(Public Pack)Agenda Document for Planning Committee, 15/11/2018

Date: 7 November 2018

Town Hall, Penrith, Cumbria CA11 7QF Tel: 01768 817817 Email: [email protected]

Dear Sir/Madam Planning Committee Agenda - 15 November 2018 Notice is hereby given that a meeting of the Planning Committee will be held at 9.30 am on Thursday, 15 November 2018 at the Council Chamber, Town Hall, Penrith.

1 Apologies for Absence

2 Minutes

To sign the minutes Pla/76/10/18 to Pla/93/10/18 of the meeting of this Committee held on 18 October 2018 as a correct record of those proceedings (copies previously circulated).

3 Declarations of Interest

To receive any declarations of the existence and nature of any private interests, both disclosable pecuniary and any other registrable interests, in any matter to be considered or being considered.

4 Appeal Decision Letters (Pages 5 - 20)

To receive report TES55/18 from the Deputy Director Technical Services which is attached and which lists decision letters from the Planning Inspectorate received since the last meeting:

Application Applicant/Appeal Appeal Decision No. 18/0018 Mr John Carruthers The appeal is Midtown Farm, Clifton, Nr Penrith, allowed subject to CA10 2EE conditions

The appeal is made under section 78 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 against a refusal to grant planning permission.

The development proposed is a new four bedroom detached dwelling on land to the rear of Midtown

Matthew Neal www.eden.gov.uk Deputy Chief Executive Farmhouse, Penrith Mr John Carruthers The application for Midtown Farm, Clifton, Nr Penrith, an award of costs is CA10 2EE refused. The application is made under the Town and Country Planning Act 1990, sections 78, 322 and Schedule 6, and the Local Government Act 1972, section 250(5). The appeal was against the refusal of planning permission for a new four bed detached dwelling. 17/0739 Chris Nichol Construction Ltd The appeal is Site to the north east of High House dismissed. Farmhouse, Catterlen, Penrith, Cumbria, CA11 0BQ

The appeal is made under section 78 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 against a failure to give notice within the prescribed period of a decision on an application for outline planning permission.

The development proposed is the erection of 3 no. 4 bed detached dwellings Chris Nichol Construction Ltd The application for Site to the north east of High House an award of costs is Farmhouse, Catterlen, Penrith, refused. Cumbria, CA11 0BQ

The application is made under the Town and Country Planning Act 1990, sections 78, 322 and Schedule 6, and the Local Government Act 1972, section 250(5).

The appeal was against the refusal of failure of the Council to issue a notice of their decision within the prescribed period on an application for the grant of outline planning permission for 3 no. 4 bed detached dwellings. 5 Planning Issues (Pages 21 - 38)

To note the attached lists of the Deputy Director Technical Services. a) Applications determined under office delegated powers for the month of October 2018. b) Reasons for refusal on delegated decisions for the month of October 2018.

6 Planning Issues - Applications for Debate (Green Papers) (Pages 39 - 104) www.eden.gov.uk 2 To consider the reports of the Deputy Director Technical Services on the following applications:

Item Officer Page Application Details No Recommendation Number 1 Planning Application No: 18/0531 Recommended to:

Removal of condition 13 associated with APPROVE 41 planning permission ref. 15/1097 Subject to Conditions Land adjacent to Cross Croft, Appleby 2 Planning Application No: 18/0557 Recommended to:

2 Storey Dwellinghouse with attached APPROVE 56 garage Subject to Conditions Plot 6, Joiners Close, Newbiggin 3 Planning Application No: 18/0629 Recommended to:

Application for approval of outstanding APPROVE reserved matters of outline application Subject to 66 16/0706 for construction of one dwelling Conditions

Land to the Northeast of Lyvennet Bridge, Morland 4 Planning Application No: 18/0467 Recommended to:

Change of use of pub to 5 apartments APPROVE 74 Subject to Former Lowther Arms, Queen Street, Conditions Penrith 5 Planning Application No: 18/0468 Recommended to:

Change of use of pub to 5 apartments APPROVE 85 Subject to Former Lowther Arms, Queen Street, Conditions Penrith 6 Planning Application No: 18/0251 Recommended to:

Land adjacent Kiln House, Keld Lane, REFUSED 96 Keld, Shap With Reasons Messrs Fishwick & Simpson 7 Confirmation of Site Visits (if any)

To confirm the date and location of any site visits that may have been agreed.

8 Any Other Items which the Chairman decides are urgent www.eden.gov.uk 3 9 Date of Next Meeting

The date of the next scheduled meeting be confirmed as 13 December 2018.

Yours faithfully

M Neal Deputy Chief Executive (Monitoring Officer)

Democratic Services Contact: Vivien Little

Encs

For Attention All members of the Council

Chairman – Councillor J G Thompson (Conservative Group) Vice Chairman – Councillor W Patterson (Independent Group)

Councillors A Armstrong, Conservative Group V Kendall, Conservative Group I Chambers, Conservative Group J C Lynch, Conservative Group M Clark, Independent Group R Sealby, Conservative Group M Eyles, Liberal Democrat Group H Sawrey-Cookson, Independent Group D Holden, Liberal Democrat Group

Standing Deputies D Banks, Independent Group J Raine, Conservative Group A Hogg, Conservative Group V Taylor, Liberal Democrat Group M Smith, Independent Group M Rudhall, Liberal Democrat Group

Please Note: 1. Access to the internet in the Council Chamber and Committee room is available via the guest wi-fi – no password is required 2. Under the Openness of Local Government Bodies Regulations 2014 this meeting has been advertised as a public meeting (unless stated otherwise) and as such could be filmed or recorded by the media or members of the public

www.eden.gov.uk 4 Agenda Item 4

Report No TES55/18

Eden District Council

Planning Committee 15 November 2018

Appeal Decision Letters

Report of the Deputy Director Technical Services

Attached for Members’ information is a list of Decision Letters received since the last meeting:

Application Applicant Appeal Decision Number(s)

18/0018 Mr John Carruthers The appeal is Midtown Farm, Clifton, Nr Penrith, CA10 2EE allowed subject to conditions. The appeal is made under section 78 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 against a refusal to grant planning permission.

The development proposed is a new four bedroom detached dwelling on land to the rear of Midtown Farmhouse, Penrith.

Mr John Carruthers The application Midtown Farm, Clifton, Nr Penrith, CA10 2EE for an award of costs is refused. The application is made under the Town and Country Planning Act 1990, sections 78, 322 and Schedule 6, and the Local Government Act 1972, section 250(5).

The appeal was against the refusal of planning permission for a new four bed detached dwelling.

Page 5 Application Applicant Appeal Decision Number(s)

17/0739 Chris Nichol Construction Ltd The appeal is Site to the north east of High House Farmhouse, dismissed. Catterlen, Penrith, Cumbria, CA11 0BQ

The development proposed is the erection of 3 no. 4 bed detached dwellings.

Chris Nichol Construction Ltd The application Site to the north east of High House Farmhouse, for an award of Catterlen, Penrith, Cumbria, CA11 0BQ costs is refused.

The application is made under the Town and Country Planning Act 1990, sections 78, 322 and Schedule 6, and the Local Government Act 1972, section 250(5).

Jane Langston Deputy Director Technical Services

Page 6

Appeal Decision Site visit made on 24 September 2018 by Helen Hockenhull BA(Hons) B.Pl MRTPI an Inspector appointed by the Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government Decision date: 26 October 2018

Appeal Ref: APP/H0928/W/18/3204421 Midtown Farm, Clifton, Nr Penrith CA10 2EE  The appeal is made under section 78 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 against a refusal to grant planning permission.  The appeal is made by Mr John Carruthers against the decision of Eden District Council.  The application Ref 18/0018, dated 10 January 2018, was refused by notice dated 8 March 2018.  The development proposed is a new four bedroom detached dwelling on land to the rear of Midtown Farmhouse, Penrith.

Decision

1. The appeal is allowed and planning permission is granted for a new four bedroom detached dwelling on land to the rear of Midtown Farmhouse, Clifton, Nr Penrith in accordance with the terms of the application, Ref 18/0018, dated 10 January 2017, subject to the following conditions: 1) The development hereby permitted shall begin not later than 3 years from the date of this decision. 2) The development hereby permitted shall be carried out in accordance with the following approved plans: Drawing No. MTFC/ND/JC/FP/V2/01 Site Location Plan, Drawing No. MTFC/ND/JC/FP/03 - Proposed Site Plan, Drawing No. MTFC/ND/JC/FP/V2/05 - Ground Floor Plan, Drawing No. MTFC/ND/JC/FP/06 - First Floor Plan, Drawing No. MTFC/ND/JC/FP/07 - Proposed Elevations. 3) Notwithstanding the submitted plans, prior to the commencement of any development, a surface water drainage scheme informed by evidence of an assessment of the site conditions shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the local planning authority. The surface water drainage scheme must be in accordance with the Non-Statutory Technical Standards for Sustainable Drainage Systems (March 2015) or any subsequent replacement national standards. No surface water shall discharge to the public sewerage system either directly or indirectly. The development shall then be completed in accordance with the approved details. 4) Prior to the occupation of the development hereby approved, the recommendations of the noise assessment submitted as part of the appeal shall be implemented and maintained thereafter.

https://www.gov.uk/planning-inspectorate Page 7 Appeal Decision APP/H0928/W/18/3204421

Application for costs

2. An application for costs was made by Mr John Carruthers against Eden District Council. This application is the subject of a separate Decision.

Procedural Matters

3. During the course of the appeal, the revised National Planning Policy Framework (the Framework) was published. The main parties were asked to comment on the implications of this document for their respective cases. I have had regard to the responses made.

4. The Eden Local Plan 2014-2032 was adopted by the Council on 11 October 2018. I asked the main parties to comment on this revised policy position and I have taken their responses into account. The appellant has made me aware of the possibility of challenge to the newly adopted Local Plan. Even if such a challenge were to be made, the Plan remains adopted and operable unless suspended in full or part by the High Court. I have therefore had regard to it and give it full weight in this decision.

Main Issues

5. The Council on their decision notice cite three reasons for refusal. These relate to the principle of residential development in a small village, the scale of the property and concerns about noise pollution from the nearby motorway. I am advised that since this appeal was made, an application for a smaller dwelling on the site was approved1 on 16 August 2018. The Council in their statement confirms that in light of this approval, the principle of housing development on the site is acceptable. Furthermore the submission of a noise assessment has addressed their concerns regarding the impact of noise.

6. Accordingly, as two of the matters in dispute have effectively been resolved, I consider that the issue raised by this appeal is whether the size of the proposed dwelling would be appropriate to meet local housing need and if harm arises, whether this is outweighed by other considerations.

Reasons

Local housing need

7. Policy LS1 of the Eden Local Plan supports the principle of development in rural villages and hamlets where it is of an appropriate scale subject to a number of requirements being met. Policy HS2 of the Plan provides further guidance and permits new residential development in smaller villages and hamlets such as Clifton, provided that they are appropriate in scale reflecting the built form and neighbouring development to the site and the service function of the settlement. The Policy goes on to state three criteria which must also be met.

8. The first relates to whether the development would form infilling or rounding off of the settlement. This is also a requirement of Policy LS1. I have already stated there is no longer any dispute in this regard between the parties. I have no reason to disagree with this conclusion.

9. The second criterion requires that the dwelling does not have more than 150 sq metre internal floorspace. In the appeal case, the proposed dwelling has 4

1 Planning application ref 18/0446

https://www.gov.uk/planning-inspectorate 2 Page 8 Appeal Decision APP/H0928/W/18/3204421

bedrooms and a floor area of around 250 square metres. It is therefore much larger that the policy allows. The purpose of Policy HS2 is to encourage innovative methods of providing housing to meet local needs and help support small villages. It aims to assist those with strong local connections not considered to be in affordable housing need, to build their own homes for example through self-build. The restriction on floor area seeks to ensure that properties are affordable to local people. The appeal scheme, conflicts with this part of the policy.

10. The third criterion relates to development on greenfield sites and requires a condition or legal agreement restricting occupancy to those with a local connection. There is agreement between the parties that the appeal site forms a previously developed site. Therefore a local occupancy restriction is not required in this case.

11. In summary, whilst the appeal scheme would comply with Local Plan Policy LS1 and criteria 1 and 3 of Policy HS2, it would conflict with the second criterion of Policy HS2 regarding internal floorspace.

Other matters

12. I note that Policy LS2 of the Local Plan gives an annual requirement for housing in small villages and hamlets of 20 dwellings. I am also advised by the Council that since 2010 a total of 110 dwellings have been approved in Clifton. However this policy has only recently been adopted and would not have been in force over this time period. In any event I do not have before me a more detailed annual breakdown to assess this against the policy requirement.

13. Policy CS1 of the Core Strategy also encourages where practical the reuse of previously developed land within settlements. As the appeal site is brownfield, this policy objective, would also be met. The re use of a brownfield site is supported by paragraph 118 of the Framework and lends further support to the scheme.

Other considerations

14. I have found that the appeal scheme would comply with Local Plan Policy LS1. However it would conflict with Policy HS2 in terms of the scale of the dwelling to meet local housing need.

15. I am advised that the Council can, since the adoption of the Local Plan, demonstrate a 5 year supply of housing land. Policies for the supply of housing are therefore up to date. In these circumstances in accordance with Section 38 of the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004, I must determine the appeal proposal in accordance with the development plan unless material considerations indicate otherwise.

16. In this case there is a technical breach of one policy in the development plan, namely Policy HS2. However I am mindful that as the site forms previously developed land, a local occupancy restriction does not apply in this case. The dwelling may not therefore be occupied by a local person. That being said, I have no substantive evidence that the scheme for a dwelling of the size proposed would not meet an element of local need and would not be affordable. Furthermore no issues of environmental or visual harm have been raised by the Council.

https://www.gov.uk/planning-inspectorate 3 Page 9 Appeal Decision APP/H0928/W/18/3204421

17. Accordingly I consider that the proposal accords with the adopted development plan when read as a whole. The Framework, as a material consideration, sets out in paragraph 11, that in such circumstances a proposal should be approved without delay. In the absence of any identified adverse impacts, I find that there is no justification for the dismissal of this appeal.

Conditions

18. The Council have suggested a number of conditions should the appeal be allowed. The appellant has had the opportunity to comment on these. In addition to the standard timeframe condition, I consider that it is necessary to impose a condition requiring the development to be carried out in accordance with the submitted plans for the avoidance of doubt.

19. A condition requiring the submission of a surface water drainage scheme is also necessary to ensure that the site is appropriately drained and to manage the risk of flooding. Additionally a condition requiring adherence to the recommendations of the submitted noise assessment is required in the interests of safeguarding the living conditions of future residents.

Overall Conclusion

20. For the reasons given above and having had regard to all other matters raised, I allow this appeal.

Helen Hockenhull

INSPECTOR

https://www.gov.uk/planning-inspectorate 4 Page 10

Costs Decision Site visit made on 24 September 2018 by Helen Hockenhull BA(Hons) B.Pl MRTPI an Inspector appointed by the Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government Decision date: 26 October 2018

Costs application in relation to Appeal Ref: APP/H0928/W/18/3204421 Midtown Farm, Clifton, near Penrith, Cumbria CA10 2EE  The application is made under the Town and Country Planning Act 1990, sections 78, 322 and Schedule 6, and the Local Government Act 1972, section 250(5).  The application is made by Mr John Carruthers for a full award of costs against Eden District Council.  The appeal was against the refusal of planning permission for a new four bed detached dwelling.

Decision

1. The application for an award of costs is refused.

Reasons

2. The Planning Practice Guidance (PPG) advises that costs may be awarded against a party who has behaved unreasonably and thereby caused the party applying for costs to incur unnecessary or wasted expense in the appeal process.

3. The applicant seeks an award of costs on the basis of two substantive grounds. Firstly that that the Council when determining the planning application should have acknowledged that they could not demonstrate a 5 year supply of deliverable housing land and therefore in line with the National Planning Policy Framework should have engaged the tilted balance. Secondly the applicant asserts that the Council failed to consider relevant policies of the adopted development plan, specifically the Core Strategy when considering the principles of the development. These actions constituted unreasonable behaviour as the Council had not properly exercised its development management function and acted contrary to or not followed well established case law.

4. Before I consider these grounds further it must be noted that the Eden Local Plan has now been adopted. The Council can demonstrate a 5 year supply of housing land and therefore policies most important to the determination of this appeal, namely those relating to the supply of housing, are not out of date. Clearly the context for determining this appeal has now significantly changed.

5. The original planning application was refused on 18 March 2018. I note that there was no reference to the lack of a 5 year housing land supply in the Officers delegated report. The Council accepts that this position was not specifically referred to in this document. The Council’s appeal statement however does recognise the shortfall and goes on to argue that this is a https://www.gov.uk/planning-inspectorate Page 11 Costs Decision APP/H0928/W/18/3204421

temporary position which would be rectified once the emerging Eden Local Plan was formally adopted. As I have already explained this has now taken place.

6. I recognise that the Local Plan has progressed to adoption since the original planning application submission and therefore the weight to be given to it has increased over time. However at the time the planning application was determined and also when the appeal was submitted the Council could not demonstrate a 5 year housing land supply. In these circumstances, in accordance with paragraph 11 of the Framework, the tilted balance should have been applied. No objective analysis of the adverse impacts and the benefits of the proposal have been put forward by the Council. In contrast the Council made reference to an appeal in Allerdale1 and argued that the shortfall was a temporary circumstance and as a short term problem should be weighed against any permanent harm. In my view the Council did not properly exercise their development management responsibilities in this regard and have not followed established case law with regard to the approach to decision making. I find that this represents unreasonable behaviour.

7. In terms of the principle of the development, the Council in their delegated report made reference to adopted policies of the Core Strategy (CS). Whilst specific analysis of CS Policies CS1 and CS2 which set out the spatial strategy did not occur, the Council assessed the application against the then draft Policy LS1 of the Local Plan which outlined the Council’s Location Strategy for the borough. This Policy does not conflict with the Core Strategy but provides further criteria which must be met. I consider it was not unreasonable of the Council to assess the application against the then draft locational policy rather than the relevant CS policies, in light of the increasing weight to be given to the Local Plan.

8. In summary I have found unreasonable behaviour on the first substantive ground. However whilst the tilted balance should have been engaged, I consider that in light of the social and environmental harm originally identified by the Council, it was likely that the application would have been refused in any event. As an appeal would have been necessary, the applicant has not incurred unnecessary expense in the appeal process. I therefore conclude that the application for an award of costs is not justified.

Conclusion

9. Whilst I consider that unreasonable behaviour has occurred, unnecessary or wasted expense, as described in Planning Practice Guidance, has not been demonstrated. Consequently for the reasons given above, the application for full award of costs is refused.

Helen Hockenhull

INSPECTOR

1 APP/G098/A/13/2193690

https://www.gov.uk/planning-inspectorate 2 Page 12

Appeal Ref: APP/H0928/W/18/3204729 Site to the north east of High House Farmhouse, Catterlen, Penrith Cumbria CA11 0BQ  The appeal is made under section 78 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 against a failure to give notice within the prescribed period of a decision on an application for outline planning permission.  The appeal is made by Chris Nichol, Chris Nichol Construction Ltd against Eden District Council.  The application Ref 17/0739 is dated 22 August 2017.  The development proposed is the erection of 3 no. 4 bed detached dwellings.

Decision

1. The appeal is dismissed.

Application for costs

2. An application for costs was made by Chris Nichol, Chris Nichol Construction Ltd against Eden Borough Council. This application is the subject of a separate Decision.

Procedural Matters

3. The original planning application proposed the erection of 5 dwellings on the site. However during the course of its consideration by the Council, the appellant amended the scheme to three detached dwellings. This is reflected in the description of development in the banner heading. I have had regard to this revision in the determination of this appeal.

4. The appeal proposal is in outline with all matters reserved for later approval. An indicative site plan has been submitted and I have had regard to it as far as it is relevant to my consideration of the principle of the proposal on the site.

5. The appeal was made because of the Council’s failure to determine the planning application within the prescribed period. The Council has confirmed in their statement that if they had determined the application is was likely that it would have been refused on the grounds that the site forms a greenfield site in a smaller village. The proposal would therefore not comply with the locational strategy set down in Policy LS1 of the Eden Local Plan. Additionally the proposal would fail to comply with Core Strategy Policies CS2 and CS9, which require development in such locations to provide 100% affordable housing. I have used these potential grounds of refusal to frame the main issue.

https://www.gov.uk/planning-inspectorate Page 13 Appeal Decision APP/H0928/W/18/3204729

6. During the course of the appeal, the revised National Planning Policy Framework (the Framework) was published. The main parties were asked to comment on the implications of this document for their respective cases. I have had regard to the responses received.

7. The Eden Local Plan 2014-2032 was adopted by the Council on 11 October 2018. I asked the main parties to comment on this changed policy position and I have taken account of their responses. The appellant has made me aware of the possibility of challenge to the newly adopted Local Plan. Even if such a challenge were to be made, the Plan remains adopted and operable unless suspended in full or part by the High Court. I have therefore had regard to it and give it full weight in this decision.

Main Issue

8. In light of the above, I consider the main issue in this case is whether the proposed dwelling would be in a suitable location having regard to local planning policies concerned with housing in rural areas.

Reasons

9. The appeal site forms a former orchard located to the north east of High House farmhouse in the village of Catterlen.

10. Policy CS2 of the adopted Eden Core Strategy Development Plan Document (CS) 2010 sets out a locational strategy for the borough focussing new development in the key service centres such as Penrith, other larger settlements and local service centres. In smaller villages, hamlets and in the open countryside, the policy limits development to meet identified need. This approach is supported by Policy CS3 which concerns development in rural settlements and also Policy CS9. As I have no evidence that the appeal proposal meets an identified local housing need, the scheme would conflict with the above policies.

11. The Core Strategy pre dates both the 2012 Framework and the new revised Framework. In terms of rural housing the revised Framework in paragraph 77 supports housing development that reflects local need. It goes on to say that local planning authorities should consider whether allowing some market housing may help to facilitate this. Paragraph 78 promotes sustainable development in rural areas and recognises that development in one village may support services in a village nearby. In this regard Policies CS2, CS3 and CS9 of the Core Strategy are not entirely consistent with the Framework. I therefore give moderate weight to this policy conflict.

12. Policy LS1of the recently adopted Eden Local Plan supports the principle of development in rural villages and hamlets where it is of an appropriate scale which reflects the existing built form of the settlement subject to a number of requirements being met. Policy HS2 deals with housing in the smaller villages and supports this policy approach.

13. Both the above policies restrict development to infill sites which fill a modest gap between existing buildings within the settlement or provide rounding off to a logical and defensible boundary. In this case the appeal site forms part of a wider gap between High House and the Ginney Country Guest House. There is an intervening agricultural field, of around the same width as the appeal site, which at the time of my site visit was being used for grazing.

https://www.gov.uk/planning-inspectorate 2 Page 14 Appeal Decision APP/H0928/W/18/3204729

14. The village of Catterlen is characterised by sporadic residential development with gaps between groups of dwellings. The houses are of different design, size and age. Whilst I accept that the revised proposal for 3 detached dwellings would be appropriate in terms of scale for the settlement, having regard to the adjacent agricultural field, the scheme would not fill a gap between existing buildings. Accordingly I consider that the proposal would not be in compliance with Policies LS1 or HS2 of the Local Plan.

15. Furthermore in terms of housing on greenfield sites, Policy LS1 requires that residential development meets a local connection criteria. The appellant argues that the site is brownfield as it formed part of the garden to High House. I am referred to a recent court judgment1, where Lewison LJ found that only residential garden areas within built up areas were exempt from the definition of previously developed land. Therefore residential gardens outside built up areas should be considered to be previously developed. Accordingly, on the basis of the evidence before me I consider that the site forms previously developed land. In such circumstances in line with Policies LS1 and HS2, a local connection restriction does not apply.

Other matters

16. The Council have argued that that if allowed the appeal development would leave the agricultural field to the north east vulnerable to further development. The cumulative impact would adversely affect the character and appearance of the village. If such a proposal were to be put forward it would need to be judged against the adopted development plan in place at that time. It does not form a matter relevant to my consideration of this appeal, which I must consider on its individual merits.

17. The Framework in paragraph 68 recognises that small or medium size sites can make an important contribution to meeting the housing requirement of the area. Additionally, the fact that the proposal makes use of a previously developed site within a settlement lends support to the scheme.

18. I acknowledge that the appeal site is too small for agricultural purposes and forms underused land. The proposal would tidy up the site and secure a future use of the land. I also acknowledge the economic and social benefits of a new dwelling put forward by the appellant , however as the scheme is for one new home, these would be limited.

Conclusion

19. Since the adoption of the Eden Local Plan, the Council is able to demonstrate a 5 year supply of housing land and therefore policies for the supply of housing are up to date. In these circumstances in accordance with Section 38 of the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004, I must determine the appeal proposal in accordance with the development plan unless material considerations indicate otherwise.

20. In this case, I have found conflict with the locational strategy set out in Core Strategy Policies CS2, CS3 and CS9 and Local Plan Policies LS1 and HS2. Whilst there are some benefits resulting from the scheme, these factors do not outweigh the harm I have identified to the development strategy of the

1 Dartford Borough Council v Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government & Ors [2017] EWCA Civ 141 https://www.gov.uk/planning-inspectorate 3 Page 15 Appeal Decision APP/H0928/W/18/3204729

borough. Accordingly there are no material considerations in this case that indicate that the scheme should be determined other than in accordance with the development plan.

21. For the reasons given above and having regard to all other matters raised, I dismiss this appeal.

Helen Hockenhull

INSPECTOR

https://www.gov.uk/planning-inspectorate 4 Page 16

Costs application in relation to Appeal Ref: APP/H0928/W/18/3204729 Site to the north east of High House, Catterlen, Penrith, Cumbria CA11 0BQ  The application is made under the Town and Country Planning Act 1990, sections 78, 322 and Schedule 6, and the Local Government Act 1972, section 250(5).  The application is made by Chris Nichol Construction Ltd for a full award of costs against Eden District Council.  The appeal was against the refusal of failure of the Council to issue a notice of their decision within the prescribed period on an application for grant of outline planning permission for 3 no. 4 bed detached dwellings.

Decision

1. The application for an award of costs is refused.

Reasons

3. The applicant seeks an award of costs on the basis that the Council acted unreasonably in failing to determine the application in the statutory time without a proper explanation or communication with the applicant. The applicant also submitted that as the Council could not demonstrate a 5 year supply of housing land, the failure of the Council to apply the tilted balance in their assessment of the scheme resulted in a failure to exercise its duty to determine applications in a reasonable manner.

4. The Council has provided no response to the application for costs and therefore I must determine this application on the basis of the evidence submitted.

5. Before I consider these grounds further it must be noted that the Eden Local Plan has now been adopted. The Council can demonstrate a 5 year supply of housing land and therefore policies most important to the determination of this appeal, namely those relating to the supply of housing, are not out of date. Clearly the context for determining this appeal has now significantly changed.

6. Turning to the details of the cost application, I have had regard to the timeframe of events provided by the applicant. This demonstrates a number of delays throughout the process and lack of communication between the Council and the applicant at various stages in the process.

https://www.gov.uk/planning-inspectorate Page 17 Costs Decision APP/H0928/W/18/3204729

7. Planning Practice Guidance (PPG) in paragraph 048 advises that if it is clear that a local planning authority will fail to determine an application within the time limits, it should give the applicant a proper explanation. Furthermore in an appeal against non-determination the local planning authority should explain their reasons for not reaching a decision within the relevant time limit and why permission would not have been granted had the application been determined.

8. Whilst the Council have explained in their statement why the proposal would have been refused, they have not explained why the application could not have been determined in the prescribed time frame. I note that the Council statement that the application was re assessed by the Council’s Policy Team in March 2018 as the emerging local plan had advanced further in its preparation and was then able to be afforded greater weight in the determination of planning application. This change in weight led to the view that the proposal should be refused.

9. However the original planning application was submitted on the 21 August 2017. The change in policy position was therefore nearly 7 months after the submission of the original planning application. I have no evidence before me to indicate why the proposal could not have been determined in the prescribed period and certainly well before the changed policy position. Better communication with the applicant could have speeded up the process. Accordingly I consider that the Council has acted unreasonably in this regard.

10. Whilst the Council did not determine the planning application and therefore a detailed assessment of the merits of the scheme has not been provided, the applicant has also made reference to the Councils failure, in the absence of a 5 year supply of housing land, to apply the tilted balance in their assessment of the appeal proposal. The Council recognise the lack of a 5 year supply in their appeal statement but rather than applying the tilted balance go on to refer to an appeal in Allerdale1 explaining that this shortfall was a temporary circumstance. The Inspector in this case concluded that as a short term problem it should be weighed against any permanent harm. Nevertheless, this failure to have regard to and correctly apply national planning policy in the determination of the appeal, results in the failure of the Council to properly exercise its development management function and determine the application in a reasonable manner. This also constitutes unreasonable behaviour in my view.

11. The PPG advises that if an appeal for a failure to determine an application is allowed then the local planning authority may be at risk of an award of costs. In this case, the Council have indicated that the application would have been likely to have been refused. I have concurred with this view in dismissing this appeal. In these circumstances, having regard to the guidance in the PPG, an award of costs is not justified. The Council have not delayed an application that should have been approved and the applicant has not incurred any unnecessary or wasted expense, as an appeal would have been likely to have been submitted in any event.

1 APP/G098/A/13/2193690

https://www.gov.uk/planning-inspectorate 2 Page 18 Costs Decision APP/H0928/W/18/3204729

Conclusion

12. Whilst I have found that the Council has behaved unreasonably, unnecessary or wasted expense, as described in Planning Practice Guidance, has not been demonstrated. Consequently for the reasons given above, the application for full award of costs is refused.

Helen Hockenhull

INSPECTOR

https://www.gov.uk/planning-inspectorate 3 Page 19 This page is intentionally left blank PLANNING COMMITTEE Agenda Item No. APPLICATIONS DETERMINED UNDER OFFICER DELEGATED POWERS FOR THE MONTH OF OCTOBER 2018

App No App Type Parish Description Location Applicant Decision

18/0337 Full Application Ousby Proposed refurbishment of outbuildings to form MELMERBY HALL, MELMERBY, Mr & Mrs Rowley APPROVED meeting rooms (Use Class B1) PENRITH, CA10 1HB

18/0338 Listed Building Ousby Listed Building consent for proposed refurbishment MELMERBY HALL, MELMERBY, Mr & Mrs Rowley APPROVED of outbuildings to form meeting rooms. PENRITH, CA10 1HB

18/0399 Outline Musgrave Outline for two dwellings with approval sought for OLD POND HOUSE, LITTLE Mr N & Mrs L Emson REFUSED Application access and layout. MUSGRAVE, KIRKBY STEPHEN, CA17 4PQ

18/0491 Reserved by Appleby Discharge of conditions 3 (surface water drainage) 7 BELGRAVIA, APPLEBY, CA16 6XZ JR Wharton & Sons - K APPROVED Cond and 4 (noise) attached to approval 18/0125. Wharton

18/0546 Reserved by Appleby Discharge of conditions 3 (site investigation GARAGE, THE SANDS, APPLEBY, Roy Ashley Motors Ltd APPROVED Cond strategy), 4 (remediation scheme), 5 (stone), 6 CA16 6XN (render), 7 (windows and doors), 8 (tree root protection), 9 (landscape plan), 10 (archaeological work), 13 (site investigation scheme) attached to approval 18/0202.

18/0553 Outline Bandleyside Proposed residential development. SITE AT KINGS MEABURN LANE, Mrs Hughes REFUSED Application COLBY, APPLEBY-IN- WESTMORLAND, CA16 6BD

18/0565 Reserved by Great Salkeld Discharge of condition 9 (contamination) attached to TOWNHEAD FARM HOUSE, GREAT JIW Properties Ltd - Mr APPROVED Cond approval 17/0211. SALKELD, PENRITH, CA11 9NA Wilkinson

18/0575 Full Application Crackenthorpe Agricultural building. BRIDGE END FARM, KIRKBY Messrs C Dent APPROVED THORE, PENRITH, CA10 1UZ

18/0587 Full Application Stainmore Side extension and associated alterations. BLEATHGILL EDGE, BARRAS, Mr L Woodman APPROVED KIRKBY STEPHEN, CA17 4ET Agenda Item 5

18/0596 Reserved by Penrith Discharge of condition 10 (Construction FORMER ARMSTRONG AND Churchill Retirement APPROVED Cond Traffic/Parking) attached to approval 17/0771. FLEMING SITE, ROPER STREET, Living PENRITH, CA11 8HT

18/0605 Full Application Langwathby Proposed bathroom dormer & kitchen extension. LINCROSS, LANGWATHBY, Mr S Shannon APPROVED PENRITH, CA10 1LW

18/0610 Full Application Dacre Proposed free range chicken unit. BELLMOUNT FARM, PENRITH, Bell Mount Farming Ltd APPROVED Page 21 Page CA11 0BX

02 November 2018 Page 1 of 7 Page 22 Page App No App Type Parish Description Location Applicant Decision

18/0612 Cert. of Lawful Ainstable Certificate of Lawfulness for the continued use of a RIVERSIDE COTTAGE, HEADS Mr R Nicholas APPROVED garden building for ancillary domestic use. NOOK, BRAMPTON, CA8 9DH

18/0615 Full Application Stainmore Change of Use of Redundant Barn to Dwelling and BARN AT OLD PARK, SOUTH Mr Wearmouth APPROVED Demolition of Steel Lean to. STAINMORE, KIRKBY STEPHEN,

18/0618 Non-Material Crosby Non Material Amendment for the addition of 2no COPPER BEECH LODGE, SHAP, Mrs S Bradley APPROVED Amend Ravensworth velux windows. PENRITH, CA10 3QX

18/0623 Listed Building Kirkoswald Listed building consent for the addition of wireless PARK VIEW, STAFFIELD, PENRITH, Miss D Milner APPROVED internet nano receiver to existing roof mounted aerial. CA10 1EU

18/0632 Reserved by Penrith Discharge of Conditions 5 (Surface Water Drainage FORMER ARMSTRONG AND Churchill Retirement APPROVED Cond Scheme), 6 (Surface Water Management Plan), 7 FLEMING SITE, ROPER STREET, Living (Visibility Splays), 8 (Vehicular Crossing PENRITH, CA11 8HT Specification) attached to approval 17/0771.

18/0639 Outline Long Marton Outline application for one dwelling and annex with OLD STATION YARD, KIRKBY Mrs J & Mr T Cooney REFUSED Application approval sought for access, appearance, layout and THORE, PENRITH, CA10 1UZ scale.

18/0640 Full Application Kirkoswald Demolition of single storey open porch and external WEST VIEW, KIRKOSWALD, Mr & Mrs W Tidbury APPROVED utility and erection of two storey extension. PENRITH, CA10 1DQ

18/0646 Full Application Alston Retrospective planning permission for the permanent LAND TO THE NORTHERN BANK The Coal Authority - Mr APPROVED retention of steps, platforms and associated OF RIVER NENT, TO THE EAST OF Kirk handrails and fencing, and permission for the FORCE COTTAGES, ALSTON, installation of a new water monitoring structure.

18/0652 Full Application Penrith Two storey rear extension. 13 GRAHAM STREET, PENRITH, Mrs J Fisher APPROVED CA11 9LG

18/0654 Full Application Shap Change of use of dwelling (C3) to a large HMO (Sui GODS PROMISE, SHAP, PENRITH, Daniel Thwaites Plc APPROVED Generis). CA10 3NJ

18/0655 Full Application Kings Meaburn Barn conversion to form dwelling and associated WHITBY BARN, KINGS MEABURN, Mr H Henley - APPROVED access and curtilage works. PENRITH, CA10 3BS Heatherville Ltd

18/0659 Full Application Skelton Agricultural Dwelling TOWN HEAD FARM, SKELTON, I S & C A Mounsey APPROVED PENRITH, CA11 9TG

18/0661 Advertisement Hesket Advertisement consent for 3 no. temporary flag pole FIELD ADJ TO BYRNES CLOSE, Reiver Homes - S APPROVED signs, writing to front elevation of show house, PLUMPTON, PENRITH, McClelland signage above door of show house, 2 no. flags to front of show house, 1 no. 'V' board to entrance.

18/0663 Full Application Appleby Proposed rear ground floor domestic extension. 33 RIVINGTON PARK, APPLEBY-IN- Mr F Potts APPROVED WESTMORLAND, CA16 6HU

02 November 2018 Page 2 of 7 App No App Type Parish Description Location Applicant Decision

18/0664 Full Application Bandleyside Change of use of agricultural field to form additional NORTH VIEW, BURRELLS, Mr M Morgan APPROVED residential garden. APPLEBY, CA16 6EG

18/0665 Reserved Matters Ousby Reserved Matters Application in respect of Access, FIELD NORTH OF HELM BAR, Willan Trading Ltd - Mr APPROVED Appearance, Landscaping, Layout and Scale MELMERBY, PENRITH, CA10 1HF Willan attached to approval 17/0509.

18/0666 Tree Works (CA) Kirkby Stephen Remove 1 x Poplar from front garden; Kirkby MANOR LEA, HIGH STREET, Liz Bottesill APPROVED Stephen Conservation Area. KIRKBY STEPHEN, CA17 4SH

18/0668 Full Application Hesket Proposed two storey extension to provide garage, MANOR HOUSE, PLUMPTON, Mr L Holiday APPROVED utility, office & kitchen to ground floor with additional PENRITH, CA11 9NS bedroom, en-suite and store area to first floor.

18/0670 Full Application Appleby Proposed extension and parking spaces. MICHAEL MOUNT, ST MICHAELS Mr & Mrs Richardson APPROVED LANE, APPLEBY-IN- WESTMORLAND, CA16 6UH

18/0671 Full Application Morland Change of use from joinery workshop and two THE OLD SMITHY, WATER Mr & Mrs I Briggs APPROVED existing flats to one new dwelling. STREET, MORLAND, PENRITH, CA10 3AY

18/0675 Advertisement Tebay Advertisement consent for 6no. metal signs. ROUNDABOUT M6/A685/B6260, Mrs M Longworth REFUSED TEBAY, PENRITH, CA10 3SS

18/0678 Full Application Dacre Replacement of single storey extension with two BELLE VUE, GREYSTOKE, Mr & Mrs Place APPROVED storey side extension, change of use of barn and PENRITH, CA11 0UQ replacement of lean-to extension with single storey extension to form additional residential accommodation.

18/0681 Reserved Matters Murton Reserved matters application in respect of access, LINDEN HOUSE, HILTON, CA16 6LU Mr C Hogg APPROVED appearance, landscaping, layout and scale.

18/0683 Non-Material Great Salkeld Non Material Amendment comprising of change to TOWNHEAD FARM, GREAT Mr Wilkinson APPROVED Amend drainage design attached to approval 17/0790. SALKELD, PENRITH, CA11 9NA

18/0684 Full Application Penrith Alterations & new timber balcony. 28 SALKELD ROAD, PENRITH, Mrs M Thorogood APPROVED CA11 8RA

18/0686 Full Application Lazonby Installation of underground LPG tank in front garden. PENNINE COTTAGE, SCAUR LANE, Mr R Wilson APPROVED LAZONBY, PENRITH, CA10 1AH

18/0687 Full Application Langwathby Extensions to dwelling. 2 WOODCROFT, STOREY BANK, Mr & Mrs M Davis APPROVED LANGWATHBY, PENRITH, CA10 1NB

Page 23 Page 18/0688 Full Application Ousby Variation of condition 2 vi (plans compliance) FIVE OAKS, MELMERBY, PENRITH, Messrs Simpson & APPROVED attached to approval 17/0696 CA10 1HF Wilson

02 November 2018 Page 3 of 7 Page 24 Page App No App Type Parish Description Location Applicant Decision

18/0689 Outline Hutton Outline planning permission for the erection of two LAND AT TOWN END, Miss A Wilson APPROVED Application dwellings with approval sought for access. PENRUDDOCK, PENRITH, CA11 0RB

18/0690 Full Application Hesket Proposed agricultural building. GARTH COTTAGE, CALTHWAITE, Mr M Forrester APPROVED PENRITH, CA11 9PP

18/0691 Listed Building Appleby Listed Building Consent for proposed installation of RAILWAY STATION, CLIFFORD Mr D Taylor - Arriva APPROVED 2X automated vending machines, 2X customer STREET, APPLEBY-IN- Rail North information screens, public address system and WESTMORLAND, CA16 6TT refurbishment of existing toilets on platform 1.

18/0698 Full Application Castle Sowerby Variation of condition 2 (plans compliance) For the LOW CURRIG, SEBERGHAM, Mr D Sowerby - WCF APPROVED reduction of footprint attached to approval 17/0149. CARLISE, CA5 7DX Ltd

18/0700 Full Application Skelton Proposed new grass cutting machinery shed. GREEN HOLLOWS COUNTRY Mr G Martin APPROVED PARK, GREENHOLLOWS, SOUTHWAITE, CARLISLE, CA4 0PT

18/0703 Outline Brough Outline planning for a single storey detached LAND TO THE REAR OF THE OLD Mr C Wren & Mrs J APPROVED Application dwelling with on-site parking with all matters reserved. MALT SHOVEL, MAIN STREET, Dent BROUGH, KIRKBY STEPHEN, CA17 4BL

18/0705 Full Application Culgaith Variation of condition 2 (Plans Compliance) to LAND AT LOANING HEAD, STATION Willan Trading Ltd - Mr APPROVED include revised finished ground levels and the ROAD, CULGAITH, PENRITH, CA10 J Willan provision of screen boundary fencing attached to 1QZ approval 17/0825.

18/0707 Full Application Penrith Change of use from hairdressing salon to 16 KING STREET, PENRITH, CA11 Mr P Bennett APPROVED chiropractic clinic. 7AJ

18/0708 Full Application Clifton Proposed access road. ABBOTT LODGE FARM, CLIFTON, Mr S Bland APPROVED PENRITH, CA10 2HD

18/0711 Full Application Greystoke Variation of condition 2 (plans compliance) to include NEDS HOUSE, HUTTON ROOF, Mr N Walker APPROVED the design of the new two storey extension and PENRITH, CA11 0XX amendments to window openings attached to approval 09/0283.

18/0712 Full Application Musgrave Proposed house refurbishment to include new front LOW HOUSE, GREAT MUSGRAVE, Mr & Mrs Finerty APPROVED porch, rear extension and detached car port. KIRKBY STEPHEN, CA17 4DP

18/0717 Full Application Alston Detached timber frame building. GATECROFT, GARRIGILL, ALSTON, Mr M Burton APPROVED CA9 3EB

18/0721 Full Application Kirkby Thore Variation of Condition 2 (Plans Compliance), removal KIRKBY THORE INDUSTRIAL Mr T Bradley - A66 REFUSED of Condition 5 (Layout Plan) and Condition 8 (Zoning ESTATE, KIRKBY THORE, Storage Plan) attached to approval 17/0565. PENRITH, CA10 1XA

02 November 2018 Page 4 of 7 App No App Type Parish Description Location Applicant Decision

18/0723 Advertisement Penrith Advertisement consent for a single, freestanding, PENRITH RAILWAY STATION, Cumbria County APPROVED double sided map and information board. ULLSWATER ROAD, PENRITH, Council - Mrs C CA11 7JQ Martindale

18/0724 Notice of Intention Milburn Roof over existing cattle handling area. LOW HOWGILL, MILBURN, Taylor & Son - Mr J APPROVED PENRITH, CA10 1TL Taylor

18/0726 Full Application Dacre Agricultural building. MEG BANK FARM, STAINTON, Mrs H Brass APPROVED PENRITH, CA11 0EE

18/0727 Full Application Dacre Extension to agricultural building. MEG BANK FARM, STAINTON, DJ & H Brass Farming APPROVED PENRITH, CA11 0EE

18/0731 Full Application Penrith Extension to dwelling. 56 CROFT AVENUE, PENRITH, Mr I Armstrong APPROVED CA11 7RL

18/0733 Listed Building Appleby Listed building consent for removal of internal wall. 3 BONGATE, APPLEBY-IN- Mr A Waite APPROVED WESTMORLAND, CA16 6UE

18/0737 Full Application Kirkby Stephen General purpose storage building. UNIT 5/6 STATION YARD, KIRKBY Mr P Winder APPROVED STEPHEN, CA17 4LA

18/0748 Notice of Intention Penrith Proposed demolition of former care home. NEWTON HOUSE, NEWTON ROAD, Atkinson Homes Ltd - APPROVED PENRITH, CA11 9EE Mr R Thorburn

18/0751 Reserved by Alston Discharge of condition 3 (materials) attached to LAND TO THE EASTERN BANK OF The Coal Authority - Mr APPROVED Cond approval 18/0449. RIVER NENT, ADJ. NENTHEAD J Bagnall MINES HERITAGE CAR PARK, NENTHEAD, ALSTON,

18/0761 Tree Works (CA) Dufton T1 Ash Tree: Fell due to excessive lean and SYCAMORE HOUSE, DUFTON, Mr L O'Halloran APPROVED weighted towards public bridleway; T2 Sycamore APPLEBY-IN-WESTMORLAND, tree: Fell due to decay in large wound; Dufton CA16 6DB Conservation Area.

18/0762 Tree Works (CA) Alston A: Crown lift Yew tree by 2 feet; B: Crown lift ALSTON TOWN HALL, FRONT c/o Agent APPROVED Sycamore tree by 4 feet; C: Crown lift Holly tree by 2 STREET, ALSTON, CA9 3RF feet; D: Crown reduce Holly tree by 1-2metres; E: Crown reduce Holly tree by 1-2 metres; Alston Conservation Area.

18/0767 Tree Works Great Strickland Sycamore: Raise crown to 5m; chop limb at STRICKLAND WELLS, GREAT Mr Jonathan Chalmers APPROVED (TPO) highlighted line on photograph (work agreed on site STRICKLAND, PENRITH, CA10 3DF with Arboriculturist); Reason: To allow more light into property and move higher limb away from house; Tree Preservation Order No 17, 1987, Taylor's Farm,

Page 25 Page Great Strickland.

02 November 2018 Page 5 of 7 Page 26 Page App No App Type Parish Description Location Applicant Decision

18/0770 Tree Works (CA) Culgaith Fell Cherry tree growing close to house; Skirwith ROSE COTTAGE, SKIRWITH, Mr Andrew Barbier APPROVED Conservation Area. PENRITH, CA10 1RH

18/0772 Tree Works (CA) Culgaith Remove 4 Lleylandii; Remove 1 Cherry tree; Trim GILDERWATH, KIRKLAND ROAD, Mr Jan Sjorup APPROVED top of Acer tree to give clearance from telephone SKIRWITH, PENRITH, CA10 1RL wires; Skirwith Conservation Area.

18/0777 Tree Works (CA) Penrith T1 Apple: Prune away from telephone wires; T2 29 ARTHUR STREET, PENRITH, Mrs Nicola Webster APPROVED Holly: Remove (but may reduce and retain); T3 CA11 7TU Cherry: Reduce canopy back towards shed (1m in from lawn edge); T4 Cherries: Crown raise over footpath (2.5m) and road (50m); T5 Yew: Prune to create 1m seperation to neighbour's property and crown raise to 2.5m over drive; T6 Yews: Prune to create 1m seperation distance to neighbouring properties; Penrith New Streets Conservation Area.

18/0786 Notice of Intention Great Salkeld Proposed cow track. SOUTH DYKE FARM, GREAT Mr G Tweedie APPROVED SALKELD, PENRITH, CA11 9LL

18/0790 Notice of Intention Clifton Extension to existing agricultural building. BROWN HOWE, MELKINTHORPE, M/s Cowperthwaite APPROVED PENRITH, CA10 2DP

18/0793 Reserved by Culgaith Discharge of condition 3 (sample materials) attached TEMPLEHURST LODGE, SKIRWITH, Mrs D Lewthwaite APPROVED Cond to approval 18/0067. PENRITH, CA10 1RQ

18/0794 Reserved by Culgaith Discharge of condition 3 (sample materials) attached TEMPLEHURST LODGE, SKIRWITH, Mrs D Lewthwaite APPROVED Cond to listed building consent 18/0068. PENRITH, CA10 1RQ

18/0798 Tree Works (CA) Kirkby Stephen T1 Beech: Reduce limb over road by 25%; Reduce TOWN HEAD HOUSE, HIGH Mr Hilliard APPROVED opposite limb over parking area by 25% to balance STREET, KIRKBY STEPHEN, CA17 crown; prune to clear property by 2.5m; T2 Conifer: 4SH Reduce height by 50% and trim to shape to reduce shading on adjacent trees; T3 Conifer: Remove to ground level; Kirkby Stephen Conservation Area.

18/0799 Tree Works (CA) Kirkoswald Sycamore T1: Crown lift away from roof; Cherry T2: THE OLD VICARAGE, Mr Roger Cranston APPROVED Remove as it is blocking the driveway; Cherry T3: KIRKOSWALD, PENRITH, CA10 1DH Remove as it is structurally unsound - codom stems (closed fork), showing signs of significant stress; Copper Beech T4: Crown lift to first tier to relieve house and allow light into front of property; Kirkoswald Conservation Area.

18/0802 Notice of Intention Great Strickland Roof over existing silage pit. MIDTOWN FARM, GREAT Mr A Strong APPROVED STRICKLAND, PENRITH, CA10 3DF

18/0804 Tree Works Penrith Crown raise T33 Oak up to 4m to provide clearance 4 WINTERS PARK, CARLETON Mr J Graham APPROVED (TPO) over driveway and garden; Tree Preservation Order ROAD, PENRITH, CA11 8RE No 2, 1979, Carleton, Penrith.

02 November 2018 Page 6 of 7 App No App Type Parish Description Location Applicant Decision

18/0805 Change of Use Sockbridge & Change of use of agricultural building to 5 no. BARNS AT HIGH FIELD FARM, Lowther Estate Trust APPROVED PD/PN Tirril dwellings. TIRRIL, PENRITH, CA10 2LG

18/0813 Tree Works Penrith Fell Sycamore tree which is damaged and at risk 8 PARKLANDS VIEW, PENRITH, Mrs Lilian Nicholson APPROVED (TPO) from wind (inspected by Rob Sim, Arboriculturist); CA11 8TE Tree Preservation No 123, 2005, The Parklands, Penrith (T8).

18/0823 Notice of Intention Kirkoswald Proposed Agricultural Building. WESTGARTH HILL, KIRKOSWALD, Mr R Blenkharn - APPROVED PENRITH, CA10 1EX Messrs Blenkharn

18/0859 Tree Works Yanwath & 1) Lime tree - Reduce crown spread by 2.3m leaving 12 HAZEL BANK GARDENS, Mr Pretswell APPROVED (TPO) Eamont Bridge a spread of 5-6m; Reduce height by 2m to retained YANWATH, PENRITH, CA10 2LH height of 6-8m; Reason: Reduce sail effect, improve lower light levels and reduce crown's imposition on house; 2) Lime tree: Remove lowest lateral extending towards house; Reduce overall crown spread by 2-3m; Crown raise to 4m. Finished height @12m / spread @10m; Reason: Improve form and maintain crown seperation; Tree Preservation Order No 107, 2001, Hazel Bank and Hazel Bank Gardens, Yanwath (Group 2).

18/0860 Tree Works Brougham Beech: Crown raise to 4m above ground level; 2 BROUGHAM HALL GARDENS, Mr Peter Ballingall APPROVED (TPO) Remove any damaged stubs/branches; Reason: To BROUGHAM, PENRITH, CA10 2DB improve clearance over garden and maintain health of the tree; Tree Preservation Order No 69 1996, Brougham Hall Gardens, Brougham (Group 1).

In relation to each application it was considered whether the proposal was appropriate having regard to the Development Plan, the representations which were received including those from consultees and all other material considerations. In cases where the application was approved the proposal was considered to be acceptable in planning terms having regard to the material considerations. In cases where the application was refused the proposal was not considered to be acceptable having regard to the material and relevant considerations. In all cases it was considered whether the application should be approved or refused and what conditions, if any, should be imposed to secure an acceptable form of development. Page 27 Page

02 November 2018 Page 7 of 7 This page is intentionally left blank

Notice of Decision

Carriage Return

To: Prospus Group Limited - Mr T Woof Mansion House, Penrith, Cumbria CA11 7YG Furrow Green Farm Tel: 01768 817817 Wharton Kirkby Stephen CA17 4LQ

Town and Country Planning Act 1990 Town and Country Planning (Development Management Procedure) Order 2015

Application No: 18/0399 On Behalf Of: Mr N & Mrs L Emson

In pursuance of their powers under the above Act and Order, Eden District Council, as local planning authority, hereby REFUSE outline planning permission for the development described in your application and on the plans and drawings attached thereto, viz:

Application Type: Outline Application Proposal: Outline for two dwellings with approval sought for access and layout. Location: OLD POND HOUSE LITTLE MUSGRAVE KIRKBY STEPHEN CA17 4PQ

The reasons for this decision are:

1) The proposed development by virtue of its location, scale and siting would have significant and adverse impact on the character and visual amenity of the settlement and thereby does not accord with Policy CS9 of the Core Strategy and Policy LS1 of the emerging Eden Local Plan (2014-2032).

2) The proposed development would have an unacceptable and demonstrably harmful impact on the character of the local landscape and the village contrary to CS16 and CS18 of the adopted Core Strategy and Proposed Policy DEV5 and ENV2 of the Eden Local Plan (2014-2032).

Where necessary the local planning authority has worked with the applicant in a positive and proactive manner seeking solutions to problems arising in relation to dealing with the planning application and to implement the requirements of the NPPF and the adopted development plan.

Date of Decision: 3 October 2018

Signed:

www.eden.gov.uk Jane Langston BEng (Hons) CEng MICE Deputy Director Technical Services Page 29

Jane Langston Deputy Director Technical Services

www.eden.gov.uk 2 Page 30

Notice of Decision

Carriage Return

To: Graham K Norman (Architect) Ltd. Mansion House, Penrith, Cumbria CA11 7YG Unit 4 Mereside Tel: 01768 817817 Eden Business Park Greenbank Road Penrith Cumbria CA11 9FB

Town and Country Planning Act 1990 Town and Country Planning (Development Management Procedure) Order 2015

Application No: 18/0553 On Behalf Of: Mrs Hughes

Application Type: Outline Application Proposal: Proposed residential development. Location: SITE AT KINGS MEABURN LANE COLBY APPLEBY-IN- WESTMORLAND CA16 6BD

The reasons for this decision are:

1) The proposed development by virtue of its location, scale, siting would have significant and adverse impact on the character of the village and thereby does not accord with Policy CS9 of the Core Strategy and Policy LS1 of the emerging Eden Local Plan (2014- 2032).

Date of Decision: 3 October 2018

Signed:

www.eden.gov.uk Jane Langston BEng (Hons) CEng MICE Deputy Director Technical Services Page 31

Jane Langston Deputy Director Technical Services

www.eden.gov.uk 2 Page 32

Notice of Decision

Carriage Return

To: Ian Cleasby Drafting & Design Mansion House, Penrith, Cumbria CA11 7YG 7 Brookside Tel: 01768 817817 Tirril Penrith CA10 2JG

Town and Country Planning Act 1990 Town and Country Planning (Development Management Procedure) Order 2015

Application No: 18/0639 On Behalf Of: Mrs J & Mr T Cooney

Application Type: Outline Application Proposal: Outline application for one dwelling and annex with approval sought for access, appearance, layout and scale. Location: OLD STATION YARD KIRKBY THORE PENRITH CA10 1UZ

The reasons for this decision are:

1) In the absence of exceptional site specific overriding justification, the application as submitted is considered as being contrary to the aims and criteria concerns of relevant Policies LS1, DEV1 and RUR4 of the emerging Eden Local Plan, in that it would result in a dwelling in the open countryside outside of any defined settlement.

Date of Decision: 9 October 2018

Signed:

Jane Langston Deputy Director Technical Services

www.eden.gov.uk Jane Langston BEng (Hons) CEng MICE Deputy Director Technical Services Page 33

Notice of Decision

Carriage Return

To: Mrs M Longworth Mansion House, Penrith, Cumbria CA11 7YG Tebay Parish Council Tel: 01768 817817 Greenholme Yew Tree Farm Penrith Ca10 3TA

Town and Country Planning Act 1990 Town and Country Planning (Control of Advertisements) (England) Regulations 2007

Application No.: 18/0675 On Behalf Of: Mrs M Longworth

In pursuance of their powers under the above Act and Order, Eden District Council, as local planning authority, hereby REFUSE consent for the display of the advertisement described in your application and on the plans and drawings attached thereto, viz:

Application Type: Advertisement Proposal: Advertisement consent for 6no. metal signs. Location: ROUNDABOUT M6/A685/B6260 TEBAY PENRITHCA10 3SS

The reason(s) for this decision are:

1) Due to their siting and proliferation it is considered the advertisements would be a distraction to road users at a busy and complex road junction. To grant consent would be to the detriment of highway safety, and would therefore be contrary to the provisions of Saved Policy BE23 (Display of Advertisements) of the Eden Local Plan 1996, Policy EC5 of the Eden Local Plan 2014-2032 Submission Draft, and Paragraph 67 of the National Planning Policy Framework.

Date of Decision: 5 October 2018

Signed:

Jane Langston

www.eden.gov.uk Jane Langston BEng (Hons) CEng MICE Page 34 Deputy Director Technical Services

Deputy Director Technical Services

www.eden.gov.uk 2 Page 35

Notice of Decision

Carriage Return

To: Prospus Group Limited - Mr T Woof Mansion House, Penrith, Cumbria CA11 7YG Furrow Green Farm Tel: 01768 817817 Wharton Kirkby Stephen CA17 4LQ

Town and Country Planning Act 1990 Town and Country Planning (Development Management Procedure) Order 2015

Application No: 18/0721 On Behalf Of: Mr T Bradley - A66 Storage

In pursuance of their powers under the above Act and Order, Eden District Council, as local planning authority, hereby REFUSE full planning permission for the development described in your application and on the plans and drawings attached thereto, viz:

Application Type: Full Application Proposal: Variation of Condition 2 (Plans Compliance), removal of Condition 5 (Layout Plan) and Condition 8 (Zoning Plan) attached to approval 17/0565. Location: KIRKBY THORE INDUSTRIAL ESTATE KIRKBY THORE PENRITH CA10 1XA

The reason(s) for this decision are:

1) It is considered that the proximity to residential properties, the effective unrestricted nature of the proposed development resulting from the removal and/or variation of these conditions would result in unreasonable impact on neighbouring and nearby residential amenity and that therefore the development proposed is contrary to DEV5 of the Eden Local Plan (2014-32).

2) It is considered that in the absence of good standards of design, layout, facing materials and effective landscaping and boundary treatment to be used and the potential for significant adverse visual impact in the absence of such on the predominantly rural local landscape by resulting development, then the resulting proposed development would be contrary to Policies ENV2 and DEV5 of the adopted Eden Local Plan (2014-32).

Date of Decision: 30 October 2018

Signed:

www.eden.gov.uk Jane Langston BEng (Hons) CEng MICE Page 36 Deputy Director Technical Services

Jane Langston Deputy Director Technical Services

www.eden.gov.uk 2 Page 37 This page is intentionally left blank Agenda Item 6 Agenda Index REPORTS FOR DEBATE

Eden District Council Planning Committee Agenda Committee Date: 15 November 2018 INDEX

Item Officer Application Details No Recommendation

1 Planning Application No: 18/0531 Recommended to: Removal of condition 13 associated with planning APPROVE permission ref. 15/1097 Subject to Conditions Land adjacent to Cross Croft, Appleby

2 Planning Application No: 18/0557 Recommended to: 2 Storey Dwellinghouse with attached garage APPROVE Plot 6, Joiners Close, Newbiggin Subject to Conditions 3 Planning Application No: 18/0629 Recommended to: Application for approval of outstanding reserved matters of APPROVE outline application 16/0706 for construction of one dwelling Subject to Conditions Land to the Northeast of Lyvennet Bridge, Morland

4 Planning Application No: 18/0467 Recommended to: Change of use of pub to 5 apartments APPROVE Former Lowther Arms, Queen Street, Penrith Subject to Conditions 5 Planning Application No: 18/0468 Recommended to: Change of use of pub to 5 apartments APPROVE Former Lowther Arms, Queen Street, Penrith Subject to Conditions 6 Planning Application No: 18/0251 Recommended to: Land adjacent Kiln House, Keld Lane, Keld, Shap REFUSED Messrs Fishwick & Simpson With Reasons

Page 39 Agenda Index REPORTS FOR DEBATE

Page 40 Agenda Item 1 REPORTS FOR DEBATE Date of Committee: 15 November 2018

Planning Application No: 18/0531 Date Received: 27 June 2018

OS Grid Ref: 369036 520177 Expiry Date: 28 September 2018 Extension of time agreed until 16 November 2018

Parish: Appleby Ward: Appleby Bongate

Application Type: Variation/Removal of condition

Proposal: Removal of condition 13 associated with planning permission ref. 15/1097

Location: Land adjacent to Cross Croft, Appleby

Applicant: Story Homes

Agent: Story Homes – Mr Adam McNally

Case Officer: Mr Ian Irwin

Reason for Referral: This application is a major planning application

Page 41 Agenda Item 1 REPORTS FOR DEBATE

1. Recommendation

It is recommended that planning permission is granted subject to the following conditions: 1. The development hereby granted shall be carried out strictly in accordance with the details and plans hereby approved, as listed in the EDC plans schedule document December 2012, including alternative site layout drawing no. SL054.90.9.SL.CPL Rev. V, alternative character finishes layout SL054.90.9.SL.CFL Rev. J, alternative boundary treatments/section drawing SH107.90.9.SL.BSD Rev. A, substation plan ES352/A2/006/02L, substation section plan 2321/109/P1, site section plans 2321.004 Rev. P4 and 2321.064 Rev. P5, alternative FFL amends plan SH107.ENG.002 and shall not be varied other than by prior agreement in writing by the Local Planning Authority. Reason: To ensure a satisfactory development and to avoid ambiguity as to what constitutes the planning permission. 2. The hereby approved development shall be carried out wholly in accordance with the details outlined in the Flood Risk and Surface Water Drainage Assessment by Integra Consulting Engineers Limited WA submitted with the application dated November 2011. Reason: To ensure that the development is subjected to the minimum risk of flooding. 3. The approved surface water drainage and oil interceptor works approved under DOC application reference 14/0332 shall be completed prior to the roads serving the respective phase of the development being used for other than constructional traffic and prior to the occupation of any dwellings. The approved works shall be maintained operational thereafter. Reason: In the interests of highway safety and environmental management. 4. The approved carriageway, footways, footpaths, cycleways and ramps including highway drainage and lighting to be adopted and approved under DOC application reference 14/0332 shall be constructed in accordance with the Highways Act 1980 Section 38 Agreement before occupancy of the relevant phase of the development commences. Reason: To ensure a minimum standard of construction in the interests of highway safety. 5. The private shared access roads, paths, parking areas and public open spaces shall be designed, constructed, drained and lit to in accordance with the plans approved under application reference 14/0332. These approved details shall be strictly adhered to at all times. Reason: To ensure a minimum standard of construction in the interests of highway safety. 6. All dwellings, buildings or structures shall be constructed in accordance with submitted Phasing and Site Compound details and to Highway Authority specification in relation to access roads as approved, defined by kerbs and

Page 42 Agenda Item 1 REPORTS FOR DEBATE sub-base construction, with main Utility Services installed. Reason: To ensure that the access roads are defined and laid out at an early stage. 7. The access road (including construction traffic parking/turning requirements) shall be substantially met, before any building work commences of adjacent properties, commensurate with the Phasing Plan; so that constructional traffic can park and turn clear of the highway. Reason: In the interests of highway safety. 8. No dwelling shall be occupied until the vehicular access and parking requirements (including garages) have been constructed in accordance with the approved plans so as to be capable of use. These facilities shall be retained and capable of use at all times thereafter and shall not be removed or altered. Reason: To ensure a minimum standard of access provision when the development is brought into use. 9. Within 3 months of the date of this approval, DDA compliant ramps shall be provided at the Bongate/Crosscroft and Drawbriggs Lane/Garbridge Lane junctions so as to enable wheelchairs, pushchairs etc. to be safely manoeuvred at kerb lines. Details of all such ramps shall be agreed with the Local Planning Authority and once approved shall be constructed in strict accordance with the approved plans. Reason: To ensure accessibility for the mobility impaired and minimise road hazards. 10.No mud or debris shall be discharged upon the public highway by vehicles in association with the construction of the hereby approved development at any time. Reason: In the interests of neighbouring amenity and highway safety. 11.The development shall be completed in full accordance with the details approved under application reference 16/0469. These approved details shall be strictly adhered to at all times. Reason: To ensure a satisfactory development and to avoid ambiguity as to what constitutes the planning permission. 12.The hereby approved development shall be completed in full accordance with the Construction, noise and vibration management plan, dated May 2016 and which was approved under application reference 15/0310 dated 1 December 2016. Reason: In the interests of the amenity of the area. 13.Within 3 months of the date of this decision, details of signage and fencing to be installed on site advising pedestrians of the newly installed footpath link as well as the Carlisle to Settle pedestrian crossing shall be submitted to the Local Planning Authority for written approval. The details shall include a timetable for the installation of any approved fencing and signage. Once approved the

Page 43 Agenda Item 1 REPORTS FOR DEBATE formally approved details shall be strictly adhered to. Reason: In the interests of both the amenity of the area and pedestrian safety. 14.The hereby approved development shall be completed in full accordance with the Noise & Vibration report ref. 075/2014 dated June 2014 and the additional information supplied via email on the 4 January 2018 approved under application reference 17/0226. These approved details shall be strictly adhered to at all times. Reason: To minimise disturbance and dis-amenity to residents from noise and vibration associated with construction/demolition works. 15.Prior to the completion of the hereby approved development, the proposed tree work and tree protection work shall be carried out in accordance with the details and recommendations contained with the Scott Fitzgerald Tree Consultants report dated 23rd August 2011. Once completed, the Local Planning Authority shall be notified. The works shall be inspected for formal written approval confirming that the completed works are acceptable. Reason: To ensure a satisfactory development and to avoid ambiguity as to what constitutes the planning permission. 16.The detailed planting proposals previously approved shall be adhered to at all times and shall be completed prior to the final occupation of the dwelling in each respective phase that the landscaping is located. Any plants or tree that dies within 5 years shall be replaced to the satisfaction of the Local Planning Authority. Reason: To ensure a satisfactory development and to avoid ambiguity as to what constitutes the planning permission. 17.The hereby approved development shall be completed in accordance with the document ref. SH107.90.9.SL0.SFL dated 9 March 2015 and entitled Street Furniture Layout. This approved document shall be adhered to at all times. Reason: To ensure a satisfactory development and to avoid ambiguity as to what constitutes the planning permission. Note to developer 1. The section 106 agreement attached to planning permission 14/0594 remains extant in relation to this planning permission.

2. Proposal and Site Description 2.1 Proposal 2.1.1 The applicant seeks to remove planning condition 13, associated with planning permission ref. 15/1097. 2.1.2 The condition reads currently, as follows, ‘No development hereby approved shall take place beyond plots 1-22, 49-53, 87-95, 73-74, 98-113 and 133-142 (64 units total) unless any of the following exceptions occur: i) A footpath diversion and stopping up order that incorporates the diversion of the existing footpath adjacent to the cemetery, the stopping up of it to prevent any

Page 44 Agenda Item 1 REPORTS FOR DEBATE access to the Carlisle-Settle public railway crossing from the site (including the erection of signage and fencing prohibiting such access) and re-routing of the footpath to the north east of the site that can in principle afford connectivity to Drawbriggs Lane, as been made and confirmed by the LPA or the Secretary of State, or ii) the Secretary of State, upon consideration of a lawfully made stopping up order as aforementioned in point i) does not confirm the order; Upon any confirmed diversion and stopping up order coming into force, the new footpath route shall be fully completed including lighting and made available prior to the occupation of units 39-48 and 126-132’. 2.1.3 Story Homes have confirmed that having now acquired land from Network Rail they have installed a new footpath link to ensure that the wider site is connected to Drawbriggs Lane. 2.1.4 This footpath is lit during night time hours and effectively provides a diversion of the existing footpath to allow pedestrians a safer, alternative way to walk from the site onto Drawbriggs Lane if they so wish which was what, partly, the condition originally sought. 2.1.5 The second part of the condition required the existing footpath, which crosses the existing railway line to then be ‘stopped up’. This would ensure that no pedestrians could then cross the line and preserve pedestrian safety. 2.1.6 The applicant contends that given the new footpath is installed, it is unreasonable and unnecessary for the ‘stopping up’ of the footpath to be required under planning permission. They suggest that an alternative method available to Network Rail, would be via the Highways Act and specifically section 119A. 2.1.7 The question before the Local Planning Authority (LPA) is very specific in this instance – is the imposition of Condition 13 appropriate in order for the development to progress and to allow the developer to release remaining plots for sale and ultimately, occupation. 2.1.8 Or, should, given the footpath link is now installed, the ‘stopping up’ of the footpath that crosses the railway line still be required as per the original decision. It is noted that the existing condition would permit the occupation of 125 of the 142 approved dwellings on the site – of the remaining 17 units to be occupied, 6 are ‘affordable’ units. 2.1.9 In attempting to complete the requirements of Condition 13, the District Council produced the ‘stopping up’ order to ensure that the footpath crossing would be closed. However, this was challenged and at a hearing the Planning Inspector of the day determined that the condition wasn’t necessary at all and closed proceedings at a ‘preliminary’ stage. This led to further litigation which concluded recently with the Court of Appeal ruling which upheld an earlier court decision that the Inspector had acted incorrectly in considering the matter. 2.1.10 It should also be noted, that whilst the above mentioned litigation is ‘connected’ to the planning permission, officers are not aware of any legal reason why this planning application cannot be considered on its own merits and determined by Planning Committee. However, it is understood that were Members minded to approve the application to remove the condition in its entirety, the need for further consideration of that ongoing litigation would no longer exist. This is because the Planning Inspectorate would have no lawful basis to confirm the stopping up of the footpath order so it would

Page 45 Agenda Item 1 REPORTS FOR DEBATE either be withdrawn or refused. It should also be added that it is not the intent of Officers to undermine the law courts and the judgements handed down, but to simply determine the planning application that has been put to the Local Planning Authority and make a recommendation in line with the statutory function of the LPA. 2.2 Site Description 2.2.1 The site is currently subject to development for a wider housing scheme, totalling 142 dwellings. These have been constructed in various phases and the proposal is well advanced. As of the 25 October 2018, of the 142 permitted dwellings, 102 are occupied. 2.2.2 The site is located within Appleby on undulating land. Adjacent to the site is the Settle to Carlisle Railway. A pedestrian rail crossing, to allow those on foot to access Drawbriggs Lane (a street to the north of the site) is currently in place and is located immediately to the north-east of the site. 2.2.3 There are no other specific constraints applicable to this proposal. 3. Statutory Consultees

Consultee Response

Highway Authority Responded on the 30 July 2018 and confirmed that the condition should remain in place until the legal issues surrounding this site have been concluded. A further response was provided on the 24 October 2018. It stated, ‘At this time Cumbria County Council as both highway Authority and Lead Local Flood Authority would have concerns with surface water runoff from the Story Development. The proposed location of the footpath link is the subject of an ongoing drainage issue and investigation in which surface water flows from the Story Development site and across the land in which the footpath is to be constructed and onto the public highway. This flooding issue is causing a nuisance on the public highway and to a private resident. Adding to the issue is that the proposed footpath link is to be constructed using Hoggin crushed stone on a geo textile, this material could be washed onto the public highway and into the existing surface water drainage network on Drawbriggs Lane. Currently CCC is working with both Story Homes and private land owners to resolve the flooding issue. I have attached some images of the flooding which puts the issue and CCC concerns into some context. It should however be noted that the issue of flooding and the footpath are two separate issue and Cumbria County Council as Local Highway Authority has no objection to the Removal of condition 13 as the proposed footpath will link with an existing CCC maintained footpath with links to Appleby Town centre. The footpath does not have a negative impact on highway safety’.

Page 46 Agenda Item 1 REPORTS FOR DEBATE

Consultee Response

Network Rail Responded on the 13 July 2018 and confirmed their ‘firm objection’ to the proposed removal of the condition. Network Rail consider that in considering the proposal, the Local Planning Authority must consider whether the condition is ‘necessary’ in order to meet one of the tests when seeking to impose conditions. In the view of Network Rail, the rail safety concerns justify the imposition of such a condition – to impose the closure of the crossing. Network Rail further confirm that in their view, the planning history confirms that the Local Planning Authority has considered this issue several times and at all times as sought to seek this requirement as part of any decision it has made. Accordingly, Network Rail consider the condition should remain and not be removed.

4. Parish Council Response Please Tick as Appropriate Town Council Object Support No Response Comments Appleby Town √ Council 4.1 The Town Council confirmed that ‘The Council has always regarded the diversion of the footpath and the stopping up of the public right of way as two separate issues. Whilst the Council does not object to the removal of condition 13 it seeks assurance that the diversion of the footpath work is completed within a set timescale to be agreed between yourselves and the developer’. 5. Representations 5.1 The application was advertised by means of a site notice posted on the 19 July 2018 and via neighbour notification letters issued on the 3 July 2018. No of Neighbours Consulted 30 No of letters of support 0 No of objection letters 0 0 No of neutral representations

6. Relevant Planning History 6.1 11/0989 – Erection of 142 Dwellings including 26 units of affordable housing, open space and associated infrastructure – approved; 13/0858 – Non-material amendment to planning approval 11/0989 comprising changes to the footpath route through residential estate – withdrawn; 13/0946 – Discharge of Condition no.17 (archaeological building assessment and survey) attached to planning approval 11/0989 – approved; 13/0969 – Variation of condition no. 2 (plans compliance) attached to planning approval 11/0989 to change the route of the footpath through the residential estate – approved; 14/0332 – Discharge of conditions 4, 5 and 20 attached to 13/0969 – approved;

Page 47 Agenda Item 1 REPORTS FOR DEBATE 14/0594 – Variation of condition no.2 (plans compliance) and removal of condition no.14 (footpath diversion order), no.15 (trim trail) and no.19 (art structure) attached to planning approval 13/0969 – approved; 15/1097 - Variation to planning condition 13, LPA ref: 14/0594 dated 13th May 2015 to enable no more than 64 units to be occupied unless any of the following exceptions occur; i) a footpath diversion and stopping up order that incorporates the diversion of the existing footpath adjacent to the cemetery, the stopping up of it to prevent any access to the Carlisle – Settle public railway crossing from the site (including the erection of signage and fencing prohibiting such access) and re-routing of the footpath to the north east of the site that can in principle afford connectivity to Drawbriggs Lane, has been made and confirmed by the LPA or Secretary of State, or ii) the Secretary of State, upon consideration of a lawfully made stopping up order as aforementioned in point i) does not confirm the order. Upon any confirmed diversion and stopping up order coming into force, the new footpath route shall be fully completed including lighting – approved; 16/0469 – Discharge of condition 11 attached to planning approval 15/1097 – approved; 17/0226 – Discharge of condition 14 (noise and vibration) attached to planning approval 15/1097 – approved; 17/0876 - Non material amendment comprising of the reinstatement of Rev V as the approached working layout plan attached to approval 15/1097 – approved. 7.1 Development Plan Eden Local Plan (2014-2032)  LS1 - Locational Strategy  DEV1 – General Approach to New Development  DEV2 – Water Management and Flood Risk  DEV3 – Transport, Accessibility and Rights of Way  DEV5 – Design of New Development Supplementary Planning Documents: 7.2 Other Material Considerations National Planning Policy Framework:  Achieving sustainable development;  Decision-making  Making effective use of land  Achieving well-designed places  Conserving and enhancing the natural environment National Planning Practice Guidance The policies detailed above are the most relevant policies relating to this application 8. Planning Assessment 8.1 Key/Main Planning Issues  Principle  Highway Safety

Page 48 Agenda Item 1 REPORTS FOR DEBATE  Other matters 8.2 Principle 8.2.1 The fundamental principal of the overarching residential development to be located on this site has been well established by the granting of numerous planning permissions over a period of several years. Accordingly, there are no concerns with the principle of the development of this site for such a purpose. Furthermore, the additional material considerations (landscape, design/layout, amenity, historic environment, ecology and affordable housing) also remain unchanged and there is no further consideration necessary in relation to them. 8.2.2 Eden’s Local Plan is now the ‘driving force’ of the development plan for the area. According to the Local Plan, Appleby is considered a ‘main town’ and as such considered second in the hierarchy of settlements to only Penrith. Policy LS1, entitled ‘Locational Strategy’ states such locations are considered the ‘focus for moderate development appropriate to the scale of the town, including new housing, the provision of new employment and improvements to accessibility’. 8.2.3 Accordingly, it is considered that the principle of developing this site is well established (notwithstanding all other material relevant considerations in relation to this proposal) and has been supported on many occasions given the site history applicable in this case. 8.3 Highway Safety 8.3.1 A very significant consideration in the determination of this application is highway safety. It is noted that the condition was imposed by Members at the time of determining the original planning permission in 2013 in an effort to ensure that pedestrian safety was assured as best as possible. 8.3.2 Condition 13 seeks to achieve two specific aims – one, to provide an alternative footpath link, beyond the existing railway crossing. Secondly, the condition seeks the existing footpath across the railway to be diverted and ‘stopped up’ to prevent access. Other preventative measures were requested – such as fencing and signage to deter people accessing what would have been a crossing no longer in use. 8.3.3 The applicant has advised that they now have acquired the land to install the footpath to provide an alternative pedestrian link to Drawbriggs Lane – these works are now very nearly completed. This footpath link is located to the north of the site and will lead any pedestrian(s) toward the nearest schools within the town as well as the central core of Appleby. 8.3.4 In these circumstances, notwithstanding that when this proposal for 142 homes was approved, it was understood that pedestrians that could be considered ‘vulnerable’ (such as the young or older residents) would be in close proximity to the railway line, a new footpath link is considered a material change to the ‘on-site’ circumstances for the Local Planning Authority to consider. Equally, it is noted, that these same residents would be and are residing next to public highways. 8.3.5 Network Rail have been consulted upon this proposal in its original guise and again once the applicant confirmed that a new footpath was being constructed. They remain vehemently against the removal of the condition and consider it essential that the condition remain and specifically request that the original wording of the condition, contained in condition 14 of planning permission ref. 11/0989 be attached to any subsequent grant of planning permission.

Page 49 Agenda Item 1 REPORTS FOR DEBATE 8.3.6 Indeed Network Rail further consider that the Local Planning Authority ‘must consider what conditions are necessary to make the development acceptable in planning terms’. Officers agree that this is exactly the question before the Planning Authority now. Is condition 13 appropriate in order for the development to be completed in an acceptable way in planning terms? 8.3.7 Planning Authorities, can, where they feel it is necessary utilise section 257 of the Town and Country Planning Act (1990) (as amended) which specifically allows a Local Planning Authority to require a Public Path Order, for the diversion or stopping up of footpath, bridleway or restricted byway. Such an order is usually dealt with by Local Highway Authorities, but where a Local Planning Authority considers it necessary in order to enable a development to be carried out in accordance with planning permission, they too can impose this requirement. It is evident that given the original decision, it was considered necessary for the diversion to be required. Notwithstanding this, it should be noted that not all agreed – the Ramblers Association, for example, did not consider it necessary for the footpath to be stopped up in order for the development to be approved and completed. 8.3.8 The Highway Authority has also been consulted upon in relation to this application. They have noted that in installing the new footpath link there are ongoing drainage issues which are currently in the process of being resolved. However, this flooding is causing a nuisance, when it occurs, upon the public highway. It is noted that the Highway Authority acknowledge the footpath and the flooding are different issues and the Planning Authority acknowledges that it will be resolved. 8.3.9 Ultimately, the Highway Authority confirm that they have no objection to the removal of Condition 13 as applied for by the applicant. 8.3.10 It is understood that all parties involved in this matter, want to ensure that pedestrians are given as a safe a method as possible to navigate the settlements of the district. In this instance, the provision of an alternative footpath link is considered to provide such a safe method – if individuals choose to utilise the crossing whilst it remains a legal right of way. 8.3.11 However, given that 102 of the 142 dwellings are already occupied and the first occupation of these properties began in 2015, it is not considered reasonable or necessary to require the stopping up of the right of way across the railway in order to allow the development to be completed. 8.3.12 Policy DEV3 of the Eden Local Plan, entitled ‘Transport, Accessibility and Rights of Way’ confirms the Local Plan Policy position in relation to such matters. The Policy states, ‘New development will be encouraged in areas with existing public transport availability, or in areas where new development is likely to lead to the creation of available public transport. Developments likely to generate severe adverse travel impacts will not be permitted where they are in isolated or difficult to access locations unless an overwhelming environmental, social or economic need can be demonstrated. Development will be refused if it will result in a severe impact in terms of road safety and increased traffic congestion. Development should provide safe and convenient access for pedestrians, cyclists and disabled people. Proposals will be expected to adhere to guidance and standards issued by the Highways Authority on the number of parking spaces to be provided (including for the disabled and for bicycles).

Page 50 Agenda Item 1 REPORTS FOR DEBATE Applications for major development (defined in Appendix 2), will be expected to be accompanied by a Travel Plan and/or a Transport Assessment showing all the following criteria:  How the site will be safely connected to public transport;  How the site will meet the needs and safety concerns of pedestrians and cyclists;  How the impact of any heavy goods vehicles accessing the site will be minimised, including during the construction phase;  The impact of the development on the local highway network;  How the site will ensure permeability and accessibility of the area;  How the site safely and conveniently links to main attractors (such as schools, retail and employment uses). Development will not be supported where it meets any of the following criteria, individually or cumulatively in combination with other development proposals:  It would prevent the future opening of any road or rail schemes under consideration;  It would remove an existing right of way, unless there is no alternative suitable location and the benefits from the development would justify the loss, or where an acceptable diversion is provided and a legal diversion order obtained;  It would lead to a material increase or significant change in the character of traffic (vehicles, pedestrians, cyclists, horse riders and animals) using a rail crossing, unless it can be demonstrated that safety will not be compromised, in consultation with Network Rail’. 8.3.13 Paragraph 108 of the NPPF confirms that, ‘In assessing sites that may be allocated for development in plans, or specific applications for development, it should be ensured that: a) appropriate opportunities to promote sustainable transport modes can be – or have been – taken up, given the type of development and its location; b) safe and suitable access to the site can be achieved for all users; and c) any significant impacts from the development on the transport network (in terms of capacity and congestion), or on highway safety, can be cost effectively mitigated to an acceptable degree. 8.3.14 Paragraph 109 states ‘Development should only be prevented or refused on highways grounds if there would be an unacceptable impact on highway safety, or the residual cumulative impacts on the road network would be severe’. 8.3.15 Paragraph 110 states ‘Within this context, applications for development should: a) give priority first to pedestrian and cycle movements, both within the scheme and with neighbouring areas; and second – so far as possible – to facilitating access to high quality public transport, with layouts that maximise the catchment area for

Page 51 Agenda Item 1 REPORTS FOR DEBATE bus or other public transport services, and appropriate facilities that encourage public transport use; b) address the needs of people with disabilities and reduced mobility in relation to all modes of transport; c) create places that are safe, secure and attractive – which minimise the scope for conflicts between pedestrians, cyclists and vehicles, avoid unnecessary street clutter, and respond to local character and design standards; d) allow for the efficient delivery of goods, and access by service and emergency vehicles; and e) be designed to enable charging of plug-in and other ultra-low emission vehicles in safe, accessible and convenient locations’. 8.3.16 Whilst Network Rail’s position is understood in that they consider the updated NPPF to have strengthened the ‘need’ for the condition to be retained (and indeed returned to a previous form of wording). Officers do not consider it reasonable that the proposal should be refused on the grounds of ‘unacceptable impact on highway safety’ as per paragraph 109 of the NPPF given the Highway Authority position on the proposal. Which to reiterate, they confirm no objection to the removal of the condition. 8.3.17 Policy DEV3 as detailed above confirms that ‘Development should provide safe and convenient access for pedestrians, cyclists and disabled people’. The construction of a new footpath link, as was required also by condition 13 is now a reality, and it is considered that there is a clear change in on site circumstances for the Planning Authority to consider. The views of the Highway Authority are considered to reflect that change. This new footpath link is considered to comply and provide the safe and alternative pedestrian access as required by this Policy. 8.3.18 Indeed, the Policy also seeks to ensure that ‘permeability’ of the site is achieved and it is considered that this new footpath link contributes to ensuring that such is accomplished. As has been noted, Network Rail consider that the Planning Authority should not just retain the condition, but return to a previously worded version of the condition to ensure that the stopping up of the existing rail crossing is completed. 8.3.19Network Rail also contend that the Planning Authority, in considering this matter several times, have always ensured that a condition requiring the basis of the aims of what is currently condition 13, has been attached to any subsequent grant of planning permission. 8.3.20 This is correct and indeed it is noted that the applicant themselves has previously sought to vary the condition on several occasions. However, the critical distinction between those previously considered proposals and this one, is that up until now, no alternative footpath link has existed. Given the change of onsite circumstances, this is considered a material change in circumstance ‘on the ground’. 8.3.21 Accordingly, it is not considered appropriate for the condition to remain attached to the permission on highway grounds in order for it to be completed. When considering conditions to be attached to a planning permission, there are 6 condition ‘tests’ in this instance, the ‘necessity’ test or the ‘reasonable’ test of the condition is considered to have not been met. As it stands, the condition would permit 125 of the 142 approved dwellings to be occupied. Officers do not, therefore consider it reasonable, to apply a condition requiring the ‘stopping up’ of the right of way for the final 17 units to be acceptable for occupation.

Page 52 Agenda Item 1 REPORTS FOR DEBATE 8.3.22 Accordingly, the condition is not considered to be appropriate as it would not meet all of the 6 ‘tests’ necessary to justify its imposition to any subsequent planning permission. On that basis, the condition, in its current guise, is considered suitable for removal. 8.4 Other Matters 8.4.1 It is confirmed that the overarching Section 106 legal agreement would remain extant (attached to Planning Permission ref.14/0594) and apply to this planning permission were the proposal approved. 8.4.2 In assessing this application, consideration has also been given to the robustness, need and reasonableness of the other conditions attached to planning permission ref. 15/1097. 8.4.3 Following a review of the case files associated with the long planning history and discussions with the applicant, officers can confirm that the conditions have subsequently been reviewed and updated. 8.4.4 Some conditions, numbers 4, 10, 11, 14, 19 and 20 have been previously approved and so re-worded to reflect that, with conditions 19 and 20 amalgamated. Condition 8 and 16 had what are known as ‘tailpipe’ wording associated with them so have also been re-worded along with condition 9. Condition 17 has been removed as it is not considered to meet the ‘necessity’ test for Planning Conditions and to continue to attach to any subsequent approval would be inappropriate. Condition 18 has been removed because the fencing required has been erected in accordance with the condition. 8.4.5 Accordingly, the conditions have been updated and this is reflected in section 1 of this report. 9. Implications 9.1 Equality and Diversity 9.1.1 The Council must have regard to the elimination of unlawful discrimination and harassment, and the promotion of equality under the Equality Act 2010. 9.2 Environment 9.2.1 The Council must have due regard to conserving bio-diversity under the Natural Environment and Rural Communities Act 2006. 9.3 Crime and Disorder 9.3.1 Under the Crime and Disorder Act 1998, the Council must have regard to the need to reduce crime and disorder in exercising any of its functions. 9.4 Children 9.4.1 Under the Children Act 2004, the Council has a duty to safeguard and promote the welfare of children in the exercise of any of its functions. 9.5 Human Rights 9.5.1 In determining applications, the Council must ensure that all parties get a fair hearing in compliance with the provisions of Article 6 under the European Convention on Human Rights, as now embodied in UK law in the Human Rights Act 1998. 9.6 Legal

Page 53 Agenda Item 1 REPORTS FOR DEBATE 9.6.1 In any planning decision there is always a modest risk of costs if a decision is challenged either by the applicant if refused and appealed to the Planning Inspectorate if the Inspector deems the planning authority to have behaved unreasonably or by any other aggrieved party successfully applying for Judicial Review. 9.6.2 In the case of this specific site there is the further issue of an associated Footpath Order having been submitted to the Planning Inspectorate in January 2016 which is intended to proceed to a Public Inquiry. One hearing of this Public Inquiry has already taken place but has been successfully challenged in the civil courts and is now proposed to be re-listed (or as the Planning Inspectorate describe it re-opened, although it will be a fresh hearing before a different Inspector). Granting this current planning application would mean that the Inspector would have no lawful basis upon which to confirm the Footpath Order so effectively determines the outcome of that Inquiry. There may be an application for costs between parties to that Inquiry whereby the Inspector would have to consider if any party has behaved unreasonably which is the only ground upon which a costs order could be made. 10. Conclusion 10.1 The application seeks to remove a condition currently attached to an extant planning permission. Although there has been significant litigation related to the stopping up order process associated with that older permission, the question before the Planning Authority is not whether that litigation should be completed or not. It is whether the condition is necessary for the development to proceed. 10.2 Of the 142 dwellings permitted for the site, 102 are currently occupied and these occupations began in 2015. A further 23 could be occupied under the existing planning permission as is. This leaves the final 17 dwellings (of which 6 are noted to be affordable units) unable to be utilised for occupation because of the extant condition. However, the views of Network Rail are understandable. The site is located adjacent to the Settle to Carlisle railway line and has a right of way that traverses across it meaning occupants of the dwellings can freely use it if they so wish. 10.3 Until now, there was no alternative route to reach Drawbriggs Lane on foot, other than to utilise this crossing and legal public right of way. However, the installation of a new footpath link is considered to change the material circumstances on the ground related to this site. This link now permits residents a choice. Admittedly, one would appear ‘safer’ than the other but this should remain a choice for individuals to take. Whilst Highway Safety is a very significant consideration, purely in planning terms, it is not considered necessary or reasonable to require the right of way to be stopped up within the remit of s. 257 of the Town and Country Planning Act. 10.4 To do so would need to be on the basis that there was some fundamental requirement that needed the stopping up of the existing footpath to be undertaken. However, the Highway Authority position is clear. They have no objection to the removal of the condition. The position of Network Rail is understood and recognised. But their reasoning does seem to rely on their interpretation of the NPPF in relation to such matters. Officers just cannot reconcile that point of view with the ‘need’ of the condition to enable the development. Nor can they reconcile the ‘reasonableness’ of such a condition. 10.5 In assessing the ‘reasonableness’ officers have noted that of the 142 approved dwellings, 125 can be occupied under the existing planning permission. Officers do not

Page 54 Agenda Item 1 REPORTS FOR DEBATE consider that the risk to pedestrian and rail safety would be significantly increased were the final 17 units be occupied in the context that 125 are already permitted. However, this is not to say that officers do not recognise and understand the concerns of Network Rail. But in planning terms, the condition is not considered to achieve the tests and on that basis it should not be imposed. 10.5 Accordingly, the development is recommended to proceed without the imposition of condition 13 and it should be removed. However, a condition continuing to require the need for appropriate signage to highlight the new footpath link and to warn users of the existing right of way and their need for vigilance whilst using it should be imposed as a replacement condition. The applicant has agreed to this and accordingly, an additional condition has been drafted and attached to section 1 of this report. 10.6 The application is therefore recommended for approval.

Jane Langston Deputy Director Technical Services

Checked by or on behalf of the Monitoring Officer 

Background Papers: Planning File 18/0531

Page 55 Agenda Item 2 REPORTS FOR DEBATE Date of Committee: 15 November 2018

Planning Application No: 18/0557 Date Received: 12 July 2018

OS Grid Ref: NY 347028, Expiry Date: 7 September 2018 528917 (time ext agreed – 30 November 2018)

Parish: Dacre Ward: Dacre

Application Type: Full

Proposal: 2 Storey Dwellinghouse with attached garage

Location: Plot 6, Joiners Close, Newbiggin

Applicant: Mr D Tolmie

Agent: Manning Elliott

Case Officer: Caroline Brier

Reason for Referral: Contrary to the recommendation of the Parish Council

Page 56 Agenda Item 2 REPORTS FOR DEBATE

1. Recommendation

It is recommended that planning permission be granted subject to the following conditions: Time Limit for Commencement 1. The development permitted shall be begun before the expiration of three years from the date of this permission. Reason: In order to comply with the provisions of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 as amended by Section 51 of the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004. Approved Plans 2. The development hereby granted shall be carried out in accordance with the drawings hereby approved: i) Site Location Plan 1832-102 received 5th July 2018 ii) Site Layout as Proposed 1832-204 received 5th July 2018 iii) Plans and Elevations as Proposed 1832-302 received 5th July 2018 iv) Environmental Noise Assessment received 22nd October 2018 Reason: To ensure a satisfactory development and to avoid any ambiguity as to what constitutes the permission. Before the Development is Commenced 3. Details of all measures to be taken by the applicant/developer to prevent surface water discharging onto or off the highway shall be submitted to the Local Planning Authority for approval prior to development being commenced. Any approved works shall be implemented prior to the development being completed and shall be maintained operational thereafter. Reason: In the interests of highway safety and environmental management. It is necessary for the condition to be on the basis that “No development shall commence until” as compliance with the requirements of the condition at a later time would result in unacceptable harm contrary to the policies of the Development Plan. Pre-Occupancy or Other Stage Conditions 4. Before the first occupation of the dwelling, in accordance with the Environmental Noise Assessment (submitted on the 22nd October 2018) the windows to the ground floor lounge and first floor bedroom to the front elevation, bay window to the side elevation and first floor bedrooms to the rear elevation shall be thermal grazed and retained as such thereafter. Reason: To protect the amenity of the occupiers of the property. 5. Before the first occupation of the dwelling, a 2.5m high acoustic fence in accordance with the Environmental Noise Assessment (submitted on the 22nd October 2018) shall be erected along the north boundary next to the adjacent agricultural building and retained as such thereafter.

Page 57 Agenda Item 2 REPORTS FOR DEBATE Reason: To protect the amenity of the occupiers of the property. Ongoing Conditions 6. Foul and surface water shall be drained on separate systems. In the event of surface water discharging to public sewer, the rate of discharge shall be restricted to the lowest possible rate which shall be agreed with the statutory undertaker prior to connection to the public sewer. Reason: To secure proper drainage and to manage the risk of flooding and pollution. 7. The occupation of the approved dwelling at Plot 6, Joiners Close, Newbiggin shall be limited to a person with a local connection to the locality, or a widow or widower of such a person, or any resident Dependants. Locality refers to the parish and surrounding parishes. In the first instance, if a property has been actively marketed for at least 6 months and an occupier cannot be found then the definition of locality will be extended out to include the County of Cumbria. A person with a local connection means a person who meets one of the following criteria: • The person lives in the locality and has done for a continuous period of at least three years. • The person works permanently in the locality for a minimum of 16 hours per week. Where a person is employed in an established business that operates in multiple locations, their employment activities should take place predominantly inside the locality. • The person has a firm offer of permanent employment, for a minimum of 16 hours per week in an already established business within the locality. • The person has moved away but has a strong established and continuous links with the locality by reason of birth or long term immediate family connections. • The person needs to live in the locality because they need substantial care from a relative who has lived in the locality for at least three years, or needs to provide substantial care to a relative who has lived in the locality least three years. Substantial care means that identified as required by a medical doctor or relevant statutory support agency. Reason: To provide housing to meet local needs and support the village. 8. The construction works hereby approved shall only take place between the following hours: 08:00 - 18:00hrs Monday to Friday; 09:00 - 13:00hrs Saturdays And at no times on Sundays or Bank (or Public) holidays. Reason: In the interests of protecting local residential amenity.

Page 58 Agenda Item 2 REPORTS FOR DEBATE

Note to Developer Any works within or near the Highway must be authorised by Cumbria County Council and no works shall be permitted or carried out on any part of the Highway including Verges, until you are in receipt of an appropriate permit (I.E Section 184 Agreement) allowing such works. Enquires should be made to Cumbria County Councils Street Work’s team - [email protected] Please be advised that the Highway outside and or adjacent to the proposal must be kept clear and accessible at all times.

2. Proposal and Site Description 2.1 Proposal 2.1.1 This proposal seeks to erect a detached three bedroomed dwellinghouse. 2.1.2 The dwelling has an approximate internal floor space (gross) of 102m2. It would measure approximately 8 metres in height; have a width of 10.5 metres which includes the attached garage to the south and bay window to the north. The depth of the property would be approximately 8.5 metres. 2.1.3 The proposed materials include smooth render to the elevations, tiles to the roof and white UPVC windows and doors. 2.2 Site Description 2.2.1 The site is located on Joiners Close which is to the southern end of Newbiggin. It is between a dwellinghouse and agricultural building on an infill plot. 2.2.2 The site is considered to be greenfield. As such, should approval be granted, the application would be subject to an occupancy restriction to only those meeting local connection criteria. The applicant has agreed to this restriction being applied. 3. Consultees 3.1 Statutory Consultees Consultee Response Highway Authority No objection – ‘It is considered that the proposal will not have a material effect on existing highway conditions’. A ‘note to developer’ is suggested (see recommendation). Lead Local Flood Authority No objection - ‘The Lead Local Flood Authority surface water map show that there is no flooding and/or surface water issues in the locale. As such it is believed that the risk of surface water flooding will not be increased’. A pre-commencement condition is suggested (see recommendation).

Page 59 Agenda Item 2 REPORTS FOR DEBATE

3.2 Discretionary Consultees Consultee Response Environmental Health – No objection - There is no affordable housing Housing requirement and local occupancy restrictions will apply if permission if granted if the site is considered to be greenfield. Environmental Health – No objection – ‘I have been through the noise Pollution assessment report, which makes recommendations for a scheme of glazing and ventilation to deal with a ‘worst case’ noise scenario from the adjacent agricultural building next door. I am satisfied with the proposed glazing / ventilation scheme and so my only recommendation for you would be to ensure that there is a suitably worded condition attached to any permission to ensure that the works described in the report are implemented prior to occupation and retained thereafter’. (see recommendation) United Utilities No response Minerals Planning Authority No objection - ‘The proposed development is an infill plot within the settlement of Newbiggin. Mineral extraction on or close to the application site would therefore not be environmentally acceptable’. 4. Parish Council Response Please Tick as Appropriate Parish Council No View Object Support No Response Expressed Dacre Parish  Council 4.1 ‘Resolved by all present that Dacre Parish Council object to this proposal on the grounds that the housing should be local occupancy as per the local plan for Newbiggin and this is not included in the application form. That the proposed dwelling has insufficient parking spaces in an area that is already tight for parking. Dacre Parish Plan requires 3 parking spaces per every new dwelling. In addition this site is in close proximity to the large animal shed of Paragon Vets. If this development were to be approved Dacre Parish Council has concerns that this established local business would be disadvantaged by complaints. However, it was noted that if the development were to be approved subject to the addressing of Dacre Parish Councils objections that the development was appropriate infill and would improve the appearance of an untidy site’.

Page 60 Agenda Item 2 REPORTS FOR DEBATE

5. Representations 5.1 Letters of consultation were sent to nearby neighbours and a site notice was posted on 18 July 2018. No of Neighbours Consulted 5 No of letters of support 0 No of Representations Received 5 No of neutral representations 0 No of objection letters 5 5.2 Letters of objection raised the following material considerations to the application:  Cul de sac is tight for space for parking, exacerbated by visitor’s cars.  The emergency services barely have turning point and will not have access to residents if this development goes ahead.  The building will be close to the animal shelter and this may be hazardous if it catches fire.  Council vehicles won’t be able to collect recycling and rubbish without an area to turn around.  Light into front of property opposite would be severely impacted.  Child safety due to extra cars being parked on road making it dangerous to play there.  This proposed dwelling is in very close proximity to our (Paragon Vets) animal housing buildings – we are an active veterinary practice and there are animals (horses, cattle and sheep) in those buildings and veterinary treatments and procedures occurring at all times, day and night. There will inevitably be a degree of noise and activity and we do not wish to face challenges from a future occupier who has found themselves living in a house closely adjacent to a veterinary hospital. 5.3 Letters of objection raised the following non-material considerations:  One of the properties has an agreement with the landlord to park on the plot and in the turning head.  View of open countryside would be completely obliterated.  Residents in the cul de sac have tried to buy the piece of land to create additional car parking spaces.  Value of properties affected due to continuous building works.  When the planning was originally granted for this development (2008/2009), there were clear restrictions on the number of dwellings due to the services required – this has not changed.  During the original build, footprints of the dwellings were deliberately moved from the original plans. Existing mature and beautiful trees on our (Paragon Vets) land behind the development were decimated on 3 separate occasions without our consent or planning permission.  The proposed site has been left deliberately untidy and unfinished, rather than landscaped to complete the original development.

Page 61 Agenda Item 2 REPORTS FOR DEBATE

6. Relevant Planning History Application No Description Outcome 01/0052 Demolition of outbuildings, construction Outline Approval of improved access and development of five houses 04/0241 5 Dwellings Reserved Matters Approval 06/0098 Revised design of house No. 5 Approved comprising an extension above the garage 7. Policy Context 7.1 Development Plan Eden Local Plan 2014-2032  LS1 Locational Strategy  DEV1 General Approach to New Development  DEV5 Design of New Development  HS2 Housing in the Smaller Villages and Hamlets Supplementary Planning Documents:  Housing (2010) 7.2 Other Material Considerations National Planning Policy Framework:  Achieving sustainable development  Delivering a sufficient supply of homes  Achieving well-designed places 7.3 The policies detailed above are the most relevant policies relating to this application. 8. Planning Assessment 8.1 Key/Main Planning Issues  Principle  Neighbouring Amenity 8.2 Principle 8.2.1 The National Planning Policy Framework states that housing applications should be considered in the context of the presumption in favour of sustainable development. 8.2.2 The Eden Local Plan, Policy LS1 states that the village of Newbiggin is designated as one of the ‘Smaller Villages and Hamlets’. In these locations development is restricted to infill sites, which fill a modest gap between existing buildings within the settlement or rounding off, which provides a modest extension beyond the limit of the settlement to a logical, defensible boundary.

Page 62 Agenda Item 2 REPORTS FOR DEBATE

8.2.3 Policy HS2 seeks to support housing of an appropriate scale in the Smaller Villages and Hamlets so long as it meets all of the following criteria:  Where development is restricted to infilling and rounding off of the current village settlement pattern, in accordance with Policy LS1.  The building does not contain more than 150m2 internal floor space (gross).  In the case of Greenfield sites a condition or legal agreement restricting occupancy to only those meeting local connection criteria, defined in Appendix 6, will be applied. 8.2.4 In line with the above requirement in policy HS2, the local occupancy requirement has been agreed by the applicant and included as a condition in section 1 of this report. 8.2.5 Notwithstanding consideration of all other material relevant matters, the principle of a single dwelling on an infill greenfield site within the village of Newbiggin is considered to be in line with current planning policy. 8.3 Landscape and Visual Impacts 8.3.1 The site is seen within the context of the Joiners Close on an in-fill plot of land. 8.3.2 The proposal is considered to reflect the existing street scene through the use of appropriate scale, mass, form, layout and use of materials. It is not considered that an adverse impact on the landscape would be created through this proposal. 8.4 Neighbouring Amenity 8.4.1 The proposed dwelling would sit approximately 3 metres to the north west of the No 5 Joiners Close, 5.5 metres to the south of Paragon Vet’s agricultural building and 21 metres to the south west of No 1 Joiners Close. Open agricultural land is to the rear of the site. 8.4.2 The proposed dwelling would be sited further back on its plot than No 5 with the blank gable of the garage facing the neighbouring property and blank gable of the dwelling beyond that. The neighbouring dwelling has a first floor window on its gable facing the site which is understood to be a bedroom window. Given the proposed location of the new dwelling and the single storey garage element being closest to the neighbouring dwelling, it is not considered that the proposal would be overbearing or that a loss of light would occur. 8.4.3 The agricultural building runs the whole length of the boundary of the site and is of a standard agricultural construction with a Yorkshire boarding elevation facing the proposal site. 8.4.4 The use of the agricultural building and its close proximity to the site is acknowledged. An Environmental Noise Assessment was carried out on the request of Environmental Health. This assessment concluded that very sporadically the noise impact from the agricultural building could have a significant adverse impact depending on the context. The context here is that such levels only occur for around 2% of the time. 8.4.5 To mitigate this issue, measures are recommended that all windows of habitable rooms with a view of the agricultural building should be upgraded thermal glazing. Mechanical Extract Ventilation (MEV) or Positive Input Ventilation (PIV) systems should be provided which does not allow noise to enter from outside meaning these rooms could

Page 63 Agenda Item 2 REPORTS FOR DEBATE be occupied without the need to open windows in times that noise or odour is occurring. It also recommends a 2.5m high acoustic fence should be erected along the boundary with the agricultural building. 8.4.6 Environmental Health is satisfied with the recommended measures within the assessment. 8.4.7 It is considered necessary to attach a condition to any approval granted requiring the ground floor lounge and first floor bedroom windows to the front elevation, bay window to the side elevation and first floor bedrooms to the rear elevation be thermal grazing in accordance with the Environmental Noise Assessment to protect the amenity of the residents of the property. 8.4.8 It is also considered necessary to attach a condition to any approval granted requiring the 2.5m high acoustic fence be erected before the first occupation of the dwelling. 8.4.9 The residential property opposite the site (No 1 Joiners Close) is approximately 21 metres away. This is a greater distance than the existing 17 metre gap between existing properties. The Housing SPD provides a general guide that principal windows on a new property should not be less than 21 metres from any directly facing windows in another property, in order to ensure reasonable privacy is provided for both the new house and neighbours. The occupier of this property has raised concern that if this proposal was to be allowed they would experience a loss of light and loss of view. The distance between the two meets the guidance with the Housing SPD and is it is not considered a loss of light would occur to this property. The loss of a view is not a material planning consideration. 8.4.10 Accordingly, the proposal is not considered to adversely affect the amenity of existing or future residents, and is considered in accordance with the requirements of policy DEV5 of the Eden Local Plan. 8.5 Infrastructure 8.5.1 The Parish Council have created the Dacre Parish Plan 2014-2019. The Parish Council have set out their own guidelines as to how they wish to respond to planning applications and guideline 6 on Page 10 states ‘The PC will not support any new residential development which provides off-road parking for less than three cars’. This forms part of their objection. Whilst these comments are duly noted, it is recognised that this is the Parish Council’s guidance only, and not a formally adopted document that would carry more weight than the development plan in the decision making process. 8.5.2 Several objectors raise concern with regards to existing parking issues within this cul de sac. These existing issues are outside of the remit of this planning application. A current agreement for one of the residents to park on the application site is a civil matter which is also outside of the remit of this application. The site layout plan shows that sufficient onsite parking can be provided which meets the requirements of Highways. Highways have not raised any objection to the application. 9. New Homes Bonus 9.1 The prospect of receiving a Bonus is, in principle, capable of being taken into account as a ‘material consideration’ in determining a planning application. Whether potential Bonus payments are in fact a material consideration in relation to a particular application will depend on whether those payments would be used in a way which is connected to the application and to the use and development of land. For example,

Page 64 Agenda Item 2 REPORTS FOR DEBATE potential Bonus payments could be a material consideration if they were to be used to mitigate impacts resulting from development. But if the use to which the payments are to be put is unclear or is for purposes unrelated to the development concerned a decision maker would not be entitled to take them into account when making a decision on a planning application. In this particular case, there are no plans to use the New Homes Bonus arising from this application in connection with this development. 10. Implications 10.1 Legal Implications 10.1.1 The following matters have been considered but no issues are judged to arise. 10.2 Equality and Diversity 10.2.1 The Council must have regard to the elimination of unlawful discrimination and harassment, and the promotion of equality under the Equality Act 2010. 10.3 Environment 10.3.1 The Council must have due regard to conserving bio-diversity under the Natural Environment and Rural Communities Act 2006. 10.4 Crime and Disorder 10.4.1 Under the Crime and Disorder Act 1998, the Council must have regard to the need to reduce crime and disorder in exercising any of its functions. 10.5 Children 10.5.1 Under the Children Act 2004, the Council has a duty to safeguard and promote the welfare of children in the exercise of any of its functions. 10.6 Human Rights 10.6.1 In determining applications, the Council must ensure that all parties get a fair hearing in compliance with the provisions of Article 6 under the European Convention on Human Rights, as now embodied in UK law in the Human Rights Act 1998. 11. Conclusion 11.1 It is considered that the proposal accords with the Development Plan for the following reasons which are not outweighed by material considerations: The proposed three bedroom detached dwellinghouse is considered to be appropriate in terms of scale and design and in accordance with Eden Local Plan policies LS1, DEV5 and HS2.

Jane Langston Deputy Director Technical Services

Checked by or on behalf of the Monitoring Officer 

Background Papers: Planning File

Page 65 Agenda Item 3 REPORTS FOR DEBATE

Date of Committee: 15 November 2018

Planning Application No: 18/0629 Date Received: 12/6/18

OS Grid Ref: 6132 2313 Expiry Date: 27/9/18 Extension of time agreed to 19/11/18

Parish: Bolton Ward: Crosby Ravensworth

Application Type: Reserved Matters

Proposal: Application for approval of outstanding reserved matters of outline application 16/0706 for construction of one dwelling

Location: Land to the Northeast of Lyvennet Bridge, Morland

Applicant: Mrs A Wilkinson

Agent: Mr Ken Thompson, Coniston Consultants Ltd

Case Officer: Mat Wilson

Reason for Referral: The Officer recommendation is contrary to the view of the Parish Council

Page 66 Agenda Item 3 REPORTS FOR DEBATE

1. Recommendation

That reserved matters approval be granted subject to the following conditions: 1. This approval must be read in conjunction with outline planning permission ref. 16/0706 and the conditions attached thereto. Reason: For clarity and the avoidance of doubt Approved Plans 2. The development hereby granted shall be carried out in accordance with the drawings hereby approved: i. Amended block and location plans ref AW/KT/18/04 date-stamped received 2 Nov 2018 ii. Amended floor plans ref AW/KT/18/02 date-stamped received 22 Oct 2018 iii. Amended elevation plans ref AW/KT/18/01 date-stamped received 2 Nov 2018 iv. Amended ancillary outbuilding plans ref AW/KT/18/05 date-stamped received 22 Oct 2018 v. Cross Section plan ref AW/KT/18/04 date-stamped received 22 Oct 2018 vi. Environmental Assessment, Septic Tank Detail, Surface Water Drainage Assessment and Design and Access Statements submitted with the application Reason: To ensure a satisfactory development and to avoid any ambiguity as to what constitutes the permission. 3. The stables hereby approved shall not be used in any commercial capacity. Reason: The creation of a separate business would not be appropriate in this location. 4. Any caravan occupied onsite during construction of the dwelling shall be permanently removed from the site within 2 months of the first occupation of the dwelling. Reason: In the interests of the appearance of the area. Informative 1. This decision also discharges all pre-commencement conditions of 16/0706. 2. Separate approval for the works hereby granted permission/consent may be required by the Building Act 1984 and the Building Regulations 2000 (as amended), and the grant of planning permission does not imply that such approval will be given. The Council’s Building Control Team should be consulted before works commence. You contact the team directly at [email protected] 3. Homeowners with septic tanks that discharge directly into surface water will need to replace or upgrade their drainage either when they sell their property or before 1 January 2020 whichever is sooner. Homeowners are responsible for their choice, installation and maintenance of their wastewater system under a new code of practice introduced by the Environment Agency. They have a

Page 67 Agenda Item 3 REPORTS FOR DEBATE legal responsibility to minimise the impact of your sewage waste if they manage it within the bounds of your property e.g. with a septic tank or sewage treatment plant (Binding Rules 2020, DEFRA, January 2015). See www.gov.uk

2. Proposal and Site Description 2.1 Proposal 2.1.1 This application seeks approval of the reserved matters outstanding from the outline permission 16/0706 for the construction of one dwelling on land northeast of Lyvennet Bridge, Morland. All outstanding matters from the previous approval are submitted for consideration, namely the appearance, landscaping, layout and scale. 2.1.2 The development proposed is a detached chalet bungalow with ancillary outbuildings and a stable. 2.1.3 Outline planning permission was granted at Planning Committee on 19 January 2017, subject to the applicant entering into a S106 agreement governing the future sale of the property, on an exceptional basis for a purpose-built dwelling to meet the specific needs of the applicant’s family. 2.1.4 Revised plans were submitted on 22 October 2018 to incorporate amendments to the scale and design of the property requested by the Case Officer. 2.1.5 The applicant also intends to occupy a mobile home onsite during the construction. 2.2 Site Description 2.2.1 The application site lies adjacent to the east side of the road leading to Kings Meaburn, south of Lane End. The site is a rectangular plot known as Little Field, bounded by hedgerows and historically partitioned off from a larger field. The use of the land at the time of the outline planning permission in 2017 was described as a pony paddock and keeping of bees. 2.2.2 The application site is approximately 350 metres south of four dwellings at Lane End. 2.2.3 Almost immediately opposite the site is a road junction, the road forking to the southwest to Morland. 340 metres along this road is the converted Lyvennet Mill. 2.2.4 Aside from the afore-mentioned dwellings, the application site is in open countryside remote from any other development. 2.2.5 There are no site-specific planning constraints on or near the site, i.e. it is not Conservation Area or a Flood Risk Zone, and there are no listed buildings or public rights of way in the vicinity. 3. Consultees 3.1 Statutory Consultees Consultee Response Highway Authority It is considered that the proposal will not have a material affect on existing highway conditions. I can therefore confirm that the Highway Authority has no objection to the proposal from a Highways perspective. The access arrangements are approved from the

Page 68 Agenda Item 3 REPORTS FOR DEBATE previous application 16/0706. Local Lead Flood Authority The Lead Local Flood Authority surface water map show that there is no flooding and/or surface water issue in the locale. As such it is believed that the risk of surface water flooding will not be increased and therefore I have no objections from the LLFA perspective. Details of the septic tank and soakaway are considered acceptable for a development of this nature.

3.2 Discretionary Consultees Consultee Response United Utilities No comments in respect of this application

4. Parish Council/Meeting Response Please Tick as Appropriate Parish No View Object Support No Response Council/Meeting Expressed Bolton Parish  Council 4.1 The Parish Council responded as follows: Four out of six councillors (the seventh has declared an interest) object to the addition of the stables and goat house, and to the erection of a two storey dwelling instead of the original planned bungalow. However, given that outline planning permission has already been granted, the Council is aware that these objections are unlikely to carry much, if any, weight. The Council remains disappointed that outline planning permission was granted despite its objection that it was totally at odds with all published planning policies. 5. Representations 5.1 Whilst there are no dwellings in the vicinity of the application site, the proposal was advertised by way of a notice posted at the site on 29 August 2018. No of Neighbours Consulted 1 No of letters of support 0 No of Representations Received 0 No of neutral representations 0 No of objection letters 0 6. Relevant Planning History 16/0706 – Outline application for Construction of 4no. bedroom, purpose built, disabled access bungalow – Granted with a S106 legal agreement 10 January 2018. 7. Policy Context 7.1 Development Plan Local Plan 2014-2032

Page 69 Agenda Item 3 REPORTS FOR DEBATE The Eden Local Plan 2014 - 2032 was accepted by the Government's Planning Inspectorate in September 2018 and was adopted at the full Council meeting on the 11th October 2018. The plan replaces the previous Development Plan documents, these being the saved policies from the Eden Local Plan (1996) and the Core Strategy (2010) and is now the formal Development Plan for Eden District Council. This means that the Eden Local Plan 2014 - 2032 now carries full weight in the planning decision process and that the Council is now able to demonstrate a five-year housing land supply. LS1 Locational Strategy DEV1 General Approach to New Development DEV5 Design of New Development HS4 Housing Type and Mix Supplementary Planning Documents: Housing SPD incorporating Residential Development Guidelines. 7.2 Other Material Considerations National Planning Policy Framework:  Presumption in favour of sustainable development  Delivering a wide choice of high quality homes  Requiring good design The policies detailed above are the most relevant policies relating to this application. 8. Planning Assessment 8.1 Key/Main Planning Issues  Built environment  Natural environment/landscaping  Layout  Infrastructure/drainage 8.2 Principle 8.2.1 The principle of residential development on this site has been established through the outline approval. This application is for the consideration of the reserved matters including appearance, landscaping, layout and scale. 8.3 Built Environment 8.3.1 The design of new development should be assessed by its conformity with Policy DEV5 of the Local Plan:

New development will be required to demonstrate that it meets each of the following [selected] criteria:

 Shows a clear understanding of the form and character of the district’s built and natural environment, complementing and enhancing the existing area

 Protects and where possible enhances the district’s distinctive rural landscape, natural environment and biodiversity

Page 70 Agenda Item 3 REPORTS FOR DEBATE  Reflects the existing street scene through use of appropriate scale, mass, form, layout, high quality architectural design and use of materials

 Uses quality materials which complement or enhance local surroundings 8.3.2 The plot of land to which the application relates is open countryside. The surrounding landscape between Morland, Bolton and Kings Meaburn is interspersed with sporadic residential properties, mostly tied to farms. There are variations in scale and design but the prevailing character is a simple form house fronting to the road, with pitched slated roofs and sandstone elevations. The notion of a local vernacular to which new design must adhere is diluted however through the cluster of four properties north of the application site at Lane End; these have an incongruous and somewhat jarring suburban appearance, being semi-detached hipped- roofed houses with reconstituted buff stone elevations. 8.3.3 The application proposes a chalet bungalow of rendered blockwork walls and a pitched tiled roof, with PVCU casement windows and a timber door set in a stone entrance porch. The design could not be said to truly reflect the form and character of the district’s built environment, or to use quality materials which complement or enhance local surroundings. 8.3.4 Concerns were raised with the proposal as submitted since it was considered a higher quality design should be achieved and the scale of the accommodation reduced to soften its visual impact. The applicant and agent have been willing to amend the scheme to address Officer’s concerns and the application has duly been revised to add interest to the front elevation with a stone porch; to lift the eaves to create a shadow gap above the windows and improve the proportions of the dwelling; to reduce the first- floor room sizes; to remove the sun lounge; and to reduce the overall width and height. A detached garage has also been removed with an implement shed instead sited in front of the stables. 8.3.5 If the Council truly aspires to high quality design then development should reflect the distinctiveness of the local vernacular through its design, proportions, and use of materials, and schemes which do not meet this goal should be resisted. The applicant’s very challenging personal circumstances, which allowed for the principle of a dwelling in this location to be considered acceptable, should not influence the design criteria to be applied to the finished appearance of the dwelling. 8.3.6 Equally, there should be a place for pragmatism in reaching planning decisions and whilst it would be desirable to see the plot developed with a sandstone/slate-roofed cottage with timber sliding sash windows, these higher quality materials have a cost implication and are not always within an applicant’s means to incorporate into their development. In order to improve the scheme further, stone heads and cills have been added to the windows. This provides articulation and contrast to the render finish; it references the local vernacular, and softens the visual appearance of the dwelling. 8.3.7 It is considered that the scale and appearance of the dwelling is acceptable. 8.4 Residential Amenity 8.4.1 No impact on any neighbouring property; the site is isolated from any other dwellings. 8.5 Natural Environment/Landscaping 8.5.1 The application site is grazing land of low ecological value. It is not considered the proposal has any significant impact on the natural environment.

Page 71 Agenda Item 3 REPORTS FOR DEBATE 8.5.2 The site is reasonably discrete with mature trees across the frontage screening it from the road. The plans indicate existing trees are to be retained together with the hedgerows to the site boundaries. A driveway leading to the parking and turning area will be hard surfaced but the majority of the site will be retained as grass. A post and rail fence will separate the domestic garden from the stables and horse paddock. The landscaping of the site is considered acceptable. 8.6 Layout 8.6.1 The ancillary outbuildings forming part of the development to care for the applicant’s animals are not considered unreasonable. A stableblock against the north boundary hedge and a goathouse behind the trees near the south boundary are proposed. Each will be a simple timber clad building. The small stable is of a domestic scale and will be seen as an ancillary outbuilding to the dwelling. The applicant has occasionally grazed their horses on the land and although the outline planning permission was for a dwelling only, it is considered reasonable for the reserved matters to include stables of a nature which are ancillary to the main dwellinghouse. It was requested that the goats might be housed in a more lightweight shelter adjoining the stables to reduce the built mass of the development but the applicant, a registered breeder of rare goats, has provided further supporting information confirming the necessity of a secure dry enclosure for the goats, which must be separate from the horses. 8.6.2 The applicant and agent have agreed to compromise on the separate garage initially proposed. This has been removed and a smaller implement shed is instead to be sited at the front of the stableblock. The scale, massing and layout of the built development are considered acceptable. 8.7 Infrastructure/Drainage 8.7.1 Surface water will drain to soakaway. Foul sewage is to be disposed of via a Klargester Alpha septic tank. No concerns arise in respect of drainage. 8.7.2 The access was approved as part of the outline planning permission. Sufficient parking and turning space is provided within the site. 8.8 Other considerations 8.8.1 Only one pre-commencement condition was attached to the outline approval and this required detail of the foul and surface water drainage. The information submitted with this reserved matters submission includes a drainage scheme informed by onsite investigations, indicating the ground is suitable for a septic tank and a soakaway to dispose of foul and surface water. This condition is therefore discharged. 9. New Homes Bonus 9.1 The prospect of receiving a Bonus is, in principle, capable of being taken into account as a ‘material consideration’ in determining a planning application. Whether potential Bonus payments are in fact a material consideration in relation to a particular application will depend on whether those payments would be used in a way which is connected to the application and to the use and development of land. For example, potential Bonus payments could be a material consideration if they were to be used to mitigate impacts resulting from development. But if the use to which the payments are to be put is unclear or is for purposes unrelated to the development concerned a decision maker would not be entitled to take them into account when making a decision on a planning application. In this particular case, there are no plans to use the New Homes Bonus arising from this application in connection with this development.

Page 72 Agenda Item 3 REPORTS FOR DEBATE 10. Implications 10.1 Legal Implications 10.1.1 The following matters have been considered but no issues are judged to arise. 10.2 Equality and Diversity 10.2.1 The Council must have regard to the elimination of unlawful discrimination and harassment, and the promotion of equality under the Equality Act 2010. 10.3 Environment 10.3.1 The Council must have due regard to conserving bio-diversity under the Natural Environment and Rural Communities Act 2006. 10.4 Crime and Disorder 10.4.1 Under the Crime and Disorder Act 1998, the Council must have regard to the need to reduce crime and disorder in exercising any of its functions. 10.5 Children 10.5.1 Under the Children Act 2004, the Council has a duty to safeguard and promote the welfare of children in the exercise of any of its functions. 10.6 Human Rights 10.6.1 In determining applications, the Council must ensure that all parties get a fair hearing in compliance with the provisions of Article 6 under the European Convention on Human Rights, as now embodied in UK law in the Human Rights Act 1998. 11. Conclusion 11.1 It is considered that the proposal accords with the Development Plan for the following reasons which are not outweighed by material considerations: The matters for which approval are sought, namely the scale and external appearance of the building, the site layout and the landscaping, are considered to be acceptable. The scheme will provide a single detached dwelling for the specific circumstances of the applicant which, should it be later sold, will be subject to a local occupancy clause and is subject to a reduced sale value for 10 years. The development is considered acceptable in terms of scale, appearance, finished materials and landscape impact, and is deemed satisfactory as regards its impact on neighbouring amenity. In the absence of any significant or demonstrable material adverse impact the proposal is considered to be in accordance with the NPPF and the development plan.

Jane Langston Deputy Director Technical Services

Checked by or on behalf of the Monitoring Officer 

Background Papers: Planning File

Page 73 Agenda Item 4 REPORTS FOR DEBATE

Date of Committee: 15 November 2018

Planning Application No: 18/0467 Date Received: 12/6/18

OS Grid Ref: 5153 3027 Expiry Date: 16/8/18 Extension of time agreed to 19/11/18

Parish: Penrith Ward: Penrith West

Application Type: Full

Proposal: Change of use of pub to 5 apartments

Location: Former Lowther Arms, Queen Street, Penrith

Applicant: Mr Tom Dawson

Agent: Malcolm Wilson, Black Box Architects

Case Officer: Mat Wilson

Reason for Referral: The Officer recommendation is contrary to the view of the Highway Authority

Page 74 Agenda Item 4 REPORTS FOR DEBATE

1. Recommendation That planning permission be granted subject to the following conditions: Time limit for commencement 1. The development permitted shall be begun within three years starting with the date of this approval. Reason: In order to comply with the provisions of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 as amended by Section 51 of the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004. Approved Plans 2. The development hereby granted shall be carried out in accordance with the drawings hereby approved: vii. Existing plans and elevations Plan ref 2017-109-10 dated May-18 viii. Proposed plans and elevations ref 2017-109-11 Rev A dated 20/9/18 ix. Heritage and Design Statement Revision A dated 20/9/18 x. Flood Risk Assessment submitted with the application Reason: To ensure a satisfactory development and to avoid any ambiguity as to what constitutes the permission. Before the occupation of the building 3. Windows on the west, south and east elevations shall be retained as timber sliding sashes and shall be repaired and refurbished where necessary prior to the first occupation of the building. Any elements of the window frames which are required to be replaced shall be carried out on a like-for-like basis. Reason: - To safeguard the architectural and/or historic interest of the building. 4. Samples of the UPVC windows proposed for the north elevation shall be submitted to and approved by the Local Planning Authority in writing before their first use within the building. The approved windows shall match the existing timber windows in size, colour and appearance, and they shall be installed in accordance with the approved details and retained as such thereafter. Reason: - To safeguard the architectural and/or historic interest of the building. The condition is considered necessary to be complied with pre-commencement as compliance with the requirements of the condition at a later time could result in unacceptable harm contrary to the policies of the Development Plan. Informative 1. Separate approval for the works hereby granted permission/consent may be required by the Building Act 1984 and the Building Regulations 2000 (as amended), and the grant of planning permission does not imply that such approval will be given. The Council’s Building Control Team should be consulted before works commence. You contact the team directly at [email protected] 2. Please note that the property is a listed building and as such any replacement windows or doors cannot be carried out under a competent person scheme. You

Page 75 Agenda Item 4 REPORTS FOR DEBATE must notify the Council's Building Control team directly at [email protected] 3. This decision notice grants planning permission only. It does not override any existing legal agreement, covenant or ownership arrangement.

2. Proposal and Site Description 2.1 Proposal 2.1.1 This report concerns an application for full planning permission for conversion of the former Lowther Arms pub to provide five apartments (a concurrent application for listed building consent is also under consideration). 2.1.2 The scheme would provide 2x one-bedroom flats and 3x two bedroom apartments. No extensions or external alterations are proposed other than the reinstatement of blocked openings to provide windows. There is no parking provision with the application. 2.1.3 Revised plans were submitted 20/9/18 to show existing timber windows to be retained and where necessary overhauled with timber repairs rather than replacement UPVC units as originally proposed. 2.1.4 The application is accompanied by a Heritage Statement and a Flood Risk Assessment together with further supporting information supplied by the agent on 20/9/18. 2.2 Site Description 2.2.1 The pub is a 3-storey stone building fronting onto Queen Street, with a two storey return section extending along Brook Street. The building is rendered and slate roofed with timber sliding sash windows set in painted stone surrounds. It provided a 3- bedroomed manager’s flat above the pub. 2.2.2 In terms of constraints The Lowther Arms is a Grade II listed building located within Penrith Conservation Area and within Flood Zone 3. 3. Consultees 3.1 Statutory Consultees Consultee Response Highway Authority No parking provisions have been provided. Depending on the number of bedrooms for the dwelling, a plan should show there would be safe opportunity for communal or on-street parking adjacent to the proposed site, provision of vehicle turning space within the site independent of the required vehicular parking area which allows vehicles visiting to the site to enter and leave the highway in a forward gear, we would expect the following number of parking spaces to be provided for the proposed dwelling.  1 bedroom dwelling – 1.5 spaces  2 bedroom dwelling – 2 spaces With the above in mind the Highway Authority

Page 76 Agenda Item 4 REPORTS FOR DEBATE therefore recommends refusal of the application for the following reason: Inadequate information has been submitted to satisfy the Local Planning Authority that the proposal is acceptable in terms of ……

(a) access (b) visibility splays (c) off-street parking (d) on site turning facilities (e) impact on sustainable travel Local Lead Flood Authority The Lead Local Flood Authority (LLFA) surface water map show minor flooding to the site that indicates 0.1 per cent (1 in 1000) chance of occurring each year. You should contact the Environment Agency regarding flooding risk assessment.

Environment Agency 1st response (5/7/18): In the absence of a flood risk assessment (FRA), we object to this application and recommend refusal of planning permission until a satisfactory FRA has been submitted. 2nd response (17/9/18): Thank you for referring the Flood Risk Assessment (FRA) for the above proposal which we received on 11 September 2018. The submitted FRA overcomes our previous objection as referred in our previous consultation response and therefore we withdraw our objection to the proposed development.

3.2 Discretionary Consultees Consultee Response United Utilities No comments in respect of this application.

Housing This is below the affordable housing threshold for Penrith.

Conservation Officer Comments set out as below.

[Comments of the Conservation Officer relating to the scheme as revised by amended plans] The building is currently vacant and in need of some repairs and refurbishment. Other than some original timber beams at ground floor the internal space lacks any features of architectural interest. In addition to the historic value, the building also holds high communal value pertaining to its former use as a public house.

Page 77 Agenda Item 4 REPORTS FOR DEBATE The proposed alterations to convert the building into 5 self contained flats are not envisaged to cause any significant harm to any features of interest that the building holds. The proposals include: reinstating blocked openings; stripping back scalloped bonded plaster and re-plastering with a smooth finish; introduction of stud partition walls to create new internal rooms; electrical, heating and fire prevention works; and the set aside of the existing roof covering for reinstatement following the installation of new breathable felt. These proposals are considered to be appropriate and have potential to help to preserve the building fabric for future use. Furthermore keeping the internal alterations to a minimum and reinstating blocked openings allows the original plan form of the building to remain readable. The modern windows in the south elevation do not contribute to the character of the building and there replacement with a sympathetic timber alternative is encouraged. The proposal to insert glass to BS within these windows on the south elevation is acceptable. It is also recommended that the new windows being installed in the reinstated openings should be a sympathetic timber alternative. The proposal to replace the windows on the north elevation (fronting the rear yard) with double glazed uPVC requires a clear justification that the existing windows are beyond repair. Further information on the design and specification of the proposed replacement and new windows is necessary in order to fully assess any potential impacts on the value of the building and this could be requested by a condition applied to any granted permissions for a sample to be submitted to the LPA for prior approval. Section 134 of the NPPF states ‘Where a development proposal will lead to less than substantial harm to the significance of a designated heritage asset, this harm should be weighed against the public benefits of the proposal, including securing its optimum viable use’. The proposal to convert the public house into residential accommodation is considered to be appropriate and viable to ensuring the long term use of the historic building. The benefit of preserving the building in use and creating additional town centre residential accommodation is considered to outweigh the harm caused to the building as a result of the refurbishment and repair works. Overall the proposed works are considered to have the potential to be in accordance with conservation policies in the Planning Act 1990 and NPPF.

4. Parish Council/Meeting Response Please Tick as Appropriate Parish No View Object Support No Response Council/Meeting Expressed Penrith Town  Council 4.1 The Parish Council responded as follows: ‘No Objection to bringing an empty listed building back into use.’ 5. Representations 5.1 Letters of consultation were sent to nearby neighbours and a site notice was posted on 19 June 2018.

No of Neighbours Consulted 9 No of letters of support 0

Page 78 Agenda Item 4 REPORTS FOR DEBATE No of Representations Received 1 No of neutral representations 0 No of objection letters 2 5.2 One resident has submitted two letters of objection raising the following concerns:  Questions the agent’s statement that the pub is unviable.  The viability has not been evidenced. The previous owners during their tenure never attempted to run the public house.  Lack of parking provision. There simply is not enough space in Penrith for all the vehicles that people wish to park. To add more is simply folly.  How could the agent/applicant possibly know the residents of the flats will be non- car owners.  Loss of historic business and a community asset. The Lowther Arms is an important part of the history of Penrith. The loss of such a historical business would be irrevocable.  Flooding – the accuracy of the Flood Risk Assessment is called into question. It is incorrect to claim the site has no history of flooding. The objection has witnessed Brook Street in flood.  There appears to be no disabled access to any part of this proposed development.

The following issues raised are not material planning considerations.  Inaccuracies in the application form [now resolved].  The same agent - acting for someone else on a planning application for the Lowther Arms - stated last year "It is welcoming to have a potentially lost PH in a town centre brought back to life as a valuable asset, at a time where most are seen to be closing down."

6. Relevant Planning History 11/0048 – Creation of self-contained flat above [adjoining] shop: Granted 14/3/11 18/0468 – Listed Building Consent for change of use to 5 self-contained apartments – Under Consideration 7. Policy Context 7.1 Development Plan Local Plan 2014-2032 The Eden Local Plan 2014 - 2032 was accepted by the Government's Planning Inspectorate in September 2018 and was adopted at the full Council meeting on the 11th October 2018. The plan replaces the previous Development Plan documents, these being the saved policies from the Eden Local Plan (1996) and the Core Strategy (2010) and is now the formal Development Plan for Eden District Council. This means that the Eden Local Plan 2014 - 2032 now carries full weight in the planning decision process and that the Council is now able to demonstrate a five-year housing land supply.

Page 79 Agenda Item 4 REPORTS FOR DEBATE LS1 Locational Strategy DEV1 General Approach to New Development DEV2 Water Management and Flood Risk DEV3 Transport, Accessibility and Rights of Way DEV5 Design of New Development ENV10 The Historic Environment HS4 Housing Type and Mix EC7 Town Centres and Retailing COM2 Protection of Open Space, Sport, Leisure and Recreation Facilities Supplementary Planning Documents: Housing SPD incorporating Residential Development Guidelines. 7.2 Other Material Considerations National Planning Policy Framework:  Presumption in favour of sustainable development  Delivering a wide choice of high quality homes  Conserving and enhancing the historic environment  Requiring good design  Meeting the challenge of climate change and flooding  The policies detailed above are the most relevant policies relating to this application. 8. Planning Assessment 8.1 Key/Main Planning Issues  Heritage impact  Housing policies  Impact on character of the area  Residential amenity  Highway implications  Drainage and Flood Risk 8.2 Principle 8.2.1 The Local Plan directs development to the more sustainable locations in the District, and to Penrith in particular. New housing development in Penrith is therefore acceptable in principle. 8.2.2 The building conversion policy RUR3 in the Local Plan concerns rural locations so it is more appropriate to apply policy COM1. This concerns the retention of services and facilities, and whilst the policy states that change of use of rural facilities will only be permitted where the need no longer exists or accessible alternatives are available, that the facility is no longer viable, and that the site has been marketed, these criteria should be applicable to a town centre proposal involving the loss of a community facility (acknowledging the greater likelihood of there being alternative facilities in the vicinity of the application site).

Page 80 Agenda Item 4 REPORTS FOR DEBATE 8.2.3 Policy EC7 seeks to maintain and enhance the vitality and viability of the town centres. Whilst it mainly concerns protecting the retail provision of the town centres, it does mandate that developments shall not compromise the functional operation of existing town centre uses. 8.2.4 The proposal would result in the loss of a pub and so the alternative provision must be considered. The agent has provided further information in support of the application, indicating that 17 licensed premises are located within easy walking distance of the site. This will include non-comparable premises such as clubs and restaurants, but in terms of traditional pubs the town centre still offers at least 12 other venues. It is therefore considered that sufficient alternative provision of pub facilities in Penrith town centre would be maintained. 8.2.5 The previous owners of the Lowther Arms marketed the premises in 2017 as a public house and generated no interest in the sale other than from the current applicant. They have experience in catering and hospitality but found that with the investment needed to improve the condition of the building and to improve the décor and facilities, taking into account the competitiveness of the pub trade in Penrith, the expenditure to continue as a pub was not viable. 8.2.6 The viability of continuing the business as a pub does not carry significant material planning weight in this instance because of the town centre location and the prevalence of alternative pubs within close proximity. Expectations that the pub must continue to trade would be unreasonable. 8.2.7 The loss of the pub facility marginally diminishes the vitality of the town centre but not to any significant degree. Adequate alternative provision exists in the vicinity. The proposed development will comply with the relevant requirements of Policies COM1 and EC7. The development is therefore considered to be acceptable in principle. 8.3 Built Environment 8.3.1 The Planning (Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas) Act 1990 requires that special regard is had to the desirability of preserving a listed building, or its setting, or any features of special architectural or historic interest. Local and national policy is clear that development should preserve or enhance conservation areas and designated heritage assets. 8.3.2 The former Lowther Arms is a Grade II listed building. No additions or alterations are proposed to the exterior of the building other than replacing windows and re-inserting windows in blocked-up openings. Internally the only features noted of architectural interest are original timber beams at ground floor. New stud walls are proposed to divide the separate apartments but essentially the scheme involves a minor degree of interventions. The character of the building, particularly its external appearance, will be preserved. 8.3.3 The application has been revised following concerns raised about the replacement of timber-framed windows with UPVC. It is now proposed to refurbish the timber sliding sash windows on the front and side elevations, repairing like-for-like where necessary, and to use UPVC only on the rear elevation. The material for new windows in the existing blocked openings is not stated but in order to preserve the building’s character these should be timber on the south and east elevations which are public-facing. The side elevation facing a private yard is less significant and it is considered that provided

Page 81 Agenda Item 4 REPORTS FOR DEBATE adequate further justification is provided for sliding sash UPVC windows then this can be accepted without harming the character of this building. 8.3.4 The proposed development is considered to respect the heritage value of the listed building and its conversion to a new residential use will provide the building with a viable long term use, preserving a heritage asset without detracting from its original form and function. 8.4 Residential Amenity 8.4.1 Notwithstanding that the pub conversion results in an increase in residential units within the building from one flat to five, the development is unlikely to produce any significant detriment to neighbouring amenity. Very few new openings are proposed and none are considered to be significantly harmful to the privacy or amenity of any other neighbouring dwellings. The development will result in high density housing but this is reflective of the town centre environment. The extant use as a public house is likely to have more of an impact on neighbouring amenity than the proposed four additional flats. 8.5 Streetscene/Landscape Impact 8.5.1 The proposals seek to preserve the character of the building through minimising the interventions to its exterior, even retaining and restoring the pub signage to show the evolution of the building. Whilst the loss of the pub use itself is a loss to the vitality of the streetscene, the building continuing to stand empty is equally harmful to the character of the area. Converting it to provide flats does give this building a viable use and the best way of maintaining heritage assets such as this listed property is to allow an active new use where the previous use is no longer sustainable. 8.6 Infrastructure/Flood Risk/Drainage 8.6.1 The Highway Authority recommends refusal of the scheme owing to the lack of parking provision. The agent in response writes ‘The general policy is to deter parking in town centres, hence there being no intention of parking provision (there being more than sufficient / office shopping facilities nearby and adequate bus routes). The clientele for the apartments would be non-car owners.’ 8.6.2 It is not the Council’s policy ‘to deter parking in town centres’. Adequate parking provision should be provided in accordance with the guidance set out in the Cumbria Design Guide. Appendix 1 of the Guide sets out that residential developments should be expected to provide two parking spaces per 2-bedroom dwelling. The supporting text does concede however that Developments may prove acceptable without offering parking levels as indicated below, or prove unacceptable despite offering parking levels equal to or greater than those indicated, depending on the circumstances. The parking provision can only be a guideline since site-specific circumstances will vary from case to case. 8.6.3 The proposal will create four additional residential units centrally located within the most accessible town in the District. No parking spaces are provided, although the agent has identified Bluebell Lane and Sandgate car parks within a few minutes’ walk. It is intended that the flats will be offered to non-car owners. This cannot be controlled through the planning system. There is nothing to prevent a car owner from buying or renting one of the flats, if they are prepared to use a pay-and-display car park or find parking elsewhere. The Highway Authority has indicated that it cannot issue further

Page 82 Agenda Item 4 REPORTS FOR DEBATE Residents’ Parking Permits in the centre of Penrith since the existing spaces are already heavily oversubscribed. 8.6.4 The absence of parking is a significant material planning consideration and due weight should be attributed against the proposal. It is Officer’s opinion however that the town centre location, with accessible public transport links and services, facilities, retail and employment opportunities within walking distance of the site, offsets the harm of potentially increasing the parking demand within Penrith. Taking into account the benefits of providing additional housing and bringing back into active use a listed building which otherwise could fall into disrepair through neglect, it is considered that the absence of parking can in this instance be accepted, although the matter is finely balanced. 8.6.5 The site is located within Flood Risk Zone 3. A Flood Risk Assessment has duly been submitted to address the potential impact of flooding. It identifies the flood mitigation that has taken place in Penrith: Thacka Beck is culverted below street level and much of the culvert has been replaced as part of an ongoing flood alleviation scheme which incorporates a flood alleviation reservoir. As such the risk of fluvial flooding to the site is now defined by the Environment Agency as ‘low’, notwithstanding its designation as Flood Risk Zone 3. The risk from surface water and groundwater is considered low: no flooding occurred during Storm Desmond. 8.6.6 The Environment Agency has considered the proposal and they confirm the Flood Risk Assessment overcomes their previous objection. It is therefore considered the proposal is acceptable in terms of infrastructure. 9. New Homes Bonus 9.1 The prospect of receiving a Bonus is, in principle, capable of being taken into account as a ‘material consideration’ in determining a planning application. Whether potential Bonus payments are in fact a material consideration in relation to a particular application will depend on whether those payments would be used in a way which is connected to the application and to the use and development of land. For example, potential Bonus payments could be a material consideration if they were to be used to mitigate impacts resulting from development. But if the use to which the payments are to be put is unclear or is for purposes unrelated to the development concerned a decision maker would not be entitled to take them into account when making a decision on a planning application. In this particular case, there are no plans to use the New Homes Bonus arising from this application in connection with this development. 10. Implications 10.1 Legal Implications 10.1.1 The following matters have been considered but no issues are judged to arise. 10.2 Equality and Diversity 10.2.1 The Council must have regard to the elimination of unlawful discrimination and harassment, and the promotion of equality under the Equality Act 2010. 10.3 Environment 10.3.1 The Council must have due regard to conserving bio-diversity under the Natural Environment and Rural Communities Act 2006.

Page 83 Agenda Item 4 REPORTS FOR DEBATE 10.4 Crime and Disorder 10.4.1 Under the Crime and Disorder Act 1998, the Council must have regard to the need to reduce crime and disorder in exercising any of its functions. 10.5 Children 10.5.1 Under the Children Act 2004, the Council has a duty to safeguard and promote the welfare of children in the exercise of any of its functions. 10.6 Human Rights 10.6.1 In determining applications, the Council must ensure that all parties get a fair hearing in compliance with the provisions of Article 6 under the European Convention on Human Rights, as now embodied in UK law in the Human Rights Act 1998. 11. Conclusion 11.1 It is considered that the proposal accords with the Development Plan for the following reasons which are not outweighed by material considerations: The proposal will result in the loss of the use of the building as a public house which does diminish the amenity and appeal of the town centre, although this is counterbalanced by the preservation and restoration of a designated heritage asset – a grade II listed building – which will be given a viable new use. The development will preserve the visual appeal of the site through retaining the building’s characteristic features and limited intervention into the historic fabric of the building. The lack of parking for the proposed flats is a significant factor but it should not be the determining factor given the town centre location. The scheme is otherwise considered acceptable in terms of scale, appearance, finished materials and flooding, and is deemed satisfactory as regards its impact on neighbouring amenity. In the absence of any overriding material adverse impact the proposal is considered to be in accordance with the NPPF and the development plan.

Jane Langston Deputy Director Technical Services

Checked by or on behalf of the Monitoring Officer 

Background Papers: Planning File

Page 84 Agenda Item 5 REPORTS FOR DEBATE

Date of Committee: 15 November 2018

Planning Application No: 18/0468 Date Received: 12/6/18

OS Grid Ref: 5153 3027 Expiry Date: 16/8/18 Extension of time agreed to 19/11/18

Parish: Penrith Ward: Penrith West

Application Type: Listed Building Consent

Proposal: Change of use of pub to 5 apartments

Location: Former Lowther Arms, Queen Street, Penrith

Applicant: Mr Tom Dawson

Agent: Malcolm Wilson, Black Box Architects

Case Officer: Mat Wilson

Reason for Referral: The Officer recommendation is contrary to the view of the Highway Authority

Page 85 Agenda Item 5 REPORTS FOR DEBATE

1. Recommendation That Listed Building Consent be granted subject to the following conditions: Time limit for commencement 5. The development permitted shall be begun within three years starting with the date of this approval. Reason: In order to comply with the provisions of the Planning (Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas) Act 1990 Approved Plans 6. The development hereby granted shall be carried out in accordance with the drawings hereby approved: xi. Existing plans and elevations Plan ref 2017-109-10 dated May-18 xii. Proposed plans and elevations ref 2017-109-11 Rev A dated 20/9/18 xiii. Heritage and Design Statement Revision A dated 20/9/18 xiv. Flood Risk Assessment submitted with the application Reason: To ensure a satisfactory development and to avoid any ambiguity as to what constitutes the permission. Before the occupation of the building 7. Windows on the west, south and east elevations shall be retained as timber sliding sashes and shall be repaired and refurbished where necessary prior to the first occupation of the building. Any elements of the window frames which are required to be replaced shall be carried out on a like-for-like basis. Reason: - To safeguard the architectural and/or historic interest of the building. 8. A written statement of justification for, and samples of, the UPVC windows proposed for the north elevation shall be submitted to and approved by the Local Planning Authority in writing before their first use within the building. The approved windows shall match the existing timber windows in size, colour and appearance, and they shall be installed in accordance with the approved details and retained as such thereafter. Reason: - To safeguard the architectural and/or historic interest of the building. The condition is considered necessary to be complied with pre-commencement as compliance with the requirements of the condition at a later time could result in unacceptable harm contrary to the policies of the Development Plan. Informative 4. Separate approval for the works hereby granted permission/consent may be required by the Building Act 1984 and the Building Regulations 2000 (as amended), and the grant of planning permission does not imply that such approval will be given. The Council’s Building Control Team should be consulted before works commence. You contact the team directly at [email protected] 5. Please note that the property is a listed building and as such any replacement windows or doors cannot be carried out under a competent person scheme.

Page 86 Agenda Item 5 REPORTS FOR DEBATE You must notify the Council's Building Control team directly at [email protected] 6. This decision notice grants planning permission only. It does not override any existing legal agreement, covenant or ownership arrangement.

2. Proposal and Site Description 2.1 Proposal 2.1.1 This report concerns an application for listed building consent for conversion of the former Lowther Arms pub to provide five apartments (a concurrent application for full planning permission is also under consideration). 2.1.2 The scheme would provide 2x one-bedroom flats and 3x two bedroom apartments. No extensions or external alterations are proposed other than the reinstatement of blocked openings to provide windows. There is no parking provision with the application. 2.1.3 Revised plans were submitted 20/9/18 to show existing timber windows to be retained and where necessary overhauled with timber repairs rather than replacement UPVC units as originally proposed. New windows reinstated in blocked openings to the non- public north elevation are still proposed to be UPVC. 2.1.4 The application is accompanied by a Heritage Statement and a Flood Risk Assessment together with further supporting information supplied by the agent on 20/9/18. 2.2 Site Description 2.2.1 The pub is a 3-storey stone building fronting onto Queen Street, with a two storey return section extending along Brook Street. The building is rendered and slate roofed with timber sliding sash windows set in painted stone surrounds. A 3-bedroomed manager’s flat was provided above the pub. 2.2.2 In terms of constraints The Lowther Arms is a Grade II listed building located within Penrith Conservation Area and within Flood Zone 3. 3. Consultees 3.1 Statutory Consultees Consultee Response Highway Authority No parking provisions have been provided. Depending on the number of bedrooms for the dwelling, a plan should show there would be safe opportunity for communal or on-street parking adjacent to the proposed site, provision of vehicle turning space within the site independent of the required vehicular parking area which allows vehicles visiting to the site to enter and leave the highway in a forward gear, we would expect the following number of parking spaces to be provided for the proposed dwelling.  1 bedroom dwelling – 1.5 spaces  2 bedroom dwelling – 2 spaces

Page 87 Agenda Item 5 REPORTS FOR DEBATE

With the above in mind the Highway Authority therefore recommends refusal of the application for the following reason: Inadequate information has been submitted to satisfy the Local Planning Authority that the proposal is acceptable in terms of ……

3.2 Discretionary Consultees Consultee Response United Utilities No comments in respect of this application

Housing This is below the affordable housing threshold for Penrith. Conservation Officer Comments set out as below

Page 88 Agenda Item 5 REPORTS FOR DEBATE communal value pertaining to its former use as a public house. The proposed alterations to convert the building into 5 self contained flats are not envisaged to cause any significant harm to any features of interest that the building holds. The proposals include: reinstating blocked openings; stripping back scalloped bonded plaster and re-plastering with a smooth finish; introduction of stud partition walls to create new internal rooms; electrical, heating and fire prevention works; and the set aside of the existing roof covering for reinstatement following the installation of new breathable felt. These proposals are considered to be appropriate and have potential to help to preserve the building fabric for future use. Furthermore keeping the internal alterations to a minimum and reinstating blocked openings allows the original plan form of the building to remain readable. The modern windows in the south elevation do not contribute to the character of the building and there replacement with a sympathetic timber alternative is encouraged. The proposal to insert glass to BS within these windows on the south elevation is acceptable. It is also recommended that the new windows being installed in the reinstated openings should be a sympathetic timber alternative. The proposal to replace the windows on the north elevation (fronting the rear yard) with double glazed uPVC requires a clear justification that the existing windows are beyond repair. Further information on the design and specification of the proposed replacement and new windows is necessary in order to fully assess any potential impacts on the value of the building and this could be requested by a condition applied to any granted permissions for a sample to be submitted to the LPA for prior approval. Section 134 of the NPPF states ‘Where a development proposal will lead to less than substantial harm to the significance of a designated heritage asset, this harm should be weighed against the public benefits of the proposal, including securing its optimum viable use’. The proposal to convert the public house into residential accommodation is considered to be appropriate and viable to ensuring the long term use of the historic building. The benefit of preserving the building in use and creating additional town centre residential accommodation is considered to outweigh the harm caused to the building as a result of the refurbishment and repair works. Overall the proposed works are considered to have the potential to be in accordance with conservation policies in the Planning Act 1990 and NPPF.

Page 89 Agenda Item 5 REPORTS FOR DEBATE No of Neighbours Consulted 9 No of letters of support 0 No of Representations Received 1 No of neutral representations 0 No of objection letters 2 5.2 One resident has submitted two letters of objection raising the following concerns:  Questions the agent’s statement that the pub is unviable.  The viability has not been evidenced; the previous owners during their tenure never attempted to run the public house.  Lack of parking provision. There simply is not enough space in Penrith for all the vehicles that people wish to park. To add more is simply folly.  How could the agent/applicant possibly know the residents of the flats will be non- car owners.  Loss of historic business and a community asset. The Lowther Arms is an important part of the history of Penrith. The loss of such a historical business would be irrevocable.  The same agent - acting for someone else on a planning application for the Lowther Arms - stated last year "It is welcoming to have a potentially lost PH in a town centre brought back to life as a valuable asset, at a time where most are seen to be closing down."  Flooding – the accuracy of the Flood Risk Assessment is called into question. It is incorrect to claim the site has no history of flooding. The objection has witnessed Brook Street in flood.  There appears to be no disabled access to any part of this proposed development.

The following issues raised are not material planning considerations.  Inaccuracies in the application form [now resolved].

6. Relevant Planning History 11/0048 – Creation of self-contained flat above [adjoining] shop: Granted 14/3/11 18/0467 – Full application for change of use to 5 self-contained apartments – Under Consideration 7. Policy Context 7.1 Development Plan Local Plan 2014-2032 The Eden Local Plan 2014 - 2032 was accepted by the Government's Planning Inspectorate in September 2018 and was adopted at the full Council meeting on the 11th October 2018. The plan replaces the previous Development Plan documents, these being the saved policies from the Eden Local Plan (1996) and the Core Strategy (2010) and is now the formal Development Plan for Eden District Council. This means that the Eden Local Plan 2014 - 2032 now carries full weight in the planning decision process and that the Council is now able to demonstrate a five-year housing land supply.

Page 90 Agenda Item 5 REPORTS FOR DEBATE LS1 Locational Strategy DEV1 General Approach to New Development DEV2 Water Management and Flood Risk DEV3 Transport, Accessibility and Rights of Way DEV5 Design of New Development ENV10 The Historic Environment HS4 Housing Type and Mix EC7 Town Centres and Retailing COM2 Protection of Open Space, Sport, Leisure and Recreation Facilities Supplementary Planning Documents: Housing SPD incorporating Residential Development Guidelines. 7.2 Other Material Considerations National Planning Policy Framework:  Presumption in favour of sustainable development  Delivering a wide choice of high quality homes  Conserving and enhancing the historic environment  Requiring good design  Meeting the challenge of climate change and flooding The policies detailed above are the most relevant policies relating to this application. 8. Planning Assessment 8.1 Key/Main Planning Issues  Heritage impact  Housing policies  Impact on character of the area  Residential amenity  Highway implications  Drainage and Flood Risk 8.2 Principle 8.2.1 The Local Plan directs development to the more sustainable locations in the District, and to Penrith in particular. New housing development in Penrith is therefore acceptable in principle. 8.2.2 The building conversion policy RUR3 in the Local Plan concerns rural locations so it is more appropriate to apply policy COM1. This concerns the retention of services and facilities, and whilst the policy states that change of use of rural facilities will only be permitted where the need no longer exists or accessible alternatives are available, that the facility is no longer viable, and that the site has been marketed, these criteria

Page 91 Agenda Item 5 REPORTS FOR DEBATE should be applicable to a town centre proposal involving the loss of a community facility (acknowledging the greater likelihood of there being alternative facilities in the vicinity of the application site). 8.2.3 Policy EC7 seeks to maintain and enhance the vitality and viability of the town centres. Whilst it mainly concerns protecting the retail provision of the town centres, it does mandate that developments shall not compromise the functional operation of existing town centre uses. 8.2.4 The proposal would result in the loss of a pub and so the alternative provision must be considered. The agent has provided further information in support of the application, indicating that 17 licensed premises are located within easy walking distance of the site. This will include non-comparable premises such as clubs and restaurants, but in terms of traditional pubs the town centre still offers at least 12 other venues. It is therefore considered that sufficient alternative provision of pub facilities in Penrith town centre would be maintained. 8.2.5 The previous owners of the Lowther Arms marketed the premises in 2017 as a public house and generated no interest in the sale other than from the current applicant. They have experience in catering and hospitality but found that with the investment needed to improve the condition of the building and to improve the décor and facilities, taking into account the competitiveness of the pub trade in Penrith, the expenditure to continue as a pub was not viable. 8.2.6 The question of the viability of continuing the business as a pub does not carry significant material planning weight in this instance because of the town centre location and the prevalence of alternative pubs within close proximity. Expectations that the pub must continue to trade would be unreasonable. 8.2.7 The loss of the pub facility marginally diminishes the vitality of the town centre but not to any significant extent. Adequate alternative provision exists in the vicinity. The proposed development will comply with the relevant requirements of Policies COM1 and EC7. The development is therefore considered to be acceptable in principle. 8.3 Built Environment 8.3.1 The Planning (Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas) Act 1990 requires that special regard is had to the desirability of preserving a listed building, or its setting, or any features of special architectural or historic interest. Local and national policy is clear that development should preserve or enhance conservation areas and designated heritage assets. 8.3.2 The former Lowther Arms is a Grade II listed building. No additions or alterations are proposed to the exterior of the building other than replacing windows and re-inserting windows in blocked-up openings. Internally the only features noted of architectural interest are original timber beams at ground floor. New stud walls are proposed to divide the separate apartments but essentially the scheme involves a minor degree of interventions. The character of the building, particularly its external appearance, will be preserved. 8.3.3 The application has been revised following concerns raised about the replacement of timber-framed windows with UPVC. It is now proposed to refurbish the timber sliding sash windows on the front and side elevations, repairing like-for-like where necessary, and to use UPVC only on the internal elevation behind the Brook Street frontage. The

Page 92 Agenda Item 5 REPORTS FOR DEBATE material for new windows to be installed in the existing blocked openings is not stated but in order to preserve the building’s character these should be timber on the south and east elevations which are public-facing. The side elevation facing a private yard is less significant and it is considered that provided adequate further justification is provided for sliding sash UPVC windows then this can be accepted without harming the character of this building. 8.3.4 The proposed development is considered to respect the heritage value of the listed building and its conversion to a new residential use will provide the building with a viable long term use, preserving a heritage asset without detracting from its original form and function. 8.4 Residential Amenity 8.4.1 Notwithstanding that the pub conversion results in an increase in residential units within the building from one flat to five, the development is unlikely to produce any significant detriment to neighbouring amenity. Very few new openings are proposed and none are considered to be significantly harmful to the privacy or amenity of any other neighbouring dwellings. The development will result in high density housing but this is reflective of the town centre environment. The extant use as a public house is likely to have more of an impact on neighbouring amenity than the proposed four additional flats. 8.5 Streetscene/Landscape Impact 8.5.1 The proposals seek to preserve the character of the building through minimising the interventions to its exterior, even retaining and restoring the pub signage to show the evolution of the building. Whilst the loss of the pub use itself is a detriment to the vitality of the streetscene, the alternative of allowing the building to continue standing empty is equally harmful to the character of the area. Converting it to provide flats does give this building a viable use and the most effective way of maintaining heritage assets such as this listed property is to allow an active new use where the previous use is no longer sustainable. 8.6 Infrastructure/Flood Risk/Drainage 8.6.1 The Highway Authority recommends refusal of the scheme owing to the lack of parking provision. The agent in response writes ‘The general policy is to deter parking in town centres, hence there being no intention of parking provision (there being more than sufficient / office shopping facilities nearby and adequate bus routes). The clientele for the apartments would be non-car owners.’ 8.6.2 It is not the Council’s policy ‘to deter parking in town centres’. Adequate parking provision should be provided in accordance with the guidance set out in the Cumbria Design Guide. Appendix 1 of the Guide sets out that residential developments should be expected to provide two parking spaces per 2-bedroom dwelling. The supporting text of the Design Guide does concede however that Developments may prove acceptable without offering parking levels as indicated [in the Appendix], or prove unacceptable despite offering parking levels equal to or greater than those indicated, depending on the circumstances. The parking provision can only be read as a guideline since site-specific circumstances will vary from case to case. 8.6.3 The proposal will create four additional residential units centrally located within the most accessible town in the District. No parking spaces are provided, although the agent has identified Bluebell Lane and Sandgate car parks within a few minutes’ walk.

Page 93 Agenda Item 5 REPORTS FOR DEBATE It is intended that the flats will be offered to non-car owners, although this cannot be controlled through the planning system. There is nothing to prevent a car owner from buying or renting one of the flats, if they are prepared to use a pay-and-display car park or find parking elsewhere. The Highway Authority has indicated that it cannot issue further Residents’ Parking Permits in the centre of Penrith since the existing spaces are already heavily oversubscribed. 8.6.4 The absence of parking is a significant material planning consideration and due weight should be attributed against the proposal. It is Officer’s opinion however that the town centre location, with accessible public transport links and services, facilities, retail and employment opportunities within walking distance of the site, offsets the harm of potentially increasing the parking demand within Penrith. Taking into account the benefits of providing additional housing and bringing back into active use a listed building which otherwise could fall into disrepair through neglect, it is considered that the absence of parking can in this instance be accepted, although the matter is finely balanced. 8.6.5 The site is located within Flood Risk Zone 3. A Flood Risk Assessment has duly been submitted to address the potential impact of flooding. It identifies the flood mitigation that has taken place in Penrith: Thacka Beck is culverted below street level and much of the culvert has been replaced as part of an ongoing flood alleviation scheme which incorporates a flood alleviation reservoir. As such the risk of fluvial flooding to the site is now defined by the Environment Agency as ‘low’, notwithstanding its designation as Flood Risk Zone 3. The risk from surface water and groundwater is considered low, and the flood mitigation works in Penrith appear for now to have resolved the issues with Thacka Beck as this did not flood during Storm Desmond. 8.6.6 The Environment Agency has considered the proposal and they confirm the Flood Risk Assessment overcomes their previous objection. It is therefore considered the proposal is acceptable in terms of infrastructure. 9. Implications 9.1 Legal Implications 9.1.1 The following matters have been considered but no issues are judged to arise. 9.2 Equality and Diversity 9.2.1 The Council must have regard to the elimination of unlawful discrimination and harassment, and the promotion of equality under the Equality Act 2010. 9.3 Environment 9.3.1 The Council must have due regard to conserving bio-diversity under the Natural Environment and Rural Communities Act 2006. 9.4 Crime and Disorder 9.4.1 Under the Crime and Disorder Act 1998, the Council must have regard to the need to reduce crime and disorder in exercising any of its functions. 9.5 Children 9.5.1 Under the Children Act 2004, the Council has a duty to safeguard and promote the welfare of children in the exercise of any of its functions.

Page 94 Agenda Item 5 REPORTS FOR DEBATE 9.6 Human Rights 9.6.1 In determining applications, the Council must ensure that all parties get a fair hearing in compliance with the provisions of Article 6 under the European Convention on Human Rights, as now embodied in UK law in the Human Rights Act 1998. 10. Conclusion 10.1 It is considered that the proposal accords with the Development Plan for the following reasons which are not outweighed by material considerations: The proposal will result in the loss of the use of the building as a public house which does diminish the amenity and appeal of the town centre, although this is counterbalanced by the preservation and restoration of a designated heritage asset – a grade II listed building – which will be given a viable new use. The development will preserve the visual appeal of the site through retaining the building’s characteristic features and limited intervention into the historic fabric of the building. The lack of parking for the proposed flats is a significant factor but it should not be the determining factor given the town centre location. The scheme is otherwise considered acceptable in terms of scale, appearance, finished materials and flooding, and is deemed satisfactory as regards its impact on neighbouring amenity. In the absence of any overriding material adverse impact the proposal is considered to be in accordance with the NPPF and the development plan.

Jane Langston Deputy Director Technical Services

Checked by or on behalf of the Monitoring Officer 

Background Papers: Planning File

Page 95 Agenda Item: 6 REPORTS FOR DEBATE Date of Committee: 15 November 2018

Planning Application No: 18/0251 Date Received: 27 March 2018

OS Grid Ref: NY 55415, 14612 Expiry Date: 15 November 2018

Parish: Shap Ward: Shap

Application Type: Outline

Proposal: Erection of two detached local occupancy dwellings (as revised)

Location: Land adjacent Kiln House, Keld Lane, Keld, Shap

Applicant: Messrs Fishwick & Simpson

Agent: Holt Planning Consultancy Ltd

Case Officer: Mr D Cox

Reason for Referral: Recommendation contrary to that of the Parish Council.

Page 96 Agenda Item: 6 REPORTS FOR DEBATE 1. Recommendation

It is recommended that planning permission be Refused for the following reasons: • The proposed development by virtue of its location, scale, siting would have significant and adverse impact on the character and amenity setting of the hamlet and thereby does not accord with Policy LS1 of the Eden Local Plan (2014-2032). • The proposed development would have an unacceptable and demonstrably harmful impact on the character of the local landscape and the hamlet contrary to Policies DEV5 and ENV2 of the Eden Local Plan (2014-2032).

2. Proposal and Site Description 2.1 Proposal 2.1.2 The submitted application forms (as revised), with access and layout provide that the development proposed would be for 2 detached local occupancy single storey dwelling houses. The site area of the proposed development is 0.19 hectares. The applicant has indicated that the proposed two houses would have their own new separate vehicular access points, created off and from the above highway. 2.1.3 The current proposal is for outline planning permission at this stage, with all matters relating to design, scale and appearance of buildings and landscaping being subject to a further reserved matters application, were planning permission to be granted. The current application does provide an illustrative plan and possible elevation detail to help consideration at this stage in terms of relationship to access and plot layout. 2.1.4 In line with the requirements of the Town and Country Planning (Environmental Impact Assessment) Regulations 2011 (as amended 2017), it is considered that the whilst the development falls within the criteria of Schedule 2 Development (Part 10 Infrastructure Projects (b)), the application does not meet or exceed the threshold criteria, by virtue of being less than 5 hectares and for less than 150 residential dwellings. Therefore, the application need not be accompanied by an Environmental Impact Assessment. The application is however supported by a: • Revised Site Location and Layout plan, • Traffic and Speed Survey, • Illustrative elevational plans, and • a Planning statement 2.2 Site Description 2.2.1 The application seeks outline planning permission, with all matters reserved, except for access and layout, for residential development on part oblong grazing fields, alongside the public highway, Keld Lane (3224) on its eastern entrance into the hamlet of Keld. 2.2.2 The application site (as amended) is located within partially walled sloping agricultural grazing land, adjacent and with access off the public highway, and to the north east of the small hamlet of Keld, which is approx. ½ mile to the west of Shap.

Page 97 Agenda Item: 6 REPORTS FOR DEBATE 2.2.3 Although there are no specific landscape designation relating to the application site proper. Keld, as a hamlet is located immediately to the east of the designated boundary of the Lake District National Park. 3. Consultees 3.1 Statutory Consultees Consultee Response Highway Authority No objection subject to condition. Lead Local Flood Authority No objection subject to condition. 3.2 Discretionary Consultees Consultee Response Environmental Health Recommend standard restriction on construction hours. Contaminated Land Officer Recommend Informative be attached. Affordable Housing Officer Should the greenfield site identified be considered as rounding off, then any approval secured should be subject to condition or legal agreement restricting occupancy to only those meeting local occupancy criteria, defined in Appendix 6, will be applied. United Utilities No objection subject to condition. 4. Parish Council Please Tick as Appropriate Parish Council No View Object Support No Response Expressed Shap Parish Council x 4.1 Shap Parish Council has viewed the above application and wish to state that on no occasion have they raised any objections. On 1 May 2018 they responded with the following: Outline Planning Application 18/0251: land adjacent to Kiln House, Keld Lane, Keld, Shap for erection of two detached local occupancy dwellings for Messrs Fishwick and Simpson. Shap Parish Council convened a special planning meeting on 30th April 2018 in order to view the outline planning application since an extension had been refused by EDC. Council wish to make the following comment: . Having viewed the plans, Shap Parish Council have concerns regarding the impact that extra traffic involved in the erection of the planned dwellings and future occupation will have on a very narrow lane i.e. Keld Lane. The field is not included in any land set aside for building in the Rural Development Plan. . Whilst allowing development of this fields may seem to be of little significance, this will set a precedent which would impact on this hamlet in future.

Page 98 Agenda Item: 6 REPORTS FOR DEBATE Subsequently the Parish Council received a request to respond to an amended plan and were informed that Cumbria County Council highways did not share their concerns about traffic. The Parish Council considered the amended plan and noted the opinion from the Agents that a defensible boundary would be created on the east of the development by Roughly Lane. 4.2 On 17 September The Parish Council responded: Shap Parish Councillors have viewed the revised planning application 18/0251. They seek assurance that there will be no further development beyond the defensible boundary (lane) and that the local occupancy clause is strictly adhered to. 4.3 On 18 September further correspondence was received from the Agent who was unable to give the assurances requested. 4.4 A special planning meeting was convened on Monday 8th October when all the plans and responses were discussed. Council were divided on this matter. Whilst all council wish to uphold their original comments and concerns, they felt that the application could be supported on local occupancy grounds. They voted 4 to 3 in support of the application. 5. Representations 5.1 Letters of consultation were sent to nearby neighbours and a site notice was posted on 29 May 2018. No of Neighbours Consulted 3 No of letters of support 2 No of Representations Received 3 No of neutral representations No of objection letters 1 5.2 One letter of concern/objection received, with concerns summarised as follows: - The area is already subject to surface water flooding issue and inadequate drainage provision. - Relative landfall and site relationship may result in loss of amenity through overlooking. 6. Relevant Planning History Application No Description Outcome n/a 7. Policy Context 7.1 Development Plan

Eden Local Plan 2014 – 2032: • Policy LS1 – Locational Strategy • Policy DEV5 – Design of new development • Policy HS1 – Affordable Housing • Policy ENV2 – Protection and Enhancements of Landscapes and Trees

Page 99 Agenda Item: 6 REPORTS FOR DEBATE 7.2 Other Material Considerations National Planning Policy Framework:  Chapter 2 Achieving sustainable development  Chapter 6 Building a strong, competitive economy  Chapter 12 Achieving well-designed places  Chapter 15 Conserving and enhancing the natural environment 7.2.1 Housing Supplementary Planning Document (SPD). 7.3 The policies detailed above are the most relevant policies relating to this application. 8. Planning Assessment 8.1 Key/Main Planning Issues - Principle and acceptability of development in this location. - Character and appearance of the settlement and the areas visual amenity. - Residential Amenity. - Local housing need. 8.2 Principle 8.2.1 Planning applications must be determined in accordance with the Development Plan unless material considerations indicate otherwise. The Eden Local Plan (2014 – 2032) 8.2.2 The Eden Local Plan does not specifically identify this site for development, however as a smaller village and hamlet, Keld is identified within Policy LS1 “Locational Strategy” as a location where development of an appropriate scale, which reflects the existing built form of the settlement will be permitted. (Importantly, such small scale and sensitive development, being required to help meet local demand, must be limited to acceptable “infill” or “rounding off” sites.) 8.2.3 The application, in principle only, also advocates the provision of two dwellings, to be subject to local occupancy restriction, and as such the proposed development in this aspect and as a requisite in such locations, is argued as complying with this aspect of Policy LS1. 8.2.4 Keld is listed under “Smaller Villages and Hamlets” where development of an appropriate scale, which reflects the existing built form of adjoining and neighbouring development to the site and the service function of the settlement will be permitted within villages and hamlets, to support the development of diverse and sustainable communities. Development in these locations will be permitted in the following circumstances: • Where it reuses previously-developed land • Where it delivers new housing on greenfield sites to meet local demand only. 8.2.5 Within these smaller villages and hamlets all development must be of a high quality design and will be restricted to infill sites, which “infill” a modest gap between existing buildings within the settlement; or “rounding off”, which extends the edge of a settlement within a logical, defensible boundary. 8.2.6 Smaller Villages and hamlets have been identified on the basis that they contain a coherent and close knit group of ten or more dwellings, which are well related and in

Page 100 Agenda Item: 6 REPORTS FOR DEBATE close proximity to each other, or clustered around a central element or feature, as opposed to area of scattered and poorly related development. In addition, any residential development in Smaller Villages and hamlets should be restricted to a local connection secured through a local occupancy condition. 8.2.7 In this case the location of the proposed development in considered to conflict with the aim of Policy LS1 because the application site cannot be construed to be either “rounding off” or “infill” development as the development location and site would neither have defensible boundaries, fill in a modest gap within, nor (in this particular location) represent a reasonable “rounding off” of the hamlet. 8.2.8 The Council’s position ( .. supported on Appeals elsewhere) is that such a defensible boundary should and would be a landscape feature such as a road, wood, river, railway line or a significant rise or fall in the topography, which would prevent the further extension of development. Other than the Keld lane to the south-east, and garden curtilage of Kiln House to the south west, it is considered that no such other strong defensible boundaries ( .. even acknowledging the presence of stone walls and partial hedge) exist to the remainder of the application site, and that therefore the proposal does not represent a practical or reasonable “rounding off” of the hamlet of Keld in this particular location. 8.2.9 It is to be noted that as the Local Plan has now been adopted, the Council can demonstrate a 6.8 years housing land supply, and as such there are no acceptable arguments to be made in terms of this aspect in the consideration of this particular application. 8.3 Landscape and Visual Impacts 8.3.1 The application is in outline only with all matters reserved, except for access and layout. 8.3.2 Policies LS1 and DEV5 of the Eden local plan both require that development demonstrate a clear understanding of the form and character of the district’s built and natural environment. Furthermore those areas of open space and built frontages both within and peripheral to towns and villages are to be protected and enhanced where they are important to the character and amenity of the area. 8.3.3 The development of the application site would extend the built form of the settlement on the north-east side of the hamlet, and on the northern side of the small lane and rising ground considerably beyond the existing hamlet envelope. 8.3.4 The lane, and application site adjacent the principle entrance to the hamlet of Keld is notable in that the settlement is nestled with a fold in the topography, and the entrance, and rising ground generally to the east and set above the hamlet, lend to significant views across towards the Lakeland fells ( .. and the boundary of the Lake District National Park, approx. ¼ mile to the west, and on the other entrance to the hamlet). This area beyond the hamlet is identified as designated for its National importance, and its open and undeveloped character and relationship to the hamlet ( .. as a backdrop) lends significant visual amenity to the hamlet, its setting and approach to it when viewed from the east (Shap). 8.3.5 Such development as is proposed, and were it to be sited on the elevated eastern fringe of the hamlet, would have significant likelihood to unreasonably and unacceptably compromise this character and sensitive visual amenity.

Page 101 Agenda Item: 6 REPORTS FOR DEBATE 8.3.6 This therefore would be inconsistent with the present compact and presently well defined nucleated form of the small hamlet, and any development extending upwards, out and beyond, especially in this eastward direction would appear as an incongruous and inappropriate elevated and prominent linear extension of the built form into the open countryside alongside the road and beyond, following an arbitrary boundary of and presented by the lane. 8.3.7 It is considered that the development proposed would therefore not amount to a rounding off of the hamlet. It would extend the current, compact built form of the hamlet into the elevated, open countryside beyond the hamlet which would be harmful, both to the character of the settlement and to the character and visual amenity of the surrounding and sensitive landscape ( .. and beyond to the nationally designated landscape), by disrupting the established pattern of defined (dry stone wall) agricultural fields around the village. 8.3.8 Whilst the immediate surrounding countryside is not covered by any statutory designations, unlike the (designated National Park) landscape immediately beyond the hamlet to the west, the erosion of visual amenity that would result of and to the surrounding countryside and the expansion of the village in a manner that is inconsistent with its current extent and built form would cause demonstrable harm to the character and appearance of the hamlet, and to the surrounding landscape. It is contended that, as a location and site adjacent to the main entrance to the hamlet, and with views across it towards the National Park, that there would also be an unwarranted compromise to public appreciation of the visual amenity of that sensitive landscape as well as the character setting of the hamlet. 8.3.9 The adverse impacts of the scheme are considered to be the impact upon the character of a small settlement by extending the village on elevated ground beyond the built up part of the hamlet. Although the cumulative total of dwellings is not considered excessive, it does however relate to a very small hamlet, and the application clearly extends out-with the village’s clearly defined boundary, and without a defensible boundary (see above consideration). 8.3.10 These effects are considered to amount to significant and demonstrable harm which would outweigh the benefits of the scheme in the ‘planning balance’ which therefore is not considered acceptable in principle, or to accord with the aims of relevant Policies LS1, DEV5 and ENV2 of the Eden Local Plan. 8.4 Amenity 8.4.1 The application is in outline only with all matters reserved, except for access and layout. The neighbouring concerns are noted in this aspect, and were the present application to be approved, and a reserved matters application materialise, then relevant design detail would of necessity need to take the above into account, and the application considered in the light of the aims and criteria concerns of Policy DEV5 and relevant “Housing” SPD. 8.4.2 Based on layout illustrative drawing submitted (Ref No 117-183-02 Rev B), the size and position of neighbouring garden, and the oblique separation distance gable to gable (Approx 15 m) between nearest existing dwelling (Kiln House) and a proposed bungalow dwelling footprint, then it is unlikely that a proposal of this nature (if designed sympathetically) would significantly or unreasonably conflict with the relevant “Housing” SPD separation and design guidelines. As such, adverse amenity impact likelihood is considered to be limited in this specific context. In this aspect then, the development as

Page 102 Agenda Item: 6 REPORTS FOR DEBATE envisaged would be unlikely to conflict with the privacy and amenity aims and criteria concerns of the “Housing” SPD in light of the requirements of Policy DEV5. This consideration is however outwith the nature of the present submission. 8.5 Access The comments and concerns of both neighbours, residents and the Parish are noted in the context of the development proposed and responses received. In terms of highway and operational safety, the CCC Highway Authority has confirmed that they have no objection to the proposal, subject to safeguarding conditions. 9. Implications 9.1 Legal Implications 9.1.1 The following matters have been considered but no issues are judged to arise. 9.2 Equality and Diversity 9.2.1 The Council must have regard to the elimination of unlawful discrimination and harassment, and the promotion of equality under the Equality Act 2010. 9.3 Environment 9.3.1 The Council must have due regard to conserving bio-diversity under the Natural Environment and Rural Communities Act 2006. 9.4 Crime and Disorder 9.4.1 Under the Crime and Disorder Act 1998, the Council must have regard to the need to reduce crime and disorder in exercising any of its functions. 9.5 Human Rights 9.5.1 In determining applications, the Council must ensure that all parties get a fair hearing in compliance with the provisions of Article 6 under the European Convention on Human Rights, as now embodied in UK law in the Human Rights Act 1998. 10. Conclusion 10.1 The proposed development is considered to not be in accordance with the development plan which is not outweighed by material considerations and therefore the application is recommended for refusal.

Jane Langston Deputy Director Technical Services

Checked by or on behalf of the Monitoring Officer 

Background Papers: Planning File 18/0251.

Page 103 This page is intentionally left blank