Development Panel Will Meet on Tuesday 25 November 2014 at 1.00 Pm in Council Chamber - Allerdale House

Friday 14 November 2014

Development Panel Will meet on Tuesday 25 November 2014 at 1.00 pm in Council Chamber - Allerdale House

Membership:

Councillor Peter Bales (Chairman)

Councillor John (Binky) Armstrong Councillor Carole Armstrong Councillor Nicky Cockburn Councillor Bill Finlay Councillor Margaret Jackson Councillor Peter Kendall Councillor Jim Lister Councillor Billy Miskelly Councillor Sam Standage Councillor Martin Wood Councillor Joan Wright

Members of the public are welcome to attend the meeting. If you have any questions or queries contact Paula McKenzie on 01900 702557.

The following Site Visits will take place:

2/2014/0520 – Arkleby House Farm, Arkleby.

2/2014/0582 - Installation of a single wind turbine with a hub height of 24.8m and tip height of 34.5m, Oughterside Mill, Oughterside, Wigton.

Members of the Development Panel will be picked up from Allerdale House, Workington and the bus will leave at 10.15am prompt.

Lunch will be provided in the Lonsdale Room, Allerdale House for Members of the Panel.

Agenda

1. Minutes (Pages 1 - 14)

To sign as a correct record the minutes of the meeting held on Tuesday 4 November 2014.

2. Apologies for absence

3. Declaration of Interest

Councillors/Staff to give notice of any disclosable pecuniary interest, other registrable interest or any other interest and the nature of that interest relating to any item on the agenda in accordance with the adopted Code of Conduct.

4. Questions

To answer questions from members of the public – 2 days notice of which must have been given in writing or by electronic mail.

5. Development Panel 2.2014.0582 Oughterside Mill, Oughterside, Wigton, CA7 2PZ. Proposed siting of 1 x 24.8M high (hub) wind turbine with a tip height of 34.5m (Pages 15 - 26)

6. Development Panel 2.2014.0520 Arkleby House Farm, Arkleby, Wigton CA7 2BP. Installation of a WES250 250kW single wind turbine on a 31m hub height, 45m tip height and associated infrastructure, including a substation. (Pages 27 - 38)

7. Development Panel 2.2014.0358 Land At Ellerbeck Brow, Brigham, Cockermouth. Erection of 10 dwellinghouses, including 2 affordable dwellings and associated infrastructure (Pages 39 - 52)

8. Development Panel 2.2014.06 10 Brigham Road, Cockermouth. Residential development for 15 no. dwellings including 3 no. affordable dwellings plus associated infrastructure and landscaping (Pages 53 - 66)

9. Development Panel 2.2014.0462 Holmewood Care Home, Lamplugh Roa d, Cockermouth. Extension to provide 15 additional bedrooms. (Pages 67 - 78)

10. Development Panel 2.2014.0293 Dundraw Farm, Dundraw, Wigton. Installation of a 500kW wind turbine (67m to blade tip) and its associated infrastructure (crane pad, access track and meter house) (Pages 79 - 98)

11. Development Panel 2.2014.0484 New Grange Farm, Dearham. Single Turbine 45 metre total height. (Pages 99 - 110)

12. Development Panel 2.2014.0698 Land Between Church and Beec h Cottages. Outline application for proposed local occupancy dwelling (Pages 111 - 116)

13. Development Panel 2.2014.0753 Strawberry Howe Cattery, Cockermouth CA13 9XR (Pages 117 - 122)

14. Development Panel 2.2014.0550 Roddin gs House, Greenrow. Proposed shed to house agricultural machinery- resubmission 2/2014/0055 (Pages 123 - 130)

15. Development Panel 2.2014.0763 31 Ritson Wharf, Maryport. Replacement Windows (Pages 131 - 134)

Corporate Director Resources

Date of Next Meeting Tuesday 16 December 2014 at 1.00 pm Council Chamber - Allerdale House

This page is intentionally left blank Agenda Item 1

At a meeting of the Development Panel held in Council Chamber - Allerdale House on Tuesday 4 November 2014 at 1.00 pm

Members

P Bales (Chairman)

J Armstrong B Miskelly C M Armstrong R Munby N Cockburn S Standage B Finlay M G Wood P G Kendall J Wright A J Markley

Apologies for absence were received from Councillors C M Jackson and J Lister

Staff Present

T Gear, K Kerrigan, P McKenzie and S Sewell.

222 Site Visits

The following Councillors were present at the site inspections, 2/2014/0482 - Proposed new dwelling, land off Halllodge Lane, Great Clifton. 2/2014/0468 - Installation of a ground mounted photovoltaic solar farm comprising solar panels, fixings, electronics, equipment housing, security measures, access and ancillary development, Pasture Farm, Westnewton Road, Aspatria.

J Armstrong, C Armstrong, P Bales, N Cockburn, B Finlay, P Kendall, T Markley, B Miskelly, R Munby, S Standage, M Wood and J Wright.

223 Minutes

The minutes of the meeting held on Monday 13 October 2014 were signed as a correct record.

224 Declaration of Interest

9. Development Panel - 2.2014.0622, Outline application for a detached dwelling considering access with other matters reserved-25, High Brigham, Cockermouth. Councillor Nicky Cockburn; Disclosable Pecuniary Interest; 2/2014/0622 - Due to being friends with the applicant.

225 Questions

None received.

226 Public participation

The following objectors/applicants addressed the Panel.

Page 1

James English outlined his support for application 2/2014/0482 and Parish Councillor Jo Kirkbride spoke on behalf of Great Clifton Parish Council.

John Ryden, Mr A Keighley and Clive Marshall outlined their objections to application 2/2014/0468 and Mr A Keighley objected on behalf of Parish Councillor Helene McLeod on behalf of Westnewton Parish Council. The agent Barry Butchart exercised his right of reply.

William Patterson outlined his objections to application 2/2014/0554. Len Davies outlined his support and Ward Councillor Tony North objected. The agent Anthea Jones and applicant Mrs L Thompson exercised their right of reply.

The applicant James Lister spoke in favour of his application 2/2014/0582.

The Ward Councillor Tony North objected to application 2/2014/0622.

227 Development Panel - 2.2014.0482, Proposed new dwelling, Land off, hall Lodge Lane, Workington.

The application: Proposed new dwelling, Land off Hall Lodge Lane, Workington.

The Head of Development Services recommended approval.

The Head of Development Services outlined the application and detailed the main issues within the report.

Members noted 3 letters of objection, the grounds of which were noted in the officer’s report and an additional letter accepting the drainage solution and matters over the common land which appeared on the Late List.

The Head of Development Services advised members of amendments to condition 4 plan numbers.

Councillor B Finlay moved approval. This was seconded by Councillor J Armstrong.

A vote was taken, 12 in favour of approval, 0 against and 0 abstentions.

The motion in favour of approval was carried.

The decision: Approved.

Conditions: 1. The development hereby permitted shall be begun 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.

Page 2

2. The development hereby permitted shall be carried out in accordance with the following plans: 3294 01 Rev B - Location plan (amendment received 19/9/2014) 3294 03 Rev B - Site plan as proposed 3294 04 Rev A - Proposed plans and elevations K2941/A1/01 C - Proposed open water channel diversion plan and details SCS22v1 Phase 1 Habitat and Scoping Survey G14106 Phase 1 Desk Study Investigation Report Email confirming permeable paving and surface water discharge rate (amendment received 24/9/2014) 3294-05/SK1 - Proposed alterations to upper section of drainage works drawing K29419/A1/01C (amendment received 17/10/2014). Reason: In order to ensure a satisfactory standard of development.

3. The development hereby approved shall be implemented in accordance with the recommendations of the submitted Phase 1 Habitat and Scoping Survey Ref SCS22v1 paras 5.5, 5.6 and 6. Reason: In order to safeguard the ecology and biodiversity of the site in accordance with Policy S35 of the Allerdale Local Plan Adopted July 2014.

4. The development hereby approved shall be implemented in accordance with the strategy for surface water drainage as detailed within the submitted Drainage Report ref K29419/A1/01D and the approved drainage plan K29419/A1/01D. The dwelling shall not commence above plinth level until the drainage works complete and operational and shall remain as such thereafter. Reason: In order to achieve an acceptable method of surface water drainage to safeguard against the risk of localised flooding in accordance with Policy S29 of the Allerdale Local Plan Adopted July 2014.

5. The development shall not be brought into use until visibility splays providing clear visibility delineated by straight lines extending from the extremities of the site frontage with the highway to points 2.0m along the centre line of the access drive measured from the edge of the adjacent highway has been provided. 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 obstructs 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 interest of highway safety.

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

Page 3

7. Public Right of Way 230001 that is aligned on the edge of the development site shall remain unobstructed for the duration of construction of the dwelling and thereafter. Reason: To safeguard access to a public right of way.

8. No development approved by this permission shall commence until all necessary site investigation works within the site boundary have been carried out to establish the degree and nature of the contamination and its potential to pollute the environment or cause harm to human health. The scope of works for the site investigations should be agreed with the Local Planning Authority prior to the commencement. Reason: To minimise any risk arising from any possible contamination from the development to the local environment in compliance with the National Planning Policy Framework and Policy S30 of the Allerdale Local Plan (Part 1), Adopted July 2014.

9. Should land affected by contamination be identified under the desk top study under condition 8 which poses unacceptable risks to human health, controlled waters or the wider environment, no development shall take place until a detailed remediation scheme has been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The scheme must include an appraisal of remediation options, identification of the preferred option(s), the proposed remediation objectives and remediation criteria, and a description and programme of the works to be undertaken including the verification plan. Reason: To minimise any risk arising from any possible contamination from the development to the local environment in compliance with the National Planning Policy Framework and Policy S30 of the Allerdale Local Plan (Part 1), Adopted July 2014.

10. Should a contamination remediation scheme be required under condition 9 the approved strategy shall be implemented and a verification report submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority, prior to the development (or relevant phase of development) being brought into use. Reason: To minimise any risk arising from any possible contamination from the development to the local environment in compliance with the National Planning Policy Framework and Policy S30 of the Allerdale Local Plan (Part 1), Adopted July 2014.

11. In the event that contamination is found at any time when carrying out the approved development that was not previously identified it must be reported immediately to the Local Planning Authority. Development on the part of the site affected must be halted and a risk assessment carried out and submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. Where unacceptable risks are found remediation and verification schemes shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. These shall be implemented prior to the development (or relevant phase of

Page 4

development) being brought into use. All works shall be undertaken in accordance with current UK guidance, particularly CLR11. Reason: To minimise any risk arising from any possible contamination from the development to the local environment in compliance with the National Planning Policy Framework and Policy S30 of the Allerdale Local Plan (Part 1), Adopted July 2014.

Proactive Statement

Application Approved Following Revisions

The Local Planning Authority had acted positively and proactively in determining this application by identifying planning policies, constraints, stakeholder representations and matters of concern within the application (as originally submitted) and where appropriate negotiating, with the Applicant, acceptable amendments and solutions to the proposal to address those concerns. As a result, the Local Planning Authority had been able to grant planning permission for an acceptable proposal, in accordance with the presumption in favour of sustainable development, as set out within the National Planning Policy Framework.

228 Development Panel - 2.2014.0468, Installation of a ground mounted photovoltaic solar farm-Pasture Farm, Westnewton Road, Aspatria.

The application: Installation of a ground mounted photovoltaic solar farm comprising solar panels, fixings, electronics, equipment housing, security measures, access and ancillary development, Pasture Farm, Westnewton Road, Aspatria, Wigton.

The Head of Development Services recommended approval.

The Head of Development Services outlined the application and detailed the main issues within the report.

Members noted 14 letters of objection, 30 letters of support and 1 representation expressing support but concerns about visual impact and construction traffic the grounds of which were noted in the officer’s report and an additional 15 letters of objection and 2 letters challenging the assessment of flood risk in the application and Panel report which appeared on the Late List.

The Head of Development Services recommended that in response to the two letters received challenging the assessment of flood risk in the application and Panel report that condition 9 be amended to read:

“The development permitted by this permission shall only be carried out in accordance with the approved Flood Risk Assessment (FRA) submitted by Stuart Burke Associates ref. SB1514_Pasturehouse, dated 14 August 2014 and the following mitigation measures detailed within the FRA:

Limiting the surface water run-off generated by the 1 in 100 critical storm so that it will not exceed the run-off from the undeveloped site and not increase the risk of flooding off-site.

Page 5

The mitigation measures shall be fully implemented prior to occupation and subsequently in accordance with the timing / phasing arrangements embodies within the scheme or within any other period as may subsequently be agreed, in writing by the local planning authority”

The following note to the applicant should also be added:

“Where access tracks need to be provided, permeable tracks should be used, and localised swales and infiltration trenches should be used to control any run- off.

Sandwith Beck to the west of the site boundary is classed as an ‘Ordinary Watercourse’. Any works which could affect the flow of an ordinary watercourse will therefore need to be discussed with Cumbria County Council to establish any consent requirements”

Members were also informed of 7 additional letters of objection, 21 letters of support and a 29 signature petition of support that were received too late to appear on the late list.

Councillor M Wood moved approval. This was seconded by Councillor J Wright.

Councillor B Finlay moved deferral. This was seconded by Councillor N Cockburn.

A vote was taken, 6 in favour of deferral, 6 against and 0 abstentions.

The chair used his casting vote against deferral, therefore the motion in favour of deferral was lost.

A vote was taken, 6 in favour of approval, 4 against and 2 abstentions.

The motion in favour of approval was carried.

The Head of Development Services advised that notification had been received from the National Planning Casework Unit of the intention to issue a direction which would prevent the local planning authority from issuing the decision notice until the Secretary of State has considered a request to call in the application.

The decision: Approved subject to confirmation that the Secretary of State does not intend to call in the application

Conditions: 1. The development hereby permitted shall be begun before the expiration of three years from the date of this permission. Reason: In order to comply with the requirements of Section 91 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 as amended by Section 51 of the Planning & Compulsory Purchase Act 2004.

Page 6

2. The development hereby permitted shall be carried out solely in accordance with the following plans: Figure 1 - Site location plan Figure 2 - Block plan Figure 3 - Site layout - amendment received 23 September 2014. Figure 4 - Panel Layout Figure 5 - Invertor housing Figure 6 - Substation/ control room Figure 7 - Fence, gate & camera Reason: In order to ensure a satisfactory standard of development.

3. The planning permission is for a period from the date of this permission until the date occurring 25 years after the date of commissioning of the development. Written confirmation of the date of commissioning of the development shall be provided to the Local Planning Authority no later than 1 calendar month after that event. Reason: To ensure the landscape impact of the development only exists for the operational lifetime of the development.

4. Within 12 months of the expiry of this permission a Decommissioning Method Statement shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The site shall be decommissioned in accordance with the approved Statement. Reason: In the interests of the amenity of the area and in accordance with the provisions of Policy S19 of the Allerdale Local Plan (Part 1) adopted July 2014.

5. If the solar farm ceases to operate for a continuous period of 6 months then, unless otherwise agreed in writing by the Local Planning Authority, a scheme for the decommissioning of the site shall be submitted for the approval of the LPA within 3 months of the date of the cessation of operation. The site shall be decommissioned in accordance with the approved scheme within 12 months of the date of the approval of that scheme by the Local Planning Authority. Reason: To ensure the landscape impact of the development only exists for the operational lifetime of the development.

6. The development hereby approved shall be undertaken in accordance with the scheme of landscaping detailed in the Site Layout Plan: Figure 3 received 23 September 2014. All hedges and hedgerows on and immediately adjoining the site shall be protected from damage for the duration of works on the site. The approved scheme shall be fully implemented within the first planning season following the commissioning of the installation and any trees or plants which during the lifetime of the solar farm die, are removed or become seriously damaged or diseased shall be replaced in the next planting season with others of similar size and species, unless otherwise agreed in writing by the Local Planning Authority.

Page 7

Reason: In the interests of the amenity of the area and to minimise the landscape impact of the development.

7. The recommendations of the Biodiversity Management Plan dated July 2014 shall be implemented in full. Reason: To preserve and enhance the biodiversity of the site.

8. The rating noise level from the approved development shall remain at least 5dB below the background noise level at the nearest noise sensitive property, namely Sandwith, Yearngill, Aspatria, CA7 3JU. Reason: In the interests of the amenity of nearby residential occupiers and in accordance with Policy S19 of the Allerdale Local Plan (Part 1) adopted July 2014.

9. The development permitted by this permission shall only be carried out in accordance with the approved Flood Risk Assessment (FRA) submitted by Stuart Burke Associates ref. SB1514_Pasturehouse, dated 14 August 2014 and the following mitigation measures detailed within the FRA. Limiting the surface water run-off generated by the 1 in 100 critical storm so that it will not exceed the run-off from the undeveloped site and not increase the risk of flooding off-site. The mitigation measures shall be fully implemented prior to occupation and subsequently in accordance with the timing / phasing arrangements embodies within the scheme or within any other period as may subsequently be agreed, in writing by the local planning authority. Reason: To ensure that surface water drainage is appropriately managed and in accordance with the Flood Risk Assessment.

10. Construction work should be undertaken in accordance with the provisions of the Traffic Management Plan (Document Reference 1009873-PPT-00001) received 2 July 2014. Notwithstanding the construction hours specified in that document there shall be no construction works on a Sunday. Reason: In the interests of the amenity of nearby residenital occupiers and in accordance with Policy S19 of the Allerdale Local Plan (Part 1) Adopted July 2014.

Proactive Statement

Application Approved Following Revisions

Page 8

Application note:

Where access tracks need to be provided, permeable tracks should be used, and localised swales and infiltration trenches should be used to control any run- off.

229 Development Panel - 2.2014.0554, Erection of dwelling. Resubmission of 2/2014/0304, Lambfield, Ellerbeck Brow, Brigham.

Councillor A Markley left the meeting for the rest of the applications.

The application: Erection of dwelling. Resubmission of planning application 2/2014/0304, Lambfield, Ellerbeck Brow, Brigham Cockermouth.

The Head of Development Services recommended refusal.

The Head of Development Services outlined the application and detailed the main issues within the report.

Members noted 13 letters of objection and 4 letters of support of which were noted in the officer’s report and an additional 5 letters of support which appeared on the Late List.

Councillor M Wood moved approval with conditions delegated to Head of Development Services. This was seconded by Councillor P Kendall.

Councillor C Armstrong moved refusal. This was seconded by Councillor P Bales.

A vote was taken, 2 in favour of refusal, 7 against and 2 abstentions.

The motion in favour of refusal was lost.

A vote was taken, 7 in favour of approval with conditions delegated to Head of Development Services, 2 against and 2 abstentions.

The motion in favour of approval with conditions delegated to Head of Development Services was carried.

The decision: Approved.

Reason: Members considered the development was well related to the existing settlement pattern.

Page 9

230 Development Panel - 2.2014.0582, Installation of single wind turbine 24.8m to hub height & 34.5 to tip, Oughterside Mill, Oughterside.

The application: Installation of a single wind turbine with a hub height of 24.8m and tip height of 34.5m, Oughterside Mill, Oughterside, Wigton.

The Head of Development Services recommended refusal.

The Head of Development Services outlined the application and detailed the main issues within the report.

Members noted 19 letters of objection which were noted in the officer’s report and an email from the applicant’s agent expressing concern at lack of communication from the case officer which meant lack of opportunity to amend the proposal to address concerns which appeared on the Late List.

Councillor M Wood moved deferral for a site visit. This was seconded by Councillor C Armstrong.

A vote was taken, 10 in favour of deferral for a site visit, 1 against and 0 abstentions.

The motion in favour of deferral for a site visit was carried.

The decision: Deferred for a site visit.

231 Development Panel - 2.2014.0622, Outline application for a detached dwelling considering access with other matters reserved-25, High Brigham, Cockermouth.

Councillor N Cockburn declared a Disclosable Pecuniary Interest and left the meeting for the following application.

The application: Outline application for a detached dwelling considering access with other matters reserved, High Brigham, Cockermouth.

The Head of Development Services recommended approval.

The Head of Development Services outlined the application and detailed the main issues within the report.

Members noted a letter from a neighbouring resident with a supporting plan to show a precise ownership boundary which appeared on the Late List.

Councillor R Munby moved approval. This was seconded by Councillor M Wood.

Councillor J Armstrong moved deferral for a site visit. This was seconded by Councillor B Finlay.

Page 10

A vote was taken, 2 in favour of deferral for a site visit, 8 against and 0 abstentions.

The motion in favour of deferral for a site visit was lost.

A vote was taken, 8 in favour of approval, 0 against and 2 abstentions.

The motion in favour of approval was carried.

The decision: Approved.

Conditions: 1. Before any works commence, details of the layout, scale and appearance, and landscaping (hereinafter called 'reserved matters') shall be submitted to and approved by the Local Planning Authority. Reason: To enable the Local Planning Authority to assess all the details of the development.

2. The development hereby permitted shall be carried out in accordance with the following plans: 14.35.LOC Rev A - Location Plan (amendment received 9/9/14) 14.35. Site B - Illustrative Site Plan and Access (amendment received 6/10/14). Reason: In order to ensure a satisfactory standard of development.

3. The submission of all reserved matters applications shall be made no later than the expiration of 3 years beginning with the date of this permission and the development shall begin no later than whichever is the later of the following dates: a) The expiration of three years from the date of the grant of this permission, or b) The expiration of two years from the final approval of the 'reserved matters' or, in the case of approval on different dates, the final approval of the last such matter to be approved. Reason: In order to comply with the requirements of Section 92 of The Town and Country Planning Act 1990 as amended by Section 51 of the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004

4. Any application for 'reserved matters' of layout shall include plans showing the following: a) Cross sections through the site; b) Details of existing and proposed ground levels; c) Proposed finished floor levels of buildings; d) Levels of any paths, drives, garages and parking areas; and the development shall be carried out in accordance with the details so approved. Reason: To ensure that the works are carried out to a suitable level in relation to the adjoining properties and highways and in the interests of visual amenity.

Page 11

5. The details required by the 'reserved matters' details shall relate to the development of a single storey dwelling. Reason: It is considered this is the most appropriate in this location taking into account the site conditions/character of the surrounding area, in compliance with the National Planning Policy Framework and Policy DM14 of the Allerdale Local Plan (Part 1), Adopted July 2014.

6. The development shall not commence until visibility splays providing clear visibility of 43x2x43 metres measured down the centre of the access road and the nearside channel line of the major road have been provided at the junction of the access road with the county highway. 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 or object of any kind shall be erected or placed and no trees, bushes or other plants shall be planted or be permitted to grow within the visibility splays which exceed 1 metre in height and obstruct the visibility splays. The visibility splays shall be constructed before general development of the site commences so that construction traffic is safeguarded. Reason: To ensure a satisfactory means of access for the development, in compliance with the National Planning Policy Framework and Policy S2 of the Allerdale Local Plan (Part 1), Adopted July 2014.

7. Notwithstanding the provisions of the Town and Country Planning (General Permitted Development) Order 1995 (as amended) (or in any Statutory Instrument revoking or re-enacting that Order with or without modification) no development falling within Classes A, B, C, E of Part 1 of Schedule 2 of the said Order shall be carried out without the prior written permission of the Local Planning Authority upon an application submitted to it. Reason: The Local Planning Authority wishes to retain control over any proposed alterations/extensions in the interests of the appearance of the site and safeguard the amenities of adjacent properties.

8. In the event that contamination is found at any time when carrying out the approved development that was not previously identified it must be reported immediately to the Local Planning Authority. Development on the part of the site affected must be halted and a risk assessment carried out and submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. Where unacceptable risks are found remediation and verification schemes shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. These shall be implemented prior to the development (or relevant phase of development) being brought into use. All works shall be undertaken in accordance with current UK guidance, particularly CLR11. Reason: To minimise any risk arising from any possible contamination from the development to the local environment in compliance with the National Planning Policy Framework and Policy S30 of the Allerdale Local Plan (Part 1), Adopted July 2014.

Proactive Statement

Page 12

Application Approved Following Revisions

232 Development Panel - 2.2014.675, Erection of general purpose agricultural shed Resubmission of 2.2014.260, Nealhouse Farm, Nealhouse, Carlisle

The application: Erection of general purpose agricultural shed – Resubmission of 2/2014/0260, Nealhouse Farm, Nealhouse, Carlisle.

The Head of Development Services recommended approval.

The Head of Development Services outlined the application and detailed the main issues within the report.

Councillor B Armstrong moved approval. This was seconded by Councillor J Wright.

A vote was taken, 11 in favour of approval, 0 against and 0 abstentions.

The motion in favour of approval was carried.

Decision: Approved.

Conditions:

2. The development hereby permitted shall be carried out in accordance with the following plans: B-03 - Proposed Elevations 1 B-03 - Proposed Elevations 2 B-05a - Site Plan B-06 - Location Plan B-07 - Proposed Floor Plan Reason: In order to ensure a satisfactory standard of development.

Page 13

Proactive Statement

The Local Planning Authority had acted positively and proactively in determining this application by assessing the proposal against all material considerations, including planning policies and any stakeholder representations that may have been received and subsequently determining to grant planning permission in accordance with the presumption in favour of sustainable development, as set out within the National Planning Policy Framework.

The meeting closed at 4.30 pm

Page 14 Agenda Item 5

Allerdale Borough Council

Planning Application 2/2014/0582

Proposed Installation of a single wind turbine with a hub height of 24.8m and tip Development: height of 34.5m. Location: Oughterside Mill Oughterside Wigton Applicant: Mr J P Lister

Recomme ndation Refuse

Summary/Key Issues

Issue Conclusion

Principle of Paragraph 93 of the NPPF makes clear that the provision of Development renewable energy infrastructure is central to the economic, social and environmental dimensions of sustainable development. Landscape and It is considered that the proposal has the potential for significantly Visual Impact harmful cumulative impacts on the character of the landscape and the visual amenities of the locality. Residential Amenity The proposed turbine is within 800m of a number of residential properties. The proposal is likely to have an adverse impact on the amenity of the residents of some of these properties, and there is no evidence of support from the local community for a separation distance of less than 800m in this case. Heritage and The proposal will not have a significant adverse impact on any conservation designated heritage assets or nature conservation interests Operational Subject to conditions relating to construction operations the proposed requirements development would not have an adverse impact on the highway network. Potential benefits The proposal will make a contribution to renewable energy deployment nationally. It would also make a contribution to the running costs of the farm by creating an alternative source of income, supporting rural enterprise and economic activity.

Site

The turbine is proposed to be located within an existing agricultural field that is on a raised hillside. The land is associated with Oughterside Mill which aligns the river Ellen to the south west. The village of Oughterside is located approximately 570m to the north

Page 15 east of the site. The larger settlement of Aspatria is also located to the north east, approximately 3.5km from the site. Gilcrux is located approximately 1km to the south.

The area is predominantly rural in character comprising a mixture of small to medium scale fields bounded by hedgerows, stone walls and fences. The landscape is undulating in character and the site itself sits at approximately 64m AOD and therefore is relatively prominent.

The nearest neighbouring properties are in Beech Hill which is located approximately 428m east of the turbine site. Other residential properties are located in the wider area, with a concentration at Oughterside and Prospect to the north.

Relevant Policies

National Planning Policy Framework

Meeting the challenge of climate change, flooding and coastal change Conserving and enhancing the natural environment Conserving and enhancing the historic environment Supporting a prosperous rural economy

Planning Practice Guidance for Renewable and Low Carbon Energy July 2013

Allerdale Local Plan (Part 1) Adopted July 2014

Policy S1 – Presumption in favour of sustainable development, Allerdale Local Plan (Part 1) Policy S14 – Rural economy, Allerdale Local Plan (Part 1) Policy S19 – Renewable Energy and Low Carbon Technologies Policy S27 – Heritage Assets Policy S32 – Safeguarding amenity, Allerdale Local Plan (Part 1) Policy S33 – Landscape Policy S35 – Protecting and enhancing biodiversity and geodiversity, Allerdale Local Plan (Part 1). Policy S36 – Air, water and soil quality, Allerdale Local Plan (Part 1) Policy S4 – Design principles, Allerdale Local Plan (Part 1) Policy DM17 – Trees, hedgerows and woodland, Allerdale Local Plan (Part 1).

Relevant Planning History

A screening opinion has been issued by the Local Planning Authority which stated that the proposal Did Not constitute EIA development.

Scr/2014/0020 – Screening opinion for wind turbine 24.8m to hub height and 34.5m to tip – An EIA is NOT required.

Representations

Page 16 Cumbria County Council – Highways. Make the following comments : - During the construction phase no vehicle shall leave the site in a condition that would give rise to the deposit of mud, dust or debris on the public highway. - The applicant shall submit a Traffic and Construction Management Plan for approval, all identified highway works shall be completed to the satisfaction of the Local Planning Authority in consultation with the Highway Authority prior to the works commencing on site.

Cumbria County Council – Landscape and Countryside. Advise that they will not be responding from a strategic planning perspective as they do not consider the proposal to be a Category 1 Application.

Natural England – Make the following comments : a) Statutory nature conservation sites – No objection. b) Protected species – Natural England has published ‘Standing Advice’. c) Impact Risk Zones for SSSI ’s – Natural England has recently published a set of mapped Impact Risk Zones (IRZs) for Sites of Special Scientific Interest (SSSI).

Arqiva – No objection.

NATS – Advise that the development is likely to impact on their electronic infrastructure. However, they have no safeguarding objection to the proposal.

Ministry of Defence – No objection.

Stobart Air – No objection.

Electricity North West – No objection.

Environmental Health – Comment that: The supporting information states that noise emissions are unlikely to present a concern in this case. However, no predictions of noise levels at the nearest properties have been provided. Therefore if permission is granted two specific Conditions regarding noise will be required to be attached to any planning approval.

FORCE – Object and make the following comments : a) Height and Scale – At 34.5m to the blade tip and standing at 64m AOD, the wind turbine would be well in excess of ‘small scale’ as defined by the Governments Department of Energy and Climate Change (DECC). There can be no question that the proposed turbine would dominate the immediate vicinity and would be visible from a considerable distance in the surrounding countryside. b) Landscape Impact – The application site is situated within Lowland landscape category subtype 5a ‘Ridge and Valley’ according to the Cumbria Landscape Character Guidance and Toolkit (2011).This subtype is considered to have a moderate capacity for wind energy development which is defined as a small group of 3 to 5 wind turbines or, in exceptional circumstances, a larger group of 6 to 9. The reality is, however, that the area around the application site already contains a considerable amount of wind energy development and therefore we would argue that its ‘moderate’ capacity to absorb turbines without detriment to the overall character of the landscape has already been stretched to the limit.

Page 17 c) Energy requirements of the farm – Although it is stated in the Design and Access Statement that the electricity produced by the proposed wind turbine would offset the applicant’s energy costs, it is not actually confirmed that the turbine would supply power to the premises before any excess is sold to the National Grid. If the intention is for the turbine to meet the power requirements of the farm, then a much smaller machine is likely to be adequate and therefore the need for a 34.5m structure at this location in the open countryside cannot be demonstrated. d) Proximity to Houses/Amenity – The turbine would be situated just 442m from the non associated residential properties at Beech Hill and approximately 550m from the settlement at Oughterside. e) Noise – Some site specific measurements are necessary in this case for the protection of local residential amenity. f) Cumulative Impact – The agent has not carried out a satisfactory cumulative impact assessment. The map at paragraph 4.12 shows the wind farms at Wharrels Hill and Tallentire. Nothing further has been done to realistically examine the cumulative impact that the turbine would have in combination with others in the area. Part of the justification for the turbine is the fact that there are numerous other wind energy schemes in the area. FORCE feel that the existence of other wind turbines should not be used as a reason to add more in the same area. Also, the agent has failed to provide an accurate account of the number and location of the turbines which are already operational or which have planning permission. The application site is within very close proximity to the wind turbines at Hall Bank and Broom Hill, with 2 more further along the A596 at Bullgill where the Council is currently considering an application for an additional machine. More wind turbines have recently received planning permission at Crookdake, High Scales, Firs Farm and Leesrigg. There is an application pending at Arkleby House Farm which is also in the near vicinity. The wind farms at Tallentire, Hellrigg, Westnewton and High Pow are all either visible from the application site itself or from nearby. This is far from an exhaustive list of local wind energy developments. g) Policy – The development is contrary to policy S19 of the newly adopted Local Plan. Policy S19 contains a separation distance of 800m between wind turbines over 25m to the blade tip and residential properties. As discussed earlier, there are a number of properties which would fall well within the separation distance. It is also contrary to policies S32 and S33 which seek to protect residential amenity and also the character of Allerdale’s valued landscapes.

West Newton Action Group – Object and make the following comments : a) Size – This is not a small scale turbine as defined in the DECC’s categorisation of such, and certainly is not either ‘modest size’ or ‘small scale’ as suggested by the developer. As such it would present a dominating presence to the residents of Oughterside and surrounding area. It is approximately equidistant between Oughterside Mill itself and Oughterside village. However, being due south of Oughterside it will have much more of an impact on the village than on its owners. This is due to the prevailing wind direction and any resulting potential noise problems, and the probability of shadow flicker. b) Public consultation – The Action Group note that the applicant’s letters make much of the amount of electricity used by the farm and their need to offset the overall variability of the farms electricity costs. However, the letters do not make clear the fact that every wind turbine simply adds even more costs, via subsidies,

Page 18 to the increasing electricity bills of the very people the applicant is writing to. The letters also go on to say that the turbine will be sensitively sited at suitable distances from residential properties, however, West Newton Action Group challenge this statement. c) Photomontages – These have not been attached to Appendix of the Design and Access Statement. d) Cumulative Impact – There is no appropriate cumulative impact assessment, yet the site is bracketed on 3 sides by the wind farms at Westnewton, Tallentire and Wharrels Hill, all within a 6km radius, plus smaller arrays at Bullgill, Brownrigg, Langrigg and Aikton, as well as numerous individual turbines. e) Climate Change Mitigation – There is no further national requirement for them. Five and a half years ahead of schedule the UK is now in a position to meet all of its renewable energy targets and more.

Oughterside and Allerby Parish Council – Object on the grounds that : - The turbine would have an adverse impact on the character of the area due to its height and scale; - The turbine would have an adverse impact on the amenity of nearby residents; - The proposal is contrary to policies contained with the Local Plan; and - The development would have an adverse cumulative impact.

The application has been advertised by site notice and neighbour notification letters. 19 letters of objection have been submitted.

The letters of objection are on the following grounds :

- Policy S19 of the Allerdale Local Plan recommends a minimum separation distance of 800m between residential properties and wind turbines over 25m to blade tip. The proposed turbine is located 442m from Beech Hill and 552m from Oughterside. - The proposed turbine cannot be described as small scale. The Department for Energy and Climate Change have stated that small-scale wind turbines have hub/tip heights of about 15m above ground level. - Sited in open countryside the turbine would dominate the immediate landscape and be visible from a considerable distance over a large area. - The model of wind turbine proposed would generate between 100,000 and 250,000 kwh of energy per year. This would generate between 5 and 10 times the amount of energy actually needed by the farm, - Surely a much smaller turbine sited closer to the farm buildings would be sufficient to meet the energy needs of the business. - The site is at a height of 64m and is in a prominent position in the context of the local area. The turbine would be a dominant feature in the immediate landscape creating significant visual intrusion for the residents of Beech Hill and Oughterside. - Photomontages are not available on the Councils website. - The turbine could potentially lead to a reduction in property values. - A local noise survey should be conducted around the proposed turbine site to reassure Oughterside residents that there would be no noise pollution from the turbine. - An ecological impact survey should be carried out to ensure that the turbine site

Page 19 meets the Natural England recommendations, and to make sure that no bats are harmed by the development. - A recent inquiry by Allerdale Borough Council showed that 62% of Cumbria’s onshore wind energy sites are located in Allerdale. - Oughterside are already affected by the Wharrels Hill (8 turbines) and Tallentire (6 turbines) wind farms, as well as a number of smaller local wind turbine developments. In conjunction with these other wind installations, the proposed turbine would add significantly to the cumulative visual impact on the whole landscape. - Due to the distance from residential properties and the elevated position of the turbine there are concerns regarding shadow flicker and reflective light. - The land is an area that was subject to opencast mining. It was recommended that at least 25 years should elapse before any building work should be considered on restored land. - Impact also has to be considered regarding the proposals by national grid for larger pylons in the area. This is a further development that the area has to endure. - The route of access to the proposed site cuts over a well used public footpath and bridleway.

Main Issues:

This application was deferred at Panel on 4 th November 2014 for a site visit to be undertaken by Members.

National Planning Policy and the Allerdale Local Plan (Part 1) are broadly supportive of proposals for renewable energy development. The need to meet national targets for the generation of electricity and heat from renewable and low carbon sources is recognised as are the wider environmental, community and economic benefits of such development.

To ensure that the impacts of development (either in isolation or cumulatively) are, or can be made acceptable, Policy S19 of the Allerdale Local Plan sets out clear criteria for the consideration of proposals for renewable energy development, including wind turbines. The criteria most relevant of this application are considered below.

Amenity of local residents

Policy S19 seeks to protect local residents from unacceptable harm. The supporting text comments that in order to address community concerns and in the interests of residential amenity and safety in relation to turbine development a separation distance of 800m to residential properties will be expected in cases where the turbines are over 25m in height to blade tip.

This 800m distance has been established as being generally sufficient to avoid unacceptable impact on residential amenity. The Local Plan does recognise the need for flexibility and that ‘’in some cases due to site-specific factors such as orientation of views, land cover, other buildings and topography, it may be appropriate to vary this threshold, where it can be demonstrated through evidence that there is no unacceptable impact on residential amenity’’.

Page 20 In this case the turbine is proposed to be 34.5m to blade tip, and there are approximately 28 properties within the settlement of Oughterside that are within 800 metres of the site. In addition, 5 properties to the east of the site at Beech Hill are also within 800 metres. In addition, the application dwelling is 630m metres from the turbine.

The nearest residential properties are as follows :

To the east are - 1, 2, 3, 4 and 5 Beech Hill; (The closest of these is 1 Beech Hill which is 430m away)

To the north east are – Manor House, Manor Barn, The Stables, Ghyll Grange, Grange Cottage, and 1, 2 & 3 New Houses Fauld; (The closest of these is Manor House which is approximately 600m away).

To the south is – Oughterside Mill, the application dwelling, which is 630m away. Plus Ellenhall which is 800m away.

The applicant’s assessment acknowledges that some properties will be subject to visual impact from the proposed turbine. However, it comments that the turbine is unlikely to be overly dominant or prominent given the limited height and the orientation of the nearest neighbouring properties. It also comments that it is a well held planning principle that there is no right to view from individual residential properties over land in someone else’s ownership, and ‘’at the distances involved the turbine is very unlikely to harm the living conditions enjoyed by the occupants of these properties’’.

However, it is Officers opinion that the size and scale of the turbine would be clearly visible from a number of dwellings in Oughterside. Particularly the dwellings located to the east of the settlement as these are set at a higher level and would have some direct views of the turbine.

Following further site visits, is it considered that the residents in Beech Hill to the east would not be significantly affected by the development. This is because they will be largely screened from the turbine by existing trees and the topography of the landscape. However, given a separation distance of only approximately 450m, the residents will see the turbine in the immediate surroundings, and when travelling to and from their properties.

In relation to the potential impact of noise a ‘Noise Survey’ has been submitted and the Environmental Health team have advised that if approval was granted for the turbine Conditions regarding noise would need to apply.

With regards to shadow flicker, it is generally acknowledged that the potential impact is only likely to be an issue within 10 x rotor diameters of the turbine. The turbine has a rotor diameter of 19.2m. Therefore the zone likely to be affected by shadow flicker is approximately 200m and there are no residential properties within this area.

Landscape and Visual Impact

The Cumbria Landscape Character Guidance and Toolkit (LCG) supports appropriately

Page 21 located schemes for wind energy in line with the provisions of the Cumbria Joint Wind Energy Supplementary Document (SPD) which was adopted by the Council in 2007. The site falls within Cumbria’s landscape classification 5a Ridge and Valley.

The SPD advises in terms of this particular landscape type ‘Overall the lowland landscape type is judged to have a moderate capacity to accommodate wind turbine development. Greatest potential occurs in the open flatter areas and broad ridge top where small or, in exceptional circumstances, large turbine groups could relate to the medium to large scale land form without dominating wide views and interactions with regular field patterns. In the more sheltered and enclosed valleys or undulating fringes turbine development would feel over dominant and conflict with the more irregular land cover problems.

The applicant’s appraisal for the site includes photomontages and an assessment from a number of viewpoints. It seeks to demonstrate that whilst there would be some local landscape effects the turbine could be accommodated without any significant adverse effects to the local landscape character.

The appraisal states that ‘’The proposed turbine would introduce a different use but would remain intrinsically linked with the agricultural use of the land in that it would harvest the natural resources of the land much in the way agricultural activities do.’’ It goes on to comment that ‘’The site itself sits around 64m and is therefore relatively prominent in this context’’, however, it adds that ‘’The turbine would benefit from screening provided by a tree plantation to the west of the site, and from the rolling nature of the landscape which would help to contain views to the local scale’’. The appraisal also comments that ‘’By positioning the turbine away from the highest point of the hillside and limiting the hub height of the proposal, the application has sought to complement existing landscape character and ensure the turbine is read in the context of existing human activity, such as pylons which align the A596 further north of the site’’. In addition, it advises that ‘’the turbine has a very slim profile, and neutral matte finished paint is designed to absorb light and blend into a dull grey cloudy background.’’

In relation to the issue of cumulative impact, the applicant’s assessment states that the turbine will not link in with other turbine sites in the wider area due to the significant distance between schemes. However, the photomontages demonstrate that the proposed turbine would be viewed in the same visual context as the two nearby wind farms at Tallentire and Wharrells Hill. In addition, some cumulative links will also be possible with smaller scale agricultural turbines.

A number of objectors, including FORCE and West Newton Action Group have highlighted concerns that the proposed turbine will increase the cumulative impact of turbines in the area. The proposed turbine will be visible over a very wide area and the potential cumulative effect for people residing in the area, and those passing through, will be significant. The turbine will be clearly visible from the settlements of both Oughterside and Prospect to the north, and the A596. In addition, from the north, the site will also be seen in context with the wind farm development at Tallentire which is clearly visible in the backdrop of the site. The turbine will also be clearly visible from the south, particularly from the settlement of Gilcrux which is located directly to the south of the site.

It is considered that the applicant’s appraisal underestimates the visual impact of the

Page 22 proposed development within both the immediate locality and the wider area. It is also considered that the turbine would be extremely prominent when viewed from nearby residential dwellings and nearby public highways particularly the A596. The turbine would be located on rising land and it is considered that it would be visually incoherent in the immediate landscape and surrounding area. This is clearly demonstrated in the photomontages that have been submitted as part of the planning application. The turbine would be clearly visible from nearby settlements to both the north and south, and from various viewpoints it will be seen in conjunction with existing wind turbine developments that are located in the wider area. It is considered that as people travel through the area there will be a sequential cumulative impact. There are a proliferation of turbines along the A596 corridor and there will be a cumulative impact of the proposal in conjunction with the large number of existing turbines in the adjacent surroundings.

Impact on natur e conservation interests

Natural England have no objection to the proposal and it is unlikely to affect any statutorily protected sites or landscapes. In addition, the proposed turbine is not sited within 50m of any existing hedgerows and therefore accords with advice from Natural England that wind turbines are unlikely to affect bat populations where a 50m buffer is maintained from foraging habitat.

Impact on heritage assets and their settings

The nearest Listed Buildings to the site are :

- Ellenhall Bridge (Grade II) – Located 618m south of the turbine; and - Ellen Hall and Adjoining Barn 9Grade II) – Located 700m south of the turbine.

It is not considered that the proposed turbine would have a significant impact on the settings of the listed buildings.

Operational requirements, including the suitability of the road network

The main impacts of the proposed development on the road network would be associated with construction traffic. The highway authority has no objections to the proposal subject to conditions and commitments from the developer in relation to a ‘Traffic and Construction Management Plan,’ and the removal of any mud, dust or debris resulting from construction traffic on the highway.

Potential benefits to the local economy and local community

It is acknowledged that the proposed turbine will have local economic benefits in terms of the contribution it would make to the sustainability of the agricultural operation at the host Farm.

Local Financial Considerations:

Having regard to S70 (2) of the Town and Country Planning Act there are no local finance considerations that are relevant to the consideration of the application.

Page 23 Conclusion

Whilst recognising the potential benefits of the proposed wind turbine and the contribution it would make to meeting renewable energy and low carbon targets this must be balanced against the likely adverse impacts on the residential amenity of the occupier of dwellings in the vicinity of the site, and the impact the increased proliferation of turbines would have on the landscape character of the area. It is for these reasons that it is recommended that planning permission be refused.

Annex 1

Reason for Refusal

The proposed turbine, by virtue of its siting, scale and proximity to other turbine development, including that at Tallentire and Wharrels Hill, would increase the proliferation of turbines in the area resulting in a significantly harmful impact on the landscape and visual amenity of the area and a significantly harmful effect on the amenity of the occupiers of residential properties in the area. The proposal is therefore considered contrary to policies S19, S32 and S33 of the Allerdale Local Plan (Part 1) adopted July 2014 and the advice contained within the National Planning Policy Framework and Planning Practice Guidance for Renewable and Low Carbon Energy.

Page 24 Page 25

This page is intentionally left blank

Page 26 Agenda Item 6

Allerdale Borough Council

Planning Application 2/2014/0520

Reference No: 2/2014/0520 Valid Date: 10/07/2014 Location: Arkleby House Farm Arkleby Wigton Applicant: Mr Harry Wilkinson

Drawing Numbers: CM00267049, received 7th November 2014. M20170 Turbine WES250 on 30m tower Substation Plan Location Plan

Proposed Installation of a WES250 250kW single wind turbine on a 31m hub Development: height, 45m tip height and associated infrastructure, including a substation. Recommendation: Refuse

Summ ary/Key Issues

Issue Conclusion

Principle of The Council seeks to promote the development of renewable and Development low carbon energy resources provided the impacts (either in isolation or cumulatively) are, or can be made acceptable. Visual and The proposed turbine will increase the proliferation of turbines in landscape impact the area and it is considered that it will have a significant adverse impact on the landscape of the surrounding area. Ecology Subject to mitigation it is considered that the proposed development would not have a significant adverse impact on nature conservation interests. Heritage The proposal will not have a significant adverse impact on any designated heritage assets Residential Impact The proposed turbine is within 800m of a number of residential properties, a number of which will have direct views of the turbine which is likely to have an adverse impact on the amenity of the residents of these properties. There is no evidence of support from the local community for a

Page 27 separation distance of less than 800m in this case.

Benefits The proposal will support expansion of the existing agricultural operation and improve the financial sustainability of a local swimming pool, as well as cutting greenhouse gases. Proposal

The proposal is for the erection of a single wind turbine, with an anticipated output of 250kW. The proposed turbine would be approx. 30m to hub height and 46.44m to tip height with 2 blades. The application includes for associated infrastructure including substation. The turbine hub and nacelle would be finished in pale grey with a matt finish, the mast will be a dull grey with a galvanised metal finish.

Site

The application site relates to agricultural land located to the north and west of the village of Arkleby. The proposed turbine would be sited within a field which has hedgerows to the field boundaries. Access would be from the road to the east of the site which links Arkleby to Ellen Villa/Prospect/Oughterside and the proposed turbine would be sited approx. 200m from that road. The land slopes generally downwards from the south, plateaus and then begins to rise gradually to the north towards Prospect and Aspatria.

The nearest settlement is Arkleby to the south and east. Aspatria is located approx. 1.6km to the north east, Oughterside is approx. 1.8m to the north west, Gilcrux is 2.0km to the south west and Parsonby 700m to the south east.

Existing turbine development is visible from the application site, including those at Tallentire, Westnewton and Hall Bank Farm.

Relevant Policies

National Planning Policy Framework

Planning Practice Guidance for Renewable and Low Carbon Energy July 2013

Allerdale Local Plan (Part 1) Adopted July 2014

Policy S1 - Presumption in favour of sustainable development, Allerdale Local Plan (Part 1) Policy S14 - Rural economy, Allerdale Local Plan (Part 1) Policy S19 - Renewable Energy and Low Carbon Technologies Policy S27 - Heritage Assets

Page 28 Policy S32 - Safeguarding amenity, Allerdale Local Plan (Part 1) Policy S33 - Landscape Policy S35 - Protecting and enhancing biodiversity and geodiversity, Allerdale Local Plan (Part 1) Policy S36 - Air, water and soil quality, Allerdale Local Plan (Part 1) Policy S4 - Design principles, Allerdale Local Plan (Part 1) Policy DM17 - Trees, hedgerows and woodland, Allerdale Local Plan (Part 1)

Relevant Planning History

A screening opinion has been issued by the Local Planning Authority confirming that it is considered the proposed development does not require EIA.

Planning application 2/2014/0288 for a single turbine was withdrawn/cancelled. Representations

Gilcrux Parish Council – Object. Cumulative effect, living in Gilcrux will be like living in the middle of a windfarm.

Arqiva – No objection

Ministry of Defence – No objection. Require confirmation of the date construction starts and ends; the maximum height of construction equipment; the latitude and longitude of every turbine.

NATS – No safeguarding objection to the proposal.

Stobart Air on behalf of Carlisle Airport – No objection.

Natural England – No objections.

Cumbria County Council - Planning – Do not consider the application to be a Category 1 application therefore will not be commenting from a strategic planning perspective. It is requested the potential cumulative impacts of the proposal are considered.

Cumbria County Council – Highway Authority – No comments received. No objection raised to previously withdrawn scheme, subject to conditions for traffic management and prevention of mud onto highway.

Environmental Protection - Comments outstanding.

Electricity North West – Note that the application is estimated to be within the stand off distance to their infrastructure, applicant will need to confirm distance, and either re-site or divert apparatus at their expense.

Cumbria Wildlife Trust – no comments received.

RSPB - no comments received.

Page 29 CAA - no comments received.

Geospatial Air Info Team - no comments received.

FORCE – Object:

- Do not agree with the applicant’s interpretation of national and local policy. - Consider that the full 800m stand off should be applied in this case, Local residents already suffering from effects of Wharrels Hill and Tallentire windfarms together with single turbines. - Inadequate assessment of landscape impacts/poor quality photomontages. - Adverse impact on tourism - Unacceptable impact on local landscape cumulatively both from individual viewpoints and sequentially. - Heed warning of the National Park Authority relating to the extension of High Pow that such structures are reaching a critical mass - Cumulative impact poorly assessed, with the turbine at Hallbank in the near vicinity, as well as the major developments at Tallentire and Wharrels Hill, there are many potential issues of visual incongruity due the differing sizes of the turbines and the various rotational speeds. - Shadow Flicker calculated incorrectly. - ETSU exceeded at two properties. - Ecological appraisal not undertaken at optimal time, therefore further assessment required for red status bird species. - Quality of the submission is one of the worst encountered. - Unacceptable impact on listed buildings

Westnewton Action Group – Object

- UGE has failed to carry out the required public consultation. - Their multi tasking Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA), Planning Support Statement (PSS) and Design and Access Statement (D&A) actually serves none of these requirements very effectively. - Their claim that their project will provide green energy “for local people” is incorrect, no local benefits at all ‐ apart from some financial benefits for the landowner ‐ will be forthcoming. - UGE has “cherry picked” a variety of elements out of local and national policies and the NPPF to try and make their case, missing many other points raised in the NPPF etc. that safeguard local environments. - The project will neither maintain nor improve the quality or amenity of the local environment or its residents and the massively exaggerated quantity of CO2 that UGE claims will be reduced by the installation of this turbine is based on flawed concepts which have been so seriously and comprehensively challenged that these claims are neither acceptable nor a reflection of any true CO2 savings. - shadow flicker, UGE makes a point of quoting the wind industry’s completely incorrect “10 rotor diameter distance rule”, and then gives their own completely incorrect estimate of possible flicker from their turbine carrying just 130 metres. - Many of their quotes regarding the impact of wind turbines on tourism are either incorrect or out of date. - Their noise assessment takes no account of cumulative noise effects due to other

Page 30 nearby turbines. - Regarding their photomontages, there is no map provided to pinpoint their viewpoints, leaving it up to the viewer to work out from the given latitude and longitude just where the photographs have been taken from. However both the latitude and longitudes shown on every single montage are completely wrong, making it impossible for anyone to readily locate, either on a map or on the ground, the exact locations the photomontages were taken from. And the montages are of such poor quality anyway as to render them unsuitable for purpose. - The cumulative impact “assessment” is virtually non ‐existent and certainly requires re ‐visiting in a more comprehensive manner. - Generally speaking we do not consider that UGE have presented a particularly professional application, it is of very poor quality, there are too many things missing and it is too full of errors to be acceptable. We believe that UGE should be required to withdraw the application until such time as they can make a more professional and comprehensive approach. - Submitted location plan shows turbine in a different field than that originally proposed, closer to housing than that considered within the various assessments. - Within 800m of the required separation distance.

The application has been advertised by way of site and press notices and by neighbour consultation letters. Additional information/amended plans have been re-advertised by way of neighbour letter.

1 representation objecting to the application have been received. The main grounds of objection can be summarised as follows:

- Sufficient renewable energy projects have already been granted planning permission to meet Britain’s 2020 Green Targets. - Within 800m of residential properties and therefore must be refused.

Assessment

Main Issues:

Amenity of local residents

In order to address community concerns and in the interests of residential amenity and

Page 31 safety the Local Plan sets out an expectation that a minimum separation distance of 800m will be provided between wind turbines (over 25m to blade tip) and residential properties. It is recognised that in some cases due to site specific factors such as orientation of views, land cover, other buildings and topography it may be appropriate to vary this threshold where it can be demonstrated through evidence that there is not unacceptable impact on residential amenity. Shorter distances may also be appropriate if there is support from the local community.

In this case, the majority of residential properties within Arkleby are located within 800m of the application site.

There are three properties directly to the south, two of which will face towards the proposed turbine at a distance of approx. 340 – 350m and hold an elevated position. The submission indicates by the blue line that these properties are within the ownership of the applicant.

The application includes a residential amenity assessment which considers the possible impacts on individual properties. The assessment considers the orientation of properties/views, vegetation, other buildings and topography, as well as achievable separation distances, and concludes that no houses will look directly at the turbines and all are of such a distance that the turbine will not dominate any views.

The proposed turbine will be visible in views from a number of private properties in the locality. Nearest properties in each direction are considered as follows: • Throstle Hall cottages are within 600m, located to the north, with a relatively direct line of sight. • Temple Barn approx. 400m to east, not orientated towards the proposal and is adjacent an intervening building. • Stackgarth (representing small group of properties), 440m southeast, the proposed turbine would be at an oblique angle to these properties. • Holly Lodge 470m to south, orientated north west, therefore oblique view. • Little Cross 480m to south, facing north towards the turbine. The turbine would be visible

As a number of the properties highlighted above will have more direct views of the turbine, the development is likely to have an adverse impact on the amenity of these residents.

Whilst the applicant has put forward questionnaires completed as part of the pre- application consultation which offer support for the proposal, none of these make specific reference to residential amenity. There is therefore no evidence of support from the local community for a separation distance of less than 800m to be accepted in this case.

Final comments on the additional information provided in relation to noise are awaited from Environmental Health. The Development Panel will be updated on this matter.

It is generally acknowledged that the potential impact of shadow flicker is only likely to be an issue within 10 x rotor diameters of the turbine (in this case approx. 300m). In this case there are no residential properties within the zone likely to be significantly affected

Page 32 by shadow flicker.

Visual and landscape impact

Policy S19 of the Allerdale Local Plan (Part 1) requires consideration to be given to the landscape and visual impact of the proposed turbine both individually and cumulatively.

The applicant has submitted a landscape and visual appraisal assessing the proposed development. The appraisal includes photomontages and an assessment from a number of viewpoints in the vicinity of the site. The assessment indicates that the overall landscape impact will be Moderate/High, but that the landscape character area would remain intact and that the effects would be low in the wider area and moderate within the immediate area and that the turbine could be accommodated without any significant adverse effects to the local landscape character. In relation to visual impacts, as with all turbines, the applicant notes these will be greatest in the nearer areas of the turbine, but that this will reduce with distance and that the proposal will be viewed with other man made vertical elements, including electrical infrastructure and other turbines. No significant visual effects are identified. Cumulative visual effects are stated as being less significant because the proposal is much different in scale to the nearby Tallentire and Wharrels Hill windfarm developments.

It is considered that the applicants Landscape and Visual Appraisal has some deficiencies, the quality of the photomontages is questionable, particularly because photo’s have not been taken in optimum weather conditions, and the appraisal itself often lacks clarity/consistency.

The Cumbria Landscape Character Guidance and Toolkit supports appropriately located schemes for wind energy in line with the provisions of the Cumbria Joint Wind Energy Supplementary Planning Document which was adopted by the Council in 2007. The application site is located within Cumbria’s landscape classification 5a Ridge and Valley.

Key Characteristics of this area are:

• A series of ridges and valleys that rises gently toward the limestone fringes of the Lakeland Fells • Well managed regular shaped medium to large pasture fields • Hedge bound pasture fields dominate, interspersed with native woodland, tree clumps and plantations • Scattered farms and linear villages found along ridges • Large scale structures generally scarce

This area is judged to have moderate landscape capacity to accommodate turbine development of up to a small group (3-5 turbines), exceptionally a large group (6-9 turbines).

The landscape character in the locality of the application site is one of rolling pasture land, rising to the north and south, with a more level area running east to west. Built structures within the area relate to farm holdings and isolated dwellings, as well as the small settlement of Arkelby. Existing taller structures include a line of electricity poles to

Page 33 the west, and two turbines at Hall Bank farm, approx.1.7km to the north. The upper part of the three turbines at Westnewton, and the upper parts of some turbines at Tallentire were visible from areas in the vicinity of the site. Whilst the area is rural in nature, it is not remote and it is influenced by man made structures to some degree.

The proposed turbine would be set within this undulating farmland, not within a particularly elevated position. Public views of the proposed turbine would be possible mainly from the surrounding highway network, with the most open view from the road heading north/south between Arkleby and Prospect.

As a moderately sized single turbine, Officer’s consider that whilst the proposed turbine would be an obvious man made structure, in isolation, it would not form a dominating characteristic in this landscape. It would be in scale with the wider, rolling landscape. It would have a moderate visual impact from nearby vantage points, the impact of which would reduce with distance. Whilst there would be changes to the appearance of the landscape in the vicinity of the site as a result of the erection of the wind turbine, given the characteristics of the area in which the site is located, it is considered that in isolation, the landscape would have the capacity to accommodate this scheme without significant harm. The visual impacts of this man made structure in the locality would be adverse, but would not be extensive given the scale of the proposal and the topography.

However, the proposed turbine would be located within an area of existing turbine development and therefore regard must be had to the potential for cumulative impact. The windfarm at Westnewton is visible from the site to the north (approx. 3.7km away), as well as two further smaller turbines near to Hall Bank farm at a distance of 1.7km. These existing turbines stretch across the ridgeline visible from the site to the north. When taking in views or travelling from Gilcrux ( south west) and to some extent when viewing/travelling from the south east, the proposal will add to the landscape and visual harm created by this existing line of turbine development.

Parts of the Tallentire windfarm are also visible from the site over the intervening landform approx. 2.5km to the south west. The Wharrels Hill windfarm at Bothel (approx. 4.0km away) and the Tallentire windfarm would be visible within the landscape along with the proposal when viewed from the north. In these views, the proposal would take up a portion of the area that currently provides a separation between these existing windfarms, to the detriment of the landscape and visual amenities of the area.

The proposal would also be located within an area that currently provides a separation between the larger windfarms of Tallentire and Westnewton. Officers are concerned that the addition of a turbine at this location would increase the sequential views of turbines when travelling within the locality, to the detriment of visual amenity.

A number of objectors, including Gilcrux Parish Council and FORCE, have highlighted concerns that the proposed turbine will increase the cumulative impact of turbines in this area.

Overall it is considered the proposed turbine would have a significant adverse impact cumulatively with existing turbine development in the locality, to the detriment of the landscape and to visual amenity, contrary to Policy S19 of the Local Plan.

Page 34 Impact on National Landscape Designations

The proposal is considered to be a sufficient distance from the LDNP and the AONB not to result in any significant adverse impact.

Impact on nature conservation interests

The proposed turbine is not located within any designated area. An Ecological Appraisal Has been submitted in support of the application. This notes that the site is of relatively low ecological value (improved grassland habitat). The proposed turbine is not sited within 50m of any existing hedgerows therefore the proposal accords with advice from Natural England that wind turbines are unlikely to affect bat populations where a 50m buffer is maintained from foraging habitat. Mitigation is recommended in relation to possible nesting birds (relating to construction of the access), otherwise, the assessment considers that there is low potential for any significant impacts on species vulnerable to the adverse effects of wind turbines.

Mitigation is proposed by way of avoiding the bird breeding season during the construction of the access, or a pre-construction nesting bird check. This can be appropriately dealt with by condition.

Impact on heritage assets and their settings

The nearest heritage assets are St Cuthberts church (561m to the south east) and Dovecote, Grade II and Grade II* listed respectively, and Arkleby Hall and flanking walls, 720m to the northwest, Grade II listed. The church and dovecote are set at a higher ground level than the proposed turbine. This, combined with the separation distance and intervening topography is considered sufficient to ensure that the proposed turbine would not have a significantly harmful impact on the setting of these assets. The setting of Arkleby Hall and flanking walls has already been altered significantly by the location of a number of more modern farm structures. With regards to Policy S19 and the special regard to be had to the desirability of preserving such buildings or their setting, or any features of special architectural or historic interest which it possesses, as required by s66 of the Planning (Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas) Act 1990, the proposal is considered to be acceptable.

Operational requirements, including the suitability of the road network

The main impacts of the proposed development on the road network would be associated with construction traffic. The Highway Authority has no objections to the proposal subject to conditions.

Potential benefits to the local economy and local community

The proposed turbine will have nationally recognised benefits associated with the reduction in greenhouse gases and the increased supply of electricity from renewable energy sources. The proposal will also have local economic benefits in terms of the contribution it would make to the sustainability of the agricultural operation at the host farm.

Page 35 Specific to this application, the supporting information indicates that the associated operations comprise a dairy farm (110 milking cattle), a local swimming pool, 4 properties and 4 holiday cottages which combined are using 300,000kWh’s per annum. The farm alone is using 120,000kWH of electricity and 10,000 litres of diesel. Operations requiring electricity input include; water heating to clean the milking parlour twice daily, cooling of the bulk tank 24/7, milking machines, livestock feeders, lighting and heaters used for calves and lambs, crusher/blowers to mill/move barley used on average 200 days per year. The supporting information indicates that the farm is looking to expand the dairy by at least 100% but is constrained by the existing single phase electricity supply. Installing a three phase supply and utilising the energy from the turbine would, it is stated, allow this expansion, as well as allowing the farm to become more energy secure and reduce its carbon footprint.

Further, the farm also has a leisure pool which is hired out to the public. It is stated that 120 local children regularly use the pool, 42 local people who suffer from Parkinson’s, and people with special needs. The pool has required £20,000 worth of oil in 12 months and the applicant states at present it is barely covering its costs. In addition to the above benefits, it is stated that the turbine would help to enable the swimming pool remain open.

Other Issues:

The applicant has confirmed that the siting of the turbine meets the required separation distance by Electricity North West from the nearby electricity lines.

Local Financial Considerations

Having regard to S70 (2) of the Town and Country Planning Act there are no local finance considerations that are relevant to the consideration of the application.

Conclusion

In considering turbine applications, it is necessary to identify the harmful effects of the proposal, and then to consider if these are outweighed by the benefits, including the local economic benefits arising from farm diversification and the wider benefits arising from the promotion of renewable energy development.

Regard has been had to the potential national benefits and the specific local benefits in this case to this agricultural business, its potential to expand, as well as the potentially increased sustainability of the local swimming pool facility. However, these benefits are not considered to outweigh conflict arising from the proposal with Policy S19 by way of cumulative landscape and visual harm and harm to residential amenity.

The Officer recommendation is for refusal.

Annex 1

Reason for refusal

Page 36 1. The proposed turbine, by virtue of its siting, scale and pr oximity to other turbine development would increase the proliferation of turbines in the area resulting in a significantly harmful impact on the landscape and visual amenity of the area and a significantly harmful effect on the amenity of the occupiers of residential properties in the area. The proposal is therefore considered contrary to policies S19, S32 and S33 of the Allerdale Local Plan (Part 1) adopted July 2014 and the advice contained within the National Planning Policy Framework and Planning Practice Guidance for Renewable and Low Carbon Energy.

Proactive Statement

Application Refused Without Discussion

The Local Planning Authority has acted positively and proactively in determining this application by identifying matters of planning policies, constraints, stakeholder representations and concerns with the proposal and determining the application within a timely manner, clearly setting out the reason(s) for refusal, allowing the Applicant the opportunity to consider the harm caused and whether or not it can be remedied by a revision to the proposal. The Local Planning Authority is willing to meet with the Applicant to discuss the best course of action and is also willing to provide pre- application advice in respect of any future application for a revised development.

Notes to Applicant:

Page 37 Page 38

Agenda Item 7

Allerdale Borough Council

Planning Application 2/2014/0358

Proposed Erection of 10 dwellinghouses, including 2 affordable dwellings Development: and associated infrastructure Location: Land At Ellerbeck Brow Brigham Cockermouth Applicant: Hearthstone Homes Ltd & Home Group Ltd

Recommendation: Refused

Drawing Numbers 11/11/742-01 - Location Plan K31014/A1/01 - Proposed Drainage 11/11/742-102a - Site Plan amended received 17 July 2014 11/11/742-103 - Plans and Elevations Dwelling Type A 11/11/742-104 - Plans and Elevations Dwelling Type B 11/11/742-105 - Plans and Elevations Dwelling Type C 11/11/742-106 - Plans and Elevations Dwelling Type D 11/11/742-107 - Plans and Elevations Dwelling Type E 11/11/742-108a - Plans and Elevations Detached garage ame nded 17 July 2014 11/11/742-109 - Site Sections K31014/A1/01 Proposed S278 Works to Highway Drainage off Hotchberry Road Highway drainage details email received 1 October 2014 Tree and Hedge Survey Report General Habitat, European Protected Species Scoping and Otter Survey Report, Brigham Tree Inspection to Assess Potential for Bats and Bat Activity Survey at Brigham

Supporting Information;

Flood Risk Assessment and Outline Surface Water Drainage Strategy Issue 1 May 2014 Transport Statement Report no. A043151-1/NB1 May 2014 Landscape and Visual Appraisal Planning Statement May 2014 Utilities and Foul Water Assessment Archaeological Desk Based assessment CP10230 Phase 1 Geo-Environmental Site assessment REC Report:44321p1r0 January 2012 Noise consultant detals project 13398 17 October 2013

Page 39 Preliminary Ground investigation Report Section 106 Heads of Terms Summary/Key Issues

Issue Conclusion

Prematurity and Allerdale BC now has a 5 year land supply. This is a key matter appeal decisions when balancing the apportioning of housing development between Local Service Centres within Allerdale. This development is considered against the findings of the Inspector’s decision relating to School Brow, planning appeal (APP/G0908/A2222097). A reason for the dismissed School Brow housing scheme was prematurity. Officers consider that a decision at this stage to develop the site for housing would be premature and should await the outcome of the locally based plan preparation process; that is currently progressing satisfactorily and might otherwise be prejudiced. Overcoming Original scheme for a housing development for houses 34 issues as dwellings as amended (24 affordable dwellings and 10 open addressed in market dwellings) was dismissed at planning appeal appeal decision (APP/G0908/A/13/2193690). relating to Main issues relate to: previous decision - The character and appearance of the area; (2/2012/0660) - The living conditions of neighbouring residents; - The free flow of traffic and highway safety for pedestrians; - Nature conservation interests. Sustainability of The site is a green field site on the outskirts of the village of site Brigham, outside the settlement boundary that has now been saved under the Allerdale Local Plan (Part 1) July 2014. The site is adjacent to the settlement boundary. The sustainability of the site is further considered below taking account of infrastructure requirements for the development and the capacity of existing infrastructure within the village. Highway Access The proposed visibility splays are considered to be acceptable Visibility spays from a Cumbria Highways point of view. Local objectors have expressed concern over local traffic speed that has informed the extent of the visibility splays. Concern has been expressed by objectors over the appropriateness of the 49m extent of visibility splay for the locality. Officers conclude that the proposed visibility splay arrangements within the bounds of the public highway would be acceptable.

Cumbria Highways have confirmed that no Traffic Regulation Order would be required to restrict on road parking within proposed visibility splays. The proposed visibility splays are either within the bounds of the public highway or in control the applicant and therefore there is no impediment to deliver the access junction and visibility splays subject to planning condition. It is considered

Page 40 that on road parking is not a regular problem and there is no justification to introduce waiting restrictions on Ellerbeck Brow.

The impact of the development for 10 dwellings is considered too low to require a financial contribution to enable further traffic management measures within Brigham. Highway Access Notwithstanding the housing development as submitted is a Residential reduced scheme of dwellings from 34 to 10 dwellings, it is still amenity considered the amenity issues for the dwelling known as Brookside with regards to the comings and goings of potential traffic associated with this housing scheme of 10 dwellings has not been overcome following the building of the stone wall adjacent to the dwelling known as ‘Brookside’ under permitted development rights.

Traffic noise relating to the development has been assessed by the applicant notably relating to the dwelling known as Brookside. The applicant has advised that the impact of noise due to additional vehicles is not significant. Officers consider the provision of the stone wall (1.8m height) has not overcome the Inspector’s previous concerns relating to the adverse impact of traffic in close proximity to the dwelling known as ‘Brookside’. Layout of With regard to layout there is not significant change from the development and previous submission which essentially forms a linear and connectivity serpentine development that has two spurs. The layout is more spacious but is still served by the same access as per the dismissed appeal scheme as set out above. The connectivity with the village is limited either from the main entrance or via a pedestrian access to the private lane known as Barr’s Lane.

As set out above the highway access was considered in the previous Ellerbeck Brow appeal. The Inspector noted that ‘with only a single point of access, the development would be poorly connected to the rest of the village’. It is noted that a pedestrian access to Barr’s Lane has been provided but this is a sub standard private lane. Foul and surface On site surface water will be disposed to Eller Beck due to the water drainage poor infiltration characteristics of on site ground conditions. Other forms of SUDS could be considered with attenuated surface water flows into Eller Beck and the detailed design of this system could be secured by planning condition.

No objections to foul drainage to mains from United Utilities, subject to some of the highway surface water elsewhere in the village being redirected to surface water drains within village. No objections from Environment Agency, United Utilities and Cumbria Highways subject to planning conditions. Objectors have expressed concern that the redirected highway

Page 41 surface water drainage could cause flooding issues elsewhere in particular to the quarries within the village that are currently prone to flooding. Landscape and The development is not considered to generate any significant Visual Effect landscape effects (as concluded in previous Inspector’s Ellerbeck Brow decision notice relating to the site). Expected to generate some residual levels of visual effect but these are considered to be acceptable in terms of the layout of the dwellings (with the exception of ‘Brookside’ and the highway access location). Ecology, It is considered that with suitable mitigation as set out within hedgerows and submitted reports that there would be no harmful effects on nature trees conservation interests. Community 3 additional school places required to be secured by a financial Facilities contribution via a section 106 legal agreement. Should St Bridget’s Primary be full then children would need to be bused to another school that has capacity. Contamination No objections regarding on site contaminated land liabilities. Japanese Knotweed has been identified along the southern boundary of the site. The site is an area which is noted to be affected by Radon. Works to alleviate these issues could be secured by suitable planning conditions.

Proposal

The proposed development involves the erection of 8 open market houses and 2 affordable homes:

2 x 3 bedroom detached split level dwellings with detached garages; 2 x 3 bedroom detached bungalows with detached garages; 4 x 4 bedroom detached garages; 2 semi-detached 3 bedroom affordable houses for rent.

The site will require a new access, with a further pedestrian links to Barr’s Lane.

Proposed external materials comprise of a coloured rough cast render with smooth render bands to the openings, with buff stone random reclaimed local stone details. The roof material will be dark grey smooth concrete tiles. The access road will be of tarmac with private drives and parking spaces of brick paviours Site

The site is a 1.62 hectare site, located off Ellerbeck Brow, on the eastern outskirts of the village of Brigham. The site is within Flood Zone 1 and is a green field site used for grazing. The site slopes to the south/ south east towards Eller Beck with a maximum level of approximately 81.5m OD in the middle of the top field and a minimum level of approximately 67m OD along the river bank of Eller Beck.

Page 42 The adjacent land to the east is used for grazing and the settlement of Brigham is to the west.

Relevant Policies

Allerdale Local Plan (Part 1) Adopted July 2014

Policy S1 - Presumption in favour of sustainable development Policy S2 - Sustainable development principles Policy S3 - Spatial Strategy and Growth Policy S4 - Design principles Policy S5 - Development Principles Policy S7 - A mixed and balanced housing market Policy S8 - Affordable housing Policy S24 - Green infrastructure Policy S29 - Flood Risk and Surface Water Drainage Policy S32 - Safeguarding amenity Policy S33 - Landscape Policy S35 - Protecting and enhancing biodiversity and geodiversity Policy DM14 - Standards of Good Design Policy DM17 - Trees, hedgerows and woodland

National Planning Policy Framework 6. Delivering a wide choice of high quality homes 7. Requiring good design 11. Conserving and enhancing the natural environment

Relevant Planning History

SCR/2012/0022 Screening opinion determined that the proposal for residential development was not EIA development 16 th May 2012. This screening position remains relevant to this application.

1987/0885 Outline application for residential development of approx. 25 units refused.

1977/0732 Outline application for residential development, refused.

2/2012/0660 Refused housing scheme for 35 dwellings. Subsequent appeal APP/G09098/ A/2193690 dismissed. Representations

Brigham Town Council - Premature in advance of proper consideration through the Local Plan (LP) site allocation process, of the sustainable apportionment of the level of housing growth between the settlements identified for the Local Service Centre tier within the Allerdale Local Plan (Part 1). The proposal would undermine the plan led objectives of the Core Principles asset out in paragraph of the NPPF.

Cumbria Highways - No objections subject to highway conditions

Page 43 Highways Agency - No objections

Fire Officer - No representations received to date

Environmental Protection - No objection subject to planning conditions relating to Japanese Knotweed and radon gas protection measures.

Environment Agency - No objections subject to planning conditions regarding surface water and biodiversity.

County Archaeologist - No objections

Natural England - No objections. Not required to take an Appropriate Assessment regarding the River Derwent and Tributaries Special Area of Conservation (SAC) as not likely to have a Significant Effects on interest features.

United Utilities - The site should be drained on a separate system with foul draining to the public sewer and surface water draining in the most sustainable way. No objections subject to planning conditions.

Cumbria Wildlife - Housing Services

County Planning - Will not be providing strategic planning response. Using the dwelling led model set out in the County Council’s Planning Obligations Policy, the 10 homes proposed are estimated to produce 3 primary aged children. The catchment school is St Bridget’s CE Primary school. The school is expected to be full for the foreseeable future. To mitigate the effects of the development there will be a requirement for a financial contribution of £36,153 (3 x £12,051). This would need to be paid prior to the occupation of the third dwelling.

Cumbria Police - Concerned about the safety of the layout.

The application has been advertised on site and within the local press. Adjoining owners have been notified. 127 letters of objection have been received, summarised as follows: • Outside village boundary • Adverse impact on privacy, overlooking and overbearing and loss of peaceful and quiet environment and recently constructed wall only 1.4m from Brookside; • Prematurity with regard to the Local Plan site allocations and undermines allocation process. An application led development rather than plan led development; • Harm character an approach to village and the long cul-de-sac design is poor and out of character; • Highway visibility splays not sufficient, highway safety concerns, highway calculations incorrect that inform visibility splay requirements, poor access on slope and bend, up-to-date traffic survey required, on a blind bend and visibility splays impeded by cars parked on road and adverse effect on adjacent driveways and narrow roads in village and cars get damaged; • Poor pavement provision in the locality and traffic concerns through village; • Backland development;

Page 44 • Enough housing provision in village following housing approvals at Lawson Garth and Kirkcross development; • Infra structure concerns regarding Lawson Garth and Kirkcross. • Should use brown field sites within the village • Previous refusals on site and refused appeal decisions; • Housing needs in village met, houses and building plots for sale and affordable housing needs met in locality, 27 houses for sale in Brigham; • School full and need to travel to facilities and site furthest point from school and no pavements and limited transport links in locality and 36 bus service cancelled; • Drainage inadequate for village and potential flooding of Ellerbeck; • Concern regarding the A66 junctions; • Prime agricultural land; • Adverse effect on ecology, site has barn owls, pheasants, squirrels, foxes ,bats, roe deer, buzzards, wrens and hawks; • Poor layout and connection with village and single access. Barr’s lane is not safe, appropriate and is not a public footpath; • Parish opposed; • Appeal decisions remain relevant; • Failure to demonstrate need; • No communal space; • No pepper potting of affordable housing; • No need for luxury housing; • Loss of views; • 1 bedroom residences required; • Housing quota in village met e.g. Fitz development; Assessment

The site is the same site accessed by the same vehicular access as previously considered under planning appeal APP/G0908/A/13/2193690 that was dismissed 17 December 2013. The current scheme has reduced the number of dwellings from 34 to 10 dwellings, although the layout is still served by a serpentine access road. Pedestrian connectivity to the village of Brigham is now served by a pedestrian route through Barr’s Lane which is a private access lane.

Policy and Prematurity

The National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) states amongst other things, that development should be plan led, empowering local people to shape their surroundings, and that plans should be kept up-to-date and should provide a practical framework within which decisions on planning applications can be made with a high degree of predictability and efficiency. The newly adopted Allerdale Local Plan adopted July 2014 fulfils this role.

Policy S3 Allerdale LP Part 1 establishes that provision will be made for at least 5471 new dwellings in Allerdale in the period ending 2029. This amounts to an annual average of 304 dwellings. LP Policy S3 also seeks to concentrate the necessary development in identified towns and villages in a settlement hierarchy. Brigham is identified as a Local Service Centre, along with a number of other villages. Together these villages are expected in accordance with LP Policy S3 to accommodate sites for 20% of the new

Page 45 dwellings required in Allerdale in the period up to 2029.

A Site Allocations Development Plan Document (DPD) is being prepared to identify sites where these developments could be built. The allocation of the developments between the various villages will take into account, the levels of housing commitments, completions since 2011, the ability of the settlement to accommodate growth without harming its character or that of the local setting and landscape character. As part of this process the Council published in July 2014 a DPD ‘Issues and Options Consultation Report’.

The Council also published in August 2014 a ‘Five Year land Supply Statement’ (HLSS). The HLSS analysis finds that for the next five years sites should be available for the development of 421 dwellings each year. This compares with the target of 304 dwellings a year set for the period covered by the LP. The increased HLSS provision includes a 20% buffer, additional to the annual target set out in the LP, and accommodates the shortfall in housing completions in the period 2011-2014.

The HLSS identifies sites that could accommodate 2446. This is sufficient on the basis of 421 dwellings per year, to provide for over five years of development. Planning permission has been granted for larger housing sites in recent years in Brigham to include Kirkcross 50 dwellings and Lawson Garth 22 dwellings.

The indicative number of new housing that might be developed in Brigham, as set out within the Issues and Options Consultation report, in comparison is for 73 dwellings. This exercise, to apportion new housing development required to the 11 Local Service Centres in Allerdale, including Brigham has been carried out to ensure that development does not occur in an unbalanced way such to undermine the Spatial Strategy in LP Policy S3. This has been prepared for consultation purposes and therefore only limited weight on this report.

School Brow Dismissed Appeal Decisio

Officers note that the findings of the Inspector’s dismissed decision in the School Brow, Brigham appeal decision APP/G0908/A14/2222097 (which is a similar green field type site within the same village) which took account of the recently adopted LP, the HLSS and the progress of the DPD. It is therefore considered a consistent approach to conclude that the development of 10 houses on this green field site on the edge of Brigham is not currently required; to ensure that there is sufficient land available in Allerdale for housing development. With more than a 5 year land supply identified at present, Officers are not satisfied the development of 10 dwellings at Ellerbeck Brow would accord with LP Policy S3 and that a decision at this stage would be premature and should await the outcome of the locally based plan preparation process.

Ellerbeck Brow Dismissed Appeal Decision

With regard to the planning history of the proposal site, the 17 September 2013 Inspector’s decision (APP/G0908/A/13/2193690) dismissed the housing development of 34 dwellings after taking account of 4 main issues. It is relevant to consider this reduced housing scheme (now for 10 dwellings) against these key planning appeal matters as follows:

Page 46 1. The character and appearance of the area; 2. The living conditions of neighbouring residents; 3. The free flow of traffic and highway safety for pedestrians 4. Nature conservation interests.

Character and appearance of the area

The Inspector acknowledged that Brigham occupied an elevated position in an undulating rural landscape and that some of the development could be clearly seen against the skyline. It was concluded that in broad landscape terms the impact of the development with the retention of hedgerows would be acceptable and would not result in any harm to the character of the rural area. Officers consider that it is likely that the impact on the landscape is likely to be further reduced via the current proposal being for 10 dwellings. There are trees and hedgerows within the locality that screen the development.

Although the form and massing of the dwellings are more in line with characteristics of dwellings in the locality in this submission; being more spacious and detached in nature, with larger gardens, the estate remains wrapped around existing dwellings, to the eastern periphery of the village where there is no road frontage to the wider village except at the point of the narrow access road off Ellerbeck Brow and there remains and ‘untypical serpentine road’ that serves this long and linear site. There is also a pedestrian link proposed to Barr’s Lane but this is a substandard private lane outside the applicant’s ownership and therefore unlikely to be upgraded as part of the development.

An appeal was dismissed in 1988, in part, on the grounds of visual impact in the landscape. It was noted in the most recent appeal decision APP/G0908/A/13/2193690 that the policy context has changed over the last 25 years and in the intervening years the trees and hedges in the surrounding area will have become more restablished in the landscape. It is considered that although the proposed expansion on the edge of a rural village would not be unacceptable in broad landscape terms, the detailed design of the development would not relate well to the established urban form of the village and would remain incongruous and isolated.

Living conditions of neighbours

Generally the effect of the development on neighbouring properties are found to be acceptable and it is noted there is now significant landscaping behind Brookside and Hywyns and 1.8 metre timber fence is proposed. The housing layout is therefore more sympathetic to these properties with regard to impacts to the rear, but the close proximity of the vehicular access road to Brookside remains a concern with regard to residential amenity. The erection of the permitted development 1.8 m high stone wall to the south of the junction of the access road has not overcome the previous Inspector’s concerns relating to the coming and goings of traffic, particularly due to its close proximity and overbearing impact to Brookside. The wall is only 1.4 m from the existing conservatory of Brookside and remains unfinished on the dwelling side and is rather unneighbourly in its construction and impact on Brookside.

Highway Safety

The Transport Statement considers the highway safety issues raised by the Inspector. It

Page 47 is Officer opinion that the proposal will not likely interfere with the safety and free flow of traffic within the locality. Visibility splays can be provided and these are deemed to be acceptable by Cumbria Highways. Cumbria Highways have confirmed that following assessment of traffic speed within the locality that the proposed visibility splays are appropriate and that a restriction to prevent on road parking is not considered to be necessary due to the infrequent parking of vehicles within the highway normally within this area. With regard to further vehicle movements within the village, the addition of a further 10 dwellings is not considered to generate such levels of traffic movement to cause a reason for refusal. No highway contribution is therefore sought with regard to this scheme.

It is acknowledged that there is significant local objection regarding the position of the highway access that links the housing development with the existing road and that this is on a slope with a slight bend and there is limited pavement provision connecting the wider village.

Nature Conservation

Matters relating to ecology, hedgerows and trees are acceptable and can be mitigated and secured by planning condition; as set out within the submitted Tree and Hedge Survey Report 4.3 Summary; The General Habitat, European Protected Species Scoping and Otter survey Report, Brigham; Tree Inspection to Assess Potential for Bats and Bat Activity Survey, Brigham.

Sustainability

The site is a green field site and it is noted that Brigham has had 2 recent larger housing approvals for houses at Kirkcross (outline 50 dwellings) and Lawson Garth (22 dwellings). These approved housing developments have been taken into account in concluding that St Bridget’s school is full and likely to be for a number of years. Financial contributions for 3 spaces are required by the local education authority to address this matter. The school would either need to expand its facilities or children would need to be bused to the nearest available school. It is noted that due to parental choice with regard to education provision, that the allocation and taking up of school places is a fluid process and difficult to accurately predict year on year.

It is noted that the local bus service has recently been withdrawn from the main part of the village which has reduced the sustainability of the village in terms of public transport provision.

Foul and Surface Water

To accommodate foul flows to the mains foul drainage system, highway surface water is required to be taken out of the mains system. The scheme seeks to remove highway surface water and it is proposed to undertake highways drainage alterations to Hotchberry Road. The applicant has set out that the highway drainage alteration works would not exacerbate downstream flooding as the existing culvert does not discharge into the main quarry east of Stan Lonning. The current highways drainage alterations proposals amount to an additional discharge of some 3.26 lit/sec based on a highways catchment area of 233m 2. The additional volume of run-off from this highway area to be

Page 48

14.8m 3 . This has been calculated in accordance with the methodology described in CIRIA C697 - SUDS Manual and CIRIA C635 - Designing for Exceedance in Urban Drainage for a 1 in 100 year storm event of 6 hours duration with a +30% allowance for Climate Change. This flow will be directed via the existing culvert into the smaller quarry to the west of Stan Lonning. There have been local objections regarding any further surface water discharges to the quarries, particular as approved housing development not yet built e.g. the Lawson Garth development would also discharge highway surface water flows towards the quarries. The proposed alterations are within the public highway and so works to alter highway surface water drainage could be secured by planning condition which may also require further investigative work to address possible attenuation and the routes of water flows within the locality.

The foul and on site surface water arrangements for the proposal are considered to be acceptable and could be secured by planning condition.

Screening

SCR/2012/0022 Screening opinion determined that the proposal for residential development was not EIA development 16 th May 2012. This screening position remains relevant to this application and the development is not considered to be EIA development.

Conclusion

Officers have considered all matters relating to interested parties, including the objections of Brigham Parish Council and local residents, previous appeal decisions relating to the site and the granting of planning permission on other sites within Brigham. Of particular note is the recent appeal decision relating to the School Brow, Brigham appeal. These considerations along with the context of the recently adopted LP and the HLSS, the fact that this is a green field site on the edge of Brigham, inform the recommendation that site is not currently required to ensure that there is sufficient land available for housing development and the proposal would therefore be contrary to Allerdale Local Plan (Part 1) Policy S3.

Furthermore, the backland and linear layout of the development and narrow access arrangement of the site is considered to be out of character of the locality and the close siting of the access road to ‘Brookside’ is likely to be overbearing and adversely affect the residential amenity of residents from the comings and goings of traffic, contrary to Policy S32 of the Allerdale Local Plan (Part 1) July 2014. The scheme is recommended for refusal accordingly.

Annex 1

Reason s for refusal

1. Having regard to the quantum of approved residential units committed for Brigham the Local Planning Authority consider this proposal to be premature in advance of the proper consideration, through the local plan site allocations process, of the sustainable apportionment of the level of

Page 49 housing growth between the settlements identified for the Local Service Centre tier within the Allerdale Local Plan (Part 1) adopted July 2014. The proposal would therefore undermine the plan-led objectives of the Core Principles, as set out in Paragraph 17, of the National Planning Policy Framework.

2. The proposed vehicular access sited in close proximity to the dwelling known as ‘Brookside’ is considered to be overbearing and likely to cause an unacceptable effect on residential amenity from the comings and goings of traffic, contrary to Policy S32 of the Allerdale Local Plan (Part 1) adopted July 2014.

3. The vehicular access off Ellerbeck Brow and the pedestrian access onto a private lane are poorly related to the village form and serve a backland, linear and serpentine layout that is considered to be out of character with the settlement contrary to policies S1, S2, S3, S4, S5 and DM 14 of the Allerdale local plan (Part 1) adopted July 2014.

Proactive Statement

Application Refused Without Discussion

Notes to Applicant:

Page 50 Page 51

This page is intentionally left blank

Page 52 Agenda Item 8

Allerdale Borough Council

Planning Application 2/2014/0610

Proposed Residential development for 15 no. dwellings including 3 no. Development: affordable dwellings plus associated infrastructure and landscaping Location: Land to the South West of Brigham Road Cockermouth Applicant: Mr Barry Denham Washington Homes Ltd

Recommendation: Approved

Summary/Key Issues

Issue Conclusion

Principle of Outline consent previously granted setting the principle of Development development. Site within Settlement Limit and in accordance with adopted policies of Allerdale Local Plan 2014. Layout, Design Acceptable to achieve a satisfactory standard of development and Appearance compatible with immediate locality and with minimal impact generally. Trees TPO trees retained and additional landscaping to enhance visual appearance and setting. Drainage Drainage scheme and strategy designed in consultation with United Utilities to minimise net discharge to combined sewer. Surface water drainage attenuated. Affordable A 20% provision of three dwellings justified by a Financial Viability Housing Assessment contrary to the 40% required by current policy guidelines. Access Acceptable to the Highway Authority with standard conditions. Upgrade and extension of existing footway planned. Residential Not significantly harmed considering siting and separation Amenity distances of proposed dwellings away from existing dwellings.

Proposal

Full application for residential development of 15 detached dwellings including 3 affordable units with associated access, infrastructure and landscaping.

Page 53 Site

The application site of 0.83 hectares lies on the south west extremity of the town enclosed by existing residential estates and the A66 trunk road. The undeveloped site is of rough pasture with scattered trees within the site and with groups of trees on the boundaries. A number of trees have been identified as having significant value to local visual amenity and in the interests of their future retention a Tree Preservation Order has been issued.

The land is generally level with an embankment on the roadside boundary. It is fully open to public view from Brigham Road and is overlooked by a number of existing dwellings on Harrot Hill.

Relevant Policies

Allerdale Local Plan (Part 1) Adopted July 2014.

Policy S1 - Presumption in favour of sustainable development Policy S2 - Sustainable development principles (excluding highways Policy S24 - Green infrastructure Policy S29 - Flood Risk and Surface Water Drainage Policy S3 - Spatial Strategy and Growth Policy S30 - Reuse of Land Policy S32 - Safeguarding amenity Policy S35 - Protecting and enhancing biodiversity and geodiversity Policy S4 - Design principles Policy S5 - Development Principles Policy S7 - A mixed and balanced housing market Policy S8 - Affordable Housing Policy DM14 - Standards of Good Design Policy DM17 - Trees, hedgerows and woodland

National Planning Policy Framework

Relevant Planning History

2/2012/0597

The site has the benefit of an Outline consent ref 2/2012/0597 for 12 dwellings. This is still extant although Reserved Matters have not been submitted. The site has been subject to a Screening Opinion to assess the potential for any significant environmental impact from residential development that would require a formal Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA). The screening of the proposals and the characteristics of the site resulted in the decision that an EIA was not required.

Representations

Town Council – Refuse contrary to Policy S8 that requires 40% affordable housing in Cockermouth

Page 54 United Utilities – No objection subject to implication of drainage scheme. No further conditions or information required. Environment Agency – No comment County Archaeologist – No objection Access Officer – No objection subject to Building Control compliance with disabled access. Housing Services – Recognise the 40% requirement for 6 affordable houses in Cockermouth under Policy S8 and confirm the proven need for two bedroom houses. Natural England – No objection with standing advice Cumbria County Council – Recognise the need for a commuted sum for education provision due to the shortfall in primary school places. This is cumulative with the approved and pending residential developments at The Fitz, Sullart St and Strawberry How. The commuted sum can be overlooked if the application is determined prior to the determination of the Strawberry How application 2/2014/0381. Highway Authority – No objections subject to conditions

The application has been advertised on site and adjoining landowners have been notified. Eight letters of objection have been received as reported below.

Assessment

Principle of Development

As a site within the Settlement Limit of Cockermouth (Key Service Centre) and associated with adjacent housing, the principle of residential development is acceptable in accordance with Policies S1, S2, S3 and S5. The site is genuinely sustainable in terms of housing provision at this location and meets all the criteria of the NPPF. A percentage of affordable housing is to be provided as reported below.

Access

The proposed vehicular access from Brigham Road is sited as to achieve the necessary visibility splays and designed to serve the estate road for a development of this type. The estate layout, driveways, parking and turning are considered acceptable. The Highway Authority does not object with appropriate conditions.

Pedestrian access to the site is achievable by means of the existing infrastructure with good connectivity beyond to local services and the town centre.

Layout, Landscaping, Design and Appearance

The layout of the site provides for 15 dwellings comprising 8 x 4 bedroom detached, 4 x 3 bedroom detached and 3 x 2 bed detached/semi-detached (affordable units).

The triangular site is arranged with a central estate road providing then spine for a plot layout of inward looking dwellings with driveway and garage parking and rear gardens. The smaller 2 bedroom properties have a street frontage with Brigham Road.

A landscaping scheme and management plan has been provided to retain existing trees

Page 55 where protected with additional planting to enhance the visual amenity and biodiversity. Specimen trees, shrubs and communal grass areas are planned to compliment the trees within the site and on the site boundary. The drainage attenuation basin is screened with appropriate species at the entrance to the site. Implementation and management can be conditioned and subject to a Section 106 agreement.

The TPO trees and root protection zones within the site have been identified within the Arboricultural Report. The TPO trees are not considered to be under any threat from construction and can be safeguarded by condition and managed as part of the landscaping plan.

The proposed house types (as amended) comprise two storey dwellings with five different house types. The house types are of a consistent modern design and appearance incorporating tile roofs, render and brick detailing and upvc windows and doors. A colour scheme is proposed with two colours of render and contrasting coloured upvc windows and doors to give identity to each house type. A harmonious colour scheme of greys, greens, white and polar white is planned which will add some distinctiveness and character to the development as a whole.

The house types are of a generic design with pitched roofs, single storey garage extensions and some with lean-to canopies to the front elevation. Windows are vertically proportioned with the larger house types having feature glazing from ground floor to first floor level. There are no dormers or rooflights planned.

The dwellings are arranged as to achieve a satisfactory relationship, amount of outdoor space and off road parking. Means of enclosure is not declared and can be conditioned.

The development is in general terms compatible in design and appearance with existing residential development adjacent. A distinctive change in house design is noted in the locality and has evolved with successive house builders over a number of years. This development is not harmful in that sense and is typical of suburban residential development.

Residential Amenity

A number of properties on Harrot Hill and Brigham Road have elevations and gardens facing the proposed site. Despite some objection from adjacent residents the layout and separation distances appear to avoid any un-neighbourliness and with no significant loss of light or impact upon living conditions. The means of enclosure will ensure the required level of privacy between gardens.

The case officer has made a site visit to one property 46. Harrot Hill to experience the potential for such impact. The dwelling in question has rear windows to upper and lower floors facing the site with a glazed patio door to the lounge. The rear elevation has an open outlook to the development site with a 1.6 metre fence enclosure.

The existing availability of light to the property appears to be of normal acceptable level with no nearby obstruction from other buildings or structures. The owner/occupier claims the existing tree belt on the raised embankment to the A66 affect the level of light to the house. In turn he considers that the proposed two storey dwelling on Plot 7 will add to

Page 56 that sense of enclosure reducing light further to an unacceptable degree.

Although this may result to a degree, it is Officers’ opinion that the separation distance of 24 metres, the modest height of the proposed dwelling at 7 metres high and its orientation offset from the objector’s dwelling will mitigate such impact with no unreasonable impact on living conditions.

Noise

A noise assessment has also been provided that concludes that traffic noise from the adjacent A66 (trunk) is not unreasonably harmful to residential amenity. The report concluded that the development is likely to be subject to noise levels from traffic above that normally expected. In that respect acoustic double glazing is considered appropriate and with the provision of an acoustic means of enclosure to certain plots. Allerdale Environmental Protection agrees to a condition to implement the findings of the noise assessment for appropriate plots

Ecology

An Extended Phase 1 Habitat Survey has been provided as previously submitted at the Outline stage. This recognises the site as a common habitat of semi-improved grassland of no specific wildlife interest. There is however potential for the presence and/or foraging of bats. A condition at Outline stage for a Bat Activity Survey was imposed. This has been undertaken for this application. The report concludes the site to be of little significance but with foraging potential along the margins with wooded areas. As such the report makes reference to a sensitive lighting scheme that can be conditioned as general mitigation.

Contamination

At Outline stage the site was not judged to be within any consultation zone and as an undeveloped ‘greenfield site’ was considered to be uncontaminated.

The applicant has provided a Ground Investigation Report for this application which has concluded significant levels of contamination that require contamination. As such Allerdale Environmental protection has recommended appropriate conditions.

Drainage

A drainage report has been provided in consultation with United Utilities.

Comprehensive details have been provided regarding foul and surface water and load and flow calculations.

The proposals for foul and surface water drainage are similar to those approved at the Outline stage with some variation in drainage strategy summarised as follows.

Surface water will be discharged at a rate no higher than the existing site. Adequate infiltration is unlikely therefore drainage to the watercourse north of Brigham Road is planned via a combined attenuation scheme of retention pond, attenuation tanks with

Page 57 associated hydrobrakes. This will ensure controlled levels of discharge and avoid extreme flood events.

The site is not in a designated Flood Zone

At the Outline stage foul water drainage was proposed to the main sewer. However, in order to minimise total discharge to the Cockermouth Wastewater Treatment Works this included a strategy to remove highway surface water from the combined system by redirecting road gullies in Brigham Road and Moorland Place into the separate surface water system within the site. With a net reduction in surface water to the main sewer additional foul drainage to the main sewer was thus acceptable to United Utilities.

Due to the complexities of such a strategy an alternative method to balance the load and flow of discharge from the proposed site has been devised as follows.

Surface water in the combined sewer in Fletcher St is now planned to be redirected to the newly adopted surface water sewer in Horsman Street with direct outfall to the River Cocker as part of the Woodville Park development. This will reduce the discharge of surface water to the main sewer thus allowing the foul discharge from the application site with a net dectrease in discharge and a betterment to the Cockermouth Wastewater Treatment Works.

United Utilities has responded with no objections in principle with a condition that ensures implementation of the submitted scheme.

Affordable Housing

Policy S8 states that residential development of 10 or more houses or 0.3 hectares in site area requires an affordable housing provision of 40%. This is an exception to the standard guidance of 20% for Key Service Centres due to the proven high level of need in Cockermouth.

With regard to this application of 15 dwellings, the 40% requirement equates to 6 dwellings with 9 remaining for open market sale. Allerdale Housing Services confirms that the proven need in Cockermouth, with evidence from the housing need survey and data from Choice Based Lettings, is for 2 bedroom properties for social rent.

Of some significance is that the extant Outline consent (2/2012/0597) for 12 dwellings was granted with an agreed 20% 0f affordable housing equating to 2 dwellings. This was judged acceptable with regard to the superseded policies of the Allerdale Local Plan Adopted 1999 and the superseded Cumbria and Lake District Structure Plan.

The applicant has provided an Affordable Housing Statement and a supporting Financial Viability Statement (FVA). This proposes that a total of 3 dwellings will be provided rather than the full 40% of 6 dwellings for local affordable occupancy. The FVA has been requested by Officers to justify this lower provision as the guidance within Policy S8 allows for some flexibility. The applicant’s justification for a lower provision is summarised as follows.

The applicant claims that the 6 affordable dwellings are not viable and the 9 open market

Page 58 dwellings would only serve to subsidise the affordable units with an unacceptable impact upon developer profit. This profit is already eroded by abnormal site costs and the FVA demonstrates that the usual and accepted developer profit of 20% cannot be reached. This developer profit percentage is generally accepted as industry standard with guidance within Planning Practice Guidance, RICS Professional Guidance and appeal case law.

Considering the site with 40% affordable housing of 6 units the developer profit is estimated at £86,940 which equates to GDV profit of 2.61% compared to the usual 20%.

Considering the site with 20% affordable housing of 3 units the developer profit is estimated at £695,777 which equates to GDV profit of 16.97% compared to the usual 20%.

Based upon these figures within the FVA, the applicant maintains that the 20% of local affordable housing providing 3 units is the only viable option to reach the 20% developer profit.

Regarding the planning history at the site, the applicant emphasises that as a fall-back position, the site could be developed as 12 dwellings with just 2 affordable units based upon the outline approval (2/2012/0597). Furthermore a second fall-back position would be to develop the site for just 9 dwellings and/or as a smaller site area with no need for affordable units at all with regard to Policy S8.

These two fall-back positions would yield less than the proposed 3 units under this application.

Based upon the matters above and the details within the FVA it is Officers’ opinion that the 40% requirement within Policy S8 is demonstrated satisfactorily to be unviable on this occasion. The fall-back positions are realistic options for the developer which would yield less affordable housing than the proposed scheme. On balance, the proposals for 3 affordable houses for local occupancy are considered acceptable to achieve the social, community and economic benefits associated with affordable housing and principles of the NPPF.

It is emphasised by Officers that this is an exceptional case. Financial viability has been demonstrated satisfactorily for a reduced percentage of affordable housing. Significant weight is also given with regard to the material planning considerations within the extant planning history and fall-back positions of the applicant for alternative schemes of residential development.

Financial Contribution to Education

The County Council has commented on the need for a financial contribution towards education with regard to the cumulative residential development in Cockermouth of approved and pending applications at Sullart St, The Fitz and Strawberry How. This relates to the lack of school places at primary level. The County Council has clarified that the financial contribution will not be required if the application is determined prior to the application for housing at Strawberry How for Story Developments.

Page 59 It is therefore Officer opinion that a commuted sum need not be part of a Section 106 Agreement.

Section 106 Legal Agreement.

With regard to the number of dwellings proposed and the characteristics of the infrastructure and servicing of the site, a Section 106 Legal Agreement (Section 106) is required to secure a number of matters as follows. The applicant has provided a draft Section 106 Agreement for the following matters to which Planning Officers agree in principle.

Affordable Housing

As reported above a provision of affordable housing for local occupancy can be secured for appropriate house type and tenure and with qualifying criteria.

Drainage Attenuation

The surface water drainage proposed requires attenuation within the site to manage and control discharge. Such attenuation tanks and associated equipment will require ongoing maintenance. This can be conditioned for further details and secured via a Section 106.

Landscaping Management

With the site layout incorporating a landscaping scheme including common areas requiring landscape and grounds maintenance, a Section 106 can safeguard such long term management if required.

Representations

Eight letters of objection have been received regarding the following matters

Highway congestion and lack of parking within the development Impact upon visual amenity and loss of open space and informal recreational land No justified need for more dwellings in the area considering other approved sites. Original outline application of 12 units considered more appropriate Proximity of dwellings to existing trees Drainage surveys and strategy not satisfactory Impact on structural stability of adjacent dwellings Responsibility for landscape management and boundary responsibilities Existing house value depreciation Impact on residential amenity due to proximity of dwellings and loss of light Contaminated land.

The matters above have been accounted for within the report and are not considered defensible reasons for refusal or further amendment.

Local Financial Implications

There are financial implications relevant to this application in the form of the New Homes

Page 60 Bonus scheme. This has had no weight in determining this application.

Conclusion

As a well related site within the settlement limit, the proposed development is considered sustainable and acceptable in compliance with current local and national policy guidelines. The development is considered to have no significant impact upon visual and residential amenity of the locality and the loss of the open space is not considered unreasonably harmful to local amenity.

The outline approval will be subject to a Section 106 Agreement with regard to the matters described above of affordable housing, surface water drainage attenuation and landscape maintenance.

Annex 1

Conditions

Page 61 Landscape Management Plan received 20/8/2014 D0006 Rev A Construction Method Statement (amendment received 3/11/2014) GB11PH1006 Extended Phase 1 Habitat Survey WW14BAT003 Bat Activity Survey 2014-1049 Ground Investigation Report Materials Specification and Colour Pallette (amendment received 10/10/2014) Reason: In order to ensure a satisfactory standard of development. 3. The development shall be undertaken only in accordance with the scheme for foul and surface water drainage hereby approved. No part of the development shall be occupied until the drainage scheme has been constructed in accordance with the approved details. Reason: To ensure a satisfactory means of foul and surface water drainage and minimise the risk of flooding, in compliance with Policy S29 of the Allerdale Local Plan (Part 1) Adopted 2014. 4. The development shall be undertaken only in accordance with the mitigation and recommendations within GB11PH1006 Extended Phase 1 Habitat Survey and WW14BAT003 Bat Activity Survey Reason : In the interests of the protection of wildlife in accordance witrh Policy S35 of the Allerdale Local Plan (Part 1) Adopted 2014. 5. The development shall be undertaken only in accordance with the Construction Method Statement hereby approved. Reason: In the interests of the amenity of the occupiers of neighbouring properties, in compliance with Policy S32 of the Allerdale Local Plan (Part 1) Adopted 2014. 6. All landscaping works shall be carried out and maintained in accordance with the approved landscaping scheme and management plan. The approved scheme shall be fully implemented within the first planting season following the occupation of the dwellinghouses approved and any trees or plants which within a period of five years from the completion of the development die, are removed or become seriously damaged or diseased shall be replaced in the next planting season with others of similar size and species, unless otherwise agreed in writing by the Local Planning Authority. Reason: In order to enhance the appearance of the development and minimise the impact of the development in the locality. 7. The Landscape Management Plan hereby approved shall be implemented as approved and any subsequent variations shall be agreed in writing by the Local Planning Authority. Reason: In the interests of visual and residential amenity and the promotion of biodiversity in accordance with Policies S1, S2, S4, S35 and DM14 of the Allerdale Local Plan (Part 1) Adopted 2014. 8. No development approved by this permission shall commence until a desktop study has been submitted to and approved by the Local Planning Authority. Should the preliminary risk assessment identify any potential contamination which may affect human health, controlled waters or the wider environment, all necessary site investigation works within the site boundary must be carried out to establish the degree and nature of the contamination and its potential to pollute the environment or cause harm to human health. The scope of works for the site investigations should be agreed with the Local Planning Authority prior to their commencement. Reason: To minimise any risk arising from any possible contamination from the development to the local environment in compliance with the National Planning

Page 62 Policy Framework and Policy S30 of the Allerdale Local Plan (Part 1), Adopted July 2014. 9. Should land affected by contamination be identified under the desk top study under condition 8 which poses unacceptable risks to human health, controlled waters or the wider environment, no development shall take place until a detailed remediation scheme has been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The scheme must include an appraisal of remediation options, identification of the preferred option(s), the proposed remediation objectives and remediation criteria, and a description and programme of the works to be undertaken including the verification plan. Reason: To minimise any risk arising from any possible contamination from the development to the local environment in compliance with the National Planning Policy Framework and Policy S30 of the Allerdale Local Plan (Part 1), Adopted July 2014. 10. Should a contamination remediation scheme be required under condition 9 the approved strategy shall be implemented and a verification report submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority, prior to the development (or relevant phase of development) being brought into use. Reason: To minimise any risk arising from any possible contamination from the development to the local environment in compliance with the National Planning Policy Framework and Policy S30 of the Allerdale Local Plan (Part 1), Adopted July 2014. 11. In the event that contamination is found at any time when carrying out the approved development that was not previously identified it must be reported immediately to the Local Planning Authority. Development on the part of the site affected must be halted and a risk assessment carried out and submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. Where unacceptable risks are found remediation and verification schemes shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. These shall be implemented prior to the development (or relevant phase of development) being brought into use. All works shall be undertaken in accordance with current UK guidance, particularly CLR11. Reason: To minimise any risk arising from any possible contamination from the development to the local environment in compliance with the National Planning Policy Framework and Policy S30 of the Allerdale Local Plan (Part 1), Adopted July 2014. 12. The development shall not commence until visibility splays providing the clear visibility shown on Drawing no 11/03/719-101a, measured down the centre of the access road and the nearside channel line of the major road have been provided at the junction of the access road with the county highway. 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 grown 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. 14. The access and parking/turning requirements shall be substantially met

Page 63 before any building work commences on site so that constructional traffic can park and turn clear of the highway. Reason: The carrying out of this development without the provision of these facilities during the construction work is likely to lead to inconvenience and danger to road users. 15. The estate access road and works to upgrade the section of footway fronting the site on Brigham Road, shall be designed, constructed, drained and lit to a standard suitable for adoption and in this respect full engineering details shall be submitted 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 : In order to achieve a satisfactory standard of access provision and in the interests o highway safety 16. The access driveways, footways and parking areas within the developement shall be designed and constructed to the satisfaction of the Local Planning Authority and in this respect full engineering details, shall be submitted for approval before work commences on site. No work shall be commenced until a full specification has been approved. Reason: To ensure a minimum standard of construction in the interests of highway safety and DDA compliant accessibility. 17. No dwelling shall be occupied until its access and parking facilities have been constructed in accordance with the approved plan. These facilities shall be retained 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. 18. The development shall be undertaken only in accordance with the noise mitigation proposals including acoustic glazing and acoustic fencing for those properties adjacent to the A66 or with an oblique view of the A66 as recommended within Road Traffic Noise Survey 01548revA dated 4/7/2012. Such measures shall be implemented as approved before the dwellings are occupied and not removed or altered thereafter without the prior written consent of the Local Planning Authority . Reason - In the interests of residential amenity in accordance with Policy S32 of the Allerdale Local Plan (Part 1) Adopted 2014. 19. No part of the development hereby permitted shall be commenced until each tree identified within the Tree Preservation Order Ref 4/2012 is securely fenced off by a post and wire or chestnut pale fence erected in a circle round each tree at a radius from the bole of 3.05 metres or to coincide with the extremity of the canopy of the tree, whichever is the greater. Within the areas so fenced off the existing ground level shall be neither raised nor lowered, and no materials or temporary buildings or surplus soil of any kind shall be placed or stored thereon. If any trenches for services are required in the fenced-off areas they shall be excavated and back-filled by hand and any tree roots encountered with a diameter of two inches or more shall be left unsevered. Reason: In order to ensure that adequate protection is afforded to the existing trees on the site in accordance with Policy DM17 of the Allerdale Local Plan (Part 1) Adopted 2014.

Page 64 Proactive Statement

Application Approved Following Revisions

The Local Planning Authority has acted positively and proactively in determining this application by identifying planning policies, constraints, stakeholder representations and matters of concern within the application (as originally submitted) and where appropriate negotiating, with the Applicant, acceptable amendments and solutions to the proposal to address those concerns. As a result, the Local Planning Authority has been able to grant planning permission for an acceptable proposal, in accordance with the presumption in favour of sustainable development, as set out within the National Planning Policy Framework.

Notes to Applicant:

Page 65 Page 66

Agenda Item 9

Allerdale Borough Council

Planning Application 2/2014/0462

Reference No: 2/2014/0462 Valid Date: 24/06/2014 Location: Holmewood Residential Home Lamplugh Road Cockermouth Applicant: Mr C Root Lakeland Care Services Ltd

Drawing Numbers: 1337 PL 010 - Location Plan 1337 PL 210 B - Proposed site plan (amendment received 22/10/2014) 1337 PL 310 A - Ground floor plan as proposed (amendment received 22/10/2014) 1337 PL 311 A - First floor plan as proposed (amendment received 22/10/2014) 1337 PL 312 A - Second floor and roof plan as proposed (amendment received 22/10/2014) 1337 PL 515 A - Contextual elevations as proposed (amendment received 22/10/2014) 1337 PL 514 A - Proposed section and north elevation (amendment received 22/10/2014) 003 REV 06 - Proposed planting plan (amendment received 30/10/2014) Plant Schedules (amendment received 30/10/2014) 1337 PL 516 Site Sections (amendment received 22/10/2014) 1337 PL 513 A - Comparitive Elevations (amendment received 22/10/2014) EES13-096 Preliminary Environmental Risk Assessment EES13-066 Tree Constraints Report EES13-096 Preliminary Ecological Appraisal EES13-096 Bat Emergence Survey 1337-PL-211 Vehicle Tracking Plan (amendment received 25/7/2014)

Proposed Erection of an extension to provide an additional 15 bedrooms Development: Recommendation: Approved

Summary/Key Issues

Page 67 Issue Conclusion

Principle of A previous consent has been granted (2/2010/0206) for similar Development proposals to a different design. The site is within the Settlement Limit and in accordance with adopted policies of the Allerdale Local Plan 2014 and the NPPF. Design and The contemporary design is considered acceptable without any Appearance adverse impact upon the existing building and the setting of the conservation area. Resid ential Adjacent dwellings are not considered to be unreasonably affected Amenity from the single storey extension with adequate separation distances and landscape screening. Trees and The loss of 3 specimen trees is justified with other existing trees landscaping retained and the site is enhanced by a significant landscaping scheme of appropriate species. Access and Existing access and parking arrangement acceptable to the Parking Highway Authority. Drainage Acceptable to United Utilities with a condition to demonstrate no increase in discharge of surface water to the main sewer.

Proposal

Application for a fifteen bedroom extension to an existing care-home designed specifically with associated parking and landscaping.

The application is a resubmission to a previous extension approved under the policies of the Allerdale Local Plan 1999 (2/2005/0087 and 2/2010/0206) now expired.

It is noted that a tandem application is under consideration for three detached dwellings at the same site (2/2014/0465). The two applications are to be determined individually on their merits. The two schemes will have a common access and landscaping plan.

Site

The site comprises an existing residential care-home being a substantial period property in extensive grounds accessed from Lamplugh Road on the outskirts of Cockermouth; 650 metres from the town centre and 450 metres from the A66 roundabout junction. Adjacent land uses are predominantly residential with the Lakeland Business Park to the south.

The site is within the Conservation Area, the building is not a Listed Building.

Relevant Policies

Allerdale Local Plan (Part 1) Adopted July 2014

Page 68 Policy S1 - Presumption in favour of sustainable development Policy S2 - Sustainable development principles (excluding highways Policy S24 - Green infrastructure Policy S27 - Heritage Assets Policy S29 - Flood Risk and Surface Water Drainage Policy S32 - Safeguarding amenity Policy S35 - Protecting and enhancing biodiversity and geodiversity Policy S4 - Design principles Policy S5 - Development Principles Policy DM14 - Standards of Good Design Policy DM15 - Extensions and alterations to existing buildings and properties Policy DM17 - Trees, hedgerows and woodland

National Planning Policy Framework

Relevant Planning History

2/2005/0087 2/2010/0206 (renewal) 2/2014/0465 (residential development of 3 dwellings at the same site undetermined)

Representations

Town Council – Approve Allerdale Conservation Officer – Support of the contemporary design Allerdale Access officer – No objection regarding disabled access United Utilities – No objection subject to no increase in surface water to main sewer. Environmental Protection – No objection subject to a condition for a Construction Management Plan. Natural England – No objection with standing advice English Heritage – No comment and determination advised in accordance with local and national policies and specialised conservation advice. Highway Authority – No objection subject to condition.

The application has been advertised on site and in the local press. Adjoining landowners have been consulted. Nine letters of objection have been received from four adjacent properties as accounted for within the report.

Proposal

Application for a fifteen bedroom extension to an existing care-home designed specifically with associated parking and landscaping.

The application is a resubmission to a previous extension approved under the policies of the Allerdale Local Plan 1999 (2/2005/0087 and 2/2010/0206) now expired.

It is noted that a tandem application is under consideration for three detached dwellings at the same site (2/2014/0465). The two applications are to be determined individually on

Page 69 their merits. The two schemes will have a common access and landscaping plan.

The Site

The site is within the Conservation Area, the building is not a Listed Building.

Planning History

The principle of development has been agreed at the previous application stage (2/2010/0206) and the proposals given positive pre-application advice by Officers (PPA/2014/0118) with regard to the adopted policies of the Allerdale Local Plan and the NPPF. There are no current policy guidelines that would contradict the assessment and approval of the previous consent in 2010.

The extension approved in 2010 was a renewal of an original 2005 approval and comprised a two storey extension of traditional design and of similar floorspace to the current application.

Assessment

Design and Appearance

The current proposals differ considerably in design and appearance to the expired consent and incorporate traditional and modern elements of single and two storeys.

The two storey element is of a more traditional design with pitched roof and rendered elevations. It incorporates a zinc roof that compliments the contemporary finishes of the single storey extension of zinc roof, slate cladding, timber cladding, feature glazing and grey aluminium window frames. A mono-pitch roof adds to the modern architectural approach.

The proposals are considered appropriate in scale and massing with less impact than the scale and bulk of the previous scheme. The gradual extension from two storeys to single storey respects the host property Holmewood and the overall design will not compete with or weaken its traditional, period character.

The contemporary and modern design will contrast with the Victorian architecture of Holmewood but in a positive and creative way that is considered equally acceptable to a more traditional approach and justified within current policy guidelines and the NPPF.

The extension will be visible from public view, however the existing and proposed landscaping at the site will limit any open views. The siting is therefore considered discreet at the rear of the site and will have negligible impact on the setting of the Conservation Area. There are no other period properties in the vicinity that maybe seen

Page 70 in context and the historic core of the Conservation Area in the town centre is unaffected. Adjacent residential properties are of a modern design with little character.

Siting/Residential Amenity

The extension is to be sited on the open ground to the west of the building and encroaches upon the site boundaries closer to the residential properties of Holmewood Avenue to the west (23 metres to No.10) and the White House (14 metres) to the north.

The impact upon these residents has been considered as follows.

Holmewood Ave comprises modern detached two storey dwellings. Numbers 8, 10 and 12 are nearest the site boundary. The separation distance from the proposed two storey extension and No.10 Holmewood Ave is 23 metres with the application site on slightly higher ground. The elevation on the site boundary facing the dwelling is blank with timber cladding and no window openings. Windows to the carehome bedroom windows and communal area are noted on the extension set back 44 metres from the nearest dwelling on Holmewood Ave.

A landscaping plan of boundary hedge and individual trees will provide significant screening. The impact on residential amenity is considered not significant for these reasons. A cross section plan has been provided to demonstrate this satisfactory relationship.

The detached property to the north of the site known as The White House is separated by 14 metres from the single storey extension. Bedroom and corridor windows are noted. The two storey element off-set to The White House is separated by 25 metres with very narrow upper floor windows offering no practical outlook.

A landscaping plan of boundary hedge and individual trees will provide significant screening. The impact on residential amenity is considered not significant for the these reasons. A cross section plan has been provided to demonstrate this satisfactory relationship.

Access

The existing access to the site is to be used. This access has a private junction with Holmewood Paddock residential estate and in turn is accessed from Lamplugh Road.

The Highway Authority does not recognise a significant increase in vehicle movements and raises no objections. An amended landscaping scheme has ensured that the visibility at the junction is not affected and a parking layout provides for 14 spaces (including disabled bays). Informal parking and turning is also available on the access road as is the case with the existing arrangement.

The applicant has provided a Vehicle Tracking Plan to demonstrate the turning of vehicles including a 9m rigid vehicle. This can be achieved but only with the use of visitor parking bays for the 9m rigid vehicle. The applicant suggests that deliveries to the site are by smaller van type vehicles that are accommodated with larger delivery vehicles a rarity. Considering the existing use of the site with similar delivery arrangements, the

Page 71 Highway Authority does not object. Similarly this applies to emergency vehicles including ambulances with adequate turning considered available.

Despite some local objection to vehicle movements and highway safety the access and parking is considered acceptable. A mentioned at the head of the report, the proposed three dwellings at the same site will share the common access. The Highway Authority considers the access to be adequate for the two schemes.

Trees

The site is characterised by a variety of trees, protected as being within the Conservation Area. A single tree is protected as a TPO but not affected by the development in any way. Long-term management of the trees has been undertaken at the site with some recent removal of dead or dying specimens approved by the Council.

The proposals require further tree removal of 13 indigenous species and some shrub and conifer planting to enable the carehome extension.

A tree survey has been provided of 29 individual trees and two groups, justifying the removal of a number of trees to enable the siting of the extension. These same trees were planned for removal under the previous approval. The trees for removal are described as follows within the Tree Report.

T1 a group of six and probably an overgrown Beech hedge

T2 a group of six with one dominant specimen

T3 a single tree heavy limbed

The trees are tightly grouped with evidence of some minor disease, poor structure and classified as fair quality.

A landscaping plan has been provided of appropriate species to compensate for the selective removal yet allowing the development to be achieved. The result is that the site will retain many mature species with a significant group to the south of the site.

Replacement trees will enhance the site and maintain the general ‘wooded’ appearance and character. The loss of trees is not considered a reason for refusal and outweighed by the community benefits of the proposals.

One additional tree is required for removal to achieve the tandem application for residential development considered under 2/2014/0465.

None of the trees are protected as TPO trees

Ecology

An ecological report and bat survey has been undertaken The loss of trees is not considered to affect the habitat significantly with the trees retained and the replacement species providing and enhancing the biodiversity.

Page 72 The ecology reports conclude no exclusive or significant habitat for protected species with appropriate mitigation that can be conditioned.

Drainage

Surface water and foul water is planned to the main sewer as existing. United Utilities does not object in principle subject to no net increase in discharge to the main sewer. Permeable surfaces are recommended by United Utilities which can be conditioned.

Representations

NIne letters of objection have been received from owner/occupiers of four adjacent dwellings. The points of objection are summarised as follows.

Overdevelopment of the site and use of open space. Not in accordance with Allerdale Conservation Area Appraisal. Over dominant scale and massing particularly that of the two storey element. Lack of parking. Impact upon Conservation Area. Holmewood is a candidate Listed Building worthy of protection. Inappropriate design, appearance and materials not compatible with the architecture of Holmewood. Cumulative overdevelopment with proposed dwellings also being considered. Visual impact not compatible with adjacent buildings and the area generally. Overbearing structure on site boundary with potential for overlooking and impact upon residential amenity. Noise impact upon adjacent residents. Loss of trees and impact upon visual amenity and habitat of bat population. Highway safety and insufficient access for emergency vehicles. Impact of drainage on adjacent dwellings.

The above matters have been fully considered within the report above. On balance, the objections are not considered defensible reasons for refusal.

Local Financial Considerations

Having regard to S70 (2) of the Town and Country Planning Act. There are no financial considerations relevant to the determination of this application.

Conclusion

The proposed carehome extension is considered appropriate in scale, design and appearance. The contemporary design and materials are compatible with the existing building and enhance the overall visual appearance of the site without detracting or competing with the traditional vernacular.

Adjacent residential amenity is not considered to be affected significantly and the landscaping plan maintains and enhances the tree planting and biodiversity of the site.

Page 73 The proposals improve the existing carehome and provide additional residential accommodation for the elderly making a sustainable contribution to elderly care in the community.

Annex 1

Conditions

1. The development hereby permitted shall be begun before the expiration of three years from the date of this permission. Reason: In order to comply with the requirements of Section 91 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 as amended by Section 51 of the Planning & Compulsory Purchase Act 2004. 2. The development hereby permitted shall be carried out in accordance with the following plans: 1337 PL 010 - Location Plan 1337 PL 210 B - Proposed site plan (amendment received 22/10/2014) 1337 PL 310 A - Ground floor plan as proposed (amendment received 22/10/2014) 1337 PL 311 A - First floor plan as proposed (amendment received 22/10/2014) 1337 PL 312 A - Second floor and roof plan as proposed (amendment received 22/10/2014) 1337 PL 515 A - Contextual elevations as proposed (amendment received 22/10/2014) 1337 PL 514 A - Proposed section and north elevation (amendment received 22/10/2014) 003 REV 06 - Proposed planting plan (amendment received 30/10/2014) Plant Schedules (amendment received 30/10/2014) 1337 PL 516 Site Sections (amendment received 22/10/2014) 1337 PL 513 A - Comparitive Elevations (amendment received 22/10/2014) EES13-096 Preliminary Environmental Risk Assessment EES13-066 Tree Constraints Report EES13-096 Preliminary Ecological Appraisal EES13-096 Bat Emergence Survey 1337-PL-211 Vehicle Tracking Plan (amendment received 25/7/2014) Reason: In order to ensure a satisfactory standard of development. 3. No part of the development hereby permitted shall be commenced until details and representative samples of all external and roofing materials have been submitted to and approved by the Local Planning Authority. 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 existing building and surrounding area, in compliance with the National Planning Policy Framework and Policies S27 and DM14 of the Allerdale Local Plan (Part 1), Adopted July 2014. 4. Before development commences, details of the surface water drainage works, including surface treatments and any attenuation measures to demonstrate no greater run- off rate than the run-off from the existing greenfield site shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The approved scheme shall be fully implemented prior to the occupation of the

Page 74 extension hereby approved. Reason: To ensure a satisfactory means of surface water drainage and minimise the risk of flooding and discharge to the main sewer, in compliance with the National Planning Policy Framework and Policies S29 and S2 of the Allerdale Local Plan (Part 1), Adopted July 2014. 5. The extension hereby approved shall not be occupied until the parking and turning arrangements have been implemented in accordance with the approved plan. These arrangements shall be retained 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. 6. All hard and soft landscaping works shall be carried out in accordance with the approved landscaping plan. The approved scheme shall be fully implemented within the first planting season following the occupation of the extension hereby approved and any trees or plants which within a period of five years from the completion of the development die, are removed or become seriously damaged or diseased shall be replaced in the next planting season with others of similar size and species, unless otherwise agreed in writing by the Local Planning Authority. Reason: In order to enhance the appearance of the development and minimise the impact of the development in the locality. 7. The developemnt hereby approved shall be undertaken only in accordance with the tree protection measures as detailed in the Tree Constraints Report EES13-066. Reason: In order to ensure that adequate protection is afforded to the existing trees on the site. 8. The developemnt hereby approved shall be undertaken only in accordance withthe mitigation and safeguarding as detailed in the Preliminary Ecological Appraisal EES13-096 and Bat Emergence Survey EES13-096. Reason : In order to minimise impact and promote the biodiversity of the site in accordance with Policy S35 of the Allerdale Local Plan (Part 10 Adopted 2014. 9. No development shall take place until a Construction and Demolition Method Statement has been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The statement shall include the following: (a) Traffic Management Plan to include all traffic associated with the development, including the parking and turning facilities and off-street compound staff traffic; (b) Procedure to monitor and mitigate noise and vibration from the construction and demolition and to monitor any properties at risk of damage from vibration, as well as taking into account noise from vehicles, deliveries. All measurements should make reference to BS7445. (c) Mitigation measures to reduce adverse impacts on residential properties from construction compounds including visual impact, noise, and light pollution. (d) Mitigation measures to ensure that no harm is caused to protected species during construction. (e) A written procedure for dealing with complaints regarding the construction or demolition; (f) Measures to control the emissions of dust and dirt during construction and demolition;

Page 75 (g) Programme of work for Demolition and Construction phase; (h) Hours of working and deliveries; (i) Details of lighting to be used on site. The approved statement shall be adhered to throughout the duration of the development. Reason: In the interests of the amenity of the occupiers of neighbouring properties, in compliance with the National Planning Policy Framework and Policy S32 of the Allerdale Local Plan (Part 1), Adopted July 2014.

10. Before the building of the extension commences, a plan shall be submitted to the Local Planning Authority for approval, reserving adequate land for the parking/turning of vehicles/plant and storage of materials, engaged in the construction operations associated with the extension hereby approved, and such land, including vehicular access thereto, shall be used for or be kept available for these purposes until completion of the works. Reason : The carrying out of this development without the provision of these facilities during the construction work is likely to lead to inconvenience and danger to road users.

Proactive Statement

Application Approved Following Revisions

Notes to Applicant:

Page 76 Page 77

This page is intentionally left blank

Page 78 Agenda Item 10

Allerdale Borough Council

Planning Application 2/2014/0293

Reference No: 2/2014/0293 Valid Date: 16/04/2014 Location: Dundraw Farm Dundraw Wigton Applicant: DJ Harrison Drawing Numbers: Drawing 1000901 03 General Arrangement Site layout MH1 Meter house Volume 2: Environmental Statement March 2014 (as amended 2 June 2014) Bird Survey March 2014 Statement of Community Consultation Volume 3: Appendicies Flood Risk Assessment Noise Information received 25 June 2014

Supporting Information

Cumulative Impact details Figures 5.22 and 5.23 received 29 May 2014 Viewpoint 18 from Path at South Solway Nature Reserve received 29 May 2014 Certificate of calibration and conformance Volume 1: Non Technical Summary Design and Access Statement Planning Statement Test Certificate Sound Power Warranty Levels DW52/54 500kw Sound power levels DW54-500kw

Proposed Installation of a 500kW wind turbine (67m to blade tip) and its Development: associated infrastructure (crane pad, access track and meter house) Location: Dundraw Farm Dundraw Wigton Applicant: DJ Harrison

Page 79 Summary/Key Issues

Recommendation : Refuse

Issue Conclusion

Principle of The Council seeks to promote the development of renewable and Development low carbon energy resources provided the impacts (either in isolation or cumulatively) are, or can be made acceptable. Residential The proposed turbine is within 800m of a number of residential amenity properties a number of which will have direct views of the turbine which is likely to have an adverse impact on the amenity of the residents of these properties.

There is no evidence of support from the local community for a residential separation distance of less than 800m; (460m) in this case. Only 1 letter of support to 177 letters of objection. Visual and The proposed turbine will increase the proliferation of turbines in Landscape the area and it is considered that it will have a significant adverse impact on the landscape of the surrounding area and the setting of the AONB. Nature Subject to mitigation it is considered that the proposed conservation development would not have a significant adverse impact on nature conservation interests. The over-wintering bird surveys identified there is a low risk to Whooper Swan and Pink-footed Geese. There is the potential for otter and adder and foraging bats. Otter and adder are well documented in the area and may be present on site. Planning conditions could secure mitigation to ensure the adder and otter species are protected if found at the site if there were to be any development. Heritage The proposal will not have a significant adverse impact on any designated heritage assets. Operational Subject to conditions relating to construction operations the requirements proposed development would not have an adverse impact on the highway network. Hydrology The wind turbine location has been classified as flood zone 3a and a Flood Risk Assessment has been undertaken. This indicated that flood risk is not anticipated to increase as a result of the development; given a swale is proposed as part of the development to address displaced water. There is local objection to the development with regard to flooding and it being within flood zone 3 on peaty ground and that significant engineering works will be required beyond that indentified within the ES and that the access road will also need significant engineering works. Noise A background noise assessment has been conducted and all dwellings are within acceptable noise limits. No objections from

Page 80 Environmental Protection subject to planning conditions limiting noise levels. There is local concern over noise effecting nearby dwellings notably Croft House, Beech Dene and Holme Leigh. At both quiet day time and night time assessment periods the predicted noise levels of the proposed wind turbine at the nearest residential locations fall below the prevailing background noise at all wind speeds in the required assessment range. Potential benefits The proposal will make a contribution to renewable energy deployment nationally. All of the energy produced will be exported.

Proposal

The proposal is for a single 500kW EWT DW54 wind turbine approx. 40m to hub height and 67m to tip height with 3 blades with a rotor diameter of 54 m, with associated infrastructure including access track (5m by 380m), crane hard standings (20m by 35m), turbine foundations (12m by 1.5m) and electrical infrastructure and swale along access track. The colour is likely to be off white, semi matt finish to reduce glare.

The proposed turbine will be directly connected to the National Grid, with all the energy produced will be exported and it is forecast the turbine will approximately generate 1,746,378 kWh of electricity with the ability to power up to 372 average homes whilst displacing 751 tonnes of carbon dioxide each year.

The applicant runs Dundraw Farm as a family business, comprising primarily of livestock grazing, the applicant is seeking to offset their carbon footprint in a transition to a low carbon business; achieved through the installation and utilisation of wind energy.

Site

The siting of the proposed single turbine relates to grazing land to north of the village of Kelsick. The turbine will be located on Grade 3 quality agricultural land at a height of 10m AOD.

The field in which the proposed wind turbine will be located is bound by hedgerows to all sides. The immediate locality is farmland, with a typical field and hedge pattern. There are limited built structures within the immediate locality, albeit the wider area hosts isolated dwellings and farms interspersed amongst hamlets and villages.

Residential properties are in close proximity to the proposed development to include Croft House (460m south), Beech Dene (683m south). The nearest settlements are Kelsick 450m south, Dundraw 1.63km southeast, Mosside 1.89km north, Lessonhall 2.03km east-southeast and the larger town of Wigton 4.8k southeast.

The site lies in close proximity to a local road network. A small unnamed road lies approximately 510m to the south of the proposed development. This road links local hamlets and farms with the B5302 and the main A596 road which lie approximately 1.8km and 4.8km respectively south of the proposed wind turbine location.

Page 81 The South Solway Mosses National Nature Reserve is to the north of the site.

The turbine will be at least 50m from any potential sensitive wildlife habitats and electricity pylons are over 1.5 times fall distance.

Relevant Policies

National Planning Policy Framework

Planning Practice Guidance for Renewable and Low Carbon Energy July 2013

Allerdale Local Plan (Part 1) Adopted July 2014

Policy S1 - Presumption in favour of sustainable development Policy S14 - Rural economy Policy S19 - Renewable Energy and Low Carbon Technologies Policy S27 - Heritage Assets Policy S32 - Safeguarding amenity Policy S33 - Landscape Policy S44 - Development in the Solway Coast Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty Policy S35 - Protecting and enhancing biodiversity and geodiversity Policy S36 - Air, water and soil quality Policy S4 - Design principles Policy DM17 - Trees, hedgerows and woodland

Relevant Planning History

SCR/2013/0022 - Full EIA required due to the potential impact upon migratory birds present within the local area. The site is within the vicinity of recognised feeding and resting areas of birds particularly Whooper Swans and Pink-footed geese.

SCO/2013/0006 - Scoping opinion.

2/2013/0794 - Withdrawn

Sir Tony Cunningham MP - Oppose the application on the grounds of cumulative effect

Bromfield Parish Council - Object on cumulative impact, impact on local amenities, shadow flicker and hazard to drivers.

Dundraw Parish Council - Objection due to cumulative impact and Allerdale becoming a wind energy landscape. A large structure seen for miles around and no benefit locally. Noise, shadow flicker disturbance to tv/ satellite signal and mobile phone service. Site

Page 82 floods severely in winter and the underground concrete and ground compaction will displace water elsewhere. River Waver is close by and site within flood plain of the river. Adverse effect on Meadows Lonning with the loss of 700m of established hedgerows and filling in of 700m of ditches and culverts. Concerned about visual amenity and wish to preserve local landscape. Local area of Whooper Swan and Pink-footed goose and these species fly low. Other bird species and area rich in wildlife. Damage to roads and verges during construction. Photomontages deliberately taken at angles that do not reflect reality

Holme Low Parish Council - Objection. Detrimental cumulative impact on visual amenity. Site close proximity of the Solway Coast AONB and would have an adverse impact on landscape. Potential risk of collision and disturbance of birdlife in the area. Contrary to local plan policies.

Holme Abbey Parish Council - Majority of residents opposed to large commercial turbines.

Silloth Town Council - Objection. Too many turbines in the area. Detrimental cumulative impact on visual amenity. Site close proximity of the Solway Coast AONB and would have an adverse impact on landscape. Potential risk of collision and disturbance of birdlife in the area.

Waverton Parish Council - Objection due to visual impact and cumulative effects. Too may turbines degrading the beauty of the landscape of Cumbria which is regarded as a special area for its landscapes and its views. Already two smaller turbines at Dundraw farm. Concern that there will be further turbines. Highly visible and against the scattering and accumulation of wind turbines in locality.

Electricity North West - No impact on Electricity Distribution System infrastructure or other ENW assets.

NATS - No safeguarding objection

MOD - No objections subject to the turbine being fitted with an aviation light

Stobart Air on behalf of Carlisle Airport - No objection subject to conditions

Civil Aviation Authority - No objections

Environment Agency - The site is within Flood Zone 3. The scheme is defined as essential infrastructure and taking account of the Flood Risk Assessment submitted the site satisfies part b of the exception test and paragraph 103 of the NPPF.

The development should be carried out in accordance with the FRA submitted to be secured by planning condition with regard to surface water run off and SUDs.

Solway Coast AONB - Not within the Solway coast AONB but within the Solway Coast AONB Landscape and Seascape Character Assessment 2010 as ‘Lowland Landscape Character Type F: Drumlinised Lowland farmland. The landscape type plays an important role as the setting of character areas within the AONB. The smooth skylines of the rolling landform and low elongated drumlins are characteristic of views looking inland from many

Page 83 parts of the AONB, with the upland Lakeland Fells forming a distinctive backdrop. The wind turbine would impinge on the views into and out of the AONB and affect undeveloped horizons which form distant backdrops. There is cumulative effect of existing turbines (Hellrigg near Silloth). Close to Wedholme Flow National Nature Reserve, locality for lapwings and the flight path of Pink-footed geese and Whooper Swans, which over-winter in Solway area.

Environmental Health - No objections subject to planning conditions regarding noise.

County Council Strategic Planning - Not a category 1 application, therefore will not be responding from a strategic planning perspective.

County Council Archaeologist - No objections

English Heritage - No objection, approximately 7km from the buffer zone of the Hadrian’s Wall World Heritage Site (WHS). The Outstanding Universal Value of the WHS is based on the ability to understand and appreciate Roman Military planning. The proposed turbine will not interfere with indivisibility between the forts and signal stations along the coast and will have minimal impact on the ability to understand and appreciate the Roman military planning. No objections regarding listed buildings or the Ancient Scheduled Monument or their setting.

Natural England

The proposal is not considered to have a likely significant effect on the interest features of Solway Firth Special Area of Conservation (SAC) and the Upper Solway Flats & Marshes Special Protection Area (SPA), South Solway Mosses Special Area of Conservation (SAC), due to the distance and the lack of significant numbers of SPA birds utilising the proposal site. The proposal will not damage or destroy the interest features of the Upper Solway Flats & Marshes Site of Special Scientific Interest (SSSI).

Further information was considered necessary to assess the impact on the Wedholme Flow SSSI which is extensive lowland raised mire. A Desk Based Breeding Bird Appraisal was submitted. Based on the information submitted the turbine is not likely to impact on the interest features of Wedholme Flow SSSI.

Effects on protected species should be assessed against standing advice.

RSPB - No representations received

Cumbria Wildlife Trust - No representations received

Arqiva - No objections

Electricity North West - No objections

Cumbria Highways - No objections subject to planning conditions The application has been advertised by site notice, in the press. Adjoining owners have been notified.

Page 84 177 letters of objection has been received to date, the concerns raised are summarised as follows:

- Allerdale wants this area to be a great place to live, work and visit but yet another massive wind turbine does not support this aim; - 500m from Kelsick, therefore closer than the 800m set back distance in the Local Plan (Allerdale LP adopted July 2010); - Too close to the villages of Kelsick and Dundraw and 10 residential dwellings within 800m and the dwelling known as Croft House. - Reduce peaceful character, an alien invasion and no place in a rural village, an irreversible impact on the nation’s unique and lovely countryside, Kelsick a tranquil area, spoiling beauty which is our heritage; - Landscape blighted; too many turbines in area and an eyesore and will spoil areas natural beauty and becoming a wind energy landscape. Landscape ‘pock marked’ with turbines; - There are smooth skylines of the rolling land form and long elongated drumlins are characterised of views looking inland from many parts of the AONB, with the upland Lakeland fells forms a distinctive backdrop; - Few open spaces not with views of turbines around Wigton, Thursby, Abbeytown and Silloth areas and this is infill turbine development; - Dominates the whole of the Lower Waver valley from Abbeytown to Lessonhall and beyond; - Visible from AONB and National Park and the site provides the setting for the AONB; - Wind turbine development at Hellrigg, Bothel, Lanrigg Hall, Warwick House Farm, West Newton, Thornby Villa, High Pow, Firs Farm, Goose Green, High Scales and Tallentire; - Did not use a 30km assessment; - View points inaccurate; - 3 x higher than the angel of the north and 80% height of Dixon’s chimney, Carlisle; - Close to Kirkbride airfield; - Turbine development does not return money invested and there is no national need as met 2020 energy targets; - Not for domestic use and no overriding need and concern it is a precursor to a larger wind farm development as set out in ES (9 turbines page 40 Vol. 2); - Should add turbines to existing wind farms and Cumbria turning into a large scale industrial site, north Cumbria has enough onshore wind turbines, a commercial scale development and adverse cumulative impact; - Turbines should be located out at sea or use other renewable forms of energy such as tidal, nuclear or solar; - Pink-footed geese and Whooper swan fly at low levels over the site, and thousands in flocks use fields to the east of the site, much local knowledge and a desk based bird assessment insufficient and inaccurate, risk of bird collision, the large flocks of geese are ‘an incredible joy to behold’, Queens Swans at risk and the turbine will affect flight patterns of wetland birds and bats; - Local knowledge on the overnight roosts and feeding areas of Pink-footed geese and Whooper swans; - Loss of and harm too wildlife to include ducks, geese, barn owls, frogs, toads, hedgehogs and birds such as robins, wrens, blackbirds, thrushes, tits, pheasants, goldfinches, French partridges, woodpeckers and yellow hammers;

Page 85 - Adverse impacts on nature reserves locally; - Adverse visual impact and too close to homes and adverse impact from noise and pollution, shadow flicker and potential for radio and TV interference; - Adverse impact on health; - Adverse impact on a holiday locations including Silloth and will affect tourism and small holiday cottages in locality; - Reduces property values; - Local roads not suitable for heavy low loading vehicles and poor roads and damage to local roads and verges; - C Class road between Kelsick and Dundraw long and in a poor state of repair and no reparatory road works set out and hump back bridges at Waverbridge and Abbeytown; - Harmful on the setting of Ancient Scheduled Monument Holme Cultram Abbey; - Reduction to green house gas reduction would be slight and no benefit to the local community; - Water displacement and masses of concrete needed due to saturated grounds which is boggy and peaty and questions over the robustness of underpinning engineering and difficult and unsafe to maintain site during flooding; - Proposed swale not appropriate and may displace water elsewhere; - Significant works will be required to Meadow’s Lonning with loss of trees and hedgerows; - On green belt; - Not about sustainability and the environment but about profit for the land owner and it is a cash cow and not a necessity; - Glinting in sunlight; - Site within flood zone 3 and is on an aquifer and the concrete slab may float or sink in the ground water or the peat bog and the 67m high turbine could fall over following upwards groundwater pressure, no engineers report; - Close to River Waver.

1 letter of support.

There have also been letters of representation from Westnewton Action Group and FORCE.

Westnewton Action Group

• Do not consider the ‘low risk’ to Whooper Swans and Pink-footed geese is adequately substantiated. Do not consider the applicant’s bird survey/ assessment to be adequately or appropriate for the circumstances of the site. • The turbine is a very tall moving element and the fact that there are other turbines in the locality is not an excuse for introducing another one. The turbine cannot be completely concealed by either vegetation or rural buildings. The viewpoints are static and carefully chosen by the agent and as such cannot be considered as adequately representative of the genuine visual impact of the project on the local population and visitors of the area. • With regard to residential amenity the turbine is 450m from the village of Kelsick however the Allerdale Local Plan (Part 1) sets out in order to address community concerns and in the interest of residential amenity and safety, a minimum

Page 86 separation distance of 800m between wind turbines (over 25m to blade tip) and residential properties will be expected. • There are already 2 smaller turbines at Dundraw Farm that were supported for farm use. The claims that the project will provide benefits of renewable energy generation that will reduce green house gas emissions thus ‘outweighing’ ‘perceived’ impacts on the landscape is a presumption that cannot be substantiated. The proposal is a profit making exercise specifically intended to take full advantage of the feed in Tariff Scheme. The existing turbines and the proposed turbine are disparate turbines and will create an incongruous and jarring effect due to their different size, height and movement. • Allerdale has reached a critical mass point whereby turbines are now beginning to re-characterise the district’s most valued landscapes and total more than 62% of the Cumbria’s whole fleet. • Scheme is not fully reversible. • Parishes have objected and over 167 individual representations and communities should be listened to. • The de-rated turbine does not maximise the potential renewable energy resource. • There is sufficient wind energy generation to meet national and UK energy targets. The UK renewable energy sector reached the point of oversupplying relative to the agreed targets, the general public’s ability and willingness to pay the ever increasing subsidies loaded onto electricity bills and the country’s ability to absorb further damage and intrusion into its landscape and peoples lives from the renewables industry. • Concerns regarding cumulative impact and poor viewpoints using trees and vegetation to block views and photomontages virtually worthless and not representative of the views available to local residents, visitors and road users. • Close to Wedholme Flow SSSI, Upper Solway Flats and Marshes SSSI and Salta Moss. • The area becoming a wind energy landscape. • There is not community support. • All turbines in locality have not been considered. • The proposal challenges all 3 ways in which cumulative impact is recognised.

FORCE

• Unacceptable impact on the character of the local landscape. • Unacceptable cumulative impact in terms of the number of turbines visible in particular views and sequential cumulative impact as experienced by receptors travelling through the area. • Unacceptable impact on local residential amenity. • Incompatibility with local and national planning policy particularly recent guidance issued by DCLG. • Deficiencies in information provided with regard to cumulative assessment, bird species and MOD and NAT’s information. • Cumulative impact not properly assessed with turbine development in the locality not considered. • Needs careful consideration with regard to the National Grid proposed route • Concern regarding noise impact.

Page 87 • 62% of Cumbria’s wind farm development in Allerdale. • Local communities have genuine concerns when it comes to developments such as wind turbines and solar farms. • There is no overriding need for the development and there are already 2 turbines at Dundraw Farm. • The proposed turbine would be supplying the National Grid and it is non essential development at this location and its adverse impact would outweigh any benefit of the scheme. • Geese have been affected by other wind turbine developments • Government targets have already been reached. • The photomontages are unsatisfactory. • Visual changes and impacts are more likely to be major than minor/moderate

Assessment

Visual impact on local residents

In order to address community concerns and in the interests of residential amenity and safety the Local Plan sets out an expectation that a minimum separation distance of 800m will be provided between wind turbines (over 25m to blade tip) and residential properties. It is recognised that in some cases due to site specific factors such as orientation of views, land cover, other buildings and topography it may be appropriate to vary this threshold where it can be demonstrated through evidence that there is not unacceptable impact on residential amenity. Shorter distances may also be appropriate if there is support from the local community. There has been little support from the community only 1 letter of support to 177 letters of objection and objections from various parish councils. There is insufficient evidence of support from the local community for a separation distance of less than 800m to be accepted in this case.

There are a number of residential properties within 800m of the application site; to include Croft House 0.46km south and Beech Dene 0.68km south. The nearest settlements are the hamlets of Kelsick 0.45km south west, Dundraw 1.63km south east, Lessonhall 2.03km south east and Wigton 4.6km south east.

The ES sets out there will be major-adverse impact within 0-500m of parts of the village of Kelsick; where there are clear open views of the proposed turbine, particularly the dwelling within 450m south of the site.

Page 88 Under 1km from the site, the effects on properties are likely to range from no change to major adverse; due to varying degrees of visibility due to orientation or screening by vegetation or buildings. The ES assessment on dwellings and settlements within 1km (Kelswick), identifies that dwellings are likely to have the following effects:

Croft House (459m south) - major adverse Fell View (781m south west) - moderate adverse Holme Leigh (549m south west) - minor/moderate adverse Holly Howe (595m southwest) - minor/moderate adverse Sycamore House (605m south west) - minor/ moderate adverse Mid Town Farm (627m south west) - minor/moderate adverse Beech Dene (680m south) - moderate/major adverse Thornfiled (696m south west) - minor adverse Orchard House (732m southwest) - minor adverse Ashness (781m southwest) - no change/minor adverse Kelsick House (849m west-southwest) - minor adverse

Settlements within 2km of the proposed site include Kelsick (445m SSW), Dundraw (1.63km SE) and Moss Side (1.89km N) and Raby.

The ES advises there will also be moderate-major adverse impact on houses in the locality of Raby. The majority of receptors affected will be small clusters of residents or single farmsteads where the impact will be moderate-major adverse.

There will be moderate-major adverse impacts on High House Farm, 610m south west of Moss Side.

Between the distance 1-2km from the proposed turbine location, there will also be a range of effects depending on the locality; from a likely no change to major adverse effects on settlements, hamlets or dwellings. The ES sets out properties between 1km and 2km would have a major adverse effect where there are open, clear elevated views but these would lesson to moderate adverse effect where there are partially screened views by trees. There would be minor adverse effects where first floor or less direct views are possible.

The applicant’s own assessment acknowledges that some properties will be subject to visual impact from the proposed turbines but considers none would have their outlook so affected that their living conditions would be unacceptably degraded.

Settlements between 2km and 5km include: Lessonhall (2.03km S), Abbeytown (2.31km NW), Blencogo (2.66km SW), Oulton (3.77km ESE), Waverton (3.92km SE), Newton Arlosh (3.90km NE), Waverbridge (3.95km S), Bloomfield (4.50km SE), Seaville 4.59km NW), Wigton (4.6km SE).

Beyond 2km the potential views of the turbine from surrounding properties and settlements are more limited being reduced by distance, buildings orientation and screened by intervening buildings, mature trees and roadside hedges.

Noise

Page 89 The predicted noise levels both carried out at the quiet day time and night time assessment period fall below the background noise at all wind speeds at the nearest dwellings. No residential dwelling would be subject to unacceptable noise levels.

Shadow flicker

It is generally acknowledged that the potential impact of shadow flicker is only likely to be an issue within 10 x rotor diameters of the turbine (in this case 540m) and within 130 o either site of north relative to the turbine. In this case there are no residential properties within the zone likely to be affected by shadow flicker.

A single dwelling is within 10 rotor diameters (540m) of the proposed development. Croft House lies 459m due south of the proposed turbine and therefore shadow flicker will not occur at any time of the year.

Visual and landscape impacts

The ES advises that the proposal is considered to be a sufficient distance from the LDNP (12.74km SSE) and the AONB (2.4km NW) not to result in any significant adverse impact. Policy S19 of the Allerdale Local Plan (Part 1) requires consideration to be given to the visual impact of the proposed turbine both individually and cumulatively.

Key Characteristics of this area are: Undulating and rolling topography; Intensely farmed agricultural pasture dominates; Patchy areas of woodland provide contrast to the pasture; Woodland is uncommon west towards the coast; Fields are large and rectangular; Hedges, hedgerow trees and fences bound fields and crisscross up and over the rolling landscape.

This area is judged to have moderate landscape capacity to accommodate turbine development of up to a small group (3-5 turbines), exceptionally a large group (6-9 turbines).

The applicant has submitted a landscape and visual appraisal assessing the proposed development which includes photomontages and an assessment from a number of viewpoints in the vicinity of the site and seeks to demonstrate that whilst there would be some local landscape effects, the turbine could be accommodated without any significant adverse effects to the local landscape character (although it is acknowledged that the proposal would inevitably have an effect on the area, particularly within 2km of the application site, as it would be a new tall visual element).

The applicant concedes the proposal will introduce a large vertical moving element into an area of relatively flat farmland characteristic of both the Solway Basin National Landscape Character Area and Local Lowlands Landscape Character Type but would not be introducing a new element into the local landscape as there are several other existing wind turbines found across the wider area.

Page 90

The ES sets out potential impacts upon existing views from various receptors including residential, visitors and walkers and road users assessed from 18 viewpoints (as amended). It was concluded by the applicant that the visual impact will be greatest when there was clear unobstructed views across open land but a moderate-adverse impacts are still likely at distance. The ES sets out that there will be moderate-adverse impact from the following viewpoints:

View Point 7 - 2.36km west, Colmire Sough pumping with an impact on road users; View Point 9 - 1.90km north-northwest, Minor Road off B5302 at Moor Row with an impact on road users and local residents; View Point 10 - 1.52km west-northwest, Northern entrance to Dundraw with an impact on road users and local residents; View Point 12 - 633m northeast, road between post box and Holme Leigh, Kelsick with an impact on local residents and road users; View Point 14 - 3.55km east-south east, Public path along Rabycote Marsh

Officers therefore assess that the turbine would have an adverse effect on the character of the local landscape by virtue of its open character. The landscape character in the locality of the application site is one of relatively flat, open, agricultural land interspersed with trees hedgerows settlements and small hamlets.

Cumulative impacts

In relation to the issue of cumulative impact the applicant’s assessment acknowledges there are a number of viewpoints where the proposed turbine would be viewed in conjunction with existing turbines but again concludes this would not result in a significant adverse effect on the landscape character of the area.

It is considered that the applicant’s Landscape and Visual Appraisal has some deficiencies and generally underestimates the visual impact of the proposed development and that view points have been taken in places where there are trees and hedgerows when there are unrestricted views in the close locality.

A number of objectors, including FORCE and Westnewton Action group, have highlighted concerns that the proposed turbine will increase the cumulative impact of turbines in this area.

Approved and pending turbine development within 5km include:

Shaw House Farm single turbine 35m to tip (2/2011/0938) Dundraw Farm two turbines 20.6m to tip (2/2012/0624) Kelsick House Farm 86.5m to tip appeal pending following refusal (2/2013/0705) Stepping Stones Farm 17.7m to tip (2/2009/0355) Moss Side 2 turbines 20.98m to tip (2/2011/0895

Within 10km there are a significant number of turbine applications approved/ pending/ refused. To include:

Hellrigg wind farm (4 x turbines121m to tip) 2/2007/0076

Page 91 Lanrigg Hall (4 turbines 27.13m to tip) 2/2011/0589 Prospect House High Scales (turbine 20.3m to tip) 2/2010/0722 Prospect House High Scales (turbine 67m to tip) 2/2012/0603 Red Hall turbine (24.8m to tip) 2/2010/0817 Moor House Hall (25m to tip) 2/2013/0806, 2/2012/0146 Moordyke (turbine 35m to tip) 2/2012/0140 Thornby Villa (2 x turbines 46m to tip) 2/2012/0040 Goose Green Farm (turbine 67m to tip) 2/2012/0315 Stubsgill Farm (turbine 20.4m to tip) 2/2010/0992 Low Tarns Farm (turbine 25m to tip) 2/2011/0860, 2/2011/0574 Tarns Farm (turbine 46m to tip) 2/2012/0345 Leesrigg Farm (turbine 34.2m to tip) 2/2012/0635 High Aketon (turbine 27.13m to tip) 2/2011/0293 High Aketon (turbine 27.13m to tip) 2/2012/0026 Firs Farm (turbine 45m to tip) 2/2012/0753 High Pow (3 x turbines 98m to tip) 2/2004/0944 Greyrigg House (turbine 27m to tip) 2/2011/0862 Micklethwaite (turbine 20.98m to tip) 2/2011/0477, 2/2011/0210 Rosewain Farm (turbine 24.8m to tip) 2/2009/0520 Park House (turbine 27m to tip) Cross Rigg Farm (turbine 20.8m to tip) 2/2010/0988 Croft House, Bromfield (turbine 17.4m to tip) 2/2013/0858

Regard is given to Hellrigg turbines 6.8km to the west (4 x 121m to tip), Warwick Hall Farm Westnewton wind farm (3 x 107m to tip) 9.9km to the south west, Great Orton wind turbine 11km to the north east and High Pow wind farm (3 x 98m tip ) 8.9km to the south east.

It is noted that closer to the AONB, the turbine development approved has been more farm scale development (under 35m in height). In close proximity to the site are the farm scale turbines at Dundraw Farm (20.6m to tip), Shaw Farm (35m to tip) and Moss Side House Farm (20.98m to tip).

The proposed turbine would be significantly higher than the existing turbines at Dundraw Farm and other turbines approved within the locality. Overall it is considered the proposed turbine would have a significant adverse impact on the landscape of the surrounding area and the setting of the AONB.

Impact on nature conservation interests

A Phase 1 habitat survey and winter bird survey have been submitted in support of the application. The proposed turbine is not sited within 50m of any existing hedgerows therefore the proposal accords with advice from Natural England that wind turbines are unlikely to affect bat populations where a 50m buffer is maintained from foraging habitat.

The closest designated site is the Wedhom Flow SSSI it is designated for its lowland raised mire or peat bog. Given the distance and that the development is downstream from the SSSI, no effect on the feature is predicted.

There would be a moderate adverse impact on the South Solway Mosses National

Page 92 Nature reserve. This is an open area that allows 360 degree views from several vantage points, which already have views of Hellriggs, High Pow, Wharrels Hill and the tall masts of Kirkbride Airfield.

Evidence suggests that wind turbine developments have the potential to impact upon bird and bat species, this generally occurs through collision with the moving blades, displacement or disturbance. These risks can be minimised through appropriate siting of the proposed turbine and blades should be located at least 50m from habitat features, including hedgerows in accordance with Natural England TIN059. The proposed wind turbine is out-with 50m of these features. The ecological report concludes that there is considered to be low risk to habitats and wildlife species.

Further survey work was undertaken with regard the Whooper Swan and Pink-footed Goose. During the survey period, no Whooper Swans were observed flying over the wind turbine location. All Pink-footed geese, excluding a single flock of 3 birds were observed flying at a height above the risk area. The ES concludes that even considering the geese recorded flying higher elevation may fly within the risk zone during inclement weather, the risk was considered as low. Based on the findings of this survey, the ES concludes that the proposed single turbine is not considered to have a significant adverse effect on the nature conservation of the Upper Solway Flats and marshes SPA. Natural England does not object to the turbine development.

Otter and adder are well documented in the area and may be present on site. Planning conditions could secure mitigation to ensure these species are protected if found at the site.

Impact on heritage assets and settings

There are no heritage assets within the footprint of the development; listed buildings and their settings are not considered to be affected by the development. A Cultural Heritage Assessment has been undertaken to identify the potential impact of the proposal upon local cultural heritage and it is concluded by the applicant that potential visual impact will be minimal.

English Heritage have confirmed that there are 19 listed buildings within a 2.5km radius, 17 of which are listed as grade II, one in grade II* and one in Grade I. The Grade I listing is the church of St Mary at Abbeytown that forms a fragment of the church of the former Holmcultram Abbey, the site which is scheduled as an ancient monument.

St Mary’s Abbey lies 2.26km west of the proposed development. The nearest listed building is grade II listed Kelsick House which is located 0.85km south west of the development. There are several listed farmhouses, barns and boundary walls within the surrounding landscape within the hamlets and small villages.

The proposed turbine will be visible from a number of the listed buildings but English Heritage do not consider it will impact on their setting and particularly the setting of Holmcultram Abbey and the church of St Mary to any significant extent.

The applicant advises that views from historic sites and listed buildings are largely unaffected due to screening by both natural and built elements.

Page 93 Assessment of routes and paths

The development is located on private land with no public rights of way. The closest public road lies 364m to the north. The closest PROW is a bridleway which is located 1.65km to the south east of the proposed turbine site running through farmland between Dundraw and Lessonhall. The nearest Cycle Route 72 runs along or near the coast and it lies approximately 1.64km to the northwest of the proposed wind turbine location as it runs along the B5307.

There are several large areas of open access land including Welhome Flow NNR (approximately 880m north east), Skinburness and Calvo marshes (approximately 2.91km north west) and Bellwater Moss (approximately 5.1km to the south west) of the proposed turbine site.

The ES sets out that there will be moderate adverse impacts relating to roads, public rights of way and open space as follows:

View Point 9 Minor Road off B5302 at Moor Row (1.90km NNW) - Moderate adverse View Point 10 Northern entrance into Dundraw (1.52km WNW) - Moderate adverse View Point 12 Road between the post box and Holme Leigh, Kelsick (633m NE) - Minor to moderate adverse View Point 14 Public footpath along Rabycote Marsh (3.55km ESE) - Moderate adverse

The ES considers there will be potential for some moderate adverse impacts on the B5302 and minor road routes and local networks of PROWS and cycle routes.

The Highways Authority has raised no objection subject to conditions. On the advice of the Highways Authority, the highway implications of the proposal are considered to be acceptable. The proposal is located a sufficient distance from Public Rights of Way, bridleways and National Trails to remove any risk of toppling etc.

The main impacts of the proposed development on the road network would be associated with construction traffic. The highway authority has no objections to the proposal subject to conditions and commitments from the developer in relation to the repair of any damage to the road network resulting from construction traffic.

Surface water drainage and flooding

The site is within Flood zone 3a indicating potential flood risk. The FRA advises that the development is not expected to increase flood risk away from site due to small footprint and permeable nature of access track. All sensitive electronic equipment within the turbine and metre house will be situated a minimum level of 600mm above existing ground level to protect from flooding.

The proposed development would increase the percentage impermeable surface area at ground level by 50%, it is proposed to allow the development to drain to a swale located adjacent to the access track, where infiltration into the underlying soils would occur. It is considered 350m of swales can be accommodated along the access track and therefore there would be no increase of surface water from the site. Officers consider a detailed engineering report may be required prior to the erection of a turbine, swale and access

Page 94 lane due to the particular site characteristics.

Electromagnetic Interference (EMI), Aviation and RADAR

NATS and the MoD have raised no objections to the proposal, nor has Stobart Air on behalf of Carlisle Airport. As such, the scheme is considered acceptable in terms of aviation safety and radar insofar as these agencies interests are concerned. These organisations have requested notification should there be approval of the scheme and erection of the structures. This could be dealt with by suitable condition if planning permission were given.

Aqirva (representing the BBC, ITV and Re-Broadcast Links) has raised no objection to the proposal. Based on the consultation responses, the proposal is considered acceptable in relation to electromagnetic interference.

Tourism

The issue of potential effects on local tourism within the locality has been raised within several of the objection representations. However, the Inspector on the Parkland/Hellrigg appeal, in evaluating impact on tourism including the AONB, considered that if there was not a significant impact on the landscape then the degree of effect on attracting visitors would be limited. He considered the evidence of Scottish research submitted at the appeal indicated that the small number of people discouraged from visiting was insignificant. In the absence of any conclusive evidence on this issue, officers consider it would be difficult to sustain to a reason for refusal. Further to the Hellrigg appeal officers consider that there is no specific detailed local evidence to demonstrate any conclusive views backed up with evidence.

Potential benefits to the local economy and local community

It is acknowledged that the proposed turbine will have local economic benefits in terms of a community benefit fund to be distributed among local charities but this is not a material consideration for the determination of this application.

Conclusion

Whilst recognising the potential benefits of the proposed wind turbine and the contribution it would make to meeting renewable energy and low carbon targets this must be balanced against the likely adverse impacts on the residential amenity of the occupier of dwellings in the vicinity of the site and the impact the increased proliferation of turbines would have on the landscape character of the area and the setting of the AONB.

The ES acknowledges that the greatest effect will be within the immediate area where the proposal will introduce a strong vertical element into this relatively flat landscape and that it will have a moderate adverse effect. With regard to visual effect the turbine will be most prominent from unobstructed views including those of individual dwellings and small settlements of Kelsick, Dundraw and Raby and resulting in a moderate to major adverse effect. For these reasons it is recommended that planning permission be refused.

Page 95 Annex 1

Reason for Refusal

1. The proposed turbine, by virtue of its siting, scale and proximity to other turbine development, would increase the proliferation of turbines in the area, resulting in a significantly harmful impact on the landscape and visual amenity of the area and would have an adverse impact on the distinctive character and environmental quality of the surrounding open countryside including the setting of the Solway Coast AONB and would have a significantly harmful effect on the amenity of the occupiers of residential properties in the area. The proposal is therefore considered contrary to policies S19, S32, S33 and S44 of the Allerdale Local Plan (Part 1) adopted July 2014 and the advice contained within the National Planning Policy Framework and Planning Practice Guidance for Renewable and Low Carbon Energy.

Page 96 Page 97

This page is intentionally left blank

Page 98 Agenda Item 11

Allerdale Borough Council

Planning Application 2/2014/0484

Proposed Proposed siting of 1 x 30m high (hub) Endurance wind turbine with Development: a tip height of 45.0m Location: New Grange Dearham Maryport Applicant: Ms Julia Marrs Recommendation: Refused

Summary/Key Issues

Issue Conclusion

Principle of The Council seeks to promote the development of renewable and development low carbon energy resources provided the impacts (either in isolation or cumulatively) are, or can be made acceptable. Residential The proposed turbine is within 800m of three dwellings. New amenity Grange Farm and The Bungalow are the applicant’s farmhouse (400m) with a financial interest in the turbine. The other dwelling Low House Farm at 438 metres has expressed support.

Visual and The proposed turbine will increase the proliferation of turbines in landscape impact the immediate and surrounding area and it is considered that it will have a significant adverse impact upon visual amenity and landscape character. Cumula tive and The proposed turbine will complete a cluster of three turbines with sequential impact the approved sites at Fox House Farm and West House Farm with cumulative impact in the immediate locality. This in turn will add to the string of turbines seen sequentially from public vantage points and when passing along major transport routes through the District. Nature Subject to mitigation it is considered that the proposed conservation development would not have a significant adverse impact on nature conservation interests. Heritage The proposal will not have a significant adverse impact on any designated heritage assets Operational Subject to conditions relating to construction operations the requirements proposed development would not have an adverse impact on the highway network.

Page 99 Potential benefits The proposal will make a contribution to renewable energy deployment nationally. It would also contribute to the running costs of the farm business by creating an alternative source of income, supporting rural enterprise and economic activity.

Proposal

The proposal is for the erection of a single wind turbine on a concrete base of 30.52 metre hub height and 45.07 metre total height. The model specified is an Endurance X- 29 225kW turbine with three blades.

There are no details provided of any ancillary ground equipment or structures that may be required for operational purposes. Access is from the public highway via an existing farm track. Temporary reinforcement of the track surface is planned.

The supporting information indicates that the electricity generated by the proposed turbine would provide a sustainable and self sufficiency of power to the farm and its operational needs. Temporary excavations are required for cabling and connection to the National Grid.

Site and Surroundings

The application site comprises agricultural pasture land in open countryside associated with the applicant’s business of mixed farming. The landscape is generally flat in nature with gentle undulations.

Open fields with hedgerows and scattered trees are noted with small linear plantations. Grange Wood, a small plantation is near adjacent to the turbine site within 90 metres.

The proposed site is 400 metres south of the farm and the public highway. Public rights of way are noted traversing the fields to the north, west and east of the site within 350 metres.

The turbine site is at the 80 metre contour level.

The ground rises gently to the south with a high point of Tallentire Hill noted at 170 metres and falls to the Derwent Valley before rising again on the boundary of the lake District national Park 5km away.

The ground falls gradually to the north before falling to the River Ellen valley and then rising to a high point of 87 metres at Crosby and the A596 with the coast beyond.

The nearest dwellings are the applicant’s farmhouse and additional worker’s bungalow at New Grange Farm 400 metres north. Low House Farm in private ownership is 438 metres south-west.

The area is essentially rural in character with few individual dwellings nearby. The settlements of Dearham is 1.2 km west, Tallentire 1.4 km south, Gilcrux 2.1 km northeast, Crosby 2.8 km north-west, Broughton Moor 4.7 km south-west.

Page 100 Relevant Policies

National Planning Policy Framework

Planning Practice Guidance for Renewable and Low Carbon Energy July 2013

Allerdale Local Plan (Part 1) Adopted July 2014

Policy S1 - Presumption in favour of sustainable development Policy S14 - Rural economy Policy S19 - Renewable Energy and Low Carbon Technologies Policy S27 - Heritage Assets Policy S32 - Safeguarding amenity Policy S33 - Landscape Policy S35 - Protecting and enhancing biodiversity and geodiversity Policy S36 - Air, water and soil quality Policy S4 - Design principles Policy DM17 - Trees, hedgerows and woodland, Allerdale Local Plan (Part 1)

Representa tions

Dearham Parish Council – No objections

Gilcrux Parish Council – Object:

- Visual amenity – the turbine will be sited at an unscreened location. - Within 800 metres of a residential property contrary to Policy S19. - The cumulative effect on the parish comparable to a windfarm.

Oughterside and Allerby Parish Council – Object:

- Adverse visual impact visible across the parish and out of proportion with the rural landscape on the amenity of residents. - Noise disturbance and impact upon residents - Too close to residential properties contrary to Policy S19. - Cumulative impact - Concern over existing turbines not fully operational

Bridekirk Parish Council – Object:

- Too close to residential properties contrary to Policy S19. - Cumulative impact and industrialisation of a rural landscape. - Noise implications. - Concern over existing turbines not fully operational

Page 101 Carlisle Airport (Stobart Air) – No objection subject to any changes to the turbine installation are submitted to Carlisle Airport and any changes in aviation legislation are adhered to by the applicant with regard to corrective action and compliance with such legislation.

Ministry of Defence – No objection.

NATS – No safeguarding objection to the proposal following contractual financial agreement with the applicant for technical mitigation to ensure radar coverage.

Arquiva - Arquiva is responsible for providing the BBC and ITV transmission network and is responsible for ensuring the integrity of Re-Broadcast links and also protect its microwave networks. We have considered whether this development is likely to have an adverse impact on our operations and concluded that we have no objection to this application.

Natural England – No objection with standing advice

Cumbria County Council – Highway Authority – No objection in principles subject to conditions regarding safeguarding the highway from dirt and debris and the submission of a Construction and Traffic management Plan.

Environmental Protection - Have considered the additional cumulative noise assessment provided relevant to the Endurance turbine model and agree with the contents of the report and the conclusions reached. Recommend conditions be applied to any approval granted.

Electricity North West – No objection

FORCE – Object:

- Unacceptable impact on local landscape, increasing the number of turbines far in excess of CWESPD recommendations and contrary to national planning guidance, outweighing any gain in renewable energy output. - Unacceptable impact on residential amenity. - Inappropriate size and scale of the proposed turbine. Reference to small scale turbine not accurate. - The desktop noise report relates to a Norwin turbine model. (Officer comments that this has been remedied with an amended report to the satisfaction of Environmental Protection.) - Inadequate and unacceptable cumulative impact alongside other local wind energy developments. - Inadequate and poor quality photomontages. - Lack of photomontages from viewpoints in the near vicinity of the site and no photomontages from residential properties (excluding the Low House Farm with owners written support).

Page 102 - Reference to superseded planning policies with no attention to the 800 metre separation distance within Policy S19. - Proposals contrary to current National and Local Policies.

Westnewton Action Group – Object

- Unacceptable scale and size of turbine. - Unacceptable visual and residential impact not outweighed by any benefits. - The need for renewable energy does not automatically override environmental protections. - Inadequate cumulative impact assessment. - Government targets have already been reached. - The photomontages are unsatisfactory. Poor quality, distant views, misleading viewpoints. - Proposals contrary to current National and Local Policies including s19 and the 800 metre separation distance. - No details of essential infrastructure or ground equipment

The application has been advertised on site and by neighbour consultation letters.

Twenty-four letters of representation objecting to the application have been received. The main grounds of objection can be summarised as follows:

- Contrary to new Local Plan for Allerdale with regard to 800 metre separation distance within Policy S19. - Proliferation of wind turbines and cumulative impact on landscape. - Poor and misleading photomontages. - Visual impact in a rural area. - Noise disturbance. - The turbine will provide no benefits at all for the local community. - Impact on property values. - Allerdale already hosts 70% of Cumbria’s wind turbines. - Sufficient renewable energy projects have already been granted planning permission to meet EU targets. - More consultation required. - Ministerial Statement gives significant weight to local opinion and objection. - Impact upon the National Park. - Enjoyment of local footpaths nearby spoiled. - Impact on local drainage. - Solar energy a better option on farm buildings. - The site is within a flight path - The landscape type has no further capacity for more turbines - T.V. reception will be affected as with Tallentire residents.

One representation of support has been received from the nearest residential property to the turbine site Low House Farm.

Al the points of objection and matters raised by representations received have been fully reported within the body of the report.

Page 103 Assessment

Visual/Residential Amenity

In this case there are only three residential properties within 800m of the application site. New Grange Farm is the applicant’s farmhouse 400m north alongside The Bungalow (agricultural worker’s dwelling with occupancy condition) both with a financial interest in the turbine. The other dwelling Low House Farm at 438 metres south-west has expressed support in writing.

The applicant has assessed the visual impact from only one individual property being Low House Farm that has expressed ‘community’ support. The photomontage clearly shows the proposed turbine in full and open view from several angles. With support from the owner of Low House farm the applicant discounts this receptor as a constraint.

An assessment of residential impact has been provided from viewpoints 8 and 9 in Dearham with the conclusion that the turbine will not be seen. The viewpoints are from street frontage locations in the village with intervening buildings. Viewpoints from the rear of residential properties in Dearham and more significantly from the rear of properties nearer the turbine site at Row Brow Dearham have not been provided.

It is officer opinion that there will be some visual impact upon some properties in Dearham particularly at Row Brow but none would have their outlook so affected that their living conditions would be unacceptably degraded with a separation distance of 1.1- 1.6 km and with intervening electricity pylons.

Further viewpoints have been provided at a greater distance from the site close to nearby settlements of Greengill, Gilcrux, Tallentire, Prospect, Crosby Villa and Birkby. These give a indication of impact upon residential properties at or near these viewpoint locations. The distance and intervening buildings, structures and topography would appear to mitigate for any visual impact with living conditions not affected significantly.

Page 104

There is only one letter of support from Low House Farm and no objection from Dearham Parish Council. Local objection of twenty-eight residents has been received and objection from all neighbouring parishes.

Despite the lack of conclusive evidence from the applicant regarding residential impact, it is Officer opinion that there are no individual properties or settlements significantly harmed with regard to visual impact and residential amenity from the proposed turbine as a standalone structure. Low House Farm within 800 metres is an exception with moderate to high impact. However with the owner’s written support the constraint of 800 metre separation of Policy S19 is considered to have been overcome.

In relation to the potential impact of noise from the turbine on residential amenity, the Environmental Heath team advises that this can be mitigated through the use of planning conditions to limit the level of noise from the turbines to satisfy maximum noise levels. A revised noise assessment has been provided dealing with individual and cumulative noise impact relevant to the proposed Endurance turbine model.

It is generally acknowledged that the potential impact of shadow flicker on residential amenity is only likely to be an issue within 10 x rotor diameters of the turbine (in this case 300m) and within 130 o either site of north relative to the turbine. In this case there are no residential properties within the zone likely to be affected by shadow flicker.

The turbine site will be visible from a number of footpaths used for local public recreation but not considered to be harmful.

The matter of cumulative and sequential impact upon residential amenity is a wholly separate matter and considered in full below.

Visual and landscape impact

Policy S19 of the Allerdale Local Plan (Part 1) requires consideration to be given to the visual impact of the proposed turbine both individually and cumulatively.

Key Characteristics of this area are:

- A series of ridges and valleys that rise gently to the limestone fringes of the National Park - Well managed regularly shaped medium to large pasture fields - Hedge bound pasture fields dominate - Scattered farms and linear villages found along ridges - Fields are large and rectangular - Large scale structures generally scarce

This area is judged to have moderate landscape capacity to accommodate turbine

Page 105 development of up to a small group (3-5 turbines), exceptionally a large group (6-9 turbines).

The applicant has submitted a landscape and visual appraisal assessing the proposed development.

The appraisal includes a series of photomontages and assessment from a number of viewpoints in the vicinity of the site and as far away as 5.5 km.

This assessment seeks to demonstrate that whilst there would be some local visual and landscape impact, the turbine could, in the opinion of the applicant, be accommodated without any significant adverse impact. The applicant does acknowledge that the proposal would inevitably have some impact on the area, particularly within 2km of the application site, as it would be an additional high visual element in the landscape.

In relation to the issue of cumulative impact the applicant’s assessment acknowledges there are a number of viewpoints where the proposed turbine would be viewed in conjunction with existing and approved turbines but again concludes this would not result in a significant adverse effect on visual amenity and the landscape character of the area.

It is considered that the applicants Landscape and Visual Appraisal has some deficiencies as previously reported above with the lack of viewpoints at residential properties in Dearham and Row Brow, Dearham. Despite this the matter of cumulative and sequential impact can be assessed and concluded as follows.

Cumulative/Sequential Impact

In order to assess such impact the following turbines existing and approved have been taken into account. 1 turbine 77m West House 1.6 km 1 turbine 77m Fox House Farm 2.9 km 2 turbines 27m Bullgill 1.7 km 7 turbines 62m Wharrels Hill Bothel 8.5 km 3 turbines 107m Westnewton 7.5 km 6 turbines100m Tallentire 2-2.5 km 3 turbines115m Flimby 6.5 km 2 turbines 107m Eastmans, Siddick 10 km 7 turbines 60m Siddick 10 km 9 turbines 63m Oldside 12 km 1 turbine 92.5m Seaton 10 km 20 turbines 61-81m Winscales Moor 11km 3 turbines 100m Potato Pot 14 km 3 turbines 95m High Pow 16 km 6 turbines 68m Great Orton 30 km 4 turbines 121m Hellrigg 19 km

These sites are considered most relevant forming a string or necklace of turbine development in West Cumbria over a distance greater than 20 km parallel to the A66, A595 and A596. Other more dispersed turbines and smaller turbines may also add to the cumulative assessment from more distant views.

Page 106 Of some significance to the assessment of cumulative impact is the planning history regarding West House Farm and Fox House Farm reported as follows.

Both sites were considered by Development Panel and refused on the grounds of visual and landscape impact. The planning Inspectorate allowed both 77 metre turbines under separate decisions effectively judging that the landscape character had the capacity for both turbines without resulting in a ‘wind turbine landscape’.

The proposed turbine will form a distinct cluster of three high structures with the approved Fox House Farm and West House Farm turbines. The three turbines, if developed, will ‘fill a gap’ and encroach upon the cluster of six turbines (two clusters of three) at Tallentire. The clusters at Westnewton (3) and Wharrels Hill Bothel (9) continue the immediate string of turbines to the north with the group of three high turbines at Flimby Wood (Broughton Moor) to the south. This network of turbine development continues further to the north to Brakenbarrow, High Pow, Hellrigg and Great Orton with a culmination in the south at Winscales Moor via a sequence of turbines on the coast at Seaton, Siddick and Oldside.

The regular clusters of turbines over such distance already has significant cumulative and sequential impact when viewed from various vantage points over a large distance and when travelling through the area on the major and minor arterial routes including thenA595 A596 and A66.

The proposed turbine will only serve to add to this proliferation and overdevelopment of turbines in the landscape exceeding its capacity.

The proposal will clearly add to the cumulative and sequential impact in the area. Overall, it is considered that the turbine would have a significant adverse impact on visual amenity and the landscape of the surrounding area that is not outweighed by any benefits of renewable wind energy.

Impact on nature conservation interests

The proposed turbine is located within open pasture and within 90 metres of a small plantation of mixed trees. The nearest hedgerow is also at 90 metres.

The site does not have any local or national wildlife designations and there are no Sites of Special Scientific Interest in the area.

The applicant has provided a summary appraisal of the ecological issues and concludes as follows. As a non-designated site there is no evidence of protected flora, fauna or bird species at the site and in the immediate vicinity. The nearest sensitive site being the River Derwent SSSI is 4.5 km south-east and very unlikely to have any interaction with the application site.

The only ecological issue is the habitats found at and adjacent to the site. The installation of the proposed turbine would have no impact on the loss of habitat with no tree or hedgerow removal planned. Collision risk and disturbance or displacement of species are considered the only two effects that may occur. Given the habitats at the site, smaller more agile birds will be most common and the turbine blades are unlikely to have any

Page 107 significant impact.

Impact on any local bat population is considered unlikely as the hedgerow and tree habitat is more than 50 metres from the turbine site which accords with advice from Natural England that wind turbines are unlikely to affect bat populations where a 50m buffer is maintained from foraging habitat.

It is Officers’ opinion that an adequate assessment has been provided and that matters of ecological interest are not affected.

Impact on heritage assets and their settings

The nearest listed building is identified as Tallentire Hall 1.49km to the south in Tallentire. The grounds and its setting are marginally closer. Considering the separation distance and the relationship there is considered to be no harm to this Listed Building and its setting.

The nearest site of archaeological interest is Monument 1466804 being a post-medieval earthwork and furrow south west of Low House farm. This site is more than 400 metres from any proposed excavations and under no threat.

Electromagnetic Interference

The digital TV in the UK is not affected by electromagmetic interference previously associated with analogue reception. Any scattering or disruption of a signal is a rare occurrence and associated only with larger scale turbines. There is no recorded evidence of interference of any kind of signal from a turbine less than 45 metre high.

Proximity to airports and Flight Paths

There will be no impact on the flight paths of Carlisle airport 24 km and Dovenby Helipad 2.1 km. No objections have been received from statutory consultees on this matter.

Operational requirements, including the suitability of the road network

The main impacts of the proposed development on the road network would be associated with construction traffic. The Highway Authority has no objections to the proposal subject to a condition to protect the highway surface from dirt and debris during construction and t provide a comprehensive Construction and Traffic Management Plan.

Potential benefits to the local economy and local community

It is acknowledged that the proposed turbine will have local economic benefits in terms of the contribution it would make to the sustainability of the agricultural operation at the host farm.

Local Financial Considerations

Having regard to S70 (2) of the Town and Country Planning Act there are no local finance considerations that are relevant to the consideration of the application.

Page 108 Conclusion

Whilst recognising the potential benefits of the proposed wind turbine and the contribution it would make to meeting renewable energy and low carbon targets this must be balanced against the likely adverse cumulative impact on visual amenity and the impact the increased proliferation of turbines would have on the landscape character of the area. It is for this reasons that it is recommended that planning permission be refused.

Annex 1

Reasons for Refusal

1. The proposed turbine, by virtue of its siting, scale and proximity to other turbine development would increase the proliferation of turbines in the area resulting in a significantly harmful cumulative impact on the landscape and upon visual amenity of the area. The proposal is therefore considered contrary to policies S19, S32 and S33 of the Allerdale Local Plan (Part 1) adopted July 2014 and the advice contained within the National Planning Policy Framework and Planning Practice Guidance for Renewable and Low Carbon Energy.

Proactive Statement

Application Refused Following Discussion – Where there is no Way Forward

The Local Planning Authority has acted positively and proactively in determining this application by identifying planning policies, constraints, stakeholder representations and matters of concern with the proposal and discussing those with the Applicant. However, the issues are so fundamental to the proposal that it has not been possible to negotiate a satisfactory way forward and due to the harm which has been clearly identified within the reason(s) for the refusal, approval has not been possible.

Notes to Applicant:

Page 109 Page 110

Agenda Item 12

Allerdale Borough Council

Planning Application 2/2014/0698

Proposed Outline application for proposed local occupancy dwelling Development: Location: Land Between Church and Beech Cottages Welton Carlisle Applicant: Mr & Mrs I Henderson

Recommendatio n: Refused

Summary/Key Issues

Issue Conclusion

Principle of Principle of development in this location is not supported by Development development plan policies Access Acceptable to the Highway Authority

Site Not well related to existing built development

Historic The proposal would have a detrimental affect on the setting of a Environment listed building

Proposal

The application seeks outline permission for a single dwelling at Welton. Whilst this is an outline application the applicant has stated the proposal is for a four bedroomed dwelling.

Site

The proposed site is currently an agricultural field located within the open countryside. The site is bound by two minor highways to the north east and south west. St James Church is located in a solitary position to the south west of the site and a listed building is located to the north east of the site both these properties are separated by the highway. No built development is located within this agricultural field.

Relevant Policies

National Planning Policy Framework

Page 111 Building a strong, competitive economy Conserving and enhancing the natural environment Conserving and enhancing the historic environment Delivering a wide choice of high quality homes Requiring good design

Allerdale Local Plan (Part 1)

Policy DM2 - Rural workers dwellings Policy DM14 - Standards of Good Design Policy S1 - Presumption in favour of sustainable development Policy S2 - Sustainable development principles (excluding highways) Policy S3 - Spatial Strategy and Growth Policy S4 - Design principles Policy S5 - Development Principles Policy S7 - A mixed and balanced housing market Policy S27 - Heritage Assets Policy S29 - Flood Risk and Surface Water Drainage Policy S32 - Safeguarding amenity

Relevant Planning History

No relevant site history

Representations

Parish Council – Support the application on the grounds that, the public consultation undertaken in preparing the Council's Parish Plan showed that 60% of those responding were in favour of providing a limited amount of additional housing to meet the needs of local people and to help sustain the village. At about the same time the Allerdale Housing Needs Survey also recommended that nine housing units were needed for the parish. Although this recommended allocation may have been superseded by the Allerdale Local Plan, providing this application does not create a precedent the parish council believes the proposal would not have any adverse impact on the area, and therefore supports the application.

Highways – No objections subject to conditions

Environmental Health – No objections

Conservation Officer – Has verbally confirmed that any dwelling in this location would have a detrimental affect on the setting of the Grade II listed building The Kennels and The Kennels Cottage and adjoining barns.

The application has been advertised on site and adjoining landowners have been notified. No representations have been received to date.

Main Issues:

Page 112 The applicant indicates that the property would initially be for an agricultural worker in association with the applicant’s farm at Nether Welton 1.4km to the north west of the proposed site. The applicant currently lives on the farm and has indicated that they wish to retire to the village and would eventually wish to reside in the proposed dwelling.

The applicant has indicated that the property would be for a local occupancy dwelling; however, has also stated that the application is not an application for a dwelling under provisions of Policy DM2 (rural workers dwellings) and no agricultural justification has been provided.

Principle

Welton is not included within the settlement hierarchy as set out in Local Plan Policy S3 and any development outside the defined settlements should only be permitted where it satisfies one of the stated criteria set out in this policy, which would include housing essential for rural workers. Whilst the applicant has stated the proposed dwelling would initially be used for an agricultural worker and subsequently the applicant when they retire and move out of their rented farmhouse, no attempt has been made to put forward an agricultural justification to demonstrate the essential need for the dwelling.

Policy DM2 of the Local Plan clearly sets out the criteria to be addressed when considering proposals for rural workers dwellings. This includes the availability of other dwellings or buildings which might fulfil the need. Where a need has been demonstrated the dwelling should be of a size, cost and construction commensurate with the established functional requirement. The applicant has made no attempt to demonstrate that the requirements of this policy have been met.

The applicant has also failed to demonstrate that the proposal would fall under any of the other exception criteria for dwellings located outside the areas identified within the settlement hierarchy.

The site is judged to be poorly related to the existing, traditional built form of Welton and detached from the main built development of the village which is centred off the B5299.

The dwellings opposite do not provide a connecting nucleus of residential development and do not provide an association or grouping for the proposed site. There is little relationship with the listed building to the north of the site.

The development of this site would be harmful to the appearance and distinctiveness of the traditional village form which is essentially concentrated along the highway. The proposed development would only serve to add to modern sporadic development within the village particularly as the only built development within this area are historic properties. The proposals would therefore be contrary to the development principles of Policy S4 and DM14.

The development is considered unsustainable and poorly related beyond the traditional built form of the village with no benefits that outweigh such harm. Policies S1, S2, S3, S4 and S5 of the Allerdale Local Plan are not satisfied and the core principles of the NPPF not satisfied.

Page 113 Setting of Listed Building

The Grade II listed building, The Kennels and The Kennels Cottage and adjoining barns is located to the north east of the site and has a rural agricultural setting which is adjoined by a further listed building Welton Farm to the west. The listed building is of a simple form and is defined by the rural nature of the property particularly when viewed from the highway running from the village hall towards Welton. The setting would also affect the listed buildings relationship with the church from the other minor highway to the north of the site.

It is considered that the setting of the listed building would be significantly affected by the addition of any modern property in this location. The detrimental affect on the setting of the building is not considered to outweigh any benefits arising from the proposal and therefore would be contrary to policy S27 of the Allerdale Local Plan and Chapter 12 of the NPPF.

Access

The Highway Authority has raised no objections to the position of the access subject to the imposition of conditions.

Layout/Design/Landscaping

The layout of the site is illustrative only. With the principle of development and access being the only formal considerations of this application, such matters are not applicable and would remain reserved should an outline consent be subsequently granted.

The same would apply to any visual or residential impact from the proposed dwelling.

Drainage

It is considered that suitable drainage arrangements could be achieved on site and these matters could be conditioned should an outline consent be granted.

Residential Amenity

The existing dwellings will not be unreasonably affected by virtue of separation distance and siting. The new entrance driveway will pose minimal highway danger or inconvenience.

It is considered that on balance there will be no unreasonable impact from noise or disturbance with siting, design and landscaping reserved matters that could mitigate any noise. Environmental Health offers no objection.

Affordable Housing

The numbers proposed and site area of 0.94ha does not trigger the need for affordable housing. The proposal would not be classed as a rural exception site in terms of rural affordable housing.

Page 114 Local Financial Considerations

Having regard to S70 (2) of the Town and Country Planning Act. There are local financial considerations relevant to an approval of this application with the New Homes Bonus. This has carried no weight in the determination.

Conclusion

The applicant has failed to demonstrate the need for a dwelling outside the defiend settlement hierarchy.

The proposed site is considered poorly related to the traditional built form of the village with adverse impact upon settlement character and setting of the nearby listed building.

There are no benefits of this development that outweigh such harm contrary to the policies of the Allerdale Local Plan and the core principles of sustainable development of the NPPF and the Policies of the Allerdale Local Plan.

Annex 1

Reason for Refusal

The applicant has failed to demonstrate the need for a dwelling outside of the settlements define in Policy S3 of the Allerdale Local Plan (Part 1).The proposed site is considered poorly related to the existing traditional built form of the village with adverse impact upon settlement character and the setting the nearby listed building. There are considered no benefits that outweigh such harm contrary to Policies S1, S2, S3, S5, S27, DM2 and DM14 of the Allerdale Local Plan (Part 1) and the core principles of sustainable development of the NPPF.

Proac tive Statement

The Local Planning Authority has acted positively and proactively in determining this application by identifying planning policies, constraints, stakeholder representations and matters of concern with the proposal and discussing those with the Applicant. However, the issues are so fundamental to the proposal that it has not been possible to negotiate a satisfactory way forward and due to the harm which has been clearly identified within the reason(s) for the refusal, approval has not been possible.

Notes to Applicant:

Page 115 Page 116

Agenda Item 13

Allerdale Borough Council

Planning Application 2/2014/0753

Reference No: 2/2014/0753 Valid Date: 10/10/2014 Location: Strawberry How Cattery Cockermouth Applicant: Mr & Mrs Craine

Drawing Numbers: PB1 - Location plan PB.D-01 - Existing and proposed floor plans & elevations

Proposed Change of use of cattery with associated building works to create Development: dwelling and removal of condition number 5 of permission 2/2001/0228 to remove occupancy condition attaching cattery to existing dwelling Recommendation: Approved

Summary/Key Issues

Issue Conclusion

Principle of The creation of a dwelling within the settlement limits of a key Development service centre is considered acceptable in principle subject to satisfaction of other policy criteria. Existing The proposed change of use is considered acceptable within the employment use terms of Policies S12 and DM3 and the NPPF as well as in the context of recent local decisions. Other issues The proposals are considered acceptable in terms of impacts on the character of the area, local amenity and access to and around the development. Removal of condition 5 is acceptable and consequential on cessation of the cattery use.

Proposal

The proposal is for conversion of an existing cattery to a bungalow with building alterations.

In addition the following condition, condition 5 attached to planning permission

Page 117 2/2001/0228, would be removed: ‘The occupation of the dwelling hereby permitted shall be limited to a person solely or mainly employed at the cattery boarding unit hereby permitted (including any dependants of such a person residing with him or her).’

External alterations would involve insertion of a new entrance door with two windows to either side of it on the currently blank west elevation facing the access road. On the east elevation, three large windows would replace the existing door and windows. On the south elevation, a new door and window would replace a single window. The north elevation, facing the existing bungalow, would remain blank as it is now. Internally new walls dividing the interior into a lounge, kitchen-dining room, two bedrooms, a bathroom, hall and utility room would replace the cattery.

Site

The application site is located on the south side of Strawberry How Road, Cockermouth. The site contains an existing bungalow, ‘School Gardens’ nearest to Strawberry How Road with a detached garage alongside and the cattery building to the rear. Access is via a service road off Strawberry Road with an open parking area in front of the cattery building.

The applicant also controls land immediately to the south, which is outlined in blue on the location plan and for which outline planning permission 2/2012/0799 was approved in February 2013 for a residential building.

To the west of the site is Grayson Close which is mainly residential but with a children’s nursery and office buildings. To the east and to the north are agricultural fields.

Relevant Planning History

2/2001/0228 – outline application for erection of bungalow and cattery boarding unit – Approved 20 April 2001

2/2001/0480 – reserved matters for the erection of a bungalow and associated boarding cattery unit – Approved 17 July 2001

2/2001/0856 – erection of detached garage with integral isolation unit associated with cattery – Approved 1 November 2001

2/2006/0975 – proposed additional cattery facilities and commercial office space with accommodation over – Refused 11 December 2006 (and subsequent appeal dismissed).

2/2007/0087 – removal of Planning Permission 2/2001/0228 condition 5 – Refused 12 June 2007

2/2012/0799 – Land adjacent to Strawberry How Cattery – outline application for a residential dwelling – Approved 27 February 2013.

Representations

Page 118 Cockermouth Town Council – Recommend refusal as the site should be retained as an employment site.

Highways - No objections as, bearing in mind the existing use of the premises, the proposal would not lead to an increase in vehicular traffic

Fire Officer – No comment to date

Neighbour Comments – the application has been advertised on site and neighbouring properties have been notified. No comments to date.

Councillor Comments – the application has been called in by Councillor Standage on the grounds of public interest

Main Issues:

Principle of development

The proposal involves the creation of a residential dwelling within the settlement limits of Cockermouth which is defined in the Allerdale Local Plan (Part 1) as a Key Service Centre within the settlement hierarchy. As such the site is considered a sustainable location for a residential dwelling and the development would be in accordance with Local Plan Policies S1, S3 and S5 and with the core principles of the National Planning Policy Framework.

Existing employment use of the site

The application site was part of a 0.35ha allocation for business use under Policy CEM3 of the Allerdale Local Plan 1999. In general the site allocations from the 1999 Local Plan remain pending approval of the Allerdale Local Plan (Part 2 – Site Allocations) but in this case the relevant Policy, CEM3, is listed as deleted in Appendix 9 of the Allerdale Local Plan (Part 1) approved in July 2014. No weight can therefore be attached to this allocation.

Local Plan Policies S12 and DM3 aim to protect existing employment land regardless of their allocation. Policy S12 allows proposals for non-B1, B2 and B8 uses where they accord with other plan policies. Policy DM3 requires that for alternative use proposals applicants must address specified criteria. In the Design and Access Statement submitted with the application, the applicant addresses these criteria with the following comments. The cattery is no longer a viable or practical proposition. The cattery and bungalow have been advertised as a going concern but with no interest. There are six other catteries within a 22 mile radius of Cockermouth. Closure of the business would not adversely affect the wider supply of this service. Other commercial uses, including distribution and live work would not be appropriate given the size of the premises and the residential surroundings.

Paragraph 22 of the National Planning Policy Framework says local planning policies should avoid long-term protection of sites where there is no reasonable prospect of a site being used for the allocated purpose.

Page 119 In the immediate vicinity of the application site and within the same 1999 Allerdale Local Plan CEM3 allocation, residential developments have already been approved. On adjoining land to the south, outline planning permission 2/2012/0799 was granted for a residential dwelling and, on land opposite the application site, planning permission 2/2010/0964 was granted for a dwellinghouse (and 2/2011/0200 for a revised dwelling type). These approvals followed earlier refusal of application 2/2009/0749 for residential development of the site opposite and subsequent dismissal of an appeal against that refusal. However, the grounds for the appeal dismissal did not relate to the employment allocation. The inspector found that the site did not constitute strategically important employment land in the locality and would not conflict with Policy CEM3 of the Allerdale Local Plan. It was acknowledged that part of the allocated employment site known as Grayson Close had been previously developed for housing and that there were alternative locations for employment uses which were likely to be more attractive to businesses. Development of housing on this particular site therefore would not conflict with Policy CEM3 of the Allerdale Local Plan. The subsequent approvals were consistent with the inspector’s findings.

Bearing in mind the recent local decisions, the National Planning Policy Framework provisions relating to employment use protection and the justification provided by the applicant, and notwithstanding the views of the Town Council about employment use retention, it is considered that the proposed use would be acceptable within the terms of the National Planning Policy Framework and Allerdale Local Plan Policies S12 and DM3.

Other Issues:

In terms of appearance, the existing cattery building matches nearby residential buildings in terms of design and use of materials. The proposed alterations indicated on the submitted drawings would be sympathetic in terms of design provided the materials used match the existing. There are no notes regarding materials on the application drawings or in the Design and Access Statement. A condition attached to the planning permission would ensure that matching materials are used. Access to the proposed converted cattery and the existing bungalow would be as existing for vehicles, which is considered acceptable to the Highway Authority. Overall, in terms of residential amenity, design, access and impacts on the character of the area, it is considered that subject to imposition of a condition regarding use of matching materials, the proposal would be acceptable in terms of Allerdale Local Plan (Part 1) Policies S2, S4 and DM14 and the National Planning Policy Framework.

With regard to the removal of condition 5, this condition was originally applied in order to protect an employment use. Once the cattery is converted, it would clearly make no sense to limit occupation to a person employed at a cattery that does not exist. Removal of the condition as part of the approved development is therefore considered acceptable.

Local Financial Considerations

Having regard to S70 (2) of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 (as amended) the proposal could attract ‘New Homes Bonus’.

Conclusion

Page 120

Officers consider that the proposed development would be an acceptable change of use and recommend members approve the proposal.

Annex 1

Conditions

2. The development hereby permitted shall be carried out in accordance with the following plans: PB1 - Location plan PB.D-01 - Existing and proposed floor plans & elevations Reason: In order to ensure a satisfactory standard of development.

3. None of the alterations to the cattery building to be carried out as part of the development hereby permitted shall be commenced until samples of the bricks to be used have been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The alterations shall be carried out and completed in accordance with the approved details prior to the occupation of the converted cattery. Reason: To ensure the use of appropriate materials in the interests of visual amenity in compliance with the Natioanl Planning Policy Framework and Policies S4 and DM14 of the Allerdale Local Plan (Part 1), Adopted July 2014.

Proactive Statement

Application Approved Following Revisions

Notes to Applicant:

Page 121 Page 122

Agenda Item 14

Allerdale Borough Council

Planning Application 2/2014/0550

Reference No: 2/2014/0550 Valid Date: 29/07/2014 Location: Roddings House Greenrow Silloth Wigton Applicant: Eric Stanwix

Drawing Numbers: 13/723/1.B - Site Plan 13/723/2.B - Block Plan 13/723.3 A - Proposed Shed 13/723/4 - Block Plan

Proposed Proposed shed to house agricultural machinery - resubmission Development: 2/2014/0055 Recommendation: Refused

Summary/Key Issues

Issue Conclusion

Siting The proposal would involve non essential development outside a defined settlement, contrary to planning policy. Landscape setting As an isolated structure of reasonable size in this location, the proposal would be visually intrusive so as to have an adverse visual impact on the landscape. Scale and Design The proposal is of an appropriate scale and design for the use.

Amenity The proposal would not have any significant adverse impact upon adjacent residential amenity. Ecology The proposal would not impact upon local ecology.

World Heritage Site The proposal would not impact upon the setting of the World Heritage Site.

Site

The development site comprises a paddock to the north east of Roddings House, to the south east of Silloth settlement.

Page 123 The paddock is accessible currently via a track to the north east, separating the site from the adjacent housing development at Greenrow Meadows. An access gate to the site is also available via a track from Roddings House.

The site is bound by a hedge of varying heights.

Proposal

The proposal involves the erection of a shed to house agricultural machinery. The shed would have a footprint of 18.3m x 12.2m, height to eaves of 4m and overall height of approx 6m. The shed would be constructed using pre cast concrete panels with olive green plastisol profiled metal cladding over, olive green plastisol profiled metal roof cladding and sectional up and over doors.

The proposal would be accessed via the track running through the garden area of Roddings House.

Relevant Policies

National Planning Policy Framework Chapter 3 – Supporting a prosperous rural economy Paragraph 7 Paragraph 17

Allerdale Local Plan (Part 1) July 2014 Policy DM6 - Equestrian and agricultural buildings Policy S3 - Spatial Strategy and Growth Policy S14 - Rural economy

Relevan t Planning History

None

Representations

Town Council – Recommend approval

Environmental Health – No objections

Highways – No objections

Natural England – No objections

English Heritage – Comment that they do not believe the proposal would harm the setting of the World Heritage Site

Cumbria Wildlife Trust – No comment to date

Page 124 The application has been advertised on site and neighbouring properties have been notified.

One letter of objection has been received from an adjacent resident citing concerns that: • The proposal is large in comparison the objectors single storey dwelling and would block out the landscape to the rear of the property so as to dominate the landscape and block daylight. • The building will be used by a variety of heavy and noisy agricultural machinery to the detriment of the adjacent dwelling houses. • The applicant has already started works by tipping a large quantity of hardcore.

Assessment

Siting

The application has been submitted as an application relating to maintenance of agricultural land managed by the occupier of Roddings House. The shed is required to store machinery associated with the land, equating to approximately 90 acres. The applicant states that the land is tenanted for 6 months of the year, however, the applicant has responsibility for ongoing maintenance of the land including draining of ditches, hedge trimming and maintenance of fences.

Previously, storage for the land was available at Blitterless Farm, however, this is no longer within the applicant’s control and this storage is no longer available. The proposed building is therefore required to store machinery, equipment, tools and the fuel tank in association with these practices.

The National Planning Policy Framework sets out in its agenda to achieve sustainable development, a desire for the planning system to play an environmental role in protecting and enhancing the natural, built and historic environment (paragraph 7). The core planning principles contained within paragraph 17 of the NPPF identifies the importance of protecting the character and beauty of the countryside.

Policy S3 of the Allerdale Local Plan (Part 1) enforces this in stipulating new development should be located within defined settlements. Proposals outside defined settlements will be limited to specific developments appropriate to the site and essentially required in a countryside location.

Policy DM6 of the Allerdale Local (Part 1) specifies that agricultural development will only be permitted where development is ‘closely related to existing farm buildings or other groups of buildings.’ Policy S14 of the Allerdale Local Plan (Part 1) supports ‘proposals for appropriately designed and related agricultural development and buildings’.

The siting of the proposed building would constitute an agricultural building outside Silloth settlement, separated from farm structures or other groups of building and poorly related to any surrounding agricultural development.

Despite the applicant’s submission that the shed is required to house machinery and tools in association with maintenance of agricultural land, it remains that this land is not

Page 125 farmed by the applicant and any such maintenance would be sporadic throughout the year. Given the limited requirement for the machinery and that there are no existing farm buildings and practices on the site, there seems little justification to warrant approval of such a shed in this location.

The siting of the proposed building is therefore considered to be contrary to current policy guidelines.

Landscape Setting

The building is proposed to be sited to the rear of the Roddings House and adjacent to the residential development at Greenrow Meadows. The buildings position and scale would mean it would be viewable above the separating field hedge. As a stand alone structure, this would result in the building having a visual impact upon this part of the open countryside.

Policy DM6 of the Allerdale Local Plan (Part 1) 2013 stipulates that agricultural buildings should be ‘closely related to existing farm buildings or other groups of buildings, and where this is not possible, development . (should be) designed and sited to minimise impact on the landscape setting’.

The applicants proposal is not significantly large in agricultural terms, however, the scale of the structure in relation to the adjacent residential development would be visually prominent in this landscape so as to have a detrimental visual impact upon this area of open countryside.

The proposal’s impact upon the landscape setting of the surrounding open countryside is therefore considered to be contrary to current policy guidelines.

Scale and Design

The proposed building is of a scale and design commensurate with general agricultural development. It is also considered to be suitable for the proposed use.

The scale and design of the proposal are therefore considered to be in compliance with current policy guidelines.

Amenity

The proposal is located approx 18m south east of the dwellings at Greenrow Meadows, separated by an intervening lane and hedge.

An objector at Greenrow Meadows indicates they consider the proposal would impact upon the levels of daylight available to their property. The separation distance of 18m is considered sufficient distance to limit any potential impact upon the residential amenity of these dwellings and would not impact upon the daylight available to the adjacent dwellings.

Similarly, the objector cites concerns that the proposal could result in noise emanating from machinery using the building. Whilst there would be some vehicular movement

Page 126 along the lane, there is nothing to suggest that this would be so frequent so as to create an adverse impact on adjacent residential amenity. Likewise, the lane to the rear of Greenrow Meadows could be used by agricultural machinery currently. No objections have been raised by the Environmental Health Department.

The proposal’s impact upon the residential amenity of the area is considered to be in compliance with current policy guidelines.

Ecology

The site is located within a site of wildlife interest for newts. The applicant has submitted a ecological survey to assess the assess the potential impact the proposal would have on the newt population.

The report concludes that the species are unlikely to be affected by the proposed works. No objections have been raised by Natural England.

World Heritage Site

The site is situated within the Hadrians Wall World Heritage Site. English Heritage comment that the proposal would not impact directly on any archaeological remains or harm the ability to appreciate and understand Roman military planning and land use and would not harm the setting of the World Heritage Site.

Local Financial Considerations

Having regard to S70 (2) of the Town and Country Planning Act the proposal would not result in any local financial considerations.

Conclusion

Given that there is little justification for the building at the site, and that the proposed building is isolated from existing agricultural structures so as to impact upon the surrounding landscape setting, it is considered that the proposal would constitute non essential development outside a defined settlement.

The proposed building is considered unacceptable in terms of its siting in isolation and harmful visual impact upon the open countryside, contrary to Chapter 3 of the NPPF, paragraphs 7 and 17 of the NPPF, Policies S3, S14 and DM6 of the Allerdale Local Plan (Part 1).

The application is recommended for refusal.

Annex 1

Conditions

The proposed agricultural development, by reason of its siting, would form a non essential, visually obtrusive form of agriculutral development, outside a defined

Page 127 settlement, which would detract from the character and appearance of the area within which it is located. The proposal is therefore contrary to Paragraphs 7 and 17 of the National Planning Policy Framework, Policies S3, S14 and DM6 of the Allerdale Local Plan (Part 1) Approved July 2014.

Proactive Statement

The Local Planning Authority has acted positively and proactively in determining this application by identifying planning policies, constraints, stakeholder representations and matters of concern with the proposal and discussing those with the Applicant. However, the issues are so fundamental to the proposal that it has not been possible to negotiate a satisfactory way forward and due to the harm which has been clearly identified within the reason(s) for the refusal, approval has not been possible.

Notes to Applicant:

Page 128

Page 129 This page is intentionally left blank

Page 130 Agenda Item 15

Allerdale Borough Council

Planning Application 2/2014/0763

Proposed Replacement Windows Development: Location: 31 Ritson Wharf Maryport Applicant: Miss Miriam Nash Recommendation: Approved

Summary/Key Issues

Issue Conclusion

Design It is considered that the proposed windows will not result in a detrimental impact upon the locality setting or on the existing building

Proposal

Planning permission is sought to replace an existing dark brown timber windows and with a brown UPVC tilt and turn double glazed units, 31 Ritson Wharf, Maryport.

Site

This property is a flat on the top floor within the Maryport settlement limit overlooking the harbour. The flat forms part of the Ritson Wharf harbourside residential complex. The development is outside the Conservation Area but directly adjacent to it. The existing windows on the complex are all of the same colour; dark brown and are of the similar design, they are both modern and simple in profile thereby making them easier to replicate in UPVC.

Rel evant Policies

National Planning Policy Framework Chapter 7 – Requiring good design

Allerdale Local Plan (Part 1) July 2014 Policy S4 – Design Principles Policy DM15 – Extensions and alterations to existing buildings and properties

Page 131 Relevant Planni ng History

2/2007/1153 – 2 Ritson Wharf - Replacement of wooden framed windows with PVC windows -Approved

2/2008/0330- 12 Ritson Wharf, Maryport - Replace existing hardwood bay window and fascia board with a brown UPVC double glazed unit - Approved

2/2013/0599 - 11, 13, 15 Ritson Wharf - Replacement of existing wood windows with UPVC windows in apartment properties. – Approved

Representations

Maryport Town Council – No response to date

Highways – No objections as it is considered that the proposal does not affect the highway

The application has been advertised on site and neighbouring properties have been notified. No resulting representations have been received. The site notice is to expire on the 17 th November any further comments will be reported to the panel verbally. Assessment

Design This property is a flat on the top floor within the Maryport settlement limit overlooking the harbour. The development is outside the Maryport Conservation Area but directly adjacent to it.

The existing windows on the complex are all of the same colour; dark brown and are of the similar design, they are both modern and simple in profile thereby making them easier to replicate in UPVC.

The proposal is to replace the existing 5 timber windows with uPVC double glazed windows. The proposal is to use ‘rosewood’ finish which will match that of the existing windows and is to integrate well within the existing development. The materials used have previously been approved on the site.

There have been previous approvals on the complex under 2/2007/1153, 2/2008/0330 and 2/2013/0599 to install UPVC windows in other of the flats on Ritson Wharf complex. Officers consider no adverse impact in the setting would be incurred.

Taking all of the above into account it is considered that the proposal will not result in a detrimental effect on the building itself or the surrounding area. The proposal is therefore considered acceptable and complies with current planning policy.

Local Financial Considerations

Having regard to S70 (2) of the Town and Country Planning Act the proposal does not

Page 132 have any local finance considerations

Conclusion

Taking all of the above into account it is considered that the proposal does not result in a detrimental effect on the building itself or the surrounding area. The proposal is therefore considered acceptable and complies with Policies Allerdale Local Plan.

Annex 1

Conditions

2. The development hereby permitted shall be carried out in accordance with the following plans: BR1 - Brochure Details DR1 - Site Location Plan, Block Plan & Proposed Windows EX1 - Exsiting Windows EX2 - Existing Windows EX3 - Existing Windows Reason: In order to ensure a satisfactory standard of development.

Proactive Statement

The Local Planning Authority has acted positively and proactively in determining this application by assessing the proposal against all material considerations, including planning policies and any stakeholder representations that may have been received and subsequently determining to grant planning permission in accordance with the presumption in favour of sustainable development, as set out within the National Planning Policy Framework.

Notes to Applicant:

Page 133 Page 134