Reference No: 02/2007/9002 Received: 05/02/2007 Proposed Change of use and extension of existing building to create a Development: metals recycling facility, erection of a security fence and lodge and ancillary works. Location: Unit 1 Joseph Noble Road Lillyhal Industrial Estate Workington Applicant: Studsvik UK Ltd

Constraints: Allerdale Flood Zone 1 British Coal Area Adv Control Exclusion – Winscales

Policies: PPS10 – Sustainable Waste Management Includes advice on addressing waste as a resource and looking to disposal as the last option. A key objective should be to help secure the recovery or disposal of waste without endangering human health and without harming the environment and enable waste to be disposed of in one of the nearest appropriate installations. Planning for waste management should also reflect the concerns and interests of communities, the needs of waste disposal authorities and business and encourage competitiveness. The particular locational needs of some types of waste management facilities, together with the wider environmental and economic benefits of sustainable waste management are material considerations that should be given significant weight in determining planning applications. Waste planning authorities are required to work effectively with pollution control authorities to ensure the best use is made of expertise and information.

RPG13 recognises that the North West is a centre of national and international expertise in radioactive waste management. It also identifies Workington as “economically fragile” and in need of development to ensure regeneration.

The emerging Regional Spatial Strategy requires plans and strategies to support the region’s role in radioactive waste management.

Structure Plan Policy ST3 – Principles applying to all development.

R49 – Waste Recovery Facilities New facilities will be required to meet targets for increased recovery and recycling of work. There is a presumption in favour of large scale recovery and treatment materials designed to handle a range of work from a wide area, to be located on existing industrial or previously developed land close to major work arisings, subject to no significant adverse impact on landscape character, conservation interests, environmental infrastructure, transport and local communities and measures to reduce impacts. Sites should, where possible, be rail or port linked. Priority will be given to sites in the vicinity of named centres including Workington.

The management of increased volumes of low level radioactive waste following decommissioning is identified a as an issue in the Minerals and Waste Local Development Framework Issues and Options Paper.

Allerdale Local Plan EM8 – Seeks high standard of design on industrial estates.

EM9 – Control of noise. Proposals for uses generating noise which would be harmful to the amenity of neighbouring uses will not be acceptable.

EM11 – Proposals for scrapyards and salvage operations will not be permitted in prestige areas of industrial estates except in exceptional circumstances. In all cases the following criteria apply:- i) the proposal is not located in a visually prominent position ii) there should be effective landscape screening iii) there should be no detrimental impact on neighbouring uses iv) conditions will govern access, stacking heights, hours of working, noise, emissions, smell, design and layout.

EM12 – Planning permission will not be given except in the most exceptional circumstances for the use of land and buildings which - require licensing under the Nuclear Installations Act, 1965 - require licensing under the Explosives Act, 1975 - come under the Notification of Installations handling Hazardous Substances Regulations, 1982.

WKEM6 – Seeks good quality landscaping in this area of Lillyhall.

Representations: REPORT This report considers a consultation from Cumbria County Council on a “county matter”. The proposal involves a vacant industrial unit adjacent to the roundabout at Lillyhall. The site’s longer frontage is onto the Branthwaite Road opposite land where planning permission was recently granted for a cheese making factory. Access is from Joseph Noble Road.

In physical terms the development involves extensions to the existing buildings, the provision of a 12 chimney stack, a security fence and gatehouse and the creation of a container storage area. Some landscaping within the site boundary would be removed.

The proposal involves the importation of metals suffering low levels of radioactive contamination. These would then be cut or compacted into smaller pieces which would be subject to processes of decontamination involving grit blasting and/or wiping. Contaminants would then be returned to the sender or forwarded to the Low Level Waste Repository at Drigg. Decontaminated metals would be subject to appropriate disposal or recycling. Metals which could not be fully decontaminated at Lillyhall would be shipped onward to the firm’s plant in Sweden.

The facility is aimed at dealing with waste arising from Sellafield but would also be available to deal with waste arising elsewhere and the presence of the Port of Workington and rail link are seen as important elements in site selection.

As well as dealing with the decontamination of metals the plant’s compaction facility would be used to reduce the volume of other low level waste such as plastics, clothing and paper.

The decontamination of metals and compaction of other low level waste reduces the amount of space needed in low level waste repositories. In relation to contaminated metal the amount of waste needing to be sent for disposal would be only 5% of the incoming material. As the quantity of low level waste is likely to increase with nuclear decommissioning and space for its disposal is at a premium, this accords with government objectives.

The applicants have described the impacts of the proposal in relation to air quality, water quality and groundwater and conclude that the proposal presents no threat to human health, to wildlife or to the environment. Allerdale’s Environmental Health Officer has been consulted and raised no objections to the development on grounds of health and safety or noise nuisance.

The report supplied by the applicants also concludes that the scheme will have no adverse impact on highway safety, a subject on which the County will be advised by its own highway officers.

Although Structure Plan Policy R49 (dealing with waste in general rather than radioactive waste) suggests that waste recovery facilities may be located on existing employment sites and gives priority to Workington as a potential location, Allerdale Local Plan Policy EM11 states that scrapyards and other salvage operations will not be permitted in prestige areas of industrial estates unless exceptional circumstances apply. Even then “the proposal should not be located in a visually prominent position on an industrial estate frontage, main estate road or public highway”. The current proposal is at face value contrary to that policy.

The supporting text associated with Policy EM11, however, makes it clear that the policy is “aimed at preventing the deterioration of the environment of industrial estates and important highway frontages in the plan area, which could potentially have a detrimental impact on the regeneration prospects for West Cumbria”. This proposal is not for a standard scrapyard use and will not have the same visual characteristics. Furthermore, the site is well screened and additional planting could be sought, in line with Policy WKEM6. In weighing the benefits of the proposal in terms of employment creation and the development of nuclear related skills (in line with RPG13 and the emerging Regional Spatial Strategy) against any negative impact on regeneration prospects of an area identified in RPG13 as “economically fragile”, members may in this case consider that Policy EM11 can be set aside.

The Allerdale Local Plan contains a further Policy which casts doubt on the suitability of the site for this use: Policy EM12 states that planning permission will not be given, except in the most exceptional circumstances, for the use of land or buildings which requires licensing under the Nuclear Installations Act 1965.

The reasoned justification to that Policy suggests that such development “presents inherent dangers to adjacent occupiers and sometimes to a wider area. The Council will only grant planning permission for such uses if and when it can be shown that exceptional circumstances have arisen to justify such consent and any proposal fully satisfies the appropriate regulations”.

Although the applicants state that this proposal does not require licensing under the Nuclear Installations Act it is understood from the County Planning Authority that this is the subject of ongoing discussions. Officers are in addition aware of objections and concerns raised by some local businesses and individuals based on the fear that this proposal would indeed present the risks Policy EM12 seeks to avoid. Such fears could lead to disinvestment in the area and prejudice the “fragile economy” RPG13 seeks to protect and bolster.

On the basis of the information available it is recommended that the County Planning Authority be advised that Allerdale Borough Council raises no objections to the development subject to:-

- confirmation that the proposal does not require licensing under the Nuclear Installations Act, 1965

- the inclusion of a satisfactory landscaping scheme to secure confirmed screening of the site from major roads

- conditions as recommended by the Environmental Health Officer in his letter to the County Planning Officer of 21/02/2007, namely:-

1) Before the use commences, a scheme shall be agreed with the County Planning Authority which specifies the provisions to be made for the control of noise emanating from the site.

2) Atmospheric emissions from the site shall be controlled by a scheme of ventilation and control measures to be agreed with the County Planning Authority.

Recommendation: No Objections Subject to Conditions Conditions/ Reasons:

______

Reference No: 2/2006/0790 Received: 11/07/2006 Proposed Construction of 5 wind turbines and associated infrastructure Development: including site roads (new and upgraded existing roads), meteorological mast, crane pads, substation control building, temporary construction compound and ancillary development, as amended by letter and environmental statement received 1 August 2006. Location: Land Adjacent To Brownrigg Hall Farm Allonby Maryport Applicant: Nuon Renewables

Constraints: Hadrians Wall Setting,CO24 Allerdale Flood Zone 1 Allerdale Flood Zone 2 Allerdale Flood Zone 3 ASCA Area

Policies: Government guidance on renewables is contained in PPS22: Renewable Energy and the companion guide that goes with it. It includes advice on proposals close to nationally designated areas i.e. AONB’s.

The Draft Regional Spatial Strategy Policy EM17 sets out acceptability criteria for renewable energy proposals.

County Structure Plan Policy ST4 sets criteria for considering major development. Policy R44 sets criteria for renewable energy proposals. Policy E34 considers areas of nature conservation importance and confirms that the setting of AONB’s should be taken into account. Policy E36 considers landscapes of County Importance and Policy E37 again looks to safeguard landscape character.

Allerdale Local Plan EN19 considers landscape protection, EN20 looks to protect the AONB, EN22 protects county landscapes and EN25 protects the open countryside. Policy CO19 looks to safeguard the setting of Scheduled Ancient Monuments and of nationally important archaeoogical remains. Policy CO24 protects the setting of Hadrians Wall World Heritage Site.

Wind Energy Development in Cumbria (SP9 1997). Whilst this document is dated it is adopted policy.

Cumbria Wind Energy SPD (Consultation draft August 2006). This document is in the early stages and therefore should not be given significant weight in determination. It has been used on a basis for assessment by the applicant. The appraisal of the proposal undertaken on behalf of the Council has used the document as a framework for identifying sensitivities and issues specific to wind energy development.

Representations: Hayton & Mealo Parish Council – Recommend refusal. Harmful to AONB.

Westnewton Parish Council – Recommend refusal on visual impact, noise, wildlife and highways.

Aspatria Town Council – Recommend refusal. Will spoil AONB.

Holme St Cuthbert Parish Council – Recommend refusal. Impact on AONB, tourism, highways, World Heritage Site and wildlife.

Allonby Parish Council – Visual impact on AONB, impact on roads and the inappropriateness of proposed improvements and concerns regarding foot and mouth burial site.

Crosscanonby Parish Council – Detrimental to AONB and visible to a lot of residents.

Ougtherside & Allerby Parish Council – Object to wind farm in this area of beautiful country.

Environmental Health – No objection in principle – request condition re noise assessment.

English Heritage – Object. “… would seriously adversely affect the outstanding universal value of …. World Heritage Site and damage the setting of other Scheduled Monuments to its north.” Further comment awaited.

Cumbria Tourism – Oppose the application as the applicant has not demonstrated that the development will not have a damaging effect on the visitor economy. Cumbria Tourism challenged research undertaken by the applicant albeit the applicant does not agree with this.

Cumbria County Council – Significant harm to landscape, character and visual setting of AONB – contrary to policy.

Solway Coast AONB Partnership – Object to visual impact which will have a major detrimental effect on the landscape quality of AONB, also refer to impact on wildlife.

Friends of the Earth – Support proposal commenting that 5 turbines would have less visual impact than that of climate change and its impact on the coast from rising sea levels and storm surges.

CPRE Cumbria – Object. Harm to AONB, harm to users of tourist routes. Cumulative impact.

Environment Agency – No objection subject to a condition regarding drainage.

County Archaeologist – No objection subject to condition.

County Highways – Has concerns regarding highway safety during construction and the abnormal amount of traffic will have a detrimental effect on the local highway network.

Natural England – No objection to proposed development on nature conservation grounds. They do express concern that the development could have a seriously detrimental impact on setting of AONB.

Cumbria Wildlife Trust – Expressed concerns that were addressed in the dialogue with Natural England.

RSPB – Expressed concerns that were addressed in the dialogue with Natural England.

Friends of Rural Cumbria’s Environment (FORCE) – Object to the proposal and refer in a detailed submission to: - Impact on AONB - Impact on settlements - Impact on World Heritage Site - Impact on business and tourism - Impact on business - Cumulative impact with other developments

NATS (air safety) – Had offered an objection but it is understood that has been resolved. Further advice awaited.

Civil Aviation Authority – No objection.

MOD – No safeguarding objections.

BBC – Refer to risk of TV reception – condition.

Fire Officer – No objection.

The application has been advertised on site and within the local press. Adjoining owners have also been notified.

A petition entitled ‘Stop the Wind Turbines at Allonby’ and signed by 42 people was received. As at 15/03/07 983 letters of objection were received. 4 letter of support received. Many of the objections are in the form of a standard letter but not all of them. Impact on area and AONB, impact on tourism and businesses, impact on wildlife, lack of benefit.

REPORT The planning application, submitted in July 2006, was supported by an Environmental Statement. Subsequently the following were submitted; a Supplementary Environmental Information and a Supplementary Planning Statement in December 2006 and January 2007 respectively.

The proposal is for 5 turbines each up to 102m high to blade tip (62m hub, 80m rotor diameter). By way of comparison the 2 turbines erected at Voridian were described in the application as 107m high (67m hub, 80m rotor diameter). Details of the proposal include:-

• Blade rotation speed approx 9 to 19 rpm operating at wind speeds of 9-56 mph • Turbine transformers located inside the tower or possibly in separate kiosks 2m high x 1m² • Turbine colour uniform pale grey with semi-matt finish • Construction period 7-9 months • Operational life 25 years • Decommissioning approx 6 months • Lattice construction meteorological mast approx 60m high in place throughout operational life • 3.4km of 5m wide stone access track (1.4km upgrading or widening, 2km new) majority left in place permanently for use by the site owner, remainder throughout operational life • Control building area approx 30 x 15m containing a single storey building approx 14 x 10m • Temporary construction compound and road to meteorological mast • Connection into national grid distribution system expected to be on site. • Site access via existing farm access widened from 16m to 65m and requiring a new visibility splay of 4.5 x 120m each side

• Off-site access route from A596 via unclassified minor road past Langrigg and through Westnewton entailing 27 no passing places and 13 no carriageway widenings over a distance of approx 8.4km • Traffic generation during construction 2,966 total trips.

The site is roughly centred between 4 villages: Allonby 1.9km to the south west; Mawbray 2.4km to north west; Westnewton 2.3km to the east and Hayton 2.4km to the south (all distances to the nearest turbine).

The boundary of the Solway Coast AONB is 450m from the site boundary and 800m from the nearest turbine.

Hadrians Wall World Heritage Site abuts the western boundary of the site.

As part of the consideration of the proposal Allerdale Borough Council commissioned an appraisal of the main landscape and visual issues raised by the proposal. This assessment encompasses a review of the adequacy of the findings of the submitted landscape and visual assessment.

A detailed assessment has been received and is available for inspection. What follows are the conclusions as presented in the report.

7.1 These conclusions respond to the landscape related planning considerations identified in Section 3 of this report and are structured accordingly. In some areas the findings cannot be entirely conclusive due to a lack of information in the ES and its supplements.

Siting and Design

7.2 The main locational draw back of this site is its central position just behind the southern section of the Solway Coast AONB rendering most of this area within range of potential effects of national significance. Secondly its location on a narrow coastal plain fragmented by rolling farmland and within a tight sequence of contrasting landscapes has made it difficult to achieve a development that appears logical and clearly related to a consistent set of key characteristics. For example the wind farm would have a mixed relationship with the horizon sometimes appearing in sharp contrast to the coastal plain and elsewhere appearing in an unpredictable way against undulations and ridgelines creating disconcerting partial views. Thirdly access to the site is poor via a long stretch of unclassified road and through the attractive village of Westnewton.

7.3 The wind farm composition has fundamental weaknesses in relation to key aspects from within the AONB. The grid layout would produce a disconnected appearance from the NNW around Mawbray Banks. This effect would be coupled with disconcerting partial views of blades and nacelles above the Tarns ridgeline. The wide spacing between turbines would produce an uncohesive appearance from the SW around Allonby Bay. This effect would be coupled with exposure to the broadest aspect (0.81km) of the wind farm and due to prevailing south-westerly winds the longest period of moving blades in full plane. In close range views retention of the meteorological mast throughout the operational life of the wind farm would add clutter and create confusion with turbine forms. The blade to tower height proportions of the turbines would produce a squat appearance. This together with the compositional weaknesses would undermine any sculptural quality that the wind farm might have achieved.

Compatibility

7.4 The proposed wind farm would stand out within the open coastal setting in high vertical contrast to the flat or subdued topography of the receiving landscape where vertical structures only feature on the peripheries. Turbines of the proposed stature (102m) would sit uncomfortably in the coastal context of low stone built villages (up to 12m) recognised as blending well with both land and seascape and low landmarks such as the cliffs at Swarthy Hill (31m). The wind farm would appear incongruous in terms of the unspoilt peaceful backwater character of the local setting where large scale development and communication routes are generally absent. These characteristics are at their strongest within the AONB resulting in a remote quality, recognised as remarkable in the national context, which would be compromised by this proposal.

7.5 The wind farm would create a strong new focal point with its presence emphasised by blade movement. This would detract from the simple farmland landscape which acts as a foil setting off the wilder dunes and uncluttered mountainous backdrops especially around Mawbray Banks. In so doing it would compromise the distinguished sequence of contrasting landscapes unrivalled by any other AONB. It would also deflect attention away from existing attractive focal points such as the Scottish mountain of Criffel and around Allonby Bay dilute the value of subtle landmarks such as Allonby village and Swarthy Hill and disrupt the restful balance between them.

Significant Landscape Effects

7.6 Significant long term effects on landscape character would occur across most of the southern section of the AONB between Beckfoot and Allonby Golf Course within a radius of 4-5km to the north and 6-7km to the south. The wind farm would become a dominant focus or key element in a landscape of high national value. Inland and outside the AONB within the immediate broad valley setting of medium landscape value and increasing visual interruption significant effects would occur within a radius of 2-3km of the wind farm. Seaward of the AONB significant effects would occur across the intertidal beach area in front of Allonby village, which is as a Landscape of County Importance of medium/high value, within 3-4km of the wind farm. Given the compatibility problems with key characteristics and scenic qualities described above and compounded by short comings in the design these effects would generally be adverse, particularly from coastal aspects.

7.7 Potentially there would be long term adverse effect on the landscape fabric due to the loss of hedges on site, at the site access and possibly along the access route via 8.4km of unclassified road as a result of 40 no. passing places or widenings. This would be locally significant as hedges are recognised as a key landscape feature and may also have implications for wildlife.

7.8 Modifications to the site access and access route could also damage the intimate character of the Westnewton /Langrigg road and open up visibility of the wind farm. A significant increase in traffic during construction would result in short term damage to the setting of Westnewton and its Conservation Area.

Significant Visual Effects

7.9 There would be significant long term visual effects on visitors using a range of recreational facilities that are mostly concentrated along the coast including amenity routes such as the B5300 coast road, Cumbria Coastal Way/Allerdale Ramble and Hadrian’s Cycleway (NCR 72), open access dune and raised beach areas at Mawbray Banks and Allonby Bay, Swarthy Hill near Milefortlet 21, at least 2 of the caravan sites, local footpaths near Allonby, Edderside and Westnewton and an area of open access land in between New Cowper and Westnewton. Whilst recognising perceptions of wind farms are variable given that visitors seek this area for a sense of wildness, remoteness, scenery, views, and peace and quiet together with the adverse compositional effects on views described above the wind farm is expected to detract from these amenities and recreation experience.

7.10 There would be significant long term effects on the residential visual amenity of at least 14 number individual properties and other properties within the hamlets of Edderside, Goodyhills and Salta and the villages of Allonby, Hayton, Mawbray and Crosby. There would be a significant effect on the visual amenity of Allonby village as a whole from within and in terms of its setting with disconcerting partial views of turbine blades and nacelles in gaps along the building frontages and over lower buildings, from the beach as well as fuller views of the turbines on the coastal route approaches to the village.

Standard of Assessment, Design and Mitigation

7.11 Identification and quantification of infrastructure and access route effects within the ES are inadequate. On site mitigation measures are minimal limited to alignment of access tracks in relation to existing field boundaries or tracks and reinstatement of hedges, trees and wall at the widened site access. However there would also be some hedge loss on site and possibly along the access route. Reliance is placed on Countryside Stewardship to ensure no net loss of hedges however the term and details of this scheme are uncertain as well as being outside planning controls. Given local visibility from roads, houses, local footpaths, caravan site and open access area measures would be required to minimise the operational impact of the extensive access tracks (3.4km) and large site access (65m) as well as their downgrading or reinstatement on decommissioning. Despite highlighting improvement opportunities to habitats such as rushy pasture at the scoping stage there are no landscape enhancement measures proposed or any local community benefits.

7.12 The environmental assessment and design, particularly in relation to cumulative effects, infrastructure and wind farm composition fall short of national standards and best practice set out in references such as the Guidelines for Landscape and Visual Impact Assessment (2002), PPS 22 Companion Guide (2004) and SNH Guidelines on the Environmental Impacts of Windfarms and Small Hydroelectrical Schemes (2001).

Significant Cumulative Effects

7.13 There would be significant cumulative effects at a moderate/substantial level on the landscape character and recreational experience of the Dubmill to Silloth part of the AONB in combination with 5 operational or permitted schemes. Wind farms would become a significant feature of this open land and seascape. The level of significance would increase to substantial if the current proposal at Hellrigg were to be permitted. In combination with Hellrigg and other schemes there could also be significant cumulative effects on the Allonby Bay and the Moricambe Bay areas of the AONB. There could also be significant cumulative effects on recreation facilities particularly sequential effects on popular coastal routes. Cumulatively the visual influence of several wind farms would compound incompatibilities with the remote quality of the AONB, detract from distinctive uncluttered skylines, focal points and landmarks and deflect attention away from these natural accents.

7.14 Hence it is concluded that this proposal would individually and cumulatively compromise the primary objective of the Solway Coast AONB designation which is to conserve and enhance natural beauty.

The detailed assessment offered by the applicant comes to a different conclusion. The full assessment is available for inspection. The conclusion within the Supplementary Planning Statement (January 2007) which follows on from the Supplementary Environmental Information (November 2006) states:

2.4.14 By careful design and incorporation of appropriate mitigation, the proposed wind farm is not likely to have unacceptable environmental effects in respect of those environmental resources identified and protected by the development plan policy.

2.4.15 The character and appearance of the landscape and character and setting of designated landscapes will not suffer unacceptable adverse effects from the development. The development will not affect the character and setting features of archaeological interest. There are no cumulative effects on the landscape or cultural heritage interests that would conflict with development plan policy.

2.4.16 The proposed wind farm therefore accords with the development plan. The proposed development is supported by Policy R44 and RE2, as there are no unacceptable environmental impacts which would warrant refusal of planning permission for the development.

It is apparent that there are differences of opinion regarding the impact the development might have.

If Members were to conclude that the development was harmful it is necessary to consider if the harm can be justified by reason of a need to secure more energy production by renewable means.

The benefits might be summarised by reference to the Government’s sustainable developments strategy PPS22 Renewable Energy.

Increased development of renewable energy resources is vital to facilitating the delivery of the Government’s commitments on both climate change and renewable energy. Positive planning which facilitates renewable energy developments can contribute to all four elements of the Government’s sustainable development strategy:

- social progress which recognises the needs of everyone - by contributing to the nation’s energy needs, ensuring all homes are adequately and affordably heated; and providing new sources of energy in remote areas;

- effective protection of the environment - by reductions in emissions of greenhouse gases and thereby reducing the potential for the environment to be affected by climate change;

- prudent use of natural resources – by reducing the nation’s reliance on ever diminishing supplies of fossil fuels; and,

- maintenance of high and stable levels of economic growth and employment – through the creation of jobs directly related to renewable energy developments, but also in the development of new technologies. In rural areas, renewable energy projects have the potential to play an increasing important role in the diversification of rural economies.

Whilst each application should be considered on its merits there is a concern that we should be exercising a precautionary principle and seeking to see the less objectionable sites delivered first. Officers would suggest there are less objectionable sites.

The development would, given the opinions received, on balance be harmful to the landscape and visual qualities of the Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty and its setting and to the same qualities and setting of the Hadrians Wall World Heritage Site.

To consider other aspects Natural England have concluded that there are no objections on nature conservation grounds.

The assessment of the scheme commissioned by the Council showed there are significant effects that can be identified on residential properties, hamlets/villages and caravan sites. The report suggests the findings cannot be conclusive evidence. It may be deemed necessary to refuse permission for the lack of evidence.

The actual turbines can be questioned. They are described as 102m to blade tip, as having 3 blades of approximately 40m length and a hub height of approximately 60m. The extra 2m can be gained as a consequence of the nacelle they are attached to and the manner of attachment. Those who argue in favour of turbines often argue that they are tall graceful structures and this must be derived from their proportions. Such proportions relate to tower height/blade length. For example, as referred to earlier, the Voridian turbines are 67m hub, 40m blade and whilst this makes them taller it does mean they are better proportioned than the turbines now proposed. Experience has demonstrated to Officers that there is a need in considering applications for greater commitment to the height/length of towers and masts and the proportions between them. The applicant has been asked to consider this point further.

There are highway issues to consider. The site access is via an existing farm access which is widened from 16m – 65m and requiring a new visibility splay of 4.5m x 120m each side. The off-site access route from the A596 is via the unclassified road past Langrigg and through Westnewton. This is seen as requiring 27 passing places and 13 carriageway widenings over a distance of approximately 8.4km. Such works can be seen as part of the landscape and visual impact of the development.

What must also be considered is what the highway works facilitate. The construction period is “likely to be between 7-9 months”. As well as the actual transportation of the turbines and blades/towers there are site compounds, crane hardstandings, turbine foundations, substation and permanent meteorological mast. There is an expected requirement of 20,000T of stone and 1,500T of sand. The traffic movements amount to 2,966 total trips (two way). That could peak at 1,052 in month 3 and be as low as 20 in month 6. That said the 20 trips are the delivery of the turbines. The applicant has assessed this level of activity and taken account of severance, driver delay, pedestrian delay, pedestrian amenity, fear and intimidation, accidents and safety. The applicant concludes the effects as acceptable. County Highways have not objected in principle. The issue is raised by a number of objectors. County Highways have offered a more critical view on a similar proposal received after this application and have been given the opportunity for further comment.

Having regard to the detailed submissions of the applicant and to the representations received it is recommended that planning permission be refused as the proposal is harmful to the AONB and World Heritage Site and is not proven to be not harmful to residential amenity. As a consequence the development is contrary to Regional, Strategic and Local Policy. There remains an issue regarding the proportions of the turbines and the issue of the impact of the amount of the traffic.

Recommendation: Refused

Conditions/ 1. The proposed development would individually and Reasons: cumulatively have a harmful effect on the landscape and visual impact on the character and appearance of the Solway Coast Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty and its setting. As a consequence, the proposed development is contrary to Policy EM17 of the emerging Regional Spatial Strategy for the North West; contrary to Policy ST4, Policy E34, Policy E36 and Policy E37 of the adopted Cumbria and Lake District Joint Structure Plan and contrary to Policy EN19, Policy EN20, Policy EN22 and Policy EN25 of the adopted Allerdale Local Plan.

2. The proposed development would individually and cumulatively have a visual impact on the outstanding unusual value of the Frontiers of the Roman Empire (Hadrians Wall) Workd Heritage Site by reason of it adversely affecting the ability to appreciate and understand the Roman military planning and land use of this area. As a consequence, the proposed development is contrary to Policy EM17 of the emerging Regional Spatial Strategy for the North West; contrary to Policy EN34 and R44 of the adopted Cumbria and Lake District Joint Structure Plan and Policy CO24 of the adopted Allerdale Local Plan.

3. The proposed development would adversely affect the setting of the following Scheduled Ancient Monuments (Cu 12, Cu 186, Cu 182 and Cu 185) which lie immediately to the north of the area. As a consequence, the proposed development is contrary to Policy E34 and Policy R44 of the adopted Cumbria and Lake District Joint Structure Plan and Policy CO19 of the adopted Allerdale Local Plan.

4. In the absence of detail to prove the contrary the Local Planning Authority cannot be satisfied that the proposed development will not have a harmful effect on the residential amenity of property in the locality.

5. In the absence of detail to prove the contrary the Local Planning Authority cannot be satisfied that the proposed development will not be harmful to the local highway network, users of it and residents living close to and served by it or that the scale of improvements necessary would not be harmful to the character and appearance of the area.

______

Reference No: 2/2006/0914 Received: 21/08/2006 Proposed Erection of 138 dwellings, as amended by plans received on Development: 2 March 2007. Location: Former Corus Offices Land off Mossbay Road Workington Applicant: Mr John Jackson Persimmon Homes Lancashire

Constraints: Settlement Limit HS5 Allerdale Flood Zone 1 1503,Mossbay Pond,A/NX92/06 British Coal Area Adv Control Exclusion – Workington

Policies: Structure Plan Policy ST3 – Principles applying to new development. H17 – Scale of housing provision. H18 – Targets for recycling land and buildings. E35 – Areas and features of nature conservation interest.

Allerdale Local Plan E9 – Contaminated and derelict land. EN3 – Landscaping. EN32 – Protecting wildlife protected by law. EN34 – Protecting significant wildlife habitats. EN35 – Creating new wildlife habitat. HS7 (First Alteration) addresses sequential release of housing land. The development of appropriate brownfield sites will be sought before the development of greenfield sites. HS5 governs residential development within settlements. HS8 (First Alteration) governs the design and layout of residential development and includes density requirements. C20 – Surveys of archaeological sites. C21 – Proposals affecting archaeological sites.

Representations: Town Council – On the basis of road access to the site at the junction onto Moss Bay Road. Traffic survey required at peak times. Cumbria Highways – Response to amended plans awaited. English Nature – No objections subject to conditions. Parks Department – No objections to original landscaping plan. County Archaeologist – No objections to revised archaeological reports. Police – No representation has been received to date (16/03/2007). Environment Agency – No objections subject to conditions. Fire Officer – No objections. Environmental Health – No objections subject to contamination condition. Further advice to follow on noise issues. County Planning – No representation has been received to date (16/03/2007). United Utilities – No objections. Ramblers Association – No objections. Footpath adjacent to site should remain unobstructed at all times. The application has been advertised on site and within the local press. Adjoining owners have also been notified. No representations have been received to date (16/03/2007).

REPORT This proposal involves land and buildings at the former Corus offices off Moss Bay Road, Workington. The site is exclusively to the east of the Carlisle to Barrow railway line and to the north of the site of the former Ranch Social Club and the associated playing fields. The site includes both the land occupied by the derelict office block and car park and an area of vacant curtilage land, much of which is roughly grassed. Although maps show a bowling green once existed on part of the site, this is not apparent. A row of bungalows known as Jubilee Cottage looks out over the site at a higher level.

The site is served by a single access from Moss Bay Road, this being a modified form of the access which served this part of the Corus complex. Traffic lights are proposed to manage the junction. A footbridge over the railway line into the main part of the Corus site would remain accessible for Corus’ use but is outside the ownership of the applicants and may be removed by Corus or its successors at a later date.

The submitted details show a variety of housetypes in a predominantly terraced form. These would include 10 two bedroomed bungalows, 19 two bedroomed houses, 67 three bedroomed houses, 12 one bedroomed flats and 23 two bedroomed flats, giving a total of 131 properties. No part of the development would exceed three storeys in height. The properties would be finished in either brick or render, or a mix of the two materials, with the disposition of finishes selected to add variety to the development.

A local equipped play area would be provided in accordance with the requirements of Policy HS8. Extensive landscape planting is also proposed, including a ‘willow wall’ formed from living trees and separating the western boundary of the site from the railway line and steelworks beyond. The willow wall is designed to have acoustic properties as well as to provide visual screening. Further advice on noise issues is expected before the committee meets.

An archaeological report has been prepared in association with the scheme and indicates that it is unlikely that significant remains will be affected by the proposal. This is accepted by the County Archaeologist.

An ecological report has also been prepared and contains recommendations regarding habitat retention and creation and the timing of works on site in relation to breeding birds, bats and the small blue butterfly. The developer has been asked to modify his landscaping proposals to reflect this on the advice of an English Nature report and further controls can be imposed by conditions.

A flood risk assessment has been submitted and is acceptable to the Environment Agency subject to conditions.

A desktop contamination report has also been submitted and the advice of the Environmental Health Officer and recommended conditions are awaited.

It is considered that subject to outstanding consultee replies and to minor awaited revisions the proposal achieves a satisfactory standard of development and can be accepted.

In line with the advice of the Housing Officer it is considered that a proportion of affordable housing should be achieved within the site. In discussion with the developers and the housing association with whom they propose to work, Officers have agreed that 10 bungalows and 10 houses to meet local affordable needs would be appropriate on this site.

Subject to conditions and to a S106 Agreement governing the affordable housing and landscape and play area maintenance it is considered that planning permission can be granted.

Recommendation: Approved Conditions/ 1. The development hereby permitted shall be begun Reasons: before the expiration of THREE years from the date of this permission. Reason: In order to comply with Section 51 of the Planning & Compulsory Purchase Act 2004.

2. No part of the development shall be used after the end of the first planting and seeding seasons following completion of the final dwelling unless the landscaping scheme shown on the landscaping plan received by the Allerdale Borough Council on (awaited) has been carried out. Any trees or plants which within a period of 5 years of planting die, are removed or become seriously damaged or diseased, shall be replaced with others of similar size and species. Reason: In order to ensure that a satisfactory standard of landscaping is achieved within the site, in accordance with Policy EN3 of the Allerdale Local Plan.

3. Details and representative samples of all external and roofing materials shall be submitted to and approved by the Local Planning Authority before development commences. The materials so approved shall be used in the development as approved. Reason: In order to ensure a satisfactory standard of development, in accordance with Policy HS8 of the Allerdale Local Plan and Policy ST3 of the Cumbria and Lake District Joint Structure Plan 2001-2016.

4. Details of the siting, height and type of all means of enclosure/screen walls/fences/other means of enclosure shall be submitted to and approved by the Local Planning Authority before development commences. Any such walls/fences etc shall be constructed prior to the approved building being brought into use/occupied. All means of enclosure so constructed shall be retained and no part thereof shall be removed without the prior consent of the Local Planning Authority. Reason: In order to ensure a satisfactory standard of development, in accordance with Policy HS8 of the Allerdale Local Plan and Policy ST3 of the Cumbria and Lake District Joint Structure Plan 2001-2016.

5. Details of the treatment and finishes of all surfaces within the site shall be submitted to and approved by the Local Planning Authority before development commences. The details so approved shall be completed prior to the use of the development hereby approved being commenced and shall be retained thereafter. Reason: In order to ensure a satisfactory standard of development, in accordance with Policy HS8 of the Allerdale Local Plan and Policy ST3 of the Cumbria and Lake District Joint Structure Plan 2001-2016.

6. Before development commences full details of all play equipment to be installed on the local area for play shall be submitted to and approved by the Local Planning Authority. No more than one hundred dwellings hereby approved shall be occupied until such time as the play area has been ptovided and is fully equipped and available for use. Reason: In order to ensure a satisfactory standard of development, in accordance with Policy HS8 of the Allerdale Local Plan and Policy ST3 of the Cumbria and Lake District Joint Structure Plan 2001-2016.

7. Before development commences a planning plan for the provision of the units hereby approved shall be submitted to and approved by the Local Planning Authority. The development shall not be carried out except in accordance with approved phasing plan. Reason: In order to ensure that the provision of the dwellings hereby permitted takes place over an appropriate time period, in accordance with Policy HS17 of the Cumbria and Lake District Joint Structure Plan and in order to ensure that the development does not de-stabilise local housing markets.

8. In accordance with the recommendations of the ecological survey attached to this planning application. No removal of buildings or scrub from the site shall take place within the bird breeding season (April- August). Reason: In order to ensure that the development does not have an adverse impact on local wildlife habitat, in compliance with Policy EN34 of the Allerdale Local Plan and Policy E35 of the Cumbria and Lake District Joint Structure Plan.

9. Before development commences a full survey of existing buildings on site to establish whether bats are present shall be carried out and the results submitted to the Local Planning Authority, in accordance with the recommendations of the ecological report attached to this planning application. If bats are found to be present a scheme to ensure that they are not harmed by demolition works and that alternative habitat is provided within the scheme shall be submitted to and approved by the Local Planning Authority. Reason: In order to ensure that the development does not have an adverse impact on local wildlife habitat, or species protected by law, in compliance with Policies EN32 and EN34 of the Allerdale Local Plan and Policy E35 of the Cumbria and Lake District Joint Structure Plan.

10. Before development commences a strategy for mitigating the effects on the small blue butterfly shall be resubmitted to and approved by the Local Planning Authority. The development shall not be carried out except in strict accordance with this strategy. Reason: In order to ensure that the development does not have an adverse impact on local wildlife habitat, or species protected by law, in compliance with Policies EN32 and EN34 of the Allerdale Local Plan and Policy E35 of the Cumbria and Lake District Joint Structure Plan.

11. No development approved by this planning permission shall be commenced until: a) A site investigation has been designed for the site using the information obtained from the desktop study and any diagrammatical representations (Conceptual Model). This should be submitted to, and approved in writing by, the Local Planning Authority prior to that investigation being carried out on the site. The investigation must be comprehensive enough to enable: - a risk assessment to be undertaken relating to groundwater and surface waters associated on and off the site that may be affected, and - refinement of the Conceptual Model, and - the development of a Method Statement detailing the remediation requirements.

b) The site investigation has been undertaken in accordance with details approved by the Local Planning Authority and a risk assessment has been undertaken.

c) A Method Statement detailing the remediation requirements, including measures to minimise the impact on ground and surface waters, using the information obtained from the site investigation has been submitted to the Local Planning Authority. This should be approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority prior to that remediation being carried out on the site. Reason: To ensure that the proposed site investigations and remediation will not cause pollution of Controlled Waters.

12. Before development commences an intrusive site investigation shall be carried out and the result, together with proposed remediation measures, shall be submitted to and approved by the Local Planning Authority. This site investigation shall be carried out in accordance with a sampling strategy which has first been agreed by the Local Planning Authority. This strategy shall provide for the following:- - Site plan indicating the location of boreholes and trial pits. - Proposed sample depths (to include both madeground and natural material). - Confirmation on location of gas monitoring wells. If these are to be dual purpose information on the borehole design is required. - Gas readings must be undertaken over a minimum period of 3 months. (If the consultants propose to make reference to the Wilson & Card paper, the length of the monitoring period will ultimately affect the CIRIA characteristic for the site). Reason: In the interests of health and safety and in compliance with Policy EN9 of the Allerdale Local Plan.

13. Before development commences a scheme for the provision of bat and house sparrow boxes within the development shall be submitted to and approved by the Local Planning Authority. The boxes so approved within each phase of the development shall be completed and available for use before the last dwelling within that phase is occupied. Reason: In order to ensure that the site continues to provide a habitat for wildlife, including species protected by law, in accordance with Policies EN32, EN34 and EN35 of the Allerdale Local Plan.

14. Before development commences a scheme for the harvesting of rainwater within the development shall be submitted to and approved by the Local Planning Authority. No dwelling hereby permitted shall be occupied until such time as the associated facilties for the harvesting of rainwater have been installed and are available for use. No such facilities shall be removed thereafter without the prior approval of the Local Planning Authority. Reason: In order to ensure a satisfactory standard of development through the introduction of sustainable drainage measures within the development.

______

Reference No: 2/2006/1202 Received: 08/11/2006 Proposed Proposed heat unit for air conditioning, as amended by plans Development: received 23 January 2007. Location: 29 Vulcans Lane Workington Applicant: John Stephenson

Constraints: Settlement Limit HS5 Allerdale Flood Zone 1 British Coal Area Adv Control Exclusion – Workington

Policies: ST3 – Principles applying to all new developments

Representations: Town Council – No objections. Cumbria Highways – No objections. Environmental Health – Require additional information – manufacturers details 18.12.06. Environmental Health – No objections. The application has been advertised on site and adjoining owners have been notified. One letter of objection has been received on grounds of noise and visual effect.

REPORT Retrospective planning permission is sought for a proposed heat unit for air conditioning, 29 Vulcans Lane, Workington.

This application relates to a two storey end terraced property on the outskirts of the town centre in an area of mixed residential and commercial uses. The applicant has erected a single air conditioning unit to the rear of the property without the benefit of planning permission. This application seeks retrospective consent for the development carried out.

The air conditioning unit has been erected at the rear of the building and is attached to the wall approximately 2.7 metres from ground level. The unit cannot be seen from the street but can be viewed from the lane that runs to the back of the properties. It is felt the design and materials are acceptable and will not have an adverse effect on the area.

Workington Town Council, the Highways Authority and Environmental Health have no objections to the proposal.

There has been an objection received from the adjacent property No 31. He is concerned about the visual effect on his property and the noise created from the unit and the erection of security cameras. The security cameras have been investigated separately. Environmental Health have visited the site and talked to the objector and it is their opinion that the units do not have an impact on the surrounding amenity and do not cause a problem. The unit has been located to try and be as unobtrusive to everyone as possible. It is out of view from the street and attached to the wall located above the roof which will not cause any health and safety issues.

Taking all of the above into account it is considered that the proposal does not result in a detrimental effect on the property itself or the surrounding area therefore the proposal is recommended for approval.

Recommendation: Approved Conditions/ 1. The development hereby permitted shall be begun Reasons: before the expiration of THREE years from the date of this permission. Reason: In order to comply with Section 51 of the Planning & Compulsory Purchase Act 2004.

______

Reference No: 2/2007/0020 Received: 05/01/2007 Proposed Single storey extension to provide additional kitchen area, Development: garage, wc and porch. Location: 18 Ellerbeck Lane Workington Applicant: Mr & Mrs M Kenyon

Constraints: Settlement Limit HS5 Allerdale Flood Zone 1 British Coal Area Adv Control Exclusion – Workington

Policies: HS12 – Extension to dwellings ST3 – Principles applying to all new developments

Representations: Town Council – No objections. Cumbria Highways – No objections, concern over loss of 2 parking spaces on drive. Environmental Health – No objections. The application has been advertised on site and adjoining owners have been notified. One letter of objection has been received of grounds of loss of light and value to their property. The application was called into Committee by a Councillor who suggests that the development would cause loss of light and visual impact. Asks that Committee considers a site visit.

REPORT Planning permission is sought for a single storey extension to provide additional kitchen area, garage, w.c. and porch, 18 Ellerbeck Lane, Workington

The application site comprises of a two storey detached dwelling with garden area to the front, side and rear, with a garage incorporated into the property, which currently is attached to the adjoining property No. 20. There is a drive to the front of the property for off-road parking. The proposal is to demolish the existing flat roof garage and create a larger single storey pitched roof extension to the front of the property to provide a w.c., garage and larger porch, which will be one metre away from the boundary with No. 20. The proposed extension will protrude 3.870 metres from the existing line of the front of the dwelling house.

The proposed materials are concrete tiles for the roof, dry dash render for the walls and white PVCU windows and door (to match the existing dwelling). It is felt there is adequate room to accommodate this extension and the scale and proportion is acceptable and sympathetic to those of the existing property. The proposal is deemed acceptable in terms of siting and design. A similar extension has been approved at No. 22 which extends to the front of their property, but not as far forward to the front as the proposed application. In the officer’s opinion it is considered the proposed extension would not have a detrimental impact on the dwelling itself or on any nearby residential/visual amenity.

It is the officer’s opinion that two off road parking spaces could still be provided, one in their garage and one on the drive (existing adequate parking provision).

There has been an objection received from No. 20 who have concerns over loss of light and value to the property, also that it would be visually obstrusive. He states that there is a covenant on these properties that states that permission for an extension needs to be sought from Persimmon Homes, and agreement needs to be sought by all relevant parties. (The covenant regulations are a legal matter rather than a planning consideration.)

The neighbour currently has a view out of the large living room window of the property on the opposite side of the road. The erection of the proposed extension will not fully obstruct the view out of this room. (At present there is no boundary wall or fence between the two properties but the agent has stated that if planning permission is not granted then a 2 metre fence will be erected along the boundary. If the height of the fence is no higher than 2 metres from ground level and is lowered to 1 metre at the front adjoining the highway then planning permission will not be required. The erection of the fence would result in the same effects on No. 20’s property as the erection of the extension.)

It is therefore officer’s opinion that the extension will not result in a significant loss of natural light, or would be overly obtrusive.

Taking all of the above into account, it is considered that the proposal does not result in a detrimental effect on the property itself or the residential amenity of the area as a whole. The proposal is therefore considered acceptable and complies with Policy HS12 of the Allerdale Local Plan and ST3 of the Cumbria and Lake District Joint Structure Plan 2001-2016, April 2006.

Recommendation: Approved Conditions/ Reasons:

______

Reference No: 2/2007/0112 Received: 06/02/2007 Proposed Change of use from car showroom / workshop to A1 retail. Development: Location: Palmer And Son Lorton Street Cockermouth Applicant: JJ Lattimer

Constraints: Settlement Limit HS5 Radon Assessment Allerdale Flood Zone 1 Adv Control Exclusion – Cockermouth

Policies: PPS6 – Governs retailing and town centres.

Structure Plan Policies ST3 – Principles applying to all new development. L52 – Development and town centres. L54 – Retail, leisure and office development. Proposals for retail use in edge of centre locations must be able to demonstrate a need for the development and not prejudice the retention of local services.

Allerdale Local Plan RG2 – Location of future retailing proposals. CO13 – Setting of the Conservation Area.

Representations: Town Council – Refuse – considers there is no need to change the present policy for this area. Any changes could dilute the vitality and viability of Main Street and Market Place. Chamber of Trade – Object to unrestricted retail but would not object to bulk durables only. Cumbria Highways – No objections. Environmental Health – No representation has been received to date (16/03/2007). The application has been advertised on site and adjoining owners have been notified. Two letters of objection have been received. One writer would raise no objections subject to a condition restricting retail sales to bulk durables only, the other objects to retailing from the site and considers it should be reserved for affordable housing.

REPORT This application relates to a car showroom on Lorton Street, which is outside the defined town centre. The property is approximately 60m from Sainsburys supermarket, which although a significant feature in the town’s retail offer, and widely perceived as centrally located, is in fact itself outside the town centre as defined in the local plan, which pre-dates its construction.

The applicant runs a furniture business which currently trades from premises in Market Place, Cockermouth, with separate storage facilities elsewhere. The proposal would enable him to combine storage and retail facilities on a single site and to provide off street loading and unloading and servicing. His agent highlights the lack of appropriate premises to enable this to take place within the town centre and points out that PPS6 regards it as unreasonable to expect types of retailing requiring a large floorspace to disaggregate the business into several units on different sites. The quasi-retail nature of the previous use of this site, its proximity to other shops and its good accessibility on foot from the defined town centre are also pointed out.

Given that the case made is specific to bulk durable retail requiring a single large floorspace the agent suggests that the Local Planning Authority might wish to impose conditions restricting the form of retailing to bulk durables only and preventing the subdivision of the unit into small shops which would compete directly with the town centre. Such conditions would address the objections raised by the Chamber of trade and by one local retailer.

The proposal involves no alterations to the buildings currently on site and the proposal would therefore have a neutral impact on the Conservation Area, which lies opposite.

It is considered that subject to conditions the development can be permitted without detriment to the vitality and viability of the town centre, or to objectives of sustainability.

Whilst one objector has suggested that the application should be rejected in order that affordable housing can be obtained on the site, it must be remembered that its current lawful use is as a car showroom. The site is not allocated for residential use and a car showroom could re-establish without the need for planning permission. The rejection of the present proposal in the hope of securing affordable housing in these circumstances would be unlikely to be sustainable at appeal.

Recommendation: Approved Conditions/ 1. The development hereby permitted shall be begun Reasons: before the expiration of THREE years from the date of this permission. Reason: In order to comply with Section 51 of the Planning & Compulsory Purchase Act 2004.

2. No goods shall be sold from the retail unit hereby permitted except bulk durable goods, defined as furniture, floor coverings, electrical goods, DIY supplies and gardening products. Reason: In the interests of the vitality and viability of the town centre, in compliance with Policy RG2 of the Allerdale Local Plan and Policy L54 of the Cumbria and Lake District Joint Structure Plan 2001-2016, Adopted Plan, April 2006.

3. The retail unit hereby permitted shall not be subdivided without the prior express consent of the Local Planning Authority. Reason: In the interests of the vitality and viability of the town centre, in compliance with Policy RG2 of the Allerdale Local Plan and Policy L54 of the Cumbria and Lake District Joint Structure Plan 2001-2016, Adopted Plan, April 2006.

______

Reference No: 2/2007/0125 Received: 09/02/2007 Proposed Proposed two storey extension Development: Location: 3 New Houses Fauld Oughterside Wigton Applicant: Paul & Joanne Butchart

Constraints: Public Right Of Way Settlement Limit HS5 Allerdale Flood Zone 1 British Coal Area

Policies: Allerdale Local Plan Policy HS12 – Extensions to dwellings will be allowed providing:- i) there is no harmful effect on the visual amenities of the immediate locality and on the character and appearance of the dwelling itself;

ii) they would not significantly reduce the daylight or private open space available to the dwelling;

iii) they would not significantly reduce the daylight available to adjacent dwellings or the privacy and visual amenity of adjacent residents;

iv) the proposal does not result in the loss of 50% or more of the undeveloped curtilage area; and

v) the proposal accords with the relevant policies for Conservation Areas and Listed buildings.

Representations: Parish Council – No objections/approve. The Parish Council notes the reduction in size of the extension. If planning is approved they indicate the need to ensure that footpath 246017 is not damaged or blocked and the access to the rear of Nos 1 and 2 New Houses Fauld remains clear.

Ramblers Association – No objections.

Cumbria Highways – No objections subject to new ground floor windows and doors abutting the highway being of a type which cannot open outwards into the highway.

The application has been advertised on site and adjoining owners have been notified. REPORT The proposal is for a two storey extension to an end of terrace property which has an existing ground floor extension; the proposal would increase the size of the ground floor extension. The application site has two previous refusals for two storey extensions to the rear of the property (2/2006/0545 and 2/2006/0841). The previous applications were refused in relation to the harmful effect on the character and appearance of the existing dwelling, overbearing nature and overshadowing of the adjacent dwelling.

The neighbouring property has indicated that they have seen the plans and have no objection to the proposal.

The extension of the original application was 7.2m in length x 8m wide x 6m in height. This was then reduced under a resubmission to 6.2m in length x 6.45m wide and 6m in height. This application would measure 6.9m in length x 6.4m in width to the ground floor and 4.8m in length x 6.4m in width to the first floor; there would also be a small extension to two storeys measuring 1.4m in width and 2.2m in length and 3.8m in height to accommodate the stairs. Previously the application adjacent to the boundary was approximately 4.5m in height.

There is currently a ground floor extension measuring 7.3m in width x 6.8m in length and 2.6m in height (flat roof). The proposal is considered to have been reduced at first floor level to overcome the overbearing nature and would also reduce the potential to overshadow and loss of daylight to 2 New Houses Fauld.

The development has been reduced in scale and massing to a more acceptable level and is considered to reduce the harmful effect on the character and appearance of the existing dwelling.

The extension would have a grey concrete tile pitched roof, roughcast rendered walls and white UPVC windows; these materials would match the existing dwelling.

There is sufficient space within the curtilage to accommodate the extension without compromising the existing garden or private space available to the dwelling.

There would not be overlooking of the neighbouring dwellings. It is considered that the proposal would not reduce the privacy or visual amenity of the neighbouring dwelling.

It is considered that the design and materials are satisfactory and it is considered that there would be no harmful effect on the visual amenities of the immediate locality or on the character and appearance of the existing dwelling.

Recommendation: Approved Conditions/ 1. The development hereby permitted shall be begun Reasons: before the expiration of THREE years from the date of this permission. Reason: In order to comply with Section 51 of the Planning & Compulsory Purchase Act 2004.

2. New ground floor windows and doors abutting the highway shall be of a type which cannot open outwards into the highway. Reason: To minimise possible danger to other highway users.

______SITE VISIT

Reference No: 2/2006/1304 Received: 04/12/2006 Proposed Erection of 67 No. dwelling with associated roads and public Development: open space; remediation of contaminated land by remodelling and capping; capping of mine shaft, as amended by plan received on 19 January 2007, letter and plan 25 January 2007, plans received on 12 February 2007, plans received 20 February 2007 and letter received 27 February 2007. Location: Land Off Browside Road Dearham Maryport Applicant: Rachel Lightfoot Story Land & Development

Constraints: NLUD Sites Settlement Limit HS5 Vacant Land & Buildings Allerdale Flood Zone 1 British Coal Area

Policies: The application site is located within the designated settlement limits for Dearham and is specifically allocated for housing under Policy RHS4.

Dearham’s settlement limit is not restricted by the criteria of the Council’s Interim Housing Policy.

Policy HS7 of the Allerdale Local Plan’s Approved Alterations seeks the preferable development of brownfield sites prior to greenfield sites.

Policies HS5 and HS8 outline the design criteria for new housing development, whilst Policy HS9 seeks the provision of satisfactory access and drainage facilities for new housing development.

Policy HS14 of the Approved Alterations to the Allerdale Local Plan seeks, where appropriate, the provision of a ratio (up to 20%) of affordable housing at proposed sites involving housing exceeding more than five units.

Policy L1 of the Allerdale Local Plan seeks a local equipped area for play in housing sites of 60-150 dwellings.

Policy EN9 outlines the criteria for development affected by contaminated land.

Policy EN12 seeks to ensure development does not result in any increased flood risk.

Representations: Parish Council – Recommend refusal on the grounds of:

(a) Inadequate existing sewer capacity for the proposed development.

(b) Hazardous Access: Browside Road already has heavy on-street parking congestion as its properties lack off- street parking facilities.

Browside’s access onto Central Road has limited visibility due to a brow in the road. Central Road is also supporting a high volume of traffic and is congested with cars.

The junction of Central Road with the A594 is also hazardous due to restricted visibility and reference is made to previous accidents.

The proposal will generate at least a further 134 car journeys per day, and may be even greater.

The Council express concern on the potential for the footpath link acting as a drop off point.

(c) Services: There are no details of services, or the diversion route of the existing overhead line traversing across the site.

(d) Public Footpath 226006: Pedestrian use of this route would have to cross the entrance to the proposed development, raising safety concerns, especially for school children.

(e) Loss of hedgerows and trees and their associated wildlife.

(f) Greenfield: Question whether there are alternative brownfield sites available, including the site at Flimby Lodge.

(g) Fencing: The 2m tall perimeter boundary fencing would be prominent in its surroundings.

(h) Question whether the development would create more open spaces and refer to lack of details on its maintenance. The terrace of three storey dwellings would be an alien feature as there are no comparable dwellings of this size in the village.

(i) Four Bedroom Units: In consideration of other new build four bed dwellings which are unoccupied in the village questions the need for this type of dwelling.

(j) Loss of amenity to the neighbouring dwellings.

(k) Contamination: Consider it is inappropriate to site a play area adjacent to a contaminated site.

In response to the amendments the Parish accept that they seek to address the highway problems on the Browside/Central Road area, but do not overcome their previous highway reasons to recommend refusal including:-

(i) The ability to enforce the parking details

(ii) Increased parking restrictions will continue and exacerbate parking on the remaining section of Browside Road.

(iii) The restrictions applied at Browside and Central Road would adversely affect pensioners, those with a disability (young mums and elderly residents) who need carers.

(iv) High Levels of Contamination: Seek guarantees of its satisfactory treatment including any mitigation measures, impact on water courses, and the works to the mineshaft. Consider the report re-inforces that the site is unsuitable for development.

(l) The amended layout reduces the number of two bedroom houses being reduced by 50% affecting the level of affordable housing on the estate.

(m) There is inadequate information on the drainage catchment for the spoil heap which presently enters the public sewer.

(n) The retention of 1.8m tall boundary fences which separate new build houses from existing social housing is contrary to Government guidelines (referring to a supporting letter from the MP) and stating such fences should be omitted and controlled under planning conditions.

(o) Inadequate surface water drainage facilities have been submitted for the proposed development.

Environmental Health – Additional submitted evidence to the initial contamination report outlines arsenic contamination levels are just below soil guidance values and therefore do not require any remediation on the site. Seek a condition requiring validation testing on 1 in 3 garden plots. Additional evidence is awaited on the gas test results.

Cumbria Highways – No objections to the amended scheme incorporating the double yellow line parking restrictions/traffic management scheme, subject to highway conditions (subject to further amendments to turning areas for Plots 48-55). Seek a Grampian condition to ensure the highway works to Browside Road prior to the occupation of any dwellings. (Although they also recommend a condition requiring the submission of a Travel Plan, as the Council would not be minded to refuse the application without this detail it is recommended that it be alternatively incorporated as a Note to Applicant.)

County Archaeologist – The site has been the subject of a desk based assessment and evaluation which indicates no remains of archaeological significance remain (although this excluded the contaminated area of land which might include remains of a 19th century brickworks). Seek an archaeological evaluation condition to allow further assessment of this area prior to the commencement of works.

United Utilities – No objections subject to drainage as a separate system with only foul drainage to the public sewer at a rate of 3 litres per second. Surface water should be discharged to a watercourse to the satisfactory of the Environment Agency. A 3 metre maintenance corridor should be maintained on each side of the public sewer traversing across the site. Any diversion of the existing overhead line across the site would be at the applicant’s expense.

Fire Officer – No objections.

Environment Agency – Consider there are no objections on the grounds relating to contamination subject to the submission of a method statement relating to the regarded mound. The surface water drainage scheme is not acceptable and does not meet current standards. Also maintain an objection on the grounds of the absence of any flood risk assessment. (The response to the amended surface water drainage scheme is awaited.)

Council Engineer – Surface water concerns relating to flood risk drainage to properties on the south-east edge of the site which should be remedied with a cut-off drain ditch.

The application has been advertised on site and within the local press. Adjoining owners have also been notified.

Seventeen letters of objection have been received on the grounds of:

(i) No capacity for the scale of the development in the existing sewage system which presently results in flooding problems.

(ii) Insufficient Access – Will there be any other alternative access?

(iii) Increased traffic levels in the village to the detriment of highway safety (reference to recent minor accidents). Hazard of Central Road access onto the A594 which has limited visibility.

(iv) Poor access for construction traffic.

(v) Detrimental impact on wildlife on the site.

(vi) Browside Road is unsuitable as an access as its dwellinghouses lack off-street parking facilities resulting in a one way traffic flow along this street. The increased traffic flow (approx 134 additional daily cars) along this road would be a hazard to children’s safety.

(vii) Hazards of increased traffic flows on Central Road which also lacks off-street parking.

(viii) The properties at the rear of Browside would result in loss of light to the existing dwellinghouses on this street.

(ix) Three storey dwellings would be unsympathetic at this site. (x) No demand for this scale of housing in the village.

(xi) Hazards from contaminated land (former mine workings).

(xii) Lack of details on electricity/telephone supplies.

(xiii) The footpath link may act as a drop off point for school children, increasing traffic movement (loss of existing pedestrian route to the school).

(xiv) Lack of details on surface water drainage.

(xv) The contamination of the field used as an amenity area would be a hazard to children.

(xvi) Inadequate education facilities at the village school for the extra pupils generated by the development, plus the village infrastructure/services for the scale of the development.

(xvii) Threat to public safety from the contamination and its mitigation measures.

(xviii) The amendements do not overcome the original grounds of objection.

(xix) Unsatisfactory design.

(xx) Oppose the introduction of double yellow lines outside properties, reduced facilities (same number of vehicles on a reduced length of road).

(xxi) Lack of need for proposed homes.

(xxii) Lack of affordable housing.

REPORT A former detailed application (2/2005/0353) for the development of 92 dwellinghouses on the site was withdrawn after a wide range of constraints were identified at the site.

The current resubmission application seeks detailed consent for 67 dwellinghouses. The layout of the dwellinghouses is concentrated around the northern, eastern and western boundaries of the site.

A large proportion of the overall site, which is presently occupied by a large spoil mound, is proposed to be re- modelled and capped to form a raised bank area which would be maintained as an area of public open space. The housing layout (as amended) comprises of a mix of detached, semi-detached and terraced houses. It involves a range of 7 two bedroom dwellinghouses, 34 three bedroom units, and 26 four bedroom dwellinghouses.

The proposed dwellinghouses would be finished in render/brick materials and tiled roofs.

In a supporting access and design statement the applicant advises the development is located within the village’s local centre. The site was partially formerly a brickworks and has been previously mined, with a mineshaft remaining at the site. However, these uses have ceased and the site has returned to agriculture, although the spoil mound remains a local feature which is prominent in its immediate surroundings. Access to the site is via Browside Estate Road which links onto Central Road.

The applicant contests that the proposal is sustainable and complies with national and local plan housing policies. The applicant also contests there are no other alternative brownfield sites in Dearham/Maryport (dismissing a ½ acre site at Maryport on the quayside, with others requiring a high degree of remediation – the allocated site for Maryport has been developed and a site at Flimby Lodge as a result of its overgrown condition has reverted back to a greenfield site.)

The applicant considers the development would benefit the community, support its services and provide both open market and local market housing, reflecting the guidance in PPG3/PPS3. The applicant contests that in the absence of any detailed housing survey for Dearham the proposal’s housing mix complies with the guidance in PPS3 (which will become a material consideration by the date of the next Development Panel). The applicant considers the amendments increase in the number of three bedroom units will provide compact units which will allow for flexibility for changes in family situations.

The applicant considers the development is well related to the existing density without resulting in any loss of amenity and, excluding the remediated area of land, would represent a site density of 31 dwellings per hectare. The applicant contests the layout is well related to the levels of the site and would include both a pedestrian link to the school and a central open space area. The applicant considers the house type and their design are sympathetic with their surroundings.

The statement also advises the public open space would include low maintenance landscaping to enable its use by the public with planting on its steeper banks and further softening with hedgerows and grassed areas of the bank (as supported by the submitted landscaping scheme).

The proposed local area of play is centrally located in the site. The terraced house type reflects existing housing in the village. The supporting statement also advises the access has been discussed with the Highways Authority. The site has access to public transport and includes pedestrian links (including a pedestrian link to the nearby school).

The applicant has submitted a range of consultants’ reports to address some of the physical constraints previously identified at the site.

Firstly, in response to the extent of the spoil mound on the site and its potential contamination, the application has submitted a consultant’s contamination assessment of the site. This report states that the mound will be retained on site as it would be prohibitously expensive to remove (estimated at £4.5 million).

The report refers to the site’s spoil mound which needs to be elongated and enlarged to provide 1 in 3 side slopes and drain facilities. The results in a mound approx 530 metres in length, 70 metres wide, rising to a height of 5.5-11 metres. A 1m cap of surplus soil materials is needed to provide a barrier to contaminants or accidental ignition of the materials in the spoil mound.

In addition the report proposes the site’s existing mine shaft be drilled, grouted and capped to the National House Building Controls regulations (including stand-off zones).

It was identified that there were no mine workings in influencing distance of the surface. An area in the south- west corner of the site was identified as having elevated levels of heavy metals. It is therefore recommended that this area be excavated and transferred to the spoil mound, and replaced with a new topsoil cap.

Gas monitoring recordings have also been undertaken at the site but on the basis of the readings it is considered unlikely that gas protection measures will be required.

Details are also provided in the report on structural constraints (with no close proximity of development to the shaft). An additional archaeological report provided an archaeological evaluation of the site (excluding the spoil mound and the mine shaft).

In response to concerns of the Highways Authority, the applicant has also submitted a supporting Transport Assessment plus an associated Stage 1/2 Road Safety Audit.

The report evaluates the highway merits of the proposal in accordance with the National Planning guidance in PPG13 Transport and PPS3.

The assessment included the highway network of Browside Road and its junction onto Central Road, plus the wider context of Central Road itself and its junction onto the A594. It concludes there are no visibility issues that prevent Browside Road being suitable for residential development.

Vehicle counts were undertaken with peak hours 8:00-9:00 a.m. and 5:00-6:00 p.m. Although two accidents have occurred in the previous three years, there are not considered to be any safety problems which will be worsened by the development’s traffic.

The site has access to public transport and has suitable pedestrian links (including to the school). Using Highway formulae and forecasting techniques, the statement considers the existing highway infrastructure has adequate capacity to accommodate the traffic trips generated by the development.

The report therefore considers there are no transport grounds for the refusal of the application.

The applicant has also submitted an amended surface water drainage plan which proposes the discharge of the surface water via a 500m pipe to the North East to Row Beck following the Environment Agency’s objections to the initial surface water drainage scheme.

Officers consider that the merits of the detailed proposal relate to both the principle and physical constraints of the site.

Firstly in assessing the principle, although the site is within Dearham’s settlement limits and is an allocated site for housing under Policy RHS4 in the Local Plan, the principle of the development needs to be evaluated in the context of the revised Policy HS7 within the adopted alterations to the Allerdale Local Plan. Dearham settlement is not affected by the restrictions within the Council’s Interim Housing Policy. This policy seeks the preferable development of brownfield sites prior to greenfield sites.

Officers acknowledge that a proportion of the site (predominantly within the spoil mound), by virtue of the features former worked materials would be classed as brownfield. Indeed, in the Local Plan housing policy the site outlines part of the justification for its allocation is, “There is a small colliery spoil tip on the site, the removal of which would be a significant improvement to the environment of Dearham.”

However, a higher significant proportion of the land to be developed for the housing remains greenfield, with only a small area of the overall estate on the south-eastern boundary representing an area of brownfield land to be reclaimed for residential dwellings. Consequently, despite the reclamation mitigation works to the spoil mound itself (as the applicant indicates their removal from the site would make the project uneconomic and therefore not viable), the housing development itself is primarily greenfield.

The application has submitted a sequential test document to assess the merits of any other alternative brownfield sites in both Dearham and in its wider context as part of Maryport’s housing market.

Officers are unaware of any other alternative brownfield sites within Dearham. Dearham is considered to form part of Maryport’s larger housing market. Whilst there are some smaller brownfield site’s in Maryport (e.g. Woods Harbour), there is nothing in comparison with the scale of the current proposal. Although the applicant has referred to another site in Flimby, it is considered this would not, by virtue of its geographical location and distance, form part of Dearham’s individual local housing market.

Therefore, overall, in the absence of any satisfactory alternative brownfield site, the merits of the principle of the proposal are considered satisfactory subject to addressing any physical constraints.

The physical characteristics of the layout and design raise a range of issues (especially given the range of constraints at the site) which may be summarised as follows:

(i) Housing Density: The housing density of the developed area reflects the guidance criteria within Policy HS8 of the Alterations and the guidance in PPG/PPS3 ‘Housing (i.e. a ratio of 30 dwellings per hectare). Therefore, subject to Members being satisfied that the existing infrastructure within the village can support the scale of the development, there are no objections to the scale of the development.

(ii) Local Needs Housing: The applicant has agreed in principle to allocating dwellinghouses (5 x 2 bed houses and 3 x 3 bed houses; 8 x local occupancy, affordable houses); within progressive phases to meet the local housing provision recommended and identified by the Council’s Housing Section under a S106 (in accordance with the provisions of Policy HS14).

(iii) Sewage Infrastructure/Capacity: The comments of United Utilities has confirmed no objections subject to only foul drainage to the public sewer at a controlled rate (to be reserved under a condition).

(iv) Archaeology: The County Archaeologist accepts the findings of the report and raises no objections, subject to a condition relating to further investigation into the outstanding areas within the spoil mound.

(v) Surface Water/Flood Risk: This issue has been raised by the objectors. The Environment Agency presently maintains objections to the proposal on the grounds of the absence of any flood risks assessment and the inadequacy of the discharge rates proposed within the applicant’s initial surface water discharge scheme to Row Beck. The applicant has submitted a revised scheme and the comments of the Environment agency are awaited.

(vi) Contamination/Landscape: The applicant has submitted a detailed evaluation of the site, including site investigation analysis. The Council’s Building Control Officers consider that despite extensive mineworkings underneath the site, by virtue of the coal seam being below a layer of bedrock, there would be no significant structural concerns other than those around the immediate vicinity of the mineshaft.

As specified previously, the applicant, on economic grounds, seeks to retain and consolidate the contaminated land at the site and cap it with an area of soil from the site which will be used as public open space. As a consequence this would address the hazards associated with the combustible and health hazard materials identified with the existing spoil mound on the site. (If refused these issues would have to be pursued by Environmental Health with the existing land owner under their own respective regulations.)

Both the Environmental Health Officers and the Environment Agency are satisfied that the proposed capping scheme is acceptable subject to condition relating to additional testing and method structure of works. Therefore officers are satisfied that, subject to the implementation of the mound in accordance with the revised scheme, the merits of the resubmission scheme are acceptable with no threat to public health or the water environment. However, clarification is awaited on the mine gas recordings which have been monitored at the site (to be reported at the Development Panel meeting).

Inter-related to the mitigation measures proposed to overcome the contamination constraints is the physical landform of the resulting mound and its impact on the visual amenity and landscaping of its surroundings. Officers are surprised at the scale of the enlargement of the mound to secure the contamination measures.

The applicant has submitted a detailed landscaping scheme for the mound. A second option of a lower, broader steep sided but flat plateau mound was considered less prominent but more unnatural in its landscape form. Whilst the resulting mound substancially enlarges the existing mound, its height, which is approx 5.5 metres higher than the land on the westen boundary and 11 metres higher than the land on the eastern boundary (i.e. exceeding the height of a dwellinghouse), is not considered excessive given the overall size of area to be landscaped and would form more of a natural feature than that of the existing irregular shaped spoil mound presently on the site.

It is, however, essential for Members to assess whether the large scale of this feature and the environmental impact of the physical form of the resulting mound outweigh the benefits of resolving the contamination at the site and enabling the beneficial development of the site for housing. However, officers are also awaiting additional surface water drainage details for this individual aspect of the development to ensure it poses no risk in terms of contamination or flood risk (due to the clay content of its capping material).

(vii) Highway Concerns: This issue constitutes one of the primary physical constraints to the site due to the limited options of access to the site and its associated infrastructure and details.

The Highways Authority has confirmed that the amended plan addresses their initial concerns. It is understood that the provision of the parking restrictions at each end of Browside’s Estate’s road would act as passing places for the traffic from the proposed estates and allow vehicles to wait for oncoming traffic.

The Highways authority consider that this would enable four cars to ‘stack’ off to wait for traffic approaching along Browside Road. A build out area is also proposed to improve visibility.

It was accepted the junction of Central Road with the A594 is sub-standard but that the traffic flares generated by the development would not be significant and increase danger at this junction. (The accident record is low with two accidents in the past three years, though these did not highlight any particular safety issues.)

Officers, however, accept the highway consultant’s comments relating to Central Road and its junction onto Browside Road (whose visibility would be further secured by the proposed parking restrictions.)

The application has been amended to incorporate the footpath link details to the school.

In the absence of any objections to the proposal (as amended) from the Highways Authority to the submitted Traffic Assessment and Road Safety Audit officers consider the highway merits of the proposal are acceptable.

(viii) Design: The objections concerns relating to the three storey element of the housing layout has been superceded by the amendments more sympathetic two storey terrace.

The Parish Council have also referred to concerns on the boundary treatment for both the regarded mound and the dividing fences between proposed and existing dwellinghouses. The applicant has amended the boundary treatment to the perimeter of the open space to a more sympathetic landscaped/post and rail fence.

Whilst reference has been made that 1.8m fencing should not be supported between properties, this type of treatment of on rear curtilages on most housing estate developments, and officers are unaware of any specific planning regulation guidance which resists this aspect of the development. It is therefore considered the proposed boundary details are acceptable.

Therefore, overall, officers do not oppose the principle of the development. However, the merits of the development are subject to addressing the physical constraints of the access, landscaping, highway drainage and contamination.

Subject to satisfactory details on the remaining issue of surface water drainage for both the estate and the public open space, prior to the Committee meeting the merits of the proposal are acceptable and may be approved (subject to an S106 Agreement securing the housing development’s recommended affordable housing on the site).

Recommendation: Approved Conditions/ 1. The development hereby permitted shall be begun Reasons: before the expiration of THREE years from the date of this permission. Reason: In order to comply with Section 51 of the Planning & Compulsory Purchase Act 2004.

2. Prior to the commencement of works, details of the landscaping and schedule of maintenance of works for the public open space shall be submitted to and approved by the Local Planning Authority. The scheme shall be implemented prior to the occupation of any of the dwellinghouses hereby approved and thereafter maintained at all times in accordance with the submitted schedule. Reason: To ensure the provision of satisfactory public open space facilities in accordance with Policy L1 of the Allerdale Local Plan.

3. Details of the siting, height and type of all means of enclosure/screen walls/fences/other means of enclosure shall be submitted to and approved by the Local Planning Authority before development commences. Any such walls/fences, etc, shall be constructed prior to the approved building being brought into use/occupied. All means of enclosure so constructed shall be retained and no part thereof shall be removed without the prior consent of the Local Planning Authority. Reason: To ensure a satisfactory standard of development which is compatible with the character of the surrounding area.

4. The approved landscaping scheme received on 12 February 2007 for the public open space shall be fully implemented within the first planting and seeding season after the completion of works on the site. Any trees or plants which within a period of 5 years of planting die, are removed, or become seriously damaged or diseased, shall be replaced with others of similar size and species. Reason: In order to enhance the appearance of the development and minimise the impact of the development in the locality.

5. Details and representative samples of all external and roofing materials shall be submitted to and approved by the Local Planning Authority before development commences. The materials so approved shall be used in the development as approved. Reason: To ensure a satisfactory standard of development which is compatible with the character of the surrounding area.

6. No development shall commence within the site until the applicant has secured the implementation of a programme of archaeological work in accordance with a written scheme of investigation which has been submitted by the applicant and approved by the Local Planning Authority. Reason: To afford reasonable opportunity for an examination to be made to determine the existence of any remains of archaeological interest within the site and for the preservation, examination or recording of such remains.

7. The carriageway, footways, footpaths, cycleways, etc, shall be designed, constructed, drained and lit to a standard suitable for adoption and in this respect further details, including longitudinal/cross sections, shall be submitted to the Local Planning Authority for approval before work commences on site. No work shall be commenced until a full specification has been approved. These details shall be in accordance with the standards laid down in the current Cumbria Design Guide. Any works so approved shall be constructed before the development is complete. Reason: To ensure a minimum standard of construction in the interests of highway safety.

8. Ramps shall be provided on each side of every junction to enable wheelchairs, pushchairs, etc, to be safely manoeuvred at kerb lines. Details of all such ramps shall be submitted to the Local Planning Authority for approval before development commences. Any details so approved shall be constructed as part of the development. Reason: To ensure that pedestrians and people with impaired mobility can negotiate road junctions in relative safety.

9. No dwellings or buildings or structures shall be commenced until the access roads, as approved, are defined by kerbs and sub-base construction. Reason: To ensure that the access roads are defined and laid out at an early stage.

10. No dwellings shall be occupied until the estate road, including footways and cycleways to serve such dwellings, has been constructed in all respects to base course level and street lighting where it is to form part of the estate road has been provided and brought into full operational use. Reason: In the interests of highway safety.

11. Full details of the surface water drainage system shall be submitted to and approved by the Local Planning Authority prior to works commencing on site. Reason: To ensure the satisfactory surface water drainage of the site and and minimise the risk of flooding in the locality, in compliance with Policies EN12 and HS9 of the Allerdale Local Plan.

12. Access gates, if provided, shall be hung to open inwards only away from the highway. Reason: In the interests of highway safety.

13. The access drives shall be surfaced in bituminous or cement bound materials, or otherwise bound and shall be constructed and completed before the developments are occupied. Reason: In the interests of highway safety.

14. Details of all measures to be taken by the 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 developments being completed and shall be maintained operational thereafter. Reason: In the interests of highway safety and environmental management.

15. The carriageway, footways and footpaths which are to remain private shall be designed, constructed, drained and lit to the satisfaction of the Local Planning Authority and in this respect further details, including longitudinal/cross sections, shall be submitted to the Local Planning Authority for approval before the work commences on site. No work shall be commenced until a full specification has been approved. Any works so approved shall be constructed before the development is completed. Reason: To ensure a minimum standard of construction in the interests of highway safety.

16. Within six months of the development (or any part thereof) opening for business, the developer shall prepare and submit to the Local Planning Authority for their approval a Travel Plan which shall identify the measures that will be undertaken by the developer to encourage the achievement of a modal shift away from the use of private cars to visit the development to sustainable transport modes. The measures identified in the Travel Plan shall be implemented by the developer within 12 months of the development (or any part thereof) opening for business. Reason: To aid in the delivery of sustainable transport objectives.

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

18. Prior to the commencement of works, the 'no waiting' parking restrictions to Browside Road/Central Road outlined on the approved plan received on 20 February 2007 shall be fully implemented. Reason: In the interests of highway safety and to ensure a satisfactory means of access to the site, in compliance with Policy HS9 of the Allerdale Local Plan.

19. Notwithstanding the provisions of the Town & Country Planning (General Permitted Development) Order 1995 (or any Order revoking and re-enacting that Order) relating to "permitted development", no development shall be implemented within 3 metres of either side of the public sewer traversing across the site unless agreed in writing with the Local Planning Authority. Reason: The Local Planning Authority wishes to ensure and safeguard the satisfactory future maintenance of the public sewer traversing across the site.

20. No development shall be commenced on the housing estate hereby approved until the method statement (including mitigation and validation details) for the regrading and capping treatment of the spoil mound and the treatment of the mine shaft have been submitted to and approved by the Local Planning Authority. The approved scheme shall be implemented in accordance with the approved statement prior to the commencement of works on the housing estate hereby approved. Reason: To minimise the risk of any protected combination risk to public health or the water environment in compliance with Policy EN9 of the Allerdale Local Plan.

21. Prior to the commencement of works a scheme for the testing and validation of the chemical composition and thickness of the topsoil of one rear garden per every three plots shall be submitted to and approved by the Local Planning Authority. The works shall be solely implemented in accordance with the approved scheme and no dwellinghouse shall be occupied until its respective validation details have been accepted by the Local Planning Authority. Reason: To minimise the risk to human health from any potential contamination at the site in compliance with Policy EN9 of the Allerdale Local Plan.

22. No dwellinghouse shall be occupied until the approved surface water drainage scheme, and its associated attenuation measures, as outlined in the amended details have been fully implemented. Reason: To ensure the satisfactory means of surface water drainage from the site and minimise the risk of flooding in the locality, in compliance with Policies HS9 and EN12 of the Allerdale Local Plan.

______

SITE VISIT

Reference No: 2/2007/0058 Received: 23/01/2007 Proposed Listed building consent for change of use and alterations to Development: barns/outbuildings to bunk barn, toilets, showers, etc, cafe and disabled accommodation, as amended by e-mail received on 23 February 2007 and plans received on 26 February 2007. Location: Hesket House Port Carlisle Wigton Applicant: Mr David Hutton

Reference No: 2/2007/0062 Received: 23/01/2007 Proposed Conversion of existing buildings to bunk barn, cafe/tea room, Development: disabled B & B accommodation and erection of free standing spa/sauna building with the creation of associated car park (resubmission to 2/2006/0795), as amended by e-mail received on 23 February 2007 and plans received on 26 February 2007. Location: Hesket House Port Carlisle Wigton Applicant: Mr David Hutton

Constraints: AONB 2/2007/0058 and Listed Building, II, 2/39 2/2007/0062 Hadrians Wall Setting, CO24 Allerdale Flood Zone 1 Allerdale Flood Zone 2 Allerdale Flood Zone 3 English Nature Conservation Area Conservation Area: PORT CARLISLE ASCA Area EN20

Policies: The application farm building is located within Port Carlisle’s 2/2007/0058 and designated settlement limit. 2/2007/0062 The applicant’s property is a listed building under which Policy CO14 seeks the beneficial reuse of these buildings, whilst Policy CO15 seeks the alterations are sympathetic with the building and Policy CO18 aims to safeguard its setting.

As the site’s listed building is located in the villages Conservation Area, Policy CO2 also aims to ensure alterations are sympathetic with its locality whilst Policy CO13 endeavours to secure its setting.

Policy CO9 resists development which would adversely affect the environment and amenity of the Conservation Area and Policy EN6 seeks to resist pollution generating development in proximity to pollution sensitive development.

The applicant’s premises and car park are sited along the actual route and in close proximity to Hadrian’s Wall, under which Policy CO23 aims to safeguard any details of archaeological value and Policy CO24 seeks to secure the setting of the World Heritage Site.

The village itself and its surrounding countryside are located within the Solway Coast’s designated AONB through which Policy EN20 seeks to safeguard its landscape quality and resist non-essential development.

Policy EN12 seeks to resist development which is subject to flood risk.

Policy EN32 seeks to safeguard the habitat of protected wildlife species.

Policy TM6 supports the provision and expansion of tourist facilities subject to compliance with other local plan policies.

Policy TR6 of ALP seeks development to include satisfactory parking facilities in accordance with the County Council’s parking guidelines (which may be relaxed in Conservation Areas), whilst Policy TR9 seeks development to provide adequate facilities for the disabled.

Representations: Parish Council – No objections. 2/2007/0058 Cumbria Highways – No objections subject to highway conditions, including the provision and securing of a visibility splay to the entrance of the car park.

Environmental Health – No reply to date (09/02/2007).

Fire Officer – No objections.

English Nature – Object to the proposal due to the lack of information on the impact of the development on any potential bats at the site. (The proposal is unlikely to affect any designated nature conservation sites.) Environment Agency – Object to the proposal in the absence of any flood risk assessment as the site is located in Flood Zone 2 (probability of flooding between 1-200 years and 1-1,000 years).

English Heritage – Initial concerns have largely been addressed in pre-application discussions, therefore no objections subject to condition requesting a programme of archaeological work.

The application has been advertised on site and within the local press. Adjoining owners have also been notified.

Six letters of objection were received on the grounds of:

(i) Detrimental expansion of the village into the countryside (outside the village boundary and its existing definitive boundary).

(ii) Impact on the rear lane.

(iii) Disturbance/loss of privacy to neighbouring residents.

(iv) Devaluation of property.

(v) Additional traffic in the village – hazard of the blind bend at the end of the village.

(vi) Lack of details on how the car park will be policed.

(vii) Inadequate provision of disabled facilities, and the route from the proposed car park is unsuitable for use by those with a disability.

(viii) Inadequate parking facilities for the overall scale of facilities, including the applicant’s property, resulting in parking overspill in the village.

(ix) Potential access to the car park by livestock, as any cattle grid may have an impact on archaeological remains. Who would maintain any security facilities.

(x) The car park site suffers flooding and inadequate details have been provided on drainage for the car park.

(xi) Detrimental impact on the character of the landscape of the AONB.

(xii) Potential use of car park by other users, e.g. boats and jet skis.

(xiii) Hazard of additional on-street parking in the locality of the site.

(xiv) Disturbance from the hours of the cafeteria.

(xv) Detrimental design details of external staircase to the character of the listed building and the Conservation Area which does not reflect local vernacular architecture.

(xvi) Harmful impact of the works on Hadrians Wall World Heritage Site.

(xvii) Potential further detrimental impact from future advertisements associated with the development.

Representations: Parish Council – No objections. 2/2007/0062 Cumbria Highways – No objections subject to highway conditions, including the provision and securing of a visibility splay to the entrance of the car park.

Environmental Health – No reply to date (09/02/2007).

English Nature – Object to the proposal due to the lack of information on the impact of the development on any potential bats at the site. (The proposal is unlikely to affect any designated nature conservation sites.)

Environment Agency – Object to the proposal in the absence of any flood risk assessment as the site is located in Flood Zone 2 (probability of flooding between 1-200 years and 1-1,000 years).

English Heritage – Initial concerns have largely been addressed in pre-application discussions, therefore no objections subject to condition requesting a programme of archaeological work.

AONB – No representations received to date (19/03/2007).

The application has been advertised on site and within the local press. Adjoining owners have also been notified.

Six letters of objection were received on the grounds of:

(i) Detrimental expansion of the village into the countryside (outside the village boundary and its existing definitive boundary).

(ii) Impact on the rear lane.

(iii) Disturbance/loss of privacy to neighbouring residents.

(iv) Devaluation of property.

(v) Additional traffic in the village – hazard of the blind bend at the end of the village.

(vi) Lack of details on how the car park will be policed.

(vii) Inadequate provision of disabled facilities, and the route from the proposed car park is unsuitable for use by those with a disability.

(viii) Inadequate parking facilities for the overall scale of facilities, including the applicant’s property, resulting in parking overspill in the village.

(ix) Potential access to the car park by livestock, as any cattle grid may have an impact on archaeological remains. Who would maintain any security facilities.

(x) The car park site suffers flooding and inadequate details have been provided on drainage for the car park.

(xi) Detrimental impact on the character of the landscape of the AONB.

(xii) Potential use of car park by other users, e.g. boats and jet skis.

(xiii) Hazard of additional on-street parking in the locality of the site.

(xiv) Disturbance from the hours of the cafeteria.

(xv) Detrimental design details of external staircase to the character of the listed building and the Conservation Area which does not reflect local vernacular architecture.

(xvi) Harmful impact of the works on Hadrians Wall World Heritage Site.

(xvii) Potential further detrimental impact from future advertisements associated with the development.

REPORT The applicant’s premises comprise of a traditional 2/2007/0058 and dwellinghouse previously granted planning consent for use 2/2007/0062 as a B&B premises (3 letting rooms) under 2/2004/0404, and a range of courtyard buildings.

Access to a central yard is via an entrance adjacent to the dwelling which is located on the inside of a bend at the western end of the village.

The applicant’s current proposal seeks consent to convert the single and two storey traditional hayloft/barn buildings into a café/tea room (to be operated by an independent third party), a bunk barn facility (accommodating 20 people) and a one bedroom holiday unit for the disabled. An additional detached spa/sauna chalet unit is proposed on the open curtilage land to the east of the courtyard buildings.

The café would incorporate around 24 seat covers and the type of food would not involve cooking facilities (i.e. no flue is required).

The applicant proposes a new 16 space car park within the field on the western perimeter of the village (segregated from the village by a narrow unmade lane). Access to the car park would be via an existing field gate at the western end of the field’s highway frontage, adjacent to an isolated detached dwelling, ‘The Binnacle’. The access entrance provides 45 degree splays with a 79m visibility splay towards the village. The existing stone wall abutting the highway be recessed to accommodate the proposed splay. The car park is linked via a gate in the field boundary and across the unmade track to an existing doorway entrance on the rear wall of the hay lofts courtyard building, which abuts the unmade lane. The car park is to be finished in a grass pavier material. The car park will be managed via a gate/cobble grid closing at 6:00 p.m.

In a supporting statement, the applicant advised their existing B & B commenced in May 2004 to cater for the demand from walkers on the Hadrian’s Wall walk’s National Trail, which remains successful.

They have recognised the need to vary the type of accommodation, plus the needs of both the community and visitors.

They accept this must be undertaken sympathetically within its environment, and therefore seek to reuse existing redundant barns in the courtyard, applying renewable resources.

A traffic survey has been undertaken to verify the visibility splays required for the car park and the surface treatment chosen to blend in with its surroundings and avoid any impact on archaeological items.

The statement advises the car park would be for customers only, but subject to future approval they would not oppose its use in alleviating any future parking congestion within the village. The applicant indicates the proposal would generate 6-12 vehicles per day and, in addition to the two existing employees, would generate a further three full time posts and three part-time posts.

Officers, in assessing the merits of the withdrawn planning (2/2006/795) and listed building (2/2006/794) applications for this development, became aware of a range of constraints. These constraints need to be addressed within the current resubmission planning (2/2007/0062) and listed building (2/2007/0058) applications for the same development as this. Officers consider the design details for the conversion of the barns themselves are satisfactory and retain the features and character of the buildings which would improve the character and setting of the overall courtyard.

Officers consider the use of the operations of the cafeteria itself (during normal working hours) and the residential use of the bunk barn would not likely result in any significant loss of amenity to the other residential dwellinghouses within the immediate vicinity of the courtyard.

The spa building, although sited on the route of Hadrians Wall itself, in the absence of any foundations will not interfere with any remains of archaeological value. Despite its recessed location within the village, however, the Council’s Conservation Area Officer considers its modern design would have a detrimental impact on the setting of the listed building and the Conservation Area. (An existing boundary timber fence fronting the highway which screens the building from public view is the subject of an enforcement notice which has gone to appeal. Legal clarification is awaited as to whether this free-standing structure requires consent.) The applicant is exploring alternative design details for this individual aspect of the development to seek to overcome this issue.

However, the primary physical constraint relating to the development is the provision of satisfactory parking facilities and their associated disabled facilities.

The site’s courtyard has been approved as parking for the existing B & B residents. (Consideration had also been given in the former B & B that the land use was primarily targeting the walkers using the National Trail along Hadrians Wall.) However, its access entrance is hazardous due to its entrance on the inside of a bend with restricted visibility.

The Highways Authority, whilst reluctantly accepting its use for another single car parking space for the proposed disabled accommodation (i.e. one additional traffic movement per day), they would oppose its used by daily traffic users with a disability for the cafeteria or bunk barns which may generate higher levels of traffic.

The applicant sought to overcome this policy constraint in the former withdrawn applications by providing a new car park within the agricultural field on the western perimeter of the village. The previous proposal involved a larger 44 space car park within the field, which intended to serve both the applicant’s premises plus act as a village car park. However, following officers concerns on the highway (visibility splays, hazardous route to the village due to the bend in the road and lack of pavement), archaeological and landscape implications of the car park (with little supporting evidence on the need of a village car park), the proposal was withdrawn.

The revised car park’s proposed 16 spaces allow for 12 spaces for the cafeteria and 4 for the bunk barn (an allowance for the bunks is allowed again on the basis that it is particularly targeting the ‘walkers’ market).

Further to the completion of a speed survey, the Highway Authority consider the proposed 79m splay to the bend on the coast road at the western end of the village is satisfactory.

Officers consider the recessing of the existing stone wall on the field’s highway boundary within the splay would secure the splay, whilst safeguarding the landscaping character of this feature (including the character of the AONB).

Therefore, subject to consultation that the recessing of the wall behind the splays and an associated cattle/grid at the entrance is acceptable by English Heritage, the highway merits of the car park are acceptable. Its customer use would avoid the public seeking access to the village via the hazardous bend at this end of the village.

It is anticipated the applicant’s proposed mesh pavier surface treatment will also assist in minimising its visual impact on the landscape and safeguard any items of archaeological value.

Similarly, subject to the reinstatement of the field boundary wall, plus some additional landscaping, the provision of this car park on the periphery of the village would not significantly adversely affect the setting or landscape of the AONB or the Conservation Area (especially given the substantial reduction in its scale from the previous scheme).

The applicant is to submit amendments (details awaited) to provide for those with a disability a paved way from the car park, across the unmade lane into the existing rear door of the applicant’s barn. Subject to the receipt of satisfactory details for those with a disability, the principle of these is acceptable. This would overcome the access hazards of the applicant’s courtyard and avoid pedestrians/those with a disability walking/negotiating on the inside of the bend on the highway which lacks any pavement.

The applicant has submitted a flood risk assessment for the car park. Clarification is awaited from the Environment Agency on the details.

Natural England has indicated that they would accept an ecological evaluation of the bats under a planning condition subject to addressing any necessary mitigation measures.

Therefore, subject to additional satisfactory details relating to the access and operational use of the new car park, plus the spa unit, the merits of the revised scheme are acceptable and may be approved. It is considered the proposal would improve the tourist facilities of the area to the benefit of the local economy, and improve and enhance the character and setting of the applicant’s redundant curtilage buildings.

Additional conditions are anticipated from the consultation replies.

Recommendation: Approved 2/2007/0058

Conditions/ 1. The development hereby permitted shall be begun Reasons: before the expiration of THREE years from the date of 2/2007/0058 this permission. Reason: In order to comply with Section 51 of the Planning & Compulsory Purchase Act 2004.

2. All rooflights hereby approved shall not project above the plane of the roof. Reason: To ensure the proposed works are sympathetic with the character and setting of the listed building and its location in the Conservation Area in compliance with Policies CO2, CO13, CO15 and CO18 of the Allerdale Local Plan.

3. All rainwater goods shall be installed in cast iron. Reason: To ensure the proposed works are sympathetic with the character and setting of the listed building and its location in the Conservation Area in compliance with Policies CO2, CO13, CO15 and CO18 of the Allerdale Local Plan.

4. Prior to the commencement of works, 1:10 scale section details of the windows and doors hereby approved shall be submitted to and approved by the local Planning Authority. The works shall be implemented solely in accordance with the approved details. Reason: To ensure the proposed works are sympathetic with the character and setting of the listed building and its location in the Conservation Area in compliance with Policy CO2, CO13, CO15 and CO18 of the Allerdale Local Plan.

5. Prior to the commencement of works, details of the external staircase shall be submitted to and approved by the local Planning Authority. The works shall be implemented solely in accordance with the approved details. Reason: To ensure the proposed works are sympathetic with the character and setting of the listed building and its location in the Conservation Area in compliance with Policies CO2, CO13, CO15 and CO18 of the Allerdale Local Plan.

Recommendation: Approved 2/2007/0062

Conditions/ 1. The development hereby permitted shall be begun Reasons: before the expiration of THREE years from the date of 2/2007/0062 this permission. Reason: In order to comply with Section 51 of the Planning & Compulsory Purchase Act 2004.

2. The development shall not be commenced until a detailed landscaping scheme indicating the type, height, species and location of all new trees and shrubs, has been submitted to and approved by the Local Planning Authority. No part of the development shall be brought into use after the end of the first planting and seeding seasons following the approval of the landscaping scheme, unless those elements of the approved scheme relating to the cafeteria have been implemented. Any trees or plants which within a period of 5 years of planting die, are removed, or become seriously damaged or diseased, shall be replaced with others of similar size and species. Reason: In order to enhance the appearance of the development and minimise the impact of the development in the locality.

3. The dwelling shall not be occupied until the vehicular access and turning requirements have been constructed in accordance with the approved plan and has been brought into use. The vehicular access turning provisions shall be retained and capable of use at all times thereafter and shall not be removed or altered without the prior consent of the Local Planning Authority. Reason: To ensure a minimum standard of access provision when the development is brought into use.

4. All rooflights hereby approved shall not project above the plane of the roof. Reason: To ensure the proposed works are sympathetic with the character and setting of the listed building and its location in the Conservation Area in compliance with Policies CO2, CO13, CO15 and CO18 of the Allerdale Local Plan.

5. All rainwater goods shall be installed in cast iron. Reason: To ensure the proposed works are sympathetic with the character and setting of the listed building and its location in the Conservation Area in compliance with Policies CO2, CO13, CO15 and CO18 of the Allerdale Local Plan.

6. Prior to the commencement of works, 1:10 scale section details of the windows and doors hereby approved shall be submitted to and approved by the local Planning Authority. The works shall be implemented solely in accordance with the approved details. Reason: To ensure the proposed works are sympathetic with the character and setting of the listed building and its location in the Conservation Area in compliance with Policy CO2, CO13, CO15 and CO18 of the Allerdale Local Plan.

7. Prior to the commencement of works, details of the external staircase shall be submitted to and approved by the local Planning Authority. The works shall be implemented solely in accordance with the approved details. Reason: To ensure the proposed works are sympathetic with the character and setting of the listed building and its location in the Conservation Area in compliance with Policies CO2, CO13, CO15 and CO18 of the Allerdale Local Plan.

8. The development shall not commence until visibility splays providing clear visibility of 2.4 metres x 93 metres in a westerly direction and 79 metres in an easterly direction, measured down the centre of the access road and the nearside channel line of the major road as outlined on the amended plan received on 26 February 2007 have been provided at the junction of the access road with the county highway. Notwithstanding the provisions of the Town and Country Planning (General Permitted Development) Order 1995 (or any Order revoking and re-enacting that Order) relating to permitted development, no structure, vehicle or object of any kind shall be erected, parked or placed, and no trees, bushes or other plants shall be planted or be permitted to grow within the visibility splay which obstruct the visibility splays. The visibility splays shall be constructed before general development of the site commences so that construction traffic is safeguarded. Reason: In the interests of highway safety.

9. Details of proposed crossings of the highway verge and/or footway shall be submitted to the Local Planning Authority for approval. The development shall not be commenced until the details have been approved and the crossings have been constructed. Reason: To ensure a suitable standard of crossing for pedestrian safety.

10. Access gates, if provided, shall be hung to open inwards only away from the highway. Reason: In the interests of highway safety.

11. 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.

12. Any existing highway fence/wall boundary shall be reduced to a height not exceeding 1.0m above the carriageway level of the adjacent highway in accordance with details submitted to the Local Planning Authority and which have subsequently been approved before development commences and shall not be raised to a height exceeding 1.0m thereafter. Reason: In the interests of highway safety.

13. The use shall not be commenced until the access, turning and parking requirements have been constructed in accordance with the approved plan. Any such access and/or parking provision shall be retained and be capable of use when the development is completed and shall not be removed or altered without the prior consent of the Local Planning Authority. Reason: To ensure a minimum standard of access provision when the development is brought into use.

14. The access drive shall be surfaced in bituminous or cement bound materials, or otherwise bound, and shall be constructed and completed before the development is brought into use. This surfacing shall extend for a distance of at least 10m as measured from the carriageway edge of the adjacent highway. Reason: In the interests of highway safety.

15. The new car park hereby approved shall solely be used between the hours of 9:00 a.m. and 6:00 p.m. Outside these hours the car park's entrance gate shall remain closed at all times. Reason: To safeguard the amenity of neighbouring residential properties, in compliance with Policy EN6 of the Allerdale Local Plan.

16. The highway frontage wall shall be rebuilt to its existing base in accordance with the approved amended plan dated 26 February 2007 prior to the use of the car park. Reason: To minimise the impact of the development on the landscape character of the Solway Coast Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty, in compliance with Policy EN20 of the Allerdale Local Plan.

17. Prior to the commencement of works, details of a qualified survey of the building to identify any bats or their habitat shall be submitted to and approved by the Local Planning Authority. If any bats are identified at the site, details of mitigation measures to safeguard their habitat shall be submitted to and approved by the Local Planning Authority, and implemented prior to the commencement of works on the buildings hereby approved. Reason: To safeguard any protected bat species at the site and their habitat in compliance with Policy EN32 of the Allerdale Local Plan.

18. No part of the development hereby permitted shall be commenced until either: (a) A desk study has been undertaken and agreed by the Local Planning Authority to investigate and produce an assessment of the risks associated with former mining activity in the area. Should the desk study identify any potential risks, an appropriate site investigation must be undertaken (at a time of low atmospheric pressure, ideally combined with a significant drop). If remedial measures are necessary they will be implemented in accordance with the assessment and to the satisfaction of the Local Planning Authority. All work shall be undertaken in accordance with current UK guidance, particularly CLR11. OR (b) Constructional details to demonstrate that gas will not enter the structure/extension by means of seepage have been submitted to and approved by the Local Planning Authority. The approved constructional details shall be fully implemented prior to the occupation of the extension. Reason: To minimise the risk from any potential gas seepage from mine workings, in compliance with Policy EN9 of the Allerdale Local Plan.

19. Prior to the commencement of the use of the cafeteria or bunk barn hereby approved, the disabled access details outlined on the approved amended plan shall be fully implemented. Reason: To ensure satisfactory access to the site by the disabled in compliance with Policy TR9 of the Allerdale Local Plan.

20. Before any development takes place within the are indicated in red on the attached plan the applicant shall secure the implementation of a programme of archaeological work in accordance with a written scheme of investigation which has been submitted to and approved by the Local Planning Authority. Reason: To allow for any necessary archaeological excavation and recording of evidence, artefacts, etc.

______