SL/2017/0715
PARISH: Lower Holker Land Off Manorside, Flookburgh, Grange-over-Sands. LA11 7JS.
PROPOSAL: Erection of extra care residential development consisting of 61no. apartments and communal facilities together with access, car parking and communal landscaped garden. (Full Planning Application)
APPLICANT: Mr Peter Bowden and Mr Paul Crossland (Bowsall Ltd and Housing and Care 21).
Grid Ref: E: 336900 N: 475764
1 4 MP SP 13.50
6 F SP A 1 I R 2 F T 49 I r E a L Brome ck D 45
G r 5 ee na c re s 41
12 21 33 43
e os Church 14 ntr Mo View
G R E
8 17 D E 1 R N A Sunny Bank H C L R A
O N 6 'S A E Glen Lea
LL E 1 Nursery Briar Lea 23 1
23a 3 1 es ston Church Tel Ex
Lay-by 13.4m 71 Crown 57 5 Inn 5 15.7m 7 43 27 47 53 5 37 B
MARKET STREET 31 33 10.0m PH 27 67
25 SP
3 3 13 15 2 El LB 7
m Sub .2 2
14 8
24 Sta
0 4 3 4
1 4
1
Cross 6 J E
4 1 2 o
D
i I n
S e Bridge
R r y O House
S N
A 2 h
o M
p
3
1
2
MP 13.25
3
T r
2 a
1 c
k S 6
t
o 3 7
c
k
d
5
a
l
e
6
F 0 1
3
1
1
a
9
r
m
Marsh Gardens
P ath Flookburgh Issues Collects
6 Smallholding
7
8
6.3m
Issues "
SL/2017/0715 The material contained in this plot has been reproduced from an Ordnance Survey map with permission of the Controller of Her Majesty's Stationery Office. Land off Manorside Licence No. 100024277 © Crown Copyright Unauthorised reproduction infringes Crown Copyright Flookburgh and may lead to prosecution or civil proceedings GRANGE over SANDS LA11 7JS
Scale: 1:2500 SUMMARY
1. A Full Planning Application for the erection of extra care residential development consisting of 61no. apartments and communal facilities together with access, car parking and communal landscaped garden on land off Manorside, Flookburgh, Grange-over-Sands.
2. The primary issues comprise: - the principle of extra care development on land allocated for residential development in the Land Allocations Development Plan Document (LADPD); - the impact upon the delivery of land allocated for residential development in the LADPD; - the provision of affordable housing; - the impact of the development upon landscape and settlement character; - the impact upon highway safety; and, - the management of surface water.
3. The application is brought for consideration by Members of the Planning Committee as the application was called in by Councillor Gill Gardner.
RECOMMENDATION
4. The application is recommended for refusal for the reasons outlined at the end of this report.
DESCRIPTION AND PROPOSAL
Site Description
5. The application site comprises c.0.6 ha of agricultural land located to the east of Manorside, Flookburgh.
6. The site is bounded by: the care home known as Bridge House to the north; the residential development of Manorside to the west; an existing track to the east; and, agricultural land to the south.
7. The site is enclosed by a combination of established hedgerows and trees.
8. The land is minimally higher in level than Manorside to the west; however, is at a level below Market Street to the north where this elevates to bridge the railway line.
9. The site is principally located in Flood Zone 1, with the south and west boundaries located in Flood Zone 2 and Flood Zone 3.
10. The site is not identified as being the subject of surface water drainage issues.
11. The application site comprises part of land allocation ‘East of Manorside’, which is identified for housing development in Policy LA1.3 of the LADPD.
Proposal
12. This application seeks Full Planning Permission for the erection of an extra care residential development consisting of 61 (sixty-one) apartments and communal facilities together with access, car parking and communal landscaped garden on land off Manorside, Flookburgh, Grange-over-Sands.
13. The proposed comprises a three storey building comprising three connected elements. The western element of the building faces onto Manorside, with the eastern element orientated to follow the alignment of the eastern boundary. The central section is angled to connect the western and eastern elements.
14. The proposed comprises a combination of apartments and communal facilities at ground floor level with apartments at the first and second floor levels.
15. The proposed apartments comprise the following: - 20 (twenty) one bedroom apartments for affordable rent; - 12 (twelve) two bedroom apartments for affordable rent; and, - 29 (twenty-nine) two bedroom apartments for affordable shared ownership.
16. The proposed communal facilities comprise: a lounge, kitchen, dining room, hair salon and wellbeing suite, elements of which would be open to members of the public.
17. A range of care options would exist within the facility provided by the proposed operator Housing and Care 21, with other care providers also able to offer their services.
18. It is proposed to finish the building with render, reconstituted stone and concrete tiles.
19. Access to the development is proposed from Manorside to the west connecting to a vehicle parking and manoeuvring area comprising 23 (twenty- three) car parking spaces and a larger vehicle space.
20. A landscaped communal garden is proposed; however, full details are not proposed.
21. Foul and surface water drainage is proposed to the public main and watercourse respectively.
CONSULTATIONS
22. The application has been advertised by way of a planning application site notice, press notice and notification letters sent to 21(twenty-one) neighbouring properties.
23. 7 (seven) external consultees and 3 (three) internal consultees have been consulted in respect of the application. Representations have been received from all consultees.
Lower Holker Parish Council:
24. Object.
Scale of Development;
25. The development is inappropriately sized for the small rural village of Flookburgh. The building would be the largest building in Flookburgh, being approx. five times the size of the adjacent Bridge House.
26. The development would result in an 18% increase in the number of residents living in Flookburgh.
27. The demographic of residents would place significant pressure on existing health facilities in Flookburgh.
Appearance of Development;
28. The proposed materials are not in keeping with the other buildings in the village or the parish.
Design;
29. The design is completely different to all other buildings in the village and the parish and due to the size and location would be clearly visible to everyone approaching Flookburgh from the east.
30. The scale of the building is not in keeping with the remainder of the village.
Highway Safety;
31. The access to and from the site by vehicles and pedestrians is unsafe for the additional traffic.
32. The junction of Manorside with Market Street has limited visibility in both directions, with Market Street the subject of high levels of vehicular traffic associated with the services and tourism development in the local area.
33. A continuous footway does not existing for the proposed development to Flookburgh Square or the bus stop on Allithwaite Road. If approved, a pedestrian footway should be required over the railway bridge to serve the development.
34. The assessment contained within the Transport Statement prepared by Croft Transport Solutions is based on evidence from other schemes in town centres, the fringes of towns or suburban location. None are in rural areas with limited public transport as is the case in Flookburgh.
Parking;
35. Insufficient vehicle parking is proposed and would result in increased pressure and parking issues on Manorside.
36. The number of vehicle parking spaces does not accord with the provisions of the Cumbria County Council Design Guide.
Transport;
37. Public transport provision within Flookburgh is extremely limited and not sufficient to serve the needs of the residents of the proposed development.
Flood Risk;
38. An element of the site is located in Flood Zone 2 and Flood Zone 3.
39. In the event of a flood the number of vehicle parking spaces would be limited to 13 (thirteen).
40. The proposed raising of the surrounding ground level would increase the risk of flooding on adjacent land.
Structure;
41. The requirement for piled foundations will result in considerable noise disturbance during construction.
Local Demand;
42. There is no demonstrated demand for this type and scale of facility in Flookburgh.
Loss of Privacy;
43. The proposed development would result in overlooking of the east elevation of Bridge House to the detriment of the residential amenity of occupants.
Cumbria County Council – Highways:
44. Object.
45. There is no evidence that the new junction with Manorside delivers the required visibility splays.
46. Manorside narrows to almost 4m at the proposed site entrance from a width of 5.5m. This road narrowing could cause vehicle conflict at the access and be detrimental to the residents living at the southern end of Manorside.
47. There are no proposed measures to manage or restrict parking on Manorside. Due to the width and alignment of the road, the existing uncontrolled on-street parking will create unacceptable access obstructions to the proposed site and needs to be addressed.
48. Parking provision is inadequate when assessed against the Cumbria Design Guide for a 61 bed home with 20 full time employees. Although this site is served by public transport it is infrequent and due to the rural nature of the catchment it is expected that the vast majority of trips will be by car. There is already a lack of parking associated with the existing care home and this development could put more parking pressure on the surrounding public and private road network especially with the displaced parking from bridge house if the TRO is implemented. A parking strategy with evidence to support the proposed number of spaces is required.
Cumbria County Council – Drainage / LLFA
49. Object.
50. The drainage strategy and level of detail provided is insufficient to allow for a proper assessment and full determination at this stage. The following is required: - detailed calculations to back up the design, including infiltration assessments for the soakaways, peak flow control and attenuation calculations; - a contour plan of the finished site or plan showing the exceedance flow direction and levels; - a maintenance programme and assignment of on-going maintenance responsibilities so that we can be assured that the design will function into the future.
51. The proposed SuDS measures do not include any open / surface or more natural features such as detention basins, swales or ponds. The proposal, apart from controlling quantity, does not deliver any of the other benefits of a SuDS solution as listed in NPPG of improving water quality, biodiversity or visual character / amenity. The developer must investigate the full range of SuDS components, to determine which are suitable for the site and use them if appropriate or explain why they are not appropriate if that is the case. The design also needs to be shown to be compliant with the rest of the technical standards in relation to SuDS.
52. There is a lack of pre-treatment features to protect the geo-cellular crates. Permeable paving should be used for the car parking areas and the materials shown on an external works plan including details of paving.
53. The Drainage Strategy states that the site is in Flood Zone 1. However the very southern area of the site is in Flood Zone 2, but it is noted that only parking and landscaping are proposed for this area.
54. Evidence of third-party consent to discharge to the ordinary watercourse is required. Failing a forthcoming consent, we would need evidence of agreement with United Utilities to discharge into their combined sewer. Also, the strategy makes an assumption that the soil type is unsuitable for infiltration via soakaways. Evidence based on infiltration testing in trial pits is required to substantiate.
Cumbria County Council – Historic Environment Officer
55. The application does not raise any archaeological issues.
Cumbria County Council – Fire Protection
56. Vehicle access should comply with ADB section 16.8, Table 20 and Diagram 50 and ADB section 16.2 and 16.3. Fire mains should comply with ADB section 15.7b and 15.8. Consideration should be given to the inclusion of a sprinkler system within the design of the premises.
Environment Agency:
57. No objection.
United Utilities:
58. No objection subject to the imposition of three planning conditions requiring: foul and surface water to be drained on separate systems; the submission of a surface water drainage scheme in accordance with the drainage hierarchy; and, a sustainable urban drainage management and maintenance plan for the lifetime of the development.
59. It is confirmed that a public sewer crosses the site and that a permit may not be granted for building over. An access strip of six metres will be required. A modification of the layout or diversion of the sewer could be required.
South Lakeland District Council:
Housing Strategy
60. Cumbria County Council’s Extra Care and Supported Living Strategy 2016 – 2025 evidences the need for an additional 500 extra care housing units in South Lakeland by 2025. There are currently no extra care schemes within the Cartmel Peninsular Housing Market Area.
61. The proposed contains a range of 1 and 2 bedroom apartments of which 100% would be affordable which is over and above Core Strategy CS6.3 affordable requirement of 35%.
62. This Scheme would help meet some of the need for extra care housing in the District and contribute to the Council’s target contained within the Housing Strategy 2016-2015 for 300 extra care units by 2025.
Environmental Protection
63. Recommend the following planning conditions:
- Requiring the reporting, investigation and remediation of any contamination identified. - No burning in the open air shall take place on the site. - Limitation on hours of construction. - Full details of any local exhaust ventilation scheme to be submitted to, approved in writing and implemented. - A lighting plan to be submitted to, approved in writing and implemented.
Arboricultural Officer
64. The development requires the removal of a number of trees on land in the ownership of the SLDC and has potential to impact upon trees with roots growing in the site. A drain is proposed through the rooting area of G1. The proposed landscaping details are contradictory in part.
65. None of the trees proposed to be removed should be seen as constraints to development, and their removal to facilitate the development would be acceptable subject to suitable mitigation planting as proposed through the landscaping plan. A condition will be required to finalise the species of trees to be planted and the location of each species within the site to ensure sufficient space for the planted trees to reach maturity without conflicts with other elements on the site.
66. A Tree Protection Plan and Arboricultural Method Statement for the proposal will be required and could be secured now or required by planning condition. This will be required to cover the parking proposals in the rooting areas of the retained trees and protection measures for retained trees.
Neighbours / Others:
67. 88no. representations have been received from interested parties comprising: 1no. representation in support; 8no. representations in observation; and, 79no. representations in objection.
68. The material planning issues raised comprise the following:
Principle of Development;
69. A demonstrable need for this type and scale of development has not been identified in Flookburgh.
70. The development fails to meet local housing needs.
71. The development will prejudice the delivery of the land between the railway and Icky Picky Lane, which comprises part of the allocated site.
72. The average age of residents differs throughout the application documentation varying from 65-80 and 82, which impacts significantly on the likely effects on the community and highway.
73. Details of the affordable shared ownership prices are not provided.
74. The development will create more jobs for the local area to the benefit of the local economy.
75. The development will meet the needs of an aging population.
Design and Impact upon Character of the Settlement;
76. The development by virtue of its overall scale, form and design would result in adverse impact upon the appearance and character of this area of Flookburgh to its detriment.
77. The proposed pallet of materials is not appropriate to Flookburgh.
78. The proposed comprises the overdevelopment of a small site. The development is 3.8 times larger than Bridge House. The presence of Bridge House does not justify additional harmful development.
79. The development would adversely impact in views of the village on approach from the east.
80. The development would result in adverse landscape and visual harm.
Highway;
81. The number of vehicle movements detailed in the Transport Assessment are significantly below what will reasonably exist and fails to give proper comparative analysis in respect of the car parking provision.
82. Given the availability of public transport in Flookburgh, users and visitors of the development will be reliant upon private vehicles for transport, which is unsustainable.
83. Manorside is not sufficient in width and alignment to serve proposed development, with particular regard to service and emergency service vehicles.
84. Insufficient vehicle parking is proposed to serve the development, which will increase the existing parking pressures on Manorside.
85. Access by foot and cycle by elderly residents is not realistic.
86. Pedestrian footways do not exist from the site to Market Street.
87. Impact of construction traffic upon highway safety.
Flood Risk;
88. Surface water drainage of Manorside is a known problem.
89. No agreed flood risk strategy has been submitted.
Residential Amenity;
90. The proposed development would result in overlooking and overshadowing of Bridge House itself and its gardens to the detriment of the residential amenity of residents.
91. The development will result in loss of light and overlooking of the existing dwellings to Manorside.
92. The noise impacts of the development upon the amenity of nearby residents during construction.
APPLICANT’S REPRESENTATIONS:
93. Believe that all technical matters[/details submitted,] are now [competent].
Scale, Massing and Layout
94. It has not been possible to reduce the scale and massing of the proposed to [an acceptable] level desired by SLDC due to the effect this would have on apartment numbers and, ultimately, viability.
95. Believe the proposals are an appropriate response to the local character of the area and reinforces distinctiveness, where the scale of development and building heights vary considerably, with Bridge House prominent along Market Street and Manorside.
96. There is no prevailing layout character in Flookburgh. The urban grain varies from tight, stone built terraces to more spread out uses such as a primary school, nursery and care home. The proposed development is a carefully considered response to this surrounding environment.
97. Any concerns regarding the pressure to remove on-site landscaping can be overcome via planning condition or Tree Preservation Order.
Land to the East
98. An access solution to this site from Market Street has been agreed as technically acceptable by Cumbria County Council.
99. The proposals on the application site doubles the indicative yield offered in the LADPD; however, should the Council wish to maximise delivery across the whole allocation then the residual land could come forward without prejudice by the proposed development.
100. The land to the east can be drained through the application site.
101. The allocation of the land for housing in the LADPD must be the starting point in the decision making process, unless material considerations indicate otherwise.
102. Urbanising features to address topographical changes such as regrading and ramping are an inevitable part of development. The existing railway bridge runs adjacent to the north of the site, not only creating the change in levels and the relationship between the highway and the site, but providing a highly visible example of an engineered development within the village.
103. The Landscape and Visual Impact Assessment concludes that visibility from the north is limited, that the proposed can be considered acceptable in terms of impact on the landscape and that visual impact must be judged not only in the context of the village setting, but surrounding land uses.
104. The site is not situated in a Conservation Area, nor has any particular landscape sensitivity been identified as part of the designation of the site for housing in the LADPD.
Funding and Viability
105. Housing and Care 21 has secured £2.118m of Homes England funding, £732k Cumbria County Council grant and allocated £500k of its own Recycled Capital Grant Funding in order for this site be become financial viable. The high level grant was required in order to offer a 100% affordable rent and shared ownership scheme.
106. Housing and Care 21 have considerable experience of operating within this model and suggest that any scheme below 60 units becomes operationally and financially unviable in this location.
Benefits of Extra Care Development
107. There are numerous specific benefits that specialist care for the elderly can bring not just to residents, but the wider community including: contributing to mixed and viable communities; facilities being available to local communities; and, meeting contributing towards significantly boosting the supply of houses.
The Planning Balance
108. The application site is allocated for housing development.
109. The proposed development will double the indicative 30 dwelling yield set in the local plan.
110. The development will contribute of 61 dwellings to meet specialist care needs for the elderly where there is an existing shortfall and where limited opportunities exist of delivery.
111. The development will assist in the delivery of sites to meet the aims of the development plan.
112. The perceived impacts of the development are adequately mitigated through the responsive design of the scheme and a detailed landscaping strategy.
113. The impacts of the development must be balanced against the substantial benefits of the proposals and constitutes sustainable development in terms of the economic, social and environmental considerations of Paragraphs 7-9 of the NPPF, warranting approval.
POLICY ISSUES
114. Section 70(2)Town and Country Planning Act 1990 and Section 38(6)Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004 requires that applications for planning permission must be determined in accordance with the Development Plan unless material considerations indicate otherwise. National Planning Policy Framework states that where a proposal accords with an up- to-date development plan it should be approved without delay, as required by the presumption in favour of sustainable development.
Development Plan:
South Lakeland Core Strategy (CS):
Policy CS1.1 Sustainable Development Principles Policy CS1.2 The Development Strategy Policy CS4 Cartmel Peninsular Policy CS6.1 Meeting the Housing Requirement Policy CS6.2 Dwelling Mix and Type Policy CS6.3 Provision of Affordable Housing Policy CS6.6 Making Effective and Efficient Use of Land and Buildings Policy CS8.1 Green Infrastructure Policy Policy CS8.2 Protection and Enhancement of Landscape and Settlement Character Policy CS8.3a Accessing Open Space, Sport and Recreation Policy CS8.3b Quantity of Open Space, Sport and Recreation Policy CS8.4 Biodiversity and Geodiversity Policy CS8.6 Historic Environment Policy CS8.7 Sustainable Construction, Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy Policy CS8.8 Development and Flood Risk Policy CS8.10 Design Policy CS9.1 Social and Community Infrastructure Policy CS9.2 Developer Contributions Policy CS10.1 Accessing Services Policy CS10.2 Transport Impact of New Development
Saved Policies of the South Lakeland Local Plan (LP):
Saved Policy Tr9 Better Ways to School Saved Policy L10 Rights of Way Saved Policy S2 South Lakeland Design Code Saved Policy S3 Landscaping Saved Policy S10 Parking Provision in new Development Saved Policy S12 Crime and Design Saved Policy S26 Sewage Treatment and Disposal
Local Plan Land Allocations: Development Plan Document (LADPD):
Policy LA1.0 Presumption in Favour of Sustainable Development Policy LA1.1 Development Boundaries Policy LA1.3 Housing Allocations
Other Material Planning Considerations:
South Lakeland Local Plan – Development Management Policies (DMDPD):
Policy DM1 General Requirements for All Development Policy DM2 Achieving Sustainable High Quality Design Policy DM3 Historic Environment Policy DM4 Green and Blue Infrastructure, Open Space, Trees and Landscaping Policy DM5 Rights of Way and Other Routes Providing Pedestrian and Cycle Access Policy DM6 Flood Risk Management and Sustainable Drainage Systems Policy DM7 Addressing Pollution, Contamination Impact and Water Quality Policy DM9 Parking Provision, New and Loss of Car Parks Policy DM11 Housing Optional Techical Standards
115. The DMDPD is in the process of preparation. On the 28 th February 2018 the DMDPD was submitted to the Secretary of State for Examination. Objections exist to the relevant policies detailed; therefore, limited weight only can be given to the policies in decision taking; however, in light of the their being less significant unresolved objections, greater weight can be given to Policy DM19.
National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF):
Paragraph 14 - Sets out a presumption in favour of sustainable development. For decision taking this means approving development proposals that accord with the Development Plan without delay.
Paragraph 56 - The Government places great importance on the design of the built environment. Good design is a key aspect of sustainable development and should contribute positively to making places better for people.
Paragraph 58 - Requires that local plans include polices that set out the quality of development that will be expected. Policies should aim to ensure that development adds to the overall quality of an area, establishes a strong sense of place, responds to local character and history and is visually attractive as a result of good architecture and landscaping.
Paragraph 50 - Where there is an identified affordable housing need, policies should be set for meeting this need on site. Such policies should be sufficiently flexible to take account of changing market conditions over time.
Paragraph 73 - Access to high quality open spaces, sport and recreation can make an important contribution to the health and wellbeing of communities.
Paragraph 109 - The planning system should contribute to and enhance the natural and local environment by protecting and enhancing valued landscapes and minimise the impacts on biodiversity and providing net gains where possible.
Paragraph 128 - States that where a development has the potential to include heritage assets with archaeological interest developers should submit an appropriate desk-based assessment and where necessary a field evaluation.
Paragraph 129 - Requires that LPA’s consider that impact of a proposal on a heritage asset and avoid or minimise conflict between conservation and the proposal.
Paragraphs 131 - 134 - Provides criteria for assessing the impact of development upon heritage assets.
Paragraph 204 - Planning obligations should only be sought where they meet all of the following tests: • necessary to make the development acceptable in planning terms; • directly related to the development; and • fairly and reasonably related in scale and kind to the development.
Council Plan 2014 – 2019:
The Council has four priorities: the economy; housing; environment; and culture and wellbeing. It states that the Council will help deliver new affordable and open market housing and enhance and protect the district’s high quality environment.
Other Legislation:
Town and Country Planning (Environmental Impact Assessment) Regulations 2017 The Conservation of Habitats and Species Regulations 2010 (CHSR). The Planning (Listed Buildings and Conservation Area) Act 1990 (PLBCA).
Localism Act:
116. The Localism Act 2011 is aimed at empowering local agencies and residents to deliver and better the Government agenda. It is not directed to deliver less, but to deliver at levels to maximise or exceed Government’s strategic objectives. The policies of the NPPF and the Development Plan are not altered by the Localism Act.
117. The Localism Act introduces local finance considerations as a planning consideration in so far as they are material to the application.
ASSESSMENT
Principle
118. Policy CS1.2 of the CS supports new residential development within the Local Service Centre of Flookburgh/Cark.
119. Policy LA1.1 of the LADPD defines the settlement boundaries for Flookburgh/Cark and confirms that the development needs of the settlement between 2010 and 2025 will be met within the settlement boundaries.
120. The application site is located within the defined settlement boundaries for Flookburgh/Cark in Policy LA1.1 of the LADPD and comprises part of the land identified for housing development in Policy LA1.3 of the LADPD described as ‘East of Manorside’. Paragraph 4.35 of the LADPD states the following in relation to the allocation:
“This 1.11 ha site is capable of accommodating around 30 dwellings. The key issue is securing appropriate access arrangements including contributing to improved pedestrian access to village centre. Suitable pedestrian access should be provided to the site to connect with existing footway infrastructure. A small part of this site is subject to flood risk. Development will not be permitted in the part of the site that falls within Flood Risk Zone 2 unless the developer can demonstrate through an acceptable Flood Risk Assessment that it would not be at an unacceptable risk of flooding or increase flood risk elsewhere. Any resulting undeveloped land should be incorporated within the landscape framework. There is also a local drainage capacity issue.”
121. Policy CS9.1 of the CS supports proposals for the protection, retention and enhancement of existing community assets and seeks to control the loss of community facilities.
122. Cumbria County Council’s Extra Care and Supported Living Strategy 2016 – 2025 details a current supply of 200 units of extra care housing for older adults in South Lakeland and projects a demand for an additional 500 extra care housing units in South Lakeland by 2025.
123. The Strategy states that it is expected that some of this demand may be met by limited expansion of existing facilities and the provision of the care at home; however, a shortfall remains that needs to be addressed.
124. Since the publication of this document South Lakeland District Council has granted planning permission for the development of 104 (one hundred and four) extra care units comprising 80 (eighty) apartments and 24 (twenty-four) bungalows on land south of Fell Close, Oxtenholme, Kendal (application ref. SL/2017/0841).
125. The Strategy identifies that in Cumbria there are many settlements with smaller populations where there may be a lower demand for Extra Care Housing and in these situations advocates an alternative approach to service provision and the potential in some circumstances to deliver smaller schemes to meet low levels of local demand.
126. Whilst the delivery of extra care housing would be preferable within or in proximity to Principal Service Centres, the need is district wide; therefore, some delivery in smaller settlements including Key Service Centres is reasonably necessary to meet to the overall need.
127. There are currently no extra care schemes within the Cartmel Peninsular Housing Market Area.
128. The number of extra care units proposed reasonably exceeds the likely demand for this type of the development in Flookburgh/Cark; however, would contribute towards meeting the wider need for extra care housing development within the Cartmel Peninsular Housing Market Area.
129. The proposed, whilst specialist in nature, comprises a form of residential development in planning terms albeit including communal facilities for use by residents of the development and the wider general public.
130. The principle of the proposed development is acceptable subject to site specific matters.
131. The yield of 30 units on the land as identified in Policy LA1.1 of the LADPD is indicative only and not a fixed figure, which can be increased or reduced depending upon the constraints of the land the nature of the development proposed.
Delivery of Wider Land Allocation Described as ‘East of Manorside’
132. The allocation ‘East of Manorside’ comprises two parcels of agricultural land of c.0.6ha and c.0.51ha respectively, which are separated by and accessed from a part made track connecting to Market Street to the north.
133. The application site comprises c.0.6ha of the land identified for housing development in Policy LA1.3 of the LADPD described as ‘East of Manorside’ and excludes an area of c.0.51ha to the west.
134. The ‘East of Manorside’ allocation was promoted and assessed as a single allocation in the preparation of the LADPD.
135. In relation to this allocation, the Planning Inspector in his report on the LADPD states: 136. “Given the constraints, it is likely that access will be from Manorside. Though not an especially wide residential cul-de-sac, with the Council’s modification (under MM9) requiring a suitable pedestrian access connecting to the existing footway, I see no reason why it could not provide safe access for the site. While on-street parking may inconvenience existing and prospective residents, it is probable that it will heighten caution and ensure that traffic speeds remain low.”
137. The Inspector does not dismiss the delivery of access via means other than Manorside; however, acknowledges the constraints that are likely to prevent the delivery of access in any alternative location.
138. It is proposed to access the development from Manorside to the west. The form and layout of the proposed however, does not include the necessary provision for nor to provide an access which would effectively safeguard the land to the east from Manorside. As a result the proposal fails to ensure the subsequent delivery of access to the land to the east from Manorside.
139. The applicant has submitted two indicative schemes that seek to demonstrate that an access is deliverable from Market Street to serve the land to the east. These include the creation of a new vehicular access along Icky Picky Lane, which runs through the land and the creation of a ramped access from Market Street as it rises to cross the railway line.
140. Acceptable visibility splays and junction geometry is not achievable to a new vehicular access along Icky Picky Lane and is not therefore deliverable.
141. Acceptable visibility splays and junction geometry has been identified as achievable to a ramped access from Market Street as it rises to cross the railway line. The delivery of such an access necessitates the creation of an engineered ramped access within the site, created with graded earth embankments. Notwithstanding the arrangement the existing highway crossing the railway line, such an engineered arrangement is at odds with the developed character of this area of Flookburgh to the detriment of its prevailing character and not therefore acceptable in planning terms has potential to result in a compromised form of development in terms of layout and amenity.
142. In the above regard, no evidence has been submitted that demonstrates that a suitable alternative access to the east of the site is deliverable and that the proposed development would not undermine the potential to deliver an appropriate development on this land for the purpose it was allocated.
143. The development is in clear conflict with the provisions of Policy LA1.3 of the LADPD and would prevent the efficient use of the available land to meet the needs of all sectors of the community.
Affordable Housing
144. Policy CS6.3 of the CS requires that on all schemes of three or more dwellings in the Local Service Centres (including Flookburgh/Cark), not less than 35% of the total number of dwellings proposed are affordable.
145. The proposed development comprises 100% affordable housing beyond the 35% required by Policy CS6.3 of the CS.
Design and Impact on Landscape and Settlement Character
146. Policy CS8.2 of the CS states that development proposals should demonstrate that their location, scale, design and materials will protect, conserve and, where possible, enhance distinctive settlement character and the special qualities and local distinctiveness of the area.
147. Policy CS8.10 of the CS states that the siting, design, scale and materials of all development should be of a character which maintains or enhances the quality of the landscape or townscape and, where appropriate, should be in keeping with the local vernacular tradition. It is stated that new developments should protect and enhance key local views and features/characteristics of local importance and incorporate layouts that reinforce specific local distinctiveness.
148. The proposed development is not a small scale development comprising three linked three storey blocks of development.
149. The Site is located in a sensitive location on the edge of Flookburgh. Elevated views of the site exist from Allithwaite Road to the north and open views exists from the Moor Lane area to the south.
150. The Application Site is located at the junction of landscape character types 2c Coastal Plain and 2d Coastal Urban Fringe as defined in the Cumbria Landscape Character Guidance (CLCG) . Landscape Sub Type 3a Open Farmland and Pavements does have a visual influence.
151. A short Landscape and Visual Impact Assessment (LVIA) has been completed in support of the application. The LVIA concludes that harm would result; however, that this harm would be mitigated by a scheme of landscaping to be prepared. Full details of this landscaping scheme have not been submitted. The development as proposed is located in close proximity to the boundaries of the site, which significantly limits the available space for landscaping and thus its potential effectiveness. The proximity of landscaping to fenestration holds potential for future conflicts in respect of residential amenity and pressure for the removal of that important mitigation.
152. This area of Flookburgh is principally characterised by close knit development of one and two storey terraced and detached dwellings finished externally with a combination of slate and render. The existing Bridge House care home is anomalous in its scale, form and design and detracts from the character of the locality.
153. The proposed development is significantly larger in scale and overall massing than Bridge House. The proposed would therefore comprise a large and visually dominant anomalous mass of development on what comprises a sensitive edge of peripheral location on the entrance to Flookburgh from the east.
154. The proposed comprises an over intensive development of the site. In terms of its scale, layout and form, the proposed does not respond to the characteristics of the site, adjacent development nor does it respond to the adjunct allocated land to the East. The Proposal would be both at odds with and detract from the character of this area to its detriment.
155. The development would be clearly visible in public vantage points include the important vista on the entrance to Flookburgh to the east and would result in adverse visual harm.
156. The design of the proposed utilises features and materials that whilst little generic in nature are not wholly inappropriate. Planning conditions could be utilised to secure details of the proposed external materials to ensure that these are acceptable.
157. Discussions have been ongoing with the applicant in respect of the overall scale, form and layout of the development. The applicant has however confirmed that the economics of extra care development does not permit for significant revisions to the layout or reductions to the overall scale of the development and hence seeking to progress the scheme in its current form.
158. The proposed development is in clear conflict with the provisions of Policy CS8.2 and CS8.10 of the CS.
Access and Parking
159. A Transport Statement and a Framework Travel Plan have been prepared.
160. Manorside comprises a minor access road connecting to the Market Street to the north. The road provides access to the existing Bridge House care and a number of existing dwellings.
161. Vehicular access is proposed via a new junction to Manorside. Evidence has not been provided demonstrating that appropriate junction geometry and visibility splays are achievable to serve the proposed access.
162. The proposed level of parking provision is inadequate when assessed against the Cumbria Design Guide for a 61 bed home with 20 full time employees.
163. The Framework Travel Plan details measures to promote, monitor and manage sustainable modes of travel and reduce private car dependency.
164. Although this site is served by public transport, it is infrequent and due to the rural nature of the catchment it is anticipated that the vast majority of trips will be by private car. There is already a lack of parking associated with the existing care home and this development could put more parking pressure on the surrounding public and private road network. No measures are proposed to manage or restrict parking on Manorside. Due to the width and alignment of the road, the existing uncontrolled on-street parking will create unacceptable access obstructions to the proposed site.
165. The applicant has submitted a vehicle parking strategy with evidence to support the proposed number of spaces is required. This remains with Cumbria County Council – Highways for review and comments.
166. Pedestrian footways exist to Manorside and connect to Market Street. It is proposed to extend the existing footways to Manorside to provide linkages to/from the proposed development. The arrangement would require patrons to cross Manorside to again access to the services within Flookburgh; however, this is not considered significantly problematic subject to provision being made for a suitable crossing.
167. The proposals will have an adverse impact on the safety of all users contrary to Policy CS10.2 of the CS and Paragraph 32 of the NPPF.
Drainage and Flood Risk
168. The sequential approach to development is adopted, with the main element of the proposed development located in Flood Zone 1 and both landscaping and a small area of vehicle parking area only located in Flood Zone 2 and Flood Zone 3.
169. The proposed development falls under the flood risk classification of ‘More Vulnerable’, which is a compatible use in Flood Zone 1, with the Sequential Test and Exception Test not engaged.
170. It is proposed to dispose of foul water and surface water to the public main.
171. The proposed scheme of drainage including discharge of surface water to the public main without demonstration that infiltration or discharge to watercourse does not accord with the national drainage hierarchy.
172. The applicant has submitted additional drainage strategy information; however, this remains with Cumbria County Council – LLFA for review and comments.
173. Although the level of information contained within the proposed drainage strategy is insufficient to enable a full assessment of the acceptability of the scheme, a planning condition could be imposed to secure an acceptable means of surface water water drainage prior to the commencement of the development.
174. The requirements of Policy CS8.8 of the CS and the sustainable development principles within the NPPF are therefore achieved.
Other Planning Considerations
Residential Amenity
175. A Noise Impact Assessment has been prepared in support of the application. The report concludes that noise impacts will not result to residents of the proposed development subject to the specified mitigation. It is confirmed that construction noise levels would be within acceptable limits. Predictions for vibration limits are detailed as moderate; however, would be for a short period of time and thus impacts would be negligible. Planning conditions can be utilised to secure mitigation.
176. The nearest properties to the application site comprise Bridge House and the existing dwellings on Manorside.
177. The minimum distance existing between primary facing windows in the proposed and Bridge House is 31m. The distances achieved will ensure that adverse impacts through direct overlooking of primary windows will not result; however, additional overlooking of the garden areas will result. Given the height of the proposed development and the relationship to Bridge House, adverse loss of light and overshowing will not reasonable result, where this would result, it would be limited to peripheral curtilage areas.
178. A distance of 27m is achieved between the primary facing windows in the proposed and the gable elevation of 6 Manorside. Direct overlooking of 6 Manorside will not result; however, an increased perception of overlooking could exist. Given the height of the proposed development and the relationship to Bridge House, adverse loss of light and overshadowing will not reasonably result.
Ecology and Arboriculture
179. An Extended Phase 1 Habitat Survey Report has been prepared. The Report concludes that were would be no protected species impacted by the proposed works and suggests mitigation measures, which could be secured by planning condition.
180. The Arboricultural Officer identifies that the trees proposed to be removed should not be seen as constraints to development subject to suitable mitigation planting. It is confirmed that a Tree Protection Plan and Arboricultural Method Statement will be required in respect of the retain trees and hedgerows and could be secured by planning condition.
181. Principles of a landscaping scheme have been submitted; however, a full scheme of landscaping has not been submitted. This could be secured by planning condition.
Contamination
182. No contamination is known to exist on the site.
183. A planning condition could be imposed in respect of the control of contamination identified on the application site during construction.
Open Space
184. The proposed development includes communal gardens that would meet the need of residents and patrons of the development; however, would not comprise public open space.
185. Notwithstanding the above, the Site is located within 700m of a communal open space on Moor Lane as required by Policy CS8.3a of the CS. Policy CS8.3b seeks that where development is located within the accessibility standards for any given type of open space, a financial contribution will be required towards improving the local open space.
186. The open space is newly equipped and does not require improvement.
Fire Safety
187. Pursuant to the publication of the Independent Review of Building Regulations and Fire Safety: Final Report, Cumbria County Council – Fire Protection has been consulted in respect of the proposed development.
188. Vehicular access and turning areas exist to the west elevation and part of the south elevation, which would permit access by Fire and Rescue Services. It has been confirmed verbally, that the proposed development will include a sprinkler system.
Financial benefits to Local Authorities from the Development
189. In accordance with the requirements introduced by Section 115 of the Housing and Planning Act 2016,the financial benefits of the proposed development are estimated below.
190. The estimate is based upon the proposed apartments being Band A properties and that a significant number of the apartments will be the subject of reliefs and reductions.
Source Benefit Community Infrastructure Levy None. Council Tax Income £ 59,230. SLDC element £6,290 (based on 33 Band D Equivalents). New Homes Bonus £ 28,470. SLDC element £22,780 (based on 19.8 Band D Equivalents, 60% of 33).
191. New Homes Bonus only applies for 4 years and the first 40% of new dwellings are to be disregarded following the December 2016 Autumn Statement, with the money transferring to adult social care.
192. The affordable housing enhancement payment would result in an additional payment of in the region of £20,000.
193. Council Tax is an ongoing annual income.
194. Limited weight should be attached to the financial benefits arising from the proposed development.
THE PLANNING BALANCE
195. The South Lakeland Draft Housing Land Annual Position Statement – March 2018 states that the Authority can demonstrate it has a land supply of 7.81 years when assessed against the full objective assessment of housing need (FOAN) for the plan period 2016 - 2036 detailled in the Strategic Housing Market Assessment 2017; therefore, the standard planning balance is applicable. 196. In applying the standard planning balance, the principle of developing extra care housing on the application site is acceptable subject to site specific matters a supported by Policy CS1.2 of the CS and Policy LA1.3 of the LADPD.
197. The proposed development would assist in meeting the projected demand for extra care development as detailed in the Cumbria County Council’s Extra Care and Supported Living Strategy 2016 – 2025.
198. The development comprises 100% affordable housing, in excess of the requirement of 35% required by Policy CS6.3 of the CS.
199. Notwithstanding the above, the development would prevent the development of the entire ‘East of Manorside’ allocation in clear conflict with the provisions of Policy LA1.3 of the LADPD, preventing the efficient use of the available land to meet the needs of all sectors of the community.
200. The overall scale, form and mass of the proposed development comprises an over intensive development of the site that would result in localised visual harm and would detract from the character of this area of Flookbrugh in direct conflict with the provisions of Policies CS1.1, CS8.2 and CS8.10 of the CS.
201. Technical objections exist to the development in respect of surface water drainage, highway safety and parking. Whilst the objections in respect of surface water could be resolved via planning condition, the matters relating to the highway safety and parking remain to be resolved and are therefore in direct conflict with the provisions of Policy Policy CS10.2.
202. In overall terms, it must be accepted that affordable extra care housing development by virtue of its nature necessitates delivery in larger buildings and this invariably will result in additional landscape, visual and settlement character impacts beyond what would result from the delivery of conventional housing; however, this does not automatically weigh in favour of approval of any such proposals. It is necessary that the magnitude of the resulting impacts be weighed against the benefits as a matter of fact and degree in each individual case.
203. In this case, whilst considerable benefits are arising from the development, the identified levels of impact and conflicts in respect of Policy LA1.3 of the LADPD and Policies CS1.1, CS8.2 and CS8.10 of the CS are considerable and are deemed to result in a level of harm that outweighs the identified benefits of the development as proposals, warranting refusal of the development.
204. In the event that the provisions of Paragraph 14 and/or Paragraph 49 were engaged owing to am inability to demonstrate a five year supply of deliverable housing land or otherwise, it remains cosndiered that the conflicts with Policy LA1.3 of the LADPD and Policies CS1.1, CS8.2 and CS8.10 of the CS would be so siginificant as to warrant refusal in is such an instance.
RECOMMENDATION:
203.The application is recommended for refusal for the reasons outlined at the end of this report.
Reason (1)
The proposed development by virtue of its scale, form and layout would prevent the effective use of the available land allocated for residential development known as ‘Land East of Manorside’ to meet the need of all sectors of the community in conflict with the provision of Policy LA1.3 of the South Lakeland Land Allocations Development Plan Document.
Reason (2)
The proposed development comprises an over intensive development of the site. In terms of its scale, layout and form, the proposed does not respond to the characteristics of the site or adjacent development and thus would be both at odds with, and detract from, the character of this area of the settlement to its detriment. The development would be clearly visible in public vantage points including the important vista on the entrance to Flookburgh to the east and would result in visual harm. The proposed development is in conflict with the provisions of Policy CS1.1, Policy CS8.2 and CS8.10 of the South Lakeland Core Strategy.
Reason (3)
Vehicular access is proposed via a new junction to Manorside. Evidence has not been provided demonstrating that appropriate junction geometry and visibility splays are achievable to serve the proposed access in conflict with the provisions of Policy CS10.2 of the South Lakeland Core Strategy and Paragraph 32 of the National Planning Policy Framework.
Reason (4)
This site is served by public transport; however, it is infrequent and due to the rural nature of the catchment it is anticipated that the vast majority of trips will be by private car. There is a known parking issue on Manorside and no measures are proposed to manage or restrict parking on Manorside. The proposed level of parking provision is inadequate when assessed against the Cumbria Development Design Guide without adequate and reasoned justification. The resulting increase in demand for vehicle parking on Manorside and the surrounding highway network will have an adverse impact on the safety of all users in conflict with the provisions of Policy CS10.2 of the South Lakeland Core Strategy and Paragraph 32 of the National Planning Policy Framework.