessed by the County Council before the Planning Committee meeting and that firm advice from the highway authority will be available to inform the decision-making process.
The impact of the development on the living conditions currently enjoyed by nearby residents The hamlet of Deepthwaite lies to the west of the application site and contains five dwellings. The nearest house in the hamlet lies approximately 130 metres from the western boundary of the site. There are three dwellings and the Woodlands garden centre to the south east, on the opposite side of the B6385. The property known as Woodlands is located some 140 metres, to the south east and Milton Moor Farm is a similar distance to the south west. The scale of the auction mart and its associated development is such that it represents a significant intrusion into the countryside, notwithstanding the near proximity of the A590 dual carriageway, the County Showfield site and the garden centre. A commercial development of the scale proposed will not only be physically imposing but will also increase the activity in this locality and the number of vehicle movements. In addition to the increased activity and the physical presence of the development being to the detriment of the rural character of the area it has the potential to cause harm to the general living conditions currently enjoyed by nearby residents. On the subject of potential noise nuisance, the Council’s Environmental Protection Officer has recommended that, if planning permission is granted, a condition should be attached requiring the submission of a noise assessment to illustrate the impact of the operation of the auction mart and associated development on nearby residential properties. Those living nearby will also be affected by the increase in traffic movements and the activity associated with the auction mart in general. Safeguarding the living conditions currently enjoyed by nearby residents is a legitimate and material planning consideration and is one which is relevant to the present proposal. The scale of harm to living conditions is not directly related to the number of properties affected. Where relatively few properties are affected, as in this case, it would not be correct to conclude that the harm is acceptable. The degree of harm in individual cases is important and has to be weighed in the balance of the benefits and disbenefits of the proposal. In this case, the scale of the auction mart and its associated developments is significant and the activity and disturbance associated with the proposed use would be detrimental to the relatively quiet living conditions enjoyed by nearby residents. Balanced against the harm to the residents of Deepthwaite, however, are the benefits to the larger number of people who live close to and on the routes to and from the present auction mart.
The adequacy of the proposed drainage arrangements and the impact of the development on Stainton Beck Foul and surface water drainage is based on a sustainable drainage system with an eventual outfall to Stainton Beck. Following the washdown of the livestock penning areas with the retained roof water from the underground storage tanks, the effluent is first passed through a separator unit to take out most of the solid material prior to passing through a specialist treatment plant. The effluent is then passed through a reed bed (created from part of an existing wetland area) before flowing into an adjacent watercourse and eventually into Stainton Beck. The foul drainage from the building also passes through the same system. Stainton Beck supports salmon, trout, bullhead, otter and crayfish and the proposed drainage system, with its eventual outfall into the Beck, has been criticised by a number of organizations, including the Cumbria Wildlife Trust, the Milnthorpe Angling Association, the
41 South Cumbria Rivers Trust and SLOG. It is feared that the biodiversity interest and wildlife of Stainton Beck will be damaged by pollutants. Natural England, the statutory agency responsible for the conservation, enhancement and management of the natural environment, has advised that it is the Environment Agency that is responsible for issuing the discharge consent for Stainton Beck. As a consequence, Natural England is not in a position to maintain an objection relating to the discharge into the Beck. However, as indicated earlier and objection could be raised by Natural England when consulted by the Environment Agency over the discharge consent. SLOG has appointed its own wastewater consultant who has submitted a report which raises a number of issues in respect of the reed bed drainage system, bio-security, Stainton Beck and water supply. A copy of this report has been forwarded to the Environment Agency and a response is awaited. The Environment Agency’s preferred solution is for a connection to be made to the mains sewer but the applicant has argued that such a connection would be prohibitively expensive. In response, the Agency has requested a feasibility study to be carried out by the applicant to consider the practicality of and determine the cost of such a project. Until such time as the feasibility study is received, the Environment Agency’s preferred solution is for a connection to the mains sewer. At the time of writing, the study has not been submitted but it is understood that it is being prepared. Confirmation is also awaited that the Environment Agency is satisfied, or otherwise with the ecological assessment submitted with the planning application. The Committee is reminded that the Environment Agency is the authority responsible for regulating the discharge of sewage or trade effluent into watercourses. Thus, the decision over whether the reed bed drainage system is acceptable will be made by the Environment Agency.
Flood Risk A revised Flood Risk Assessment includes a flood attenuation pond which meets the required capacity and is sited outside Flood Zones 2 and 3, as agreed with the Environment Agency. The discharge rate from the attenuation pond needs to be limited and the Agency has advised that such limitation can be achieved by a condition attached to the planning permission.
Archaeology The site has the potential to contain pre-medieval remains, given the fact that Roman and prehistoric finds have been recovered in the immediate vicinity. The whole of the application site should be the subject of an archaeological evaluation, secured by a condition, should planning permission be granted.
Conclusion In conclusion, it is argued by the applicant that a rural site for the auction mart is preferable to an urban location because of the traffic generation, animal welfare needs, the need for a substantial area of land and the requirement for a site that is efficient from a transportation point of view. In practice, these factors lead to a requirement for a self-contained site with no immediate neighbours and good road access. The positives that weigh in favour of the proposed development can be summarised as follows:
42 • the relocation of the auction mart will release a substantial brownfield site for housing within Kendal, • the relocation to a rural site will ensure that the limited number of sites within or on the edge of the town are available to meet the town’s core housing and employment requirements, • the removal of the auction mart from its current site will have benefits for those living nearby and for the capacity of Appleby Road and Shap Road and for traffic circulation in the town.
To be balanced against the positive factors are the physical effect of the development on the landscape, the difficulties of vehicular access caused by Crooklands Bridge, the impact on the neighbouring residential properties and the implications of the reed bed drainage system for Stainton Beck. The policy justification for the development of a rural, greenfield site is RSS Policy RDF2 which indicates that, in exceptional circumstances, new development will be permitted in the open countryside where there is an essential requirement for a rural location which cannot be accommodated elsewhere. Although there are sound arguments in favour of a rural location for the auction mart, a development of the scale proposed will not be successfully integrated into the landscape. Secondly, by reason of its scale and the activity it will generate, the development will intrude into the relative tranquillity of the area, to the detriment of those who live nearby. Central to the determination of this application is the adequacy, or otherwise, of the local road network, in particular Crooklands Bridge. It was hoped that firm advice would have been received from the County Council in respect of highway safety issues. Instead, Members will be notified at the Committee meeting of the County Council’s advice following the submission of the Road Safety Audits from the applicant’s highway consultant. Although a rural location for the auction mart is capable of being supported in principle the difficulties that have arisen over the local road network, the effect on the landscape and on residential amenity, suggest that the site at Deepthwaite is not appropriate for the scale of development and the level of activity proposed.
RECOMMENDATION: The Corporate Director (Communities) will report on the issues arising, including those from the Members’ site visit, and the outstanding consultation responses from the County Council in respect of highway-related matters and the Environment Agency in respect of drainage.
43 SCHEDULE A
Complex Planning Applications
SCHEDULE No: 2
SL/2009/1132 (RFPA)
LOWER ALLITHWAITE: PART OF OS 8270, BLENKET FARM, JACK HILL, ALLITHWAITE, GRANGE over SANDS
PROPOSAL: ERECTION OF TWO
AGRICULTURAL
BUILDINGS, 25/03/2010 FORMATION OF E338843 N475767 YARD AREAS AND AGRICULTURAL ACCESS WITH ASSOCIATED LANDSCAPING (RETROSPECTIVE)
MR RICHARD WHITTON
SUMMARY: Members deferred the application at the last Planning Committee to visit the site. While the eastern building is well located in terms of the other buildings on the site, the western building results in the whole complex being more prominent in the landscape.
LOWER ALLITHWAITE PARISH COUNCIL: The Parish Council wishes to abstain from making a recommendation as they do not know what is happening at the site. The Parish question whether the buildings are being used in connection with a farming business and request that the Committee visit the site.
ENVIRONMENT AGENCY: The site is within the Flood Zone 3a which has a risk from tidal flooding should the railway embankment breach or overtop. The Environment Agency has no objection in principle to the agricultural buildings in this location. The intended planting would have benefit to wildlife if it consists of native species.
44 HISTORICAL CONTEXT: The site has a long and complex planning history. Planning permission was granted for the conversion of barns near the farmhouse together with residential development in the 1990’s and early 2000’s. An application was subsequently submitted for the erection of a large agricultural building to the north of the current site. Planning permission was refused due to the prominent location within the open countryside and an appeal was dismissed. Planning permission was later granted for the erection of an agricultural building on the site of the old sewage treatment plant, adjacent to the buildings subject to this application. Stables were erected and containers placed on the site to the north about 2004. An Enforcement Notice was served requiring removal of these structures. At appeal the Inspector allowed retention of the stables but required that the containers be removed. A further two agricultural buildings have been erected and a pair of containers with a covered area between have been installed adjacent to the site. These structures do not have the benefit of planning permission but have been in place for over four years therefore are now immune from enforcement action. Planning permission was granted in 2006 for a static caravan park to the east of the site. This site is now under development.
DESCRIPTION AND PROPOSAL: The site is located approximately 400 metres to the south of Allithwaite at the old sewage treatment plant. The site is on a flat plain which is part of the Flood Zone 3a which is at risk of flooding from the Bay should the railway embankment over top. The land rises steeply to the north and north-east at Blenket Wood but is open to the south and west. A public footpath runs along the west of the site. There are three buildings and a pair of containers to the north of the site, all of which are fairly well contained and screened from the wider landscape.
POLICY ISSUES: Policy S23 of the South Lakeland Local Plan states that new agricultural buildings requiring planning permission will only be acceptable where the proposal has no significant adverse impact on the visual amenity of the area, the amenity of nearby residents and local nature conservation. In considering proposals the Council will have regard to the operational needs of the agricultural business. Policies C22 and C24 of the South Lakeland Local Plan seek to ensure that development in areas of flood risk have appropriate flood protection, do not adversely affect nature conservation or land drainage, create an unacceptable increase in flooding elsewhere and do not adversely affect access to water courses for maintenance.
HUMAN RIGHTS ACT: The provisions of the Act are relevant in so far as they relate to the right to respect for private and family life and the peaceful enjoyment of property.
ASSESSMENT: The buildings on the land to the north of the site are fairly well contained within an area which was previously the sewage treatment plant. There is a drop in height between the land and that further to the north which together with hedging and trees around the boundaries created a good screen.
45 Hedging has been removed from the southern and eastern sides of the site and two large agricultural buildings erected together with a hard surfaced yard area created to the south of the site. The eastern building is well associated with the existing buildings at the site and sits against the woodland to the east. However, the western building protrudes out towards the adjacent public footpath and breaks the well-contained form of the previous site. This results in a building which is significantly more prominent from the public footpath. The position also draws attention to what was previously a well-screened site, resulting in the whole complex of buildings appearing more visible. It is questionable whether there is sufficient land at Blenket Farm to justify the additional buildings which have been erected. However, the applicant has stated that the buildings are necessary for his farming operation which consists of buying lambs and calves and selling as fattened stock. He states that approximately 150 beef cattle and 50 to 60 sheep are purchased and sold each year. The site at Blanket Farm extends to 15 hectares with the applicant owning and renting other land in the Cartmel area and as far away as Whitehaven and Barrow. Removal of the western building and additional landscaping was requested. However, the applicant does not wish to lose the building for operational reasons and has suggested that the building be retained temporarily and removed after a period of three years which is likely to coincide with his retirement.
RECOMMENDATION: The Corporate Director (Communities) to report on the issues raised at the site visit.
46 SCHEDULE A
Complex Planning Applications
SCHEDULE No: 3
SL/2009/1135 (FPA)
ARNSIDE: HOLLINS FARM, FAR ARNSIDE
PROPOSAL: EXTENSION TO CARAVAN AND CAMPING SITE WITH REPLACEMENT FACILITY BUILDING AND NEW SEWAGE
TREATMENT PLANT, AND ASSOCIATED LANDSCAPE WORKS 25/03/2010 E345244 N476648 HOLGATES CARAVAN PARKS LTD
SUMMARY: An increase in the number of touring caravan pitches on an existing site within the AONB, accompanied by increased planting, hardstandings, and an agreement to relinquish permitted development rights on the remainder of the site. Also a new amenity block. The two most significant issues are the visual impact and the increase in traffic, which affects residents in the adjacent Lancashire area as well as Cumbria.
CUMBRIA COUNTY HIGHWAYS: No objections, given the history of the site, but under normal circumstances would like to have seen a transport statement to assess the effect of this development on the highway. The surrounding road network is unsuitable for additional trips by caravans and trailers both from the Arnside and Silverdale directions. Recommended improvements to the junction of the private access road with the public highway and passing places on the private road.
LANCASHIRE COUNTY HIGHWAYS: The proposed extension will be mitigated by the relinquishing of any rights by the applicant to use adjoining fields for tents and caravans. Under the circumstances it appears that the relative impact of this development on the adjoining highway network is unlikely to be significant and on balance I do not consider it appropriate to recommend refusal.
47 ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION GROUP: No objections to the sewage treatment plant.
ARBORICULTURAL OFFICER: Do not agree with the statement that the roadside walls provide eye level screenings, but otherwise, and with some additional information and areas of planting the scheme is acceptable as a way of minimising the impact of the scheme.
ARNSIDE PARISH COUNCIL: Object as the proposed planting will not provide effective screening; this is not an exception site due to the scale and visual impact; it will impact on the adjacent SSSI as a result of lighting and use of herbicides; impact on the view from the Knott and Heathwaite; increased traffic; possible merging of sites in future; and use of blue chippings which are inappropriate in this limestone area.
SILVERDALE PARISH COUNCIL: The increase in caravans would exacerbate the existing traffic problems in Silverdale, which has narrow roads which often become congested as vehicles cannot pass one another. Additionally there are no pavements so pedestrians use the road, further adding to the problems. Further caravan development, and associated buildings, are against the policies of SLDC and the AONB, and will damage the appearance and character of the area and cause light pollution.
NATIONAL TRUST The site is highly prominent from both The Knott and Heathwaite, the many paths on which are well used by walkers, locals and tourists alike, and are owned by the National Trust. The site is a key feature in the foreground of both views. The development would be more extensive and intrusive than previously agreed, and is not a modest extension. In particular the hardstandings and roads will significantly increase the visual intrusion. Planting proposed is insufficient and may well be removed in later years. The development would be harmful to the local wildlife and SSSI. The S106 Agreement to relinquish rights could be removed at a later date.
NATURAL ENGLAND: The proposal will not materially or significantly affect the SSSI. However there is concern about the piecemeal nature of caravan development in this sensitive visual location, and tree planting will take time to mitigate any visual impacts.
ARNSIDE / SILVERDALE AREA OF OUTSTANDING NATURAL BEAUTY LANDSCAPE TRUST: The proposal is contrary to Local Plan policies, and is not a small scale expansion of the existing site. It will be very visible and have a massive effect on the scale and intensity of the use. As a result it will be detrimental to the character of the area. Proposed planting is insufficient to screen the site. This proposal will have a significant visual impact especially given the cumulative impact of all three sites. The lighting, roadways and hardstandings would be an intrusion into the unspoilt countryside. The site has been developed in a
48 piecemeal manner and with various breaches of planning control. The local road network is narrow and twisty and subject to frequent congestion. Additional caravan traffic will exacerbate this.
CAMPAIGN TO PROTECT RURAL ENGLAND (CPRE) The site is within the AONB, meaning it requires a high level of landscape protection. CPRE express significant concerns as the site is clearly visible from the Knott and existing tree planting is insufficient to provide screening. Existing sites already erode the sensitive character of the area. The proposal is in conflict with local and national planning policies.
ARNSIDE AND DISTRICT NATURAL HISTORY SOCIETY: This is the latest in a string of applications for this applicant. There are fine views over the site from The Knott and Heathwaite, and public footpaths run through the site and around it. Caravans may be in situ for over 7 months of the year if they buy a seasonal pitch, their impact is therefore similar to that of a static. The extended site is not within the existing screened boundaries of the site. The hardstandings, roads and lighting would all adversely affect the landscape character, and views would be unacceptably altered. It is an over development of this once unobtrusive, informal and quiet site. The extra traffic will add to existing congestion on the surrounding road network. It will impact on the adjacent SSSI with the use of herbicides and grass cutting, and increased pedestrian traffic.
ARNSIDE VILLAGE SOCIETY Object as there are enough caravans in the area, the site is very visible and will further impair the views already affect by other caravan sites. The roads are narrow and often with no space for passing another vehicle, extra traffic would add to problems on the roads. This land should be preserved for future generations.
OTHER: 273 letters of objection have been received. A petition with 42 signatures opposing the development has also been received. Two letters of support have been received. The main grounds of objection are the impact on the landscape character given its prominence in the views from both The Knott and Heathwaite; the additional traffic created by the proposal on the existing and already at capacity road network; the impact of the development in all forms on the adjacent SSSI; the inappropriate and over extensive use of blue chippings for the hardstandings and roads in this green and limestone area, creating an urbanising effect; and the fact that there is already a high level of caravan provision in this particular area and the cumulative effect of all these sites is overwhelming and harming the area in all senses, contrary to the aims for the protection of the AONB. The two letters of support indicate that such a proposal will help to support local businesses and that the existing sites are attractively maintained.
PLANNING HISTORY: A Certificate of Lawful Use (CLU) was granted in January 2008 which confirmed that there was sufficient evidence to indicate that Hollins Farm had operated as a touring caravan and camping site for at least 10 years. The Certificate was issued with an indicative number of caravans (10), tents (25) and motor homes (8) in this field, and an additional 12 in a field to the north of this site.
49 In August 2009 two applications (SL/2009/0373 and 0374), one wholly retrospective and one partially retrospective, were submitted for the creation of hardstandings, roads and the provision of service points on the fields covered by the CLU. Planning permission was granted after the Committee visited the site. As part of this application, Committee agreed that the blue granite chippings used for the hardstandings and road were appropriate. During the summer of 2009, it became evident that the applicant was allowing tents on an adjacent field for camping (known hereafter as the camping field) in excess of the 28 days allowed under permitted development rights. An Enforcement Notice was served and an appeal has been lodged on the basis that the applicant considers the field to have been used in such a manner for more than 10 years. This appeal will be heard at a Public Inquiry in June. The applicant also owns two other caravan sites in the immediate area: Far Arnside is a static caravan site on the coast; Middlebarrow Plain is located on the other side of the valley from Hollins Farm and is mainly static vans but does have capacity for touring vans. All three are visible from points on Heathwaite and The Knott. Members may recall that an application (SL/2009/0558) for 10 twin unit caravans at Middlebarrow was refused following a site visit also in August 2009, on the grounds of visual impact and physical separation from the remainder of the site. An appeal has also been lodged against this refusal. In addition, there is a certified caravan site within the boundaries of Hollins Farm, which allows up to five caravans without needing planning permission. Other fields within the boundaries of Hollins Farm are also used for caravan club rallies on 2 or 3 occasions per year, which do not need planning permission
DESCRIPTION AND PROPOSAL: 22 additional hardstandings for touring caravans and associated roads would be created, with six in the field covered by the CLU and the remaining 16 in a field to the north east (which is used as the five caravan certified location). The caravan pitches would be along the edges of the field with tents in the middle. This field is known as the ‘new’ field. At present a timber fence separates these two fields, but the access to the disputed ‘camping field’ is through the ‘new’ field. There is a hawthorn hedge around the majority of the boundary, although it is of varying heights, quality and density. A new planting belt is proposed along the north west boundary of the new field with tree and shrubs supplementing the existing limited tree planting. Additional planting would be undertaken in the middle of this new field in order to soften the appearance of the new road and supplementary planting undertaken in the middle of the main field to bolster the existing hedgerow. The hardstandings and roads would be constructed from the same blue chippings as used on the main field. The present toilet block and associated buildings (including the portacabins) to the south west of the site would be demolished and replaced with a new amenity block, including toilets and showers, washing up areas, games room and a garage for site maintenance vehicles. This would have a slightly larger footprint than the existing buildings. It would measure just over 28m in length, 13.5m in width and between 5m (ground to ridge) and 6.4m in height due to sloping land. It would be stone faced and a dark grey profile sheeting roof. It is of a simple design to resemble an agricultural building. The existing septic tank would be enlarged and a new drainage method installed, which would release treated dischargeable waste deep into the limestone rather than into a soak away or stream. The system currently operates in this manner, and the submitted information suggests that the outflow is within the Environment Agency guidelines.
50 Additionally, the applicant is willing to sign a Section 106 Agreement to remove the permitted development rights associated with the site (including the use of a field for camping for 28 days), the certificated location (5 van sites) and would withdraw the current appeal for the camping field.
POLICY ISSUES: Policy T5 – Caravan Site Development within the AONB Further static caravan development will not be permitted. Exceptions will be limited to small scale expansions of existing sites, where this can be achieved within the general screened boundaries of the site and subject to their being no adverse impact on conservation of the landscape, capacity of the road system and protection of the wildlife and natural features. Policy C1 – Arnside-Silverdale Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty The Council will give high priority to the conservation and enhancement of the landscape; the protection of its flora and fauna; and protecting these from inappropriate change and development. Policy C5 requires that: any scheme including external lighting shall provide full details of the lighting scheme. Policy C6 – Sites of International Nature Conservation Importance Development which affects the integrity of the site will not be permitted unless there is no alternative or overriding reasons of public interest. Policy S2 of the South Lakeland Local Plan: sets out the South Lakeland Design Code and requires development applications to take proper account of its principles. Structure Plan Policy EM16 – Tourism. Proposal in the AONB’s will only be permitted where the statutory purposes of the designated areas are not contravened. Structure Plan Policy W6 – Tourism and the Visitor Economy. Tourism which seeks to strengthen and diversify the economic bases in these areas will be supported but the statutory purposes of these designations must not be adversely affected. Structure Plan Policy EM1 (A) – Landscape. Proposals should identify, protect, maintain and enhance natural and other distinctive features that contribute to the character of the AONB. PPS1, PPS4 and PPS7 all contain statements emphasising that the conservation and enhancement of AONBs is a material consideration of considerable weight and that whilst tourism development has it place in rural areas it must not compromise the character of the AONB.
HUMAN RIGHTS ACT: The provisions of the Act are relevant in so far as they relate to the right to respect for private and family life and the peaceful enjoyment of property.
ASSESSMENT: The site lies within the Arnside Silverdale AONB, which is characterised, within only a few square miles, by an intimate variety of topography and scenery including low wooded
51 limestone hills, bare limestone pavement, salt marsh, foreshore, parkland, woodland and agricultural land. Highly prominent from both Arnside Knott and Heathwaite, the site is one of three caravan sites in this relatively small area. In this sensitive context, even a small increase in caravans could significantly affect the character of the AONB. The guidance issued on the designation criteria for AONB’s makes it clear that their statutory purpose is to conserve and enhance the natural beauty of the area. PPS1, PPS4 and PPS7 all advocate that the primary purposes of the AONB must be maintained and promoted. This site has, up until its purchase by the applicant in 2008, operated on a low key and informal basis. Last season saw the use of the site increase significantly, with the result being it became much more prominent in the landscape. The construction of the hardstandings and roads also created features that are evident all year round, so that even in the closed season it appears as a caravan site rather than a field. The current position with regard to use on the site is that while the CLU offers guidance over the numbers of caravans / tents, they are not a finite number. This allows the owner to have more caravans on the site than stated by the CLU, and only where the increase is material can any enforcement action be taken. The plans show an additional 22 pitches on the main field and new field, however this does not equate directly to an increase of 22 caravans as there is a five caravan certificated location that would be removed from the new field. The proposed amenity block is of an appropriate scale and design for this type of use and in this area. The use of a profile sheet roof allows not only a lower ridge line, but also when viewed from above looks more like an agricultural building. This building will not detract from the quality of the countryside. The application has some merit when considered against the background and potential use of the site. Planting can be significantly enhanced to soften the development, although it is accepted that due to elevated views of the site it will never screen the site wholly. The site would be contained into one main field, with the majority of the caravans (disregarding the elongated site to the north west) contained by the existing hedgerow which bounds both the main and new field, with the effect of the increased number of caravans would be seen as part of the main site, rather than fields behind the existing hedgerows. Control over the number of caravans, lighting and surfacing materials can also be achieved. The removal of permitted development rights for tents and caravans would on the one hand reduce the number of vehicles using local roads, but the increased number of pitches now proposed may outweigh this benefit. It would also have the effect of confining all development into one larger field, bounded by an existing hedge, rather than having development in a variety of fields. Although the application has its merits there are also significant concerns about the visual impact and traffic movements associated with the development. The planting will take many years to become established, and even then the caravans by nature of their appearance will still be visible. If hardstandings and roads are permitted, the site will have a significant visual impact all year round, detracting from the character of the area, and when combined with the visual affects of the two other sites, will cumulatively seem to dominate the rural character of the area. The increased number of touring caravan pitches, whilst not necessarily increasing significantly the volume of traffic, will increase the number of caravans on the narrow country lanes, adding to the congestion and problems of manoeuvring such vehicles. The hardstandings are of significant concern. The use of the blue chippings, which appear like a metalled road surface from above, will provide a permanent and prominent scar on this sensitive landscape, neither conserving nor enhancing the landscape. At times of low use or closed season, these areas will stand out in the foreground of views from above, and the deciduous planting will not screen the material at such times. The applicants have been asked to consider other materials, but consider the blue appropriate as they feel it will be
52 screened. From research into other sites, many only have a limited number of all-weather pitches (there are currently 28 at Hollins Farm). Other sites have used a ‘geogrid’ or artificial grass surface to excellent effect, providing all-weather surfaces which allow pegs to be put in (for awnings etc) without compromising the quality of the environment. The Cumbria Landscape Classification states that “This is an intimate small scale landscape…. highly sensitive to (inter alia) excessive recreational pressures”. The designation of the area as an AONB is primarily to ensure that the landscape is conserved and enhanced. Whilst the merits of the application have some weight, the prominent and distinctive visual scarring caused by the proposed surfacing material will neither conserve nor enhance the character of the landscape. Out of season, the fields at the foot of two popular walking destinations will contrast unfavourably with those immediately adjacent. Combined with the sites Middlebarrow and Far Arnside this small valley area will appear overdeveloped and its character damaged. Whilst neither of the County highway authorities have objected on road safety grounds, both have raised concerns over the local road network and the difficulties associated with caravan traffic. Although the relinquishment of permitted development rights for tented camping will reduce some vehicle movements, the additional touring caravans will result in an increase in the number of vehicles towing caravans. There is a lack of information from the applicant over traffic movements and the likely number of vehicles involved but what is clear is that there will be a shift from an informal touring caravan / tented camping use at Hollins Farm to a more formalized use. It should also be borne in mind that the permitted development rights that are to be relinquished allow camping for 28 days each year whereas touring caravan pitches could be in use for most of the year, although some of these pitches may be for seasonal use. Although Local Plan Policy T5 refers to static caravans, the aims of the policy and its supporting text are clear in its concerns that “Additional caravan site development would place further pressure on the fragile countryside and lead to an increase in traffic on the narrow road network. Within the AONB, therefore, caravan development in any form will be discouraged. Exceptions may be made for small-scale expansions of existing caravan sites which, for much of the season, can be absorbed within the general screened boundaries of the site.” On balance, although the proposal has certain benefits, the damage to the countryside by the formalization and permanence of the caravan site is sufficient to justify the refusal of planning permission. Nationally designated areas, which include AONBs, have been confirmed by the Government as having the highest status of protection in relation to landscape and scenic beauty, The conservation of the natural beauty of the landscape and countryside is, therefore, to be given great weight in deciding whether planning permission is to be granted.
RECOMMENDATION: Refuse 1. The increased number of caravans together with the associated hardstandings and access road, would be intrusive and damaging to the landscape which is within the Arnside-Silverdale Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty. The visual harm that would be caused would be in conflict with the primary purpose of the AONB designation which is to conserve and enhance the natural beauty of the landscape. As a consequence the proposal is not compatible with the aims and objectives of Policies EM1(A), EM16 and W6 of the Regional Spatial Strategy and Policies C1 and T5 of the South Lakeland Local Plan. 2. The traffic movements generated by the additional touring caravans will add to the already difficult traffic conditions in this area of narrow rural lanes characterised by generally poor forward visibility and infrequent passing places. Insufficient
53 information has been provided to enable the Local Planning Authority to properly assess the impact of the development on the highway network and, consequently, the proposal is not compatible with the aims and objectives of Policy T5 of the South Lakeland Local Plan. 3. Details of the proposed external lighting have not been provided. Consequently, the impact on the area by the external illumination cannot be adequately assessed and the proposal is not, therefore, consistent with the aims and objectives of Policy C5 of the South Lakeland Local Plan.
54 SCHEDULE A
Complex Planning Applications
SCHEDULE No: 4
SL/2009/1138 (OPA)
ALDINGHAM: CANTERBANK FARM LEECE, ULVERSTON
PROPOSAL: AGRICULTURAL WORKER'S DWELLING
MR BRIAN COOPER
25/03/2010 E324750 N468490
SUMMARY: Outline application for the construction of an agricultural workers dwelling.
PARISH COUNCIL: No objection.
CUMBRIA HIGHWAYS: No objection.
LANCASHIRE COUNTY COUNCIL LAND AGENT: To be reported.
DESCRIPTION AND PROPOSAL: Canterbank Farm is located to the south of the village of Leece, accessed by a minor public road which ends at the entrance to the farm. It is a traditional farmstead located in a relatively isolated position with a single farmhouse and associated agricultural buildings. The application relates to the construction of an agricultural workers dwelling on an area of land immediately to the south of the existing farmhouse. The application is in outline form although the proposal indicates the construction of a two bedroomed dormer style bungalow. The site is farmed by two brothers who also farm another holding located approximately 2 miles away at Stank. The family have been farming at Canterbank Farm for over 60 years. The Farm extends to 88 hectares and is primarily concerned with livestock rearing. The existing farmhouse on the site is currently occupied by the father of the two brothers.
55 The applicant has submitted an agricultural planning appraisal to support the proposal. The stock numbers include 20 cows, 45 replacement heifers, 150 youngstock, 200 ewes and 400 fattening sheep. The holding supports two full time employees although the report indicates that according to labour figures, 3.74 workers are required to operate the business, and this figure does not include management, contractors, part time staff and conservation work to the holding. The applicant’s two sons are employed full time on the farm. Periods of sickness, security issues and animal welfare require the attention of someone on site 24/7 and the applicant alone cannot provide this attention outside normal working hours. The report states that houses in the nearby villages of Leece and Rampside are rarely available to purchase, and are prohibitively expensive.
POLICY ISSUES: PPS7 (Sustainable Development in Rural Areas), states that isolated new houses in open countryside require special justification for planning permission to be granted. Annex A of the Statement states that new permanent dwellings should only be allowed to support existing agricultural activities on well established agricultural units providing a number of criteria are met. These include being able to establish an existing functional need for a full time worker and there being no other available accommodation in the locality.
Policies H6 and H9 of the South Lakeland Local Plan.
HUMAN RIGHTS ACT: The provisions of the Act are relevant in so far as they relate to the right to respect for private and family life and the peaceful enjoyment of property.
ASSESSMENT: The principle of constructing an agricultural worker’s dwelling on this site will depend upon the evidence of need contained within the submitted agricultural appraisal. The Land Agency manager at Lancashire County Council has been consulted with regard to the application and his response will be reported at the meeting. If a functional need for the dwelling can be established, it is considered that the location of the proposed development is acceptable and would relate well to the existing building group.
RECOMMENDATION: The Corporate Director (Communities) to report on the outstanding consultation response from Lancashire County Council.
56 SCHEDULE A
Complex Planning Applications
SCHEDULE No: 5
SL/2010/0084 (OPA)
GRANGE OVER SANDS: GREAVES WOOD LODGE, ALLITHWAITE ROAD, GRANGE over SANDS
PROPOSAL: DWELLING
MR & MRS R AND K CARMICHAEL 25/03/2010 E339518 N476293
SUMMARY: The site is within the key service centre of Grange over Sands and will result in an appropriate form of development.
GRANGE TOWN COUNCIL: Comments to be received by 23 March 2010.
CUMBRIA HIGHWAYS: In principle Cumbria Highways is not opposed to this application. Normally they would expect all vehicular activity to be directed to the existing main access but as there is an existing garage onto Allithwaite Road it seems reasonable to permit the continued use of this access to serve as the only access for Greaves Wood Lodge (provided that adequate improvements can be made). However, as this will become the main access for a dwelling onto a Classified Road, it is vital that all vehicles can join the public highway in a forward gear, the turning head must be made deeper to ensure that when the garage doors are closed vehicles can still turn around within the site. Without which there are highway grounds to refuse this application. The area in front of the garage must be a minimum of 9 metres which may require the garage to be relocated or omitted or all traffic relocated to the main lodge access (improvements will need to be made to this access to accommodate the additional vehicular activity). The access must be ungated and there must be adequate visibility at the rear of the public footway. The gradient must be no steeper than 1 in 15 for the first 5 metres, surfaced with a bound material, with an adequate system of surface water drainage.
COUNTRYSIDE SERVICES MANAGER: The proposed development site extends over a public bridleway but the new dwelling does not appear to impact on it. However, a section of the surface of the bridleway is to be
57 resurfaced with a “cellular confinement system” to prevent damage to tree roots. There should be assurances from the applicant that that this type of surface is suitable for equestrian traffic. The applicant should be made aware that they must not install any additional furniture, such as a gate, across the bridleway without first seeking consent to do so from the highway authority. Furniture can only be installed across a public right of way if it is solely for the control of livestock. No objection to the proposal so long as the bridleway is available to the public to use safely at all times, including any period of construction work associated with the proposed development. If the applicant is unable to fulfil this requirement, they must apply to temporarily close the bridleway for the duration of the works.
RIGHTS OF WAY PLANNING OFFICER: Bridleway 526002 runs adjacent to the site and shares the access to the proposed site. Could it be ensured that this route is not damaged or obstructed and user safety is ensured at all times.
NATURAL ENGLAND: To be reported.
RAMBLERS’ ASSOCIATION: To be reported.
DESCRIPTION AND PROPOSAL: The site is located towards the western edge of Grange over Sands in the rear garden of Greaves Wood Lodge on Allithwaite Road. This property is the last dwelling on the southern side of the road when leaving the main built up area towards Allithwaite. It is one of four detached bungalows after Carter Road joins Allithwaite Road. Greaves Wood Lodge is immediately adjacent to the boundary wall with the highway verge whereas the other properties are set back from the highway. There is a track adjacent to the eastern boundary of the site which is a bridleway and leads to Kirkhead Road. The entrance to this track also forms the existing access to Greaves Wood Lodge but there is also a garage and access to the west of the existing building which is currently not used. There are five trees within the site which are subject to a Tree Preservation Order. Behind the site is a wooded area which is also the subject of a Tree Preservation Order. Outline planning permission is sought for the erection of a detached dwelling to the rear of the existing property. The proposal is for the erection of a dormer bungalow with an integral garage and parking space. The site is 26 metres wide and 24 metres deep. The dwelling is to be positioned outside the root protection areas but will require the removal of a single mature sycamore which is subject to a Tree Preservation Order. The dwelling will be approximately 9 metres wide and 14 metres long with a two-storey projection to the west elevation The existing house would be served by the access to the west of the dwelling with the demolition of the existing garage, the extension of the existing drive and a new garage set a minimum of 6 metres from the gates to provide parking for two cars. A turning space will also be provided to allow vehicles to enter and leave the site in a forward direction. Access to the new dwelling would be via the existing access from Allithwaite Road serving the bridleway. The new driveway would provide parking for two cars, with the garage, and include a turning head to allow vehicles to enter and leave the site in a forward direction.
58 POLICY ISSUES: Policy ST5 of the Cumbria and Lake District Joint Structure Plan designates Grange over Sands as a Key Service Centre where development should be focused. The site is within the development boundary designated for Grange over Sands by the South Lakeland Local Plan. Policy H5 of the Local Plan allows for small scale development within development boundaries subject to appropriate density, design, layout, landscaping and access. Policy C11 of the South Lakeland Local Plan states that development proposals which may cause damage or destruction to a tree or woodland protected by a Tree Preservation Order will only be permitted where no alternative site is available; there is an overriding need for the proposal which outweighs the need to preserve the tree or woodland; and mitigating measures are available to minimise damage and secure worthwhile replacement planting.
HUMAN RIGHTS ACT: The provisions of the Act are relevant in so far as they relate to the right to respect for private and family life and the peaceful enjoyment of property.
ASSESSMENT: Grange over Sands is identified in the Local Plan as a settlement which is suitable for growth. The site is just within the development boundary and forms part of the garden for Greaves Wood Lodge and as such constitutes brown field land. The proposed dwelling is to be sited to the rear of the existing dwelling and could be considered as backland development. This part of Allithwaite Road is characterised by bungalows facing the highway and as such this form of development is not in keeping with the immediate area. However, given that Greaves Wood Lodge is much closer to the highway than the adjacent properties it is considered that a dwelling could be accommodated within the rear garden without adversely impacting on the privacy or amenity of the neighbouring dwelling. The agent has stated that the windows to the main rooms will face west. There is approximately 20 metres between the proposed dwelling (as indicted on the submitted site plan) and the dwelling to the north east, Springside so there is unlikely to be any adverse impacts on the amenities of the occupiers of this property. In addition, given the orientation of the proposed dwelling, there is unlikely to be any adverse impacts on the amenities of Greaves Wood Lodge. This proposal involves the removal of one tree which is the subject of a TPO, the Council’s Arboriculturist has indicated that the removal of this sycamore would not have a significant impact on the locality given the position within a group of other mature trees. The dwelling has been sited so that is outside the root protection areas of the remaining trees within the site although the submitted drawing shows the dwelling very close to the root protection areas, 0.5 metres in the case of two of the trees. Negotiations are being conducted with the agent to reduce the footprint of the dwelling so that sufficient protection is afforded to the remaining trees during the construction of the dwelling. The access to the new dwelling will utilise the entrance to the bridleway which runs adjacent to the eastern boundary of the site. This access currently serves Greaves Wood Lodge and the Highways Officer has no objection to the use of this access for the new dwelling providing that Greaves Wood Lodge uses the existing access to the east which currently serves a garage. However this access must be improved so that there is sufficient turning within the site and this is likely to result in the removal of the garage as it is required to be set back 9 metres from the highway which is not possible. If both dwellings are to use the same access then improvements would need to be made to accommodate the additional traffic. There have been no objections to the use of the entrance to the bridleway as the access providing that it is not obstructed at any time. The Countryside Services Manager
59 commented that the use of a “cellular confinement system” to prevent damage to tree roots may not be appropriate for use by horses. However, the submitted details refer to the use of this surfacing within the site and the surface on the bridleway is to remain the same. On balance, subject to satisfactory access to both the existing and proposed dwellings and a reduction in the footprint of the new dwelling, the proposal is considered to be acceptable in this location.
RECOMMENDATION: Subject to a satisfactory conclusion to negotiations over the details, the application be GRANTED subject to conditions relating to the following:
(1) Standard outline time limit. (2) Standard outline condition (all matters reserved). (3) RPD.
60 SCHEDULE A
Complex Planning Applications
SCHEDULE No: 6
SL/2010/0103 (FPA)
KENDAL: FORMER WEBBS GARDEN CENTRE, BURNESIDE ROAD, KENDAL
PROPOSAL: REVISED SCHEME FOR PLANNING PERMISSION
SL/2007/1196 BLOCK D (CHANGE FROM 2 HOUSES TO 4 25/03/2010 APARTMENTS) AND E351463 N493403 BLOCK G (CHANGE FROM 15 TO 23 APARTMENTS)
MR MIKE DOWSE
SUMMARY: The changes to external design are satisfactory. The increase of 10 in the number of units is acceptable subject to the signing of an S106 Agreement with regard to the affordable component.
KENDAL TOWN COUNCIL: Comments to be received by 24th March 2010.
CUMBRIA HIGHWAYS: To be reported.
ENVIRONMENT AGENCY: To be reported.
SLDC ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION MANAGER: To be reported.
61 HOUSING STRATEGY MANAGER: The preference would be for houses, however, if it is a case of 5 affordable flats for discounted sale or nothing then of course we should take this as there is still some need for this type of accommodation.
HISTORICAL CONTEXT: In May 2005 planning permission was granted for the redevelopment of the former Webbs Garden Centre between Burneside Road and the riverside footway with a scheme of 64 dwellings of which 20 were to be houses and the remaining 44 apartments. The houses were to be located in two rows on the Burneside Road frontage and along the southern side of the access road into the site. Towards the riverside it was planned to take advantage of the falling levels to accommodate two blocks, each of four-storeys, containing apartments and linked by wings at right angles to the terraced housing proposed to their west. The development was subject to a Section 106 Agreement. That Agreement covered the provision of affordable housing which was done by buying a scheme of 17 completed flats at Yard 110, Stricklandgate and transferring them to a Housing Association which has been renting them affordably to local people since 2005. The Agreement also covered the transfer, when they were completed, of the children’s play space and public open space along the riverside footpath to the District Council. Development commenced on the site with the development of the Burneside Road frontage to the north of the access and the erection of a terrace of housing on the south side of the access road. Following a re-marketing campaign the original developers were granted planning permission in 2007 for a scheme which reduced the size of apartments to two- bedroomed units in the southern riverside block (Block F). This involved increasing the number of apartments in that block by four but reducing the number of apartments by four in the riverside block to the north (Block G). Despite this adjustment to the local market the firm failed to make any further progress on the site which has remained idle and unfinished since then with consequent detriment to the amenity of the nearest residents and a poor public appearance not only onto Burneside Road but also to the riverside path which presents as an area of derelict woodland. Planning permission has been recently granted to the current applicants for some changes to the detail of the internal arrangements and to the external appearance. The most major of these changes was the introduction of three additional balconies overlooking the open space bordering the river.
DESCRIPTION AND PROPOSAL: The current application is submitted by a prospective purchaser of the site. It relates to the Blocks G and D, respectively the northern riverside block and the small block to the south of the site entrance on Burneside Road. As with the 2007 scheme for Block F the aim is to change from the large units for which there appears to be no demand on this site. In the case of Block G the currently approved 15 family sized apartments would be changed to provide 23 smaller apartments. The siting, basic form, design detailing, materials and general external appearance would be as granted in 2005 apart from minor changes mirroring the recent changes to Block F. The scheme granted permission for Block D in 2005 was for a pair of semi-detached houses each with 4 bedrooms. These would have had a two-storey elevation to Burneside Road diversified by one gabled section with a window to the roof-space. On the rear elevation each house would have had a small dormer window lighting the fourth bedroom in the roof- space. A garage was shown incorporated in each dwelling with access from the rear. The walls were to be stone-faced and the roof of slates. The curtilages of the two units were
62 relatively small for the scale of the houses themselves. There proved to be no demand for the houses as designed. The current application proposes in their stead four flats each with 2 bedrooms. The roof would be of slate and walls surfaced in stone. The building would be two-storey with no accommodation in the roof space. The main front and rear elevations would be asymmetric with a gabled section nearest to the site entrance from Burneside Road. There would be one central entrance on both the front and rear elevations. Each flat would have its open plan living/dining/kitchen areas facing front onto Burneside Road and with the bedrooms facing out over the rear parking area. A small, pitched roofed outhouse is proposed in this rear area to provide a store for bikes, bins and recycling boxes. The architect has confirmed that the external landscaping proposals are unchanged. No additional on-site parking has been proposed for Block G. The application involves a net increase of 10 dwellings. To meet the affordable requirements arising from this increase the applicant is offering 5 units for discounted sale. Identification of the precise units has been requested. If planning permission is granted and the applicant purchases the site, building work would be scheduled to recommence in July 2010 with an intended completion of the whole site by December 2011. The aim would be to complete and hand over the public open space and children’s play space before the apartments in Blocks F and/or G were occupied.
POLICY ISSUES: Policy H4 of the South Lakeland Local Plan accepts residential development on suitable small sites within Kendal’s development boundary subject to criteria relating to satisfactory design, density, layout landscaping and access. The affordable housing policies of the Local Development Framework’s Core Strategy are relevant. Of particular relevance are the highway implications of the increase in the number of units in relation to the existing access and parking arrangements. Policy S2 of the South Lakeland Local Plan sets out the South Lakeland Design Code and requires development applications to take proper account of its principles. The neighbourliness of the proposals is of relevance.
HUMAN RIGHTS ACT: The provisions of the Act are relevant in so far as they relate to the right to respect for private and family life and the peaceful enjoyment of property.
ASSESSMENT: The proposed changes in external appearance are acceptable. The increased density of the development is acceptable for this location on the edge of the town centre. Provision of affordable housing at a suitable scale has been offered. The remaining issue for assessment is whether the additional traffic from the increased number of units from 64 to 74 on the site as a whole is acceptable within the site in relation to parking provision, at the site entrance from Burneside Road and on Burneside Road and the town centre circulation system. The advice of the Highway Authority should clarify this but an increase of approximately 15% on the site as a whole does not represent a great scale of change. Completion of the site would be welcome in relation to the amenity of the area and the nearest neighbours.
63 RECOMMENDATION: Subject to satisfactory responses being received for the outstanding consultees and a Section 106 Agreement being signed with regard to the affordable housing, the application be GRANTED subject to conditions relating to the following:
(1) Standard time limit. (2) Approval of a precise specification of external materials. (3) Approval of precise details of balcony rails, panels, external fences and walls. (4) Landscaping scheme. (5) Finished floor and site levels to be agreed. (6) Provision of parking space before the occupation of the related dwellings. (7) As requested by consultees.
64 SCHEDULE A
Complex Planning Applications
SCHEDULE No: 7
SL/2010/0110 (FPA)
NATLAND: ADJACENT TO 8 WATERCROOK FARM, NATLAND, KENDAL
PROPOSAL: REMOVAL OF CONDITION NO. 2 (LOCAL
OCCUPANCY) ON PLANNING PERMISSION 25/03/2010 SL/2009/0110 E351513 N490519
MR S JELLEY
SUMMARY: The site is on the edge of the Kendal Housing Market Area where evidence suggests that Local Occupancy conditions are not justified. GRANT
NATLAND PARISH COUNCIL: Comments to be received by 25 March 2010.
HISTORICAL CONTEXT: Planning permission was granted for an extension to form a ‘Granny Annex’ in 1993 subject to conditions restricting the use to ancillary accommodation. Permission was subsequently granted for the extension of the garden area around the annex in 2003. In April last year, permission was granted for the separation of the annex to form a self contained dwelling and installation of a septic tank. The permission was subject to the local occupancy condition.
DESCRIPTION AND PROPOSAL: The site is located to the south west of the former K Shoe factory, approximately 280m to the west of Natland Road. It is within a complex of barns and a farmhouse which were converted into eight dwellings in the late 1980’s. This application seeks removal of a local occupancy condition from a new dwelling previously permitted by separating an annex from the main dwelling.
65 POLICY ISSUES: The NW Regional Spatial Strategy (RSS) was adopted in September 2008, replacing many of the policies within the Cumbria and Lake District Joint Structure Plan. Policy L4 states that Local Authorities should consider local occupancy conditions to support provision for local housing need where this can be supported by evidence. Policy ST11 of the Cumbria and Lake District Joint Structure Plan required that new housing be restricted to people with a local connection to the area. The South Lakeland Interim Planning Approach to Housing Development (IPATH) sets out the detailed implementation of this policy. However, Policy ST11 was not saved when the RSS was adopted and is therefore no longer a material consideration when dealing with planning applications. The IPATH continued to be applied as a material consideration on the basis of the RSS policy. The policies within the Core Strategy are based on more up to date evidence than IPATH, including the Strategic Housing Market Assessment, it should therefore be considered as the main “non statutory” development plan guidance used in determining planning applications. The requirement for local occupancy restrictions is based upon evidence derived from the Strategic Housing Market Assessment which identifies areas in need. Based on this evidence, Policy CS6.3 no longer requires local occupancy within Key Service Centres such as Kendal. However, outside these areas schemes for one dwelling still require local occupancy.
HUMAN RIGHTS ACT: The provisions of the Act are relevant in so far as they relate to the right to respect for private and family life and the peaceful enjoyment of property.
ASSESSMENT: The condition restricting the occupancy of the new independent dwelling was attached to the original permission in response to the IPATH. Whilst the Structure Plan Policy has subsequently been replaced, the superseding RSS policy states that Local Authorities should consider local occupancy conditions to support the provision of local housing need where this can be supported by evidence. The Strategic Housing Market Assessment has provided an evidence base on which to consider the need for local occupancy. This assessment does not provide evidence to support local occupancy housing in the Kendal Housing Market Area. On this basis development within Kendal is no longer subject to local occupancy conditions and it has been resolved that such conditions would now be removed on request. The site is within 125m of the Kendal Development Boundary and well associated with Kendal in terms of accessibility. While the site is within the Parish of Natland, it’s access is within the Kendal Housing Market Area in terms of the assessment. No other dwellings in the converted Watercrook Farm development have any local occupancy conditions. The retention of the local occupancy condition is therefore not justified in terms of the evidence base and should be removed.
RECOMMENDATION: GRANT subject to:- Condition (1) The development hereby permitted shall be commenced before the expiration of THREE YEARS from the date hereof. Reason (1) To comply with the requirements of Section 91 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 as amended by Section 51 of the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004.
66
REASON FOR GRANTING PLANNING PERMISSION: The site is within the Kendal Housing Market Area where the evidence within the Strategic Housing Market Assessment does not justify the provision of local occupancy housing. The removal of the condition will therefore accord with Policy L4 of the NW Regional Spatial Strategy (RSS) and Policy CS6.3 of the South Lakeland Submission Core Strategy.
67
68 SOUTH LAKELAND DISTRICT COUNCIL
Planning Committee
Date of Meeting: 25 March 2010 Part I Report From: Corporate Director (Communities) Agenda 7 Report Author: Mark Balderson Item No: Planning Enforcement Officer Report Title: A Report on Enforcement Activity from 25 December 2009 to 22 January 2010 Summary To inform Members about enforcement activity between 25 December 2009 and 22 January 2010. This report aims to provide a brief and informative insight into current enforcement cases. If there are any specific enforcement cases that Members would like to be updated on at the next Planning Committee meeting, please contact Mark Balderson, Enforcement Officer.
Recommendations
That Members note this report and authorise enforcement action as recommended on the individual cases referred to.
Report
1. Enforcement cases which have been resolved 4 outstanding cases from the enforcement caseload have been resolved between 25 December and 22 January 2010.
2. New Enforcement cases Between 25 December 2009 and 22 January 2010, 13 complaints have been recorded and are presently being investigated. 3 of these cases have been resolved.
3. Enforcement Cases for which Committee consideration is sought 09.193 26 Sedbergh Drive, Kendal Complaints were received from neighbours of the above property. The owners of 26 Sedbergh Road have erected a 1.8 metre high fence to the Northern boundary. The fence is not in keeping with the openness of this area and regarded as unacceptable development in this location. The owners have been written to requesting that they reduce the fence to a more acceptable height or set it back 2 metres with screen planting in front. They have indicated that they are not willing to reduce it or move it back. Therefore, authorisation is sought to take all necessary enforcement action to reduce the fence to the permitted height of 1 metre.
69
10.022 Lime Kiln, Sunbrick Lane, Baycliff Farm Members may recall visiting this site regarding a retrospective application for a agricultural building. It was brought to the Enforcement Officers attention that the farmer Mr Dawson had commenced building another unauthorised agricultural building within the same site. It is felt that the this form of development is unacceptable in this location, due to its openness and prominent siting in open country side with views from the A 5087 coast road. It is felt that any addition to the existing buildings would create an unacceptable massing on this rural village site with increase in farm traffic. Therefore Members are requested to authorise all necessary enforcement powers to remove the unauthorised building.
10.041 Whitefoot, Burneside. The owners of the above property made two separate enquiries with the Planning Department regarding the erection and siting of timber chalets on land adjacent to their dwelling. On both occasions it was explained that development of that nature in that location was contrary to Council policy and if an application were received it would not be supported and therefore unsuccessful. The Enforcement Officer received a complaint that in the field to the south of Whitefoot House building works were being carried. A site visit was carried out and confirmed that hardcore ready to receive concrete and a septic tank with soak away had been installed. Therefore authorisation is sought to take all necessary enforcement action to remove the hardcore.
10.045 Netherfield Sports Cricket Grounds, Parkside Rd, Kendal. The above site was granted planning permission for the erection of sports changing block and viewing area. Details in the application stated that the colour of the roof would be Merlin Grey. Complaints were received that the roof has been installed and is a very light colour not what the neighbours looking onto the site expected. A site visit has been carried out and confirms that the roof is actually Goose Wing Grey which is almost white in appearance. The agent for the applicant has been contacted who confirms that the roof is Goose Wing Grey. He states that the change in colour to Goose Wing Grey was due to the suns thermal effect on Merlin Grey creating high temperatures in the roof void. Roofing suppliers have been contacted and confirm that the thermal effect would be negligible between the two colours and if necessary the roof can be painted. Therefore, authorisation is sought to take all necessary enforcement action to change the colour of the roof.
4. An Update on Enforcement Cases involving formal action An update on those cases involving formal enforcement action is attached as Appendix A for Members information.
: 70 Alternative Options Not Applicable Material Considerations: Finance The recommendations in this report do not have any cost implications. Risk: Risk Consequence Controls required The failure to have an Result in inappropriate forms of To maintain sufficient effective planning development which would have resources in planning enforcement system. an adverse impact on the enforcement and prioritise and character and appearance of the co-ordinate the investigation of District’s rural landscape. breaches of planning control.
Staffing The recommendations in this report do not have any staffing implications. Sustainability This report does not have any registered significant environmental effects. Links to Corporate Plan The control of development is a significant factor in achieving a “High Quality Environment” under Section 3.4 of the Corporate Plan. Links to Strategic Plan This report has no links to the Strategic Plan. Equalities and Diversity Not applicable Community Safety The recommendations in this report do not have any community safety implications.
Background Documents Document: Various planning Contact: Mark Balderson and enforcement Planning Enforcement Officer files
: 71 72 APPENDIX A Committee: Planning Date of Meeting: 25 March 2010 Report Title: A report on enforcement activity from 25 December 2009 to 22 January 2010
REF NO. PARISH SITE ADDRESS BREACH/CONTRAVENTION PROGRESS 06/068 ALDINGHAM Low Sunbrick Farm, Aldingham Installation of uPVC windows Members recently reconfirmed in Listed Building enforcement action. Advice being sought from Conservation Officer. 09/093 ALDINGHAM Goadsbarrow Cottage, Goadsbarrow Material Change of Use - Appeal decision (13/1/10). Notice residential to Yoga centre has been upheld. Cease use as a yoga centre. Monitoring. 09/269 ARNSIDE Far Hollins Farm, Arnside Change of Use to campsite Enforcement Notice served 20/11/09 effective 4/1/10 compliance date 4/2/10. An appeal against the Notice has been received. Public Inquiry. 09/029 BEETHAM Land at Ellers Farm, Farleton Erection of floodlighting to Appeal to Planning Application has horse exercise area been upheld to retain flood lights. With condition restricting hours of use. Not to be used outside the hours of 08:00 to 20:00 Monitoring. 05/060 GRANGE OVER SANDS Blawith Lodge, Windermere Road, Replacement windows An application for the retention of the Grange over Sands windows subject to alterations to the frames and painting has been received and approved.
73
REF NO. PARISH SITE ADDRESS BREACH/CONTRAVENTION PROGRESS 06/232 GRANGE OVER SANDS Underwood, Fernhill Road, Grange Erection of large decking Enforcement Notice drafted, with over Sands structure legal services for formal service.
The owner has called to say the decking has been removed. Site visit confirms the deck part has been removed but not the sub-structure. 07/283 GRANGE OVER SANDS 2 Methven Terrace, Grange over Extension not built as per plan Enforcement Notice at draft stage. Sands and breach of conditions The owner’s agent has confirmed that they intend to remove the additional extension and submit a planning application for other alterations. 05/232 HELSINGTON Low Chambers Tenement, Brigsteer Siting of static caravan Owners have removed a considerable amount of scrap but a static caravan; shipping container and scrap cattle truck remain. Sc 330 served and returned, drafting Enforcement Notice. 07/156 KENDAL Bridge View, Burton Road, Kendal Creation of extra dwelling unit Appeal to Planning Application has been dismissed. Second dwelling not currently used. Monitoring. 08/134 KENDAL 57 Burton Road, Kendal Unauthorised development - Planning Permission refused. construction of 3 metre wall Enforcement Notice not complied adjacent highway with. Appeal to planning decision dismissed, pursuing compliance with Enforcement Notice to reduce wall. 08/144 KENDAL Beech Hill Hotel, Unauthorised uPVC windows Enforcement Notice served. 40 Greenside, Kendal in Conservation Area Compliance under negotiation. An extension of 12 months to the Notice compliance period has been granted until 3 August 2010.
74
REF NO. PARISH SITE ADDRESS BREACH/CONTRAVENTION PROGRESS 08/210 KENDAL Cash in a Dash, Advertisement harmful to Appeal now lodged to 177 Highgate, Kendal Conservation Area Discontinuance Notice. Awaiting Inspector’s decision. 10/044 KENDAL Sunlight Laundry, Shap Rd, Kendal Siting of 4 two-storey shipping Sc 330 Notice served. containers in factory yard. 06/329 KIRKBY IRELETH Land adjacent Bell Hall Farm, Storage of agricultural Monitoring conditions with regards to Head Cragg, Kirkby in Furness machinery and vehicles within storage and landscaping.
field. 08/328 KIRKBY LONSDALE Unit 7, Unauthorised retail use Enforcement Notice issued Kirkby Lonsdale Business Park 1 July 2009 effective 13 August 2009 Kirkby Lonsdale compliance date 12 June 2010. Appeal lodged against refusal of Planning permission but not Enforcement Notice. Appeal dismissed 23/11/09. 09/232 LEVENS The Beeches, A591, Levens Material changes of use, Enforcement Notice served 29/1/10, dividing of one dwelling to two. compliance date 12//9/10. 07/025 LOWER ALLITHWAITE Priory Close, Cartmel Internal alteration to Listed No progress; owners not in contact Building. with department. Property has been referred to Empty Homes Officer. 09/110 LOWICK Groffa Crag, Gawthwaite, Ulverston Siting of caravans. Enforcement Notice served. Notice takes effect on the 12/4/10, compliance date 12/10/10 09/211 MILNTHORPE Land to rear of 23 Church Street, Material change of use. Enforcement Notice served 20/11/09 Milnthorpe Creation of access route. Effective 4/1/10. Compliance 4/4/10. An appeal against the Enforcement Notice has been received.
75
REF NO. PARISH SITE ADDRESS BREACH/CONTRAVENTION PROGRESS 04/263 PENNINGTON Whinfield works, Whinfield Ground, Use of site for the storing of Discussions ongoing with owners to Lindal in Furness scrap cars. find a solution. Planning Officer invited application. The user of the site has indicated that he intends to cease his operation of insurance right-off salvage and submit an application for vehicle repair within the building. 09/344 PRESTON PATRICK Moss End Farm, Crooklands Siting of unauthorised Section 330 notice served residential caravan in agricultural field 08/345 SKELSMERGH Holme Houses, Garth Row Lane, Unauthorised development Enforcement Notice served Kendal involving the construction of 29 May 2009. Appeal made, Public caravan/chalet structures and Inquiry scheduled for 9 June 2010. business uses. 08/090 URSWICK Beckside Holdings, Unauthorised use of Agent now retained to submit between Scales and Stainton agricultural land. application to regularise situation. 09/080 URSWICK Dalegarth, Mascalles, Unauthorised use of land. Site cleared. Monitoring compliance. Little Urswick Activity associated with garden centre business.
76 SOUTH LAKELAND DISTRICT COUNCIL
Planning Committee
Date of Meeting: 25 March 2010 Part I Report From: Corporate Director (Communities) Agenda 8 Report Author: Mark Balderson Item No: Planning Enforcement Officer Report Title: A report on the outstanding enforcement caseload between 01 January 2004 and 22 January 2010
Summary To inform Members about the outstanding enforcement caseload between 01 January 2004 and 22 January 2010. This report aims to provide a summary of the number of enforcement cases currently unresolved. Recommendations That Members note this report. Report Outstanding Enforcements Received Between 01 Jan 2004 and 22 January 2010 143
ALDINGHAM No of Enforcements for this Parish 4
ARNSIDE No of Complaints for this Parish 2
BARBON No of Complaints for this Parish 1
BEETHAM No of Complaints for this Parish 7
CASTERTON No of Complaints for this Parish 3
EGTON WITH NEWLAND No of Complaints for this Parish 1
GRANGE OVER SANDS No of Complaints for this Parish 8
GRAYRIGG No of Complaints for this Parish 1
HELSINGTON No of Complaints for this Parish 1
HEVERSHAM No of Complaints for this Parish 1
HOLME No of Complaints for this Parish 4
KENDAL No of Complaints for this Parish 24
KIRKBY IRELETH No of Complaints for this Parish 5
KIRKBY LONSDALE No of Complaints for this Parish 13
LEVENS No of Complaints for this Parish 3
LOWER ALLITHWAITE No of Complaints for this Parish 9
LOWER HOLKER No of Complaints for this Parish 3
LOWICK No of Complaints for this Parish 1
LUPTON No of Complaints for this Parish 3
77 MANSERGH No of Complaints for this Parish 1
MILNTHORPE No of Complaints for this Parish 2
NATLAND No of Complaints for this Parish 2
NEW HUTTON HOLMESCALES No of Complaints for this Parish 1
OLD HUTTON AND No of Complaints for this Parish 3
OSMOTHERLY No of Complaints for this Parish 1
PENNINGTON No of Complaints for this Parish 7
PRESTON PATRICK No of Complaints for this Parish 3
PRESTON RICHARD No of Complaints for this Parish 1
SKELSMERGH No of Complaints for this Parish 5
STAINTON No of Complaints for this Parish 1
STRICKLAND KETEL No of Complaints for this Parish 4
STRICKLAND ROGER No of Complaints for this Parish 1
ULVERSTON No of Complaints for this Parish 12
URSWICK No of Complaints for this Parish 2
WHITWELL & SELSIDE No of Complaints for this Parish 1
WHITWELL AND SELSIDE No of Complaints for this Parish 2
Alternative Options Not applicable. Material Considerations Finance Not applicable. Risk Risk Consequence Controls required The failure to have an Result in inappropriate forms of To maintain sufficient effective planning development which would have resources in planning enforcement system. an adverse impact on the enforcement and prioritise and character and appearance of the co-ordinate the investigation of District’s rural landscape. breaches of planning control.
Staffing Not applicable. Sustainability This report does not have any registered significant environmental effects.
Date: 17/03/2010 Version No: Amended by: 2 78 Links to Corporate Plan The control of development is a significant factor in achieving a “High Quality Environment” under Section 3.4 of The Corporate Plan. Links to Other Strategic Plan(s) This report has no links to the Strategic Plan. Equalities & Diversity Not applicable Community Safety Not applicable
Background Documents Document: Various Planning & Enforcement Contact: Mark Balderson Files Planning Enforcement Officer
Date: 17/03/2010 Version No: Amended by: 3 79
80 SOUTH LAKELAND DISTRICT COUNCIL
Planning Committee
Date of Meeting: 25 March 2010 Part I Report From: Strategic Director (Customer Services) Agenda 9 Report Author: Mark Balderson Item No: Planning Enforcement Officer Report Title: A Report on Enforcement Activity for 2009
Summary This is a brief report to inform Members about enforcement activity during 2009. The report will advise of the following: (1) Number of complaints received. (2) Number of Notices served. (3) Number of Prosecutions. (4) Number of resolved cases. (5) Number of outstanding cases.
Recommendations That Members note this report. Report 1 Complaints received in 2009: 393 (This represents an increase of 31 cases on last year’s total of 362) 2 Number of Notices served • Planning Contravention Notices ...... 4 • Section 330 Notices (Requisition for Information) ...... 24 • Breach of Condition Notices ...... 2 • Section 215 Notices (Land that adversely affects the amenity of the area) .. .. 1 • Enforcement Notices ...... 4 • Total Number of Notices Served ...... 35 • Prosecutions ...... 0 • Injunctions ...... 0 (Not all of these Notices relate to cases received in 2009) 3 Number of complaints (received in 2009) resolved 301 (This figure relates to cases received in 2009 only. Other cases were resolved from previous years). The total number resolved in 2009 including cases from previous years was 453.
81
4 Number of complaints outstanding from 2009 49 • Awaiting planning decision or works to comply with planning approval ...... 8 • Awaiting compliance date to Enforcement Notice/Appeal ...... 5 • Still under negotiation/investigation ...... 45 • Monitoring further development or awaiting compliance ...... 32
Alternative Options Not applicable Material Considerations Finance The recommendations in this report do not have any cost implications. Risk Risk Consequence Controls required The failure to have an Result in inappropriate forms of To maintain sufficient effective planning development which would have resources in planning enforcement system. an adverse impact on the enforcement and prioritise and character and appearance of the co-ordinate the investigation of District’s rural landscape. breaches of planning control.
Staffing The recommendations in this report do not have any staffing implications. Sustainability This report does not have any registered significant environmental effects. Links to Corporate Plan The control of development is a significant factor in achieving a “High Quality Environment” under Section 3.4 of The Corporate Plan. Links to other Strategic Plan This report has no links to the Strategic Plan. Equalities and Diversity Not applicable. Community Safety The recommendations in this report do not have any community safety implications.
Background Documents Document: Various Planning & Enforcement Files Contact: Mark Balderson Planning Enforcement Officer
Date: 17/03/2010 Version No: Amended by: 2 82 SOUTH LAKELAND DISTRICT COUNCIL
Planning Committee
Date of Meeting: 25 March 2010 Part I Report From: Strategic Director (Customer Services) Agenda 10 Report Author: Andrew Roe Item No: Development Control Manager Report Title: Applications considered previously by the Planning Committee and determined by the Corporate Director (Communities) between 16 February and 12 March 2010
Summary To note the decisions made by the Corporate Director (Communities) as attached. Recommendations Note the Report. Report Please note: there are no applications considered previously by the Planning Committee and determined by the Corporate Director (Communities) between 16 February and 12 March 2010. Alternative Options Not applicable. Material Considerations Finance The recommendations in this report do not have any cost implications. Risk There are no identified risks raised by this report. Staffing The recommendations in this report do not have any staffing implications. Sustainability This report does not have any registered significant environmental effects. Links to Corporate Plan This report links to the aim of providing a “High Quality Environment” under Section 3.4 of the Corporate Plan. Links to other Strategic Plans This report has no links to a Strategic Plan. Equalities and Diversity The Draft Statement of Community Involvement takes account of the equalities issues in seeking to define South Lakeland’s community and interests relevant to the Local Development Framework which will influence the determination of planning applications.
83 Community Safety The recommendations in this report do not have any community safety implications.
Background Documents Document: various planning files Contact: Andrew Roe Development Control Manager
Date: 17/03/2010 Version No: Amended by: 2 84 SOUTH LAKELAND DISTRICT COUNCIL
Planning Committee
Date of Meeting: 25 March 2010 Part I Report From: Corporate Director (Communities) Agenda 11 Report Author: Andrew Roe Item No: Development Control Manager Report Title: Appeals update at 12 March 2010
Summary To provide Members with information about the receipt and determination of planning appeals. • Appendix A – New appeals and appeal decisions between 16 February and 12 March 2010. • Appendix B – Current appeals still outstanding. • Appendix C – Appeals determined during 2009.
Recommendations That Members note this report. Report See attached Appendices A, B and C. Alternative Options Not applicable. Material Considerations: Finance The recommendations in this report do not have any staffing implications. Risk There are no identified risks raised by this report. Staffing The recommendations in this report do not have any staffing implications. Sustainability This report does not have any registered significant environmental effects. Links to Corporate Plan This report links to the aim of providing a “High Quality Environment” under Section 3.4 of the Corporate Plan. Links to other Strategic Plan This report has no links to the Strategic Plan.
85 Equalities and Diversity The Draft Statement of Community Involvement takes account of the equalities issues in seeking to define South Lakeland’s community and interests relevant to the Local Development Framework which will influence the determination of individual planning applications. Community Safety The recommendations in this report do not have any community safety implications.
Background Documents Document: Various planning files Contact: Lawrence Conway Corporate Director (Communities)
2 86 APPENDIX A
Committee: Planning Date of Meeting: 25 March 2010 Report Title: Appeals update at 12 March 2010
NEW APPEALS AND APPEAL DECISIONS BETWEEN 16 Feb and 12 March 2010
NUMBER LOCATION PROPOSAL
Lodged
SL/2009/0558 ARNSIDE: Siting of 10 timber clad twin unit caravans with associated access and Middlebarrow Plain, Cove Road, private sewage plant Silverdale, Carnforth Officer’s recommendation: Refuse
Committee: Refuse 28 August 2009
SL/2009/1034 GRANGE over SANDS: Change of use of Bar / Restaurant to 2 apartments KB’s Bar / Restaurant, 76 Kentsford Road Officer’s recommendation: Refuse
Committee: Refuse 28 January 2010
Dismissed SL/2008/1219 KENDAL: Redevelopment of site to form retail development with associated car Kendal Rugby Union Football Club, parking and servicing facilities Shap Road
Officer’s recommendation: Refuse
Committee: Refuse 26 March 2009
SL/2009/0503 LOWER ALLITHWAITE: Change of Use from Class A1 (Retail) to Class A3 (Restaurant and Cafes) Anthemion Gallery (Formerly Cadeaux) The Square, Cartmel
3 87 Officer’s recommendation: Refuse
Committee: Refuse 28 August 2009
Allowed conditionally SL/2009/0637 GRANGE over SANDS: Dwelling Land on The Esplanade, Grange over Sands Delegated: Refuse 30 September 2009
Withdrawn - None
4 88 APPENDIX B
Committee: Planning Date of Meeting: 25 March 2010 Report Title: Appeals update at 12 March 2010
CURRENT APPEALS STILL OUTSTANDING
Planning Local Planning Planning Inspectorate Appeal Reference Site Description Appellant Authority Reference start decision and date date Type of Appeal SL/2009/0558 ARNSIDE: Siting of 10 timber clad twin Holgates Caravan Refused 28/08/09 - APP/M0933/A/10/2122806/WF 19/02/10 unit caravans with Parks Committee: (Full Planning Middlebarrow Plain (Written Representation) associated access and 27/08/09 Application) Cove Road private sewage plant Silverdale Officer Carnforth Recommendation: Refuse SL/2009/0675 GRANGE over Removal of Condition 3 Mr Cephas Refused 24/09/09 - APP/M0933/A/09/2118756/WF 21/12/09 SANDS: (local occupancy) from Vasquez-Howard (Full Planning Committee: Planning Permission Application) Site at Methodist (24/09/09) SL/2009/0137 Church Officer Station Road Recommendation: Cark in Cartmel Refuse
89 SL/2009/0681 SKELSMERGH: Enforcement appeal re Edward Steele Enforcement APP/M0933/C/09/2108315 21/07/09 Enforcement Notice issued (Enforcement) Holme House Farm (Public Inquiry - re change of use of land to a 09 – 11 June 2010) mixed use; commercial business, tipping of waste, conversion of farmhouse to two dwellings, siting of residential caravans/chalet- cabins, erection of agricultural buildings and erection and siting of storage units SL/2009/0722 KENDAL: Erection of Two Self Mr & Mrs Ivan & Refused 19/10/09 APP/M0933/A/10/2121932/NWF 12/02/10 Contained Flats Joanna Gudgeon (Full Planning 30 Whinfell Drive, Delegated (Written Representation) Application) Kendal SL/2009/0826 BEETHAM: Removal of Condition 2 Mr W Cuthbertson Refused 27/10/09 APP/M0933/A/09/2116019/NWF 05/11/09 (local occupancy) on (Full Planning Kingfisher House Delegated (Written Reps) Planning Permission Application) Sandside Milnthorpe SL/2008/1007 SL/2009/0831 BEETHAM: Dwelling Mr & Mrs Stephen Refused 03/02/10 APP/M0933/A/10/2122277/WF 11/02/10 Wright (Full Planning Grounds of Delegated (Written Representation) Application) Barcaldine, Leighton Drive Slack Head Milnthorpe SL/2008/0905 KENDAL: Erection of two dwellings Rekha Shanker Refused 12/06/09 APP/M0933/A/09/2118705/WF 16/12/0 -Committee: 9 (Full Planning Rear of 14 & 16 (Written Representations) 11/06/09 Application) Lound Road, Kendal Officer Recommendation: Refuse
Date: 17/03/2010 Version No: Amended by: 6 90 SL/2009/1034 GRANGE over Change of use of Bar / Kentsford Limited Refused 28/01/10 - APP/M0933/A/10/2123013/NWF 24/02/10 SANDS: Restaurant to 2 apartments Committee: 28/01/10 (Full Planning (Written Representation) Application) KB’s Bar and Officer Restaurant Recommendation:
76 Kentsford Road Refuse Grange over Sands SL/2009/1049 KENDAL: Appeal against Mr Zubeir Mister Enforcement APP/M0933/H/09/2112641 20/11/09 Discontinuance Notice (Enforcement) 177 Highgate Kendal SL/2010/0011 MILNTHORPE: Appeal against Michael John Enforcement APP/M0933/C/09/2119636 05/01/10 Enforcement Notice Houghton (Enforcement) Land to rear of and (Written Representation) adjacent to (Change of Use of Domestic 23 Church Street Garden to Access Route) Milnthorpe SL/2010/0018 ARNSIDE: Appeal against Michael William Enforcement APP/M0933/C/09/2119371 30/12/09 Enforcement Notice Holgate (Enforcement) Hollins Farm (Public Inquiry - Far Arnside (Use of Field for Camping in 22 & 23 June 2010) Carnforth Excess of 28 Days)
Date: 17/03/2010 Version No: Amended by: 7 91
92 APPENDIX C
Committee: Planning Date of Meeting: 25 March 2010 Report Title: Appeals update at 12 March 2010
APPEALS DETERMINED DURING 2010
Planning Index Planning Inspectorate Reference Site Officers Decision of Planning Reference Appeal Description Recommendation Inspectorate No. (Decision made Start date by Committee or under Delegated Powers) SL/2009/0080 10/01 APP/M0933/A/09/2113802/WF MILNTHORPE: Detached double Refused 12/6/09 - ALLOWED garage with log/coal CONDITIONALLY (Full Planning (Written Reps) Highfield Committee 11/6/09 store Application) Ackenthwaite 11 January 2010
Milnthorpe 6/10/09 Officer Recommendation: Refuse SL/2009/0684 10/02 APP/M0933/C/09/2109463 ALDINGHAM: Appeal against Enforcement DISMISSED Enforcement Notice (Enforcement) (Written Reps) Goadsbarrow Farm 13 January 2010 served re the use of the Cottage dwelling as a yoga and Meadow View meditation centre Goadsbarrow
Date: 17/03/2010 Version No: Amended by: 8 93 SL/2008/0900 10/03 APP/M0933/A/09/2099304/NWF PRESTON PATRICK: Erection of 3 wind Non-Determination DISMISSED turbines and associated (Full Planning (Public Inquiry – Land at Sillfield Committee 29 January 2010 infrastructure Application) 13 to 22 October 2009) Gatebeck 26/03/09 12/3/09 SL/2009/0255 10/04 APP/M0933/A/09/2116706/WF KENDAL: Erection of garden wall Refused 11/05/09 DISMISSED (Retrospective) (Retrospective (Written Reps) 57 Burton Road Delegated 09 February 2010 Full Planning Kendal Application) 16/11/09 SL/2009/0360 10/05 APP/M0933/A/09/2114874/NWF BEETHAM: Erection of floodlights Refused 3/06/09 ALLOWED for horse exercise area CONDITIONALLY (Retrospective (Written Reps) Ellers Farm, Farleton Delegated (Retrospective) Full Planning 11 February 2010 Application) 19/10/09 SL/2009/0658 10/06 APP/M0933/D/09/2117075 KENDAL: Two-storey and single- Refused 28/09/09 ALLOWED storey extension with CONDITIONALLY (Full Planning (Householder) 31 Silver Howe Close Delegated balcony over Application) Kendal 15 February 2010 18/11/09 SL/2009/0637 10/07 APP/M0933/A/09/2117555/WF GRANGE over SANDS: Dwelling Refused 28/09/09 ALLOWED (Full Planning CONDITIONALLY (Written Reps) Land on The Esplanade Delegated Application) Grange over Sands 18 February 2010 1/12/09 SL/2009/0503 10/08 APP/MO933/A/09/2117294/NWF LOWER Change of Use from Refused 28/8/09 - DISMISSED ALLITHWAITE: Class A1 (Retail) to (Full Planning (Written Reps) Committee 27/8/09 Class A3 (Restaurant Application) Anthemion Gallery and Cafes) (Formerly Cadeaux) 26/11/09 Officer The Square, Cartmel Recommendation: Refuse
Date: 17/03/2010 Version No: Amended by: 9 94 SL/2008/1219 10/09 APP/M0933/A/09/2101381/NWF KENDAL: Redevelopment of site Refused 26/03/09 - DISMISSED to form retail Committee:26/3/09 (Outline (Public Inquiry – Kendal Rugby 3 March 2010 development with Planning 16 to 18 September 2009) Union Football Club associated car parking Application) Shap Road Officer and servicing facilities Kendal Recommendation: 9/4/09 Refuse
Date: 17/03/2010 Version No: Amended by: 10 95
96 SOUTH LAKELAND DISTRICT COUNCIL
Planning Committee
Date of Meeting: 25 March 2010 Part I Report From: Corporate Director (Communities) Agenda 12 Report Author: Lawrence Conway Item No: Corporate Director (Communities) Report Title: Applications determined by Cumbria County Council
Summary To inform Members of the applications determined by Cumbria County Council. Recommendations That Members note this report.
Report
5/2009/9011 PARISH: WHITWELL AND SELSIDE
Site: North Gateside Farm, Selside Proposal: Change of use of barns from commercial storage units to waste transfer station for recycling and bailing of cardboard, plastic and tin GRANTED CONDITIONALLY
Alternative Options Not applicable. Material Considerations Finance The recommendation in this report does not have any cost implications. Risk There are no identified risks raised by this report. Staffing The recommendations in this report do not have any staffing implications. Sustainability This report does not have any registered significant environmental effects. Links to Corporate Plan This report has no links to the Corporate Plan. Links to other Strategic Plan This report has no links to the Strategic Plan.
97 Equalities and Diversity The recommendations in this report do not have any equalities implications. Community Safety The recommendations in this report do not have any community safety implications. Background Documents Document: Planning files Contact: Lawrence Conway Corporate Director (Communities)
Date: 17/03/2010 Version No: Amended by: 2 98