337 11.11.2003 Planning PLANNING COMMITTEE Minutes of the Proceedings at a Meeting of the Committee Held in the Council Chamber

337 11.11.2003 Planning

PLANNING COMMITTEE

Minutes of the proceedings at a meeting of the Committee held in the Council Chamber at South Lakeland House, Kendal, on Tuesday, 11 November 2003, at 10.00 a.m.

Present

Councillors

Janette Jenkinson (Chairman) Brendan Jameson (Vice-Chairman)

Paul Braithwaite Simon Butterfield Joss Curwen David Foot Heather Gardner Robert Leach Paul Little Ted Robinson Tony Rothwell Noel Spendlove Peter Thornton

Apologies for absence were received from Councillors Bob Bolton, Jack Manning and Reg Parker.

Officers

Peter Ridgway Planning Services Manager (part) Sandra Fenwick for Solicitor to the Council Nick Hayhurst for Planning Services Manager (part) Barry Jackson for Planning Services Manager (part) Inge Rush for Committee Manager

522 MINUTES

RESOLVED – That the Chairman be authorised to sign, as a correct record, the minutes of the meeting of the Committee held on 14 October 2003.

523 DECLARATIONS OF INTEREST

RESOLVED – That it be noted that the following declarations of interest were made:-

(1) Councillor Heather Gardner - Planning Application Nos. SL/2003/2003, SL/2003/1852 & 1896 and SL/2003/1965; (2) Councillor Brendan Jameson - Planning Application Nos. SL/2003/2003, SL/2003/1852 & 1896 and SL/2003/1906 & 1907; (3) Councillor Robert Leach - Planning Application Nos. SL/2003/2060 and SL/2003/1852 & 1896; (4) Councillor Paul Little - Planning Application Nos. SL/2003/1852 & 1896 and SL/2003/2004; (5) Councillor Noel Spendlove - Planning Application Nos. SL/2003/1852 & 1896 and SL/2003/2024; and (6) Councillor Peter Thornton - Planning Application Nos. SL/2003/1852 & 1896. 338 11.11.2003 Planning

524 LOCAL GOVERNMENT ACT 1972 – EXCLUDED ITEMS

RESOLVED – That it be noted that there were no items in Part II of the Agenda.

PUBLIC PARTICIPATION

525 Planning Applications

RESOLVED – That the following applications, for which representations have been received from members of the public, in accordance with Minute 1810 (1996/97), be determined in the following manner:-

Note – Councillor Brendan Jameson declared a personal and prejudicial interest in the following item of business by virtue of the fact that the Chairman of Skelsmergh Parish Council was one of his customers, and left the Council Chamber during the discussion and voting thereon.

SL/2003/1906 SKELSMERGH: The Presbytery and St. Robert and St. Alice (FPA) Chapel, Dodding Green, Mealbank, Kendal. Change of use to religious community use, and associated alterations. (Friends for a UK Cenacolo Community)

The following spoke in objection to the application:-

M/s Judith Dent on behalf of Dodding Holme and Scarfoot Residents; Mr Jeff Ziegler on behalf of Kiln Croft and other Skelsmergh Residents; M/s Suzanne Ziegler on behalf of Skelsmergh Mother and Toddlers; Mr Kearon Thompson-McNicol on behalf of Mealbank Residents and Trading Estate; Mr Ian Kell, a Skelsmergh Parish Councillor, on behalf of the Laverock, Hipshow and Broadthorn Residents’ Alliance; Mr John Richardson on behalf of the Local Farming Community; and Mr W. Hesmondhalgh.

drop out rate from drug rehabilitation courses was approximately 60% unless assisted by additional long-term medical support. This led to the fear that the area could be subject to considerable numbers of Cenacolo residents leaving the Community intent on obtaining drugs as soon as possible. The objectors referred to case law covering residential centres of a similar nature to that proposed. The local farming community also drew Members’ attention to the poor access to the site, the inadequate sewage system at Dodding Green and highlighted the fact that this was a designated Environmentally Sensitive Area. Mr Richardson also informed Members that he and his brother were the tenants of the land which Cenacolo hoped to farm and that the loss of this field would affect the viability of their farm.

The following spoke in support of the application:-

Mr Michael Morris on behalf of a group; Mrs Susan McDonald; M/s Christine E. Greaves; M/s Margaret Stanley; and Mr Paul Reddington.

The supporters pointed out that Cenacolo had been trying to establish such a centre in this Country for many years and that this was felt to be a suitable location. They understood the fears which had been expressed by locals but felt that these young former drug misusers should be given the chance to make the Community work. The young men who would reside within the Community would be able to remain drug free through hard work and prayer. Their attendance would be voluntary and it was felt that the crime rate would, in fact, be reduced by rehabilitating these people. Members of the Community would learn each other’s trades which would provide them with more opportunities for their future lives outside the Community. These young people would be completely drug-free on arrival and would not be allowed to venture out of the Community and it was, therefore, believed they would not cause a threat to the locals. The supporters queried concerns with regard to increase in traffic and pointed out that Mass had been celebrated at this location for many years without complaint. They wondered whether locals had ever complained about or been in fear of the drug users who they believed used the car park at Dodding Green in the past. M/s Stanley informed the Committee that she was one of the Trustees of Friends for a UK Cenacolo Community and one of a number of people who assessed would be applicants for admittance to the Community. She detailed the success of other centres and stated that she felt privileged to see the wonderful results of Cenacolo and the healthy, responsible people the one time addicts had become. M/s Greaves quoted from St. Matthew’s Gospel in the Bible and asked the Committee to take note of the words when considering the application. The supporters felt it would be an 340 11.11.2003 Planning

honour and blessing to have such a Community in this area. Father Michael McCormick, Chairperson and Chaplain to Friends for a UK Cenacolo Community, spoke in response. He highlighted the fact that the proposal was to house a lay christian community. The Cenacolo Community was not drug rehabilitation in the conventional sense, but was based on a people finding themselves by finding God in their lives. This would be one of 43 such successful communities world wide, saving 1,200 lives through the grace of God. Father McCormick stated that, although the Cenacolo Community did not claim to have all the answers, they realised the fears that the local community had, and had tried to honestly address them. The Community felt that this site, with its history of faith and service to the poorest of the poor would be well served by the drug free young men who wished to live a life of prayer and hard work. With regard to safety on the footpaths, Father McCormick pointed out that the residents would work in pairs, would not go out and would not talk to members of the public. The proposed number of residents had been reduced to 16 – four experienced members to one newcomer. The Community would also be open to inspection. Father McCormick hoped that the Planning Committee would grant planning permission for the proposal.

Note - At 11.00 a.m., all present stood in silence for two minutes to recognise Remembrance Day and those who had lost their lives in the two World Wars and other conflicts.

The Planning Services Manager reported receipt of a letter of objection from Skelsmergh Parish Council which reflected points which had been raised earlier on by objectors.

He pointed out that, as had been clarified by Father McCormick, the use was to be for a religious community.

The Planning Services Manager reported that the number of residents for the proposed Community had been reduced from 341 11.11.2003 Planning

24 to 16 individuals.

He defined C2 use to the Committee and stressed that it was implicit within that use for a requirement for a person to be resident. He pointed out that in this case, the choice to be resident was voluntary in nature.

He informed the Committee that Cenacolo could, if they wished, occupy four adjacent houses with six people in each house. No planning permission would, thus, be required and no inspection régime.

The Planning Services Manager outlined Human Rights implications. He also referred to case law in relation to a proposed scheme in Wales which had been refused. He drew a distinction between the young people who were to have been required to reside in that building and the voluntary choice made by the Cenacolo residents.

In the case of the former, as statemented children falling out of the main state school system due to their current behaviour, the threat posed to their community could and was judged by the Inspector to be real and current. By comparison, Cenacolo residents had, by choosing to become resident in a community, made a commitment to respect the rules of society and would, therefore, be less likely to display anti-social behaviour in encounters with others outside their community.

He believed this distinction was significant in coming to a conclusion about the general resident population’s concerns over the impact of the Cenacolo community in the Dodding Green area.

The Planning Services Manager displayed a plan of the site in relation to its surroundings. He stressed that the Committee needed to determine this application on planning merits. He informed Members that, based on the current application, he did not feel that there were legitimate planning grounds to refuse a Community of 16 individuals residing together at Dodding Green and suggested that appropriate conditions could be discussed with Cenacolo.

Members considered the application at length. Concerns were expressed in relation to the nature of the use, security on the footpath, public fears and the proposed number of residents.

REFUSED for the reason below:- 342 11.11.2003 Planning

A use of the type and scale described in the submission would represent an unacceptable risk to the security and amenity of both users of the public footpaths which cross the site and to the residents of dwellings close to the site.

SL/2003/1907 SKELSMERGH: The Presbytery and St. Robert and St. Alice (LBA) Chapel, Dodding Green, Mealbank, Kendal. Alterations in association with change of use to religious community use. (Friends for a UK Cenacolo Community)

The following spoke in objection to the application:-

Objections were raised concerning safety issues in relation to the three converging footpaths which cut through the property and to the close proximity of the buildings to other dwellings in the area. The objectors questioned the apparent lack of supervision and management structure within the proposed Community. They were of the opinion that this was an application for a drug rehabilitation centre under the guise of a religious community which, they felt, was abuse of the planning system and also of care home regulations. It was pointed out that, as had already been proven at another such centre, the proposal could result in drug-related crime being carried out and that the Community may lead to the attraction of unsavoury elements from the wider area. The socio and economic harm through loss of business and employment which might result within the area was also highlighted. It was commented that the drop out rate from drug rehabilitation courses was approximately 60% unless assisted by additional long-term medical support. This led to the fear that the area could be subject to considerable numbers of Cenacolo residents leaving the Community intent on obtaining drugs as soon as possible. The objectors referred to case law covering residential centres of a similar nature to that proposed. The local farming community also drew Members’ attention to the poor access to the site, the inadequate sewage system at Dodding Green and highlighted the fact that this was a designated Environmentally Sensitive Area. Mr Richardson also informed Members that he and his 343 11.11.2003 Planning

brother were the tenants of the land which Cenacolo hoped to farm and that the loss of this field would affect the viability of their farm.

The following spoke in support of the application:-

Mr Michael Morris on behalf of a group; Mrs Susan McDonald; M/s Christine E. Greaves; M/s Margaret Stanley; and Mr Paul Reddington.

Father Michael McCormick, Chairperson and Chaplain to Friends for a UK Cenacolo Community, spoke in response. He highlighted the fact that the proposal was to house a lay christian community. The Cenacolo Community was not drug rehabilitation in the conventional sense, but was based on a people finding themselves by finding God in their lives. This would be one of 43 such successful communities world wide, saving 1,200 lives through the grace of God. Father McCormick stated that, although the Cenacolo Community did not claim to have all the answers, they realised the fears that the local 344 11.11.2003 Planning

community had, and had tried to honestly address them. The Community felt that this site, with its history of faith and service to the poorest of the poor would be well served by the drug free young men who wished to live a life of prayer and hard work. With regard to safety on the footpaths, Father McCormick pointed out that the residents would work in pairs, would not go out and would not talk to members of the public. The proposed number of residents had been reduced to 16 – four experienced members to one newcomer. The Community would also be open to inspection. Father McCormick hoped that the Planning Committee would grant planning permission for the proposal.

Note - At 11.00 a.m., all present stood in silence for two minutes to recognise Remembrance Day and those who had lost their lives in the two World Wars and other conflicts.

The Planning Services Manager reported receipt of a letter of objection from Skelsmergh Parish Council which reflected points which had been raised earlier on by objectors.

He pointed out that, as had been clarified by Father McCormick, the use was to be for a religious community.

The Planning Services Manager went on to advise the Committee of various other responses. The local Vicar at Skelsmergh felt that the application should be approved, with initial restriction on the number of residents. Dr Ostick who was a local resident was in support of the Cenacolo Community which she felt posed a small risk in comparison to the activities of drug addicts in Kendal. Morecambe Bay Health Authority Primary Care Trust felt that drug addiction was a treatable illness and that, although not appropriate for all cases, this Community would be appropriate for some people. They did not object to the proposal in this area. Cumbria Constabulary’s Community Safety Sergeant had carried out some research into the proposal and felt that, providing vetting procedures were complied with and a Community Liaison Officer designated as a single point of contact, the application should be approved. Social Services had been consulted but had not yet provided a response. The Planning Services Manager reported that the number of residents for the proposed Community had been reduced from 24 to 16 individuals. He defined C2 use to the Committee and stressed that it was implicit within that use for a requirement for a person to be resident. He pointed out that in this case, the choice to be resident was voluntary in nature. He informed the Committee that Cenacolo could, if they wished, occupy four adjacent houses with six people in each house. No planning permission would, thus, be required and no inspection régime. The Planning Services Manager outlined Human Rights implications. He also referred to case law in relation to a 345 11.11.2003 Planning

proposed scheme in Wales which had been refused. He drew a distinction between the young people who were to have been required to reside in that building and the voluntary choice made by the Cenacolo residents. In the case of the former, as statemented children falling out of the main state school system due to their current behaviour, the threat posed to their community could and was judged by the Inspector to be real and current. By comparison, Cenacolo residents had, by choosing to become resident in a community, made a commitment to respect the rules of society and would, therefore, be less likely to display anti-social behaviour in encounters with others outside their community.

He believed this distinction was significant in coming to a conclusion about the general resident population’s concerns over the impact of the Cenacolo community in the Dodding Green area.

Members considered the application at length. Concerns were expressed in relation to the nature of the use, security on the footpath, public fears and the proposed number of residents.

GRANTED subject to the following conditions:-

Condition (1) The development hereby permitted shall be commenced before the expiration of five years from the date of the Decision Notice.

Reason (1) To comply with the requirements of Section 91 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990.

Condition (2) No development shall be carried out on the site which is the subject of this permission until details of proposed new fire doors have been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority, and the development shall not be carried out otherwise than in full accordance with such approved details.

Reason (2) To protect the character of this Listed Building from detrimental change.

SL/2003/1843 MANSERGH: Hawkrigg Farm, Mansergh, Carnforth. Static caravan site, including access road, earthworks and sewage treatment plant. (K. and G. Cowin)

Councillor Barclay Stainton addressed the Committee in support 346 11.11.2003 Planning

of the application. Farmers needed to be able to diversify, as, following the Foot and Mouth outbreak, some farms were unsustainable due to the subsequent collapse of the economy. This policy had been backed up by the Government. Following a report made by DEFRA, it was considered that static caravans were the only means of diversification for this particular farm. The farm complex was sunk into the surrounding hillside amongst dense vegetation and trees. The majority of the caravans would not be visible. Councillor Stainton pointed out that there were far uglier items on a farm than caravans. The land on either side of the road was in the ownership of the applicants and they were keen to maintain the natural landscape. This was the only option for this family run farm and the applicants wished to keep it as a well-maintained small site. The only alternative would be to sell the buildings for barn conversions. Councillor Stainton felt that the applicants should be allowed to continue the farming operation through diversification and, thereby, maintain the surrounding countryside.

Gareth Cowin responded. Generations of his family had farmed this land. He had just finished a course which included administration skills. He informed the Committee that his family needed the opportunity to diversify in order to bring in additional income. He also said that DEFRA had concluded that static caravans would be the ideal solution for this farm. He pointed out that, should the application be approved, visitors staying in the caravans would also bring in money to the local shops and public houses. If refused, the farm would not survive. Mr Cowin felt that this was the only way forward.

The Planning Services Manager accepted that farm diversification was important for all family farms within the District. He supported static caravans as being a solution but pointed out that there were policies and practices through which to guide the process. The main concern was that such development should not destroy the advantages of the location. He was comfortable with this layout over a length of time but felt that moving to this scale in one go may be a step too far. He felt that although the existing buildings and vegetation would screen part of the scheme, additional landscaping should be developed before allowing all of the caravans. He felt that approving the total scheme may set a dangerous precedent.

Members felt that this was an impressively run and well- maintained farm and felt sure that the applicants would put in every effort to ensure that the screening was adequate should the application be approved. It was felt that twelve vans was a viable proposition this farm and that a precedent would not be set.

GRANTED subject to the following conditions:- 347 11.11.2003 Planning

Condition (1) The development hereby permitted shall be commenced before the expiration of five years from the date of the Decision Notice. Reason (1) To comply with the requirements of Section 91 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990. Condition (2) The finished ground floor level of each of the pitches for the 12 static holiday caravans which are the subject of this planning permission shall be agreed in writing with the Local Planning Authority before any of the caravans hereby approved are stationed on the site.

Reason (2) To ensure that the pitches for the caravans are excavated to an appropriate level in order to lessen the visual impact of the development on the surrounding landscape in accordance with the provisions of Policies E10 and T7 of the South Lakeland Local Plan.

Condition (3) Details of the arrangements for the disposal of the excavated material from each of the 12 caravan pitches shall be submitted to and agreed in writing by the Local Planning Authority before any development authorised by this planning permission is undertaken.

Reason (3) To ensure that the excavated material is disposed of in an appropriate manner.

Condition (4) Not more than 12 static holiday caravans shall be stationed on the application site at any one time.

Reason (4) To ensure that the development is carried out in accordance with the provisions of Policy T6 of the South Lakeland Local Plan.

Condition (5) None of the 12 static holiday caravans which are the subject of this planning permission shall be occupied between 15 January and 1 March in any year.

Reason (5) To ensure that the caravan site season is in accordance with Policy T7 of the South Lakeland Local Plan.

Condition (6) Each of the caravans shall be painted in one or more dark colours to a specification approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority before any of the caravans are stationed on the application site.

Reason (6) To ensure that the development is carried out in accordance with Policy S26 of the South Lakeland Local Plan. 348 11.11.2003 Planning

Condition (7) Notwithstanding the provisions of the Town and Country Planning General Permitted Development Order 1995 (or any Order revoking or re-enacting that Order) no buildings, enclosures, or structure shall be erected on the site nor any engineering operations, including the provision of access roads or hard-standings, shall be undertaken without the prior written approval of the Local Planning Authority.

Reason (7) To ensure that hard-standings and the access road are surfaced with an appropriate material and to protect the landscape, in accordance with objectives of Policy T6 of the South Lakeland Local Plan, from outbuildings and enclosures permitted by the General Permitted Development Order.

Condition (8) Within six months from the date when the first of the static caravans hereby permitted is stationed on the application site trees/shrubs shall be planted on the land in accordance with a planting scheme to be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. Any trees/shrubs which are removed, die, become severely damaged or diseased within five years of their planting shall be replaced in the next planting season with trees/shrubs of similar size and species to those originally required to be planted unless the Local Planning Authority gives written consent to any variation.

Reason (8) To ensure that the development is carried out in accordance with the provisions of Policy T6 of the South Lakeland Local Plan.

Condition (9) No development approved by this permission shall be commenced until a scheme for the conveyance of foul drainage to a private treatment plant has been submitted to and approved by the Local Planning Authority. No part of the development shall be brought into use until such treatment plant has been constructed and completed in accordance with the approved plans.

Reason (9) To ensure that the development is carried out in accordance with Policy S26 of the South Lakeland Local Plan.

526 ADJOURNMENT OF MEETING

The Committee adjourned for lunch at 1.02 p.m. and reconvened at 2.00 p.m., when the same Members were present.

PUBLIC PARTICIPATION

527 Planning Applications

Note – Councillor Heather Gardner declared a personal and prejudicial interest in the following item of business by virtue of the fact that she was related to an objector to the application, and left the Council Chamber during the discussion and voting thereon. Councillor Brendan Jameson declared a personal interest by virtue of the fact that the applicant’s agent was one of his customers.

SL/2003/2003 LEVENS: Land adjacent to Levens, Gilpin Bridge Road, Levens, Kendal. Agricultural building. (L. Parsons and Son) The Chairman reported that both the Local Ward Member and the Parish Council had requested a site visit. Mr Leonard Hayton chose to address the Committee prior to its site visit. He spoke on behalf of a group of residents of Low Lane, Levens. Whilst he sympathised with farmers in the present clime, he saw no good reason, economical or practical, to build a young stock building almost one mile from the main farming unit. The group felt that the building should be sited closer to the main complex. Mr Hayton referred to Policy 23 of the Local Plan and felt that this proposal had a significant impact on each head of the policy. He did not feel that the applicant had demonstrated an operational need which made any sense in planning terms. He stated that the present building had no screening and that the impact of the sheer bulk of an extended building and yard would severely affect the visual amenity of the locality. He also felt that there would be a significant adverse impact on nearby dwellings. If allowed, the proposal would turn a field barn into a farmstead and by increasing stock numbers, the comings and goings would also increase. He questioned where feed and manure were to be stored. Mr Hayton outlined concerns with regard to damage to conservation. The site was on a flood plain which would require precautions to be taken to prevent run off. He also felt it was essential that the existing birds and wildlife were protected. Mr Hayton felt that the proposal contravened Paragraph 5.17 of the Local Plan. In summary, he stated that the group objected to the development and requested that the application be refused on the grounds that it was unacceptably close to a residential area, was not necessary and did not comply with planning policy. Mr Mashiter spoke on behalf of M.B. Hodgson, the agent. he referred to Mr Hayton’s comments regarding environmental damage and informed Members of the Committee that a letter from the Environment Agency had made it clear that there was no real concern and that, should the field become flooded, water could escape. Mr Mashiter pointed out that the applicant’s farm was a tenanted farm and that it would not be financially or economically sensible to spend money on a farm belonging to someone else. He indicated that the applicant would be willing to plant landscaping to the north and west of the site and that Mr Parsons had in fact indicated to Mr Hayton only the day before to plant evergreen screening. With regard to visual amenity, Mr Mashiter informed Members that, due to steep ground to the east, most buildings in Levens would not be able to see the building and would look over it. He referred to Policy 23 of the Local Plan and did not feel that the impact was significant but 350 11.11.2003 Planning

possibly slight. Mr Mashiter pointed out that the applicant had another building in this area which he had to service daily. Manure would be removed monthly and the applicant was willing to accept any conditions placed on an approval. DEFERRED for a site visit.

Note – Councillor Robert Leach declared a personal interest in the following item of business by virtue of the fact that he was an observer on the Cartmel Peninsula Recreational Trust.

SL/2003/2060 GRANGE-OVER-SANDS: Berners Swimming Pool, Park Road, Grange-over-Sands. Car park. (Cartmel Peninsula Recreational Trust)

Mr Phillip Fryer addressed the Committee on behalf of a group. He noted the objections which had been made by the Highway Authority but did not feel that they had taken into account the impact on car parking in the Grange area. The swimming pool was some distance away from Berners Close car park where people had to pay to park their cars, as well as pay for entry to the pool. Mr Fryer informed Members that the pool users parked their cards on Kents Bank Road, just where the dropped kerb was, which made it awkward for disabled people using wheeled chairs and buggies to get around. Driving down Kents Bank Road and Fernleigh Road was also made difficult due to the fact that cars using the pool were constantly parked on both sides. Mr Fryer felt that although the access was felt to be dangerous, a sign could be erected to warn drivers approaching the pool. He added that parking problems within the area had trebled since the pool had opened and hoped that the Committee would approve the application for a car park at the pool.

Mr Huggett addressed Members on behalf of the applicant, Cartmel Peninsula Recreational Trust. He agreed with Mr Fryer’s comments. People in Grange had battled to acquire a swimming pool in the area. Since the opening of the pool, parking had, indeed, become a problem. Users parked off site on local roads. Normally, car parking was free at local swimming pools. The Director of Engineering had stated that visitors should be deterred from driving onto the site, however, Mr Huggett did not feel that people should be prevented from using the pool. He agreed that the visibility to the south west was limited but felt that this proposal was a practical compromise. The proposal had already been reduced from 29 to 17 spaces. Six disabled people’s parking bays had been combined with family users. A survey had shown that over 50% of users parked on local streets and 15% on Berners Close car park where they had to pay. Mr Huggett asked the Committee to support the application.

The Planning Services Manager reported receipt of three letters of objection, one of comment and four in support. Objections were based mainly on the grounds of inadequate access. He reported that negotiations had resulted in a reduction from 29 to 17 spaces to avoid damage to trees on the boundary. The 351 11.11.2003 Planning

Planning Services Manager felt there was little scope to improve the access and, based on the comments made by the Director of Engineering, recommended that the application be refused.

Members agreed that the access to the proposed car park could result in danger to road users. REFUSED for the reasons below:-

(1) The proposed additional on-site car parking would, in the opinion of the Local Planning Authority, lead to an increase in use of an access onto the public highway, which by reason of the restricted visibility to the south west and close proximity to a complex junction, would result in interference with the free flow of traffic and adversely affect highway safety.

(2) The site is in close proximity to an existing public car park, public transport route and Grange-over-Sands town centre. The creation of additional on-site car parking would be contrary to Planning Policy Guidance Note 13 – Transport, Policy ST1 of the Cumbria and Lake District Joint Structure Plan 2001-2016 Deposit (May 2003) and Policy S10 of the South Lakeland Local Plan which seek to promote forms of transport other than the motor car.

Note – Councillors Heather Gardner, Brendan Jameson, Robert Leach, Paul Little, Noel Spendlove and Peter Thornton declared personal and prejudicial interests in the following two items of business by virtue of the fact that they were Members of the Liberal Democrat Group, and left the Council Chamber during the discussion and voting thereon.

SL/2003/1852 KENDAL: Yard 2, Stricklandgate, Kendal. Redevelopment, (FPA) including new shop units, two flats and extension and conversion of smoke house into bar. (Kendal Liberal Club)

A statement in objection to the proposal was read out on behalf of Mrs Joanne Gill who queried the need for another bar in Kendal. She stated that there was already a great deal of noise and disturbance in this area caused by the Booths development which would, hopefully, finish within the next year or so. However, she felt that if the Smoke House was to be turned into a bar, noise would be ongoing. Mrs Gill stated that noise of bottle crates crashing, shouting and bad language could be heard from Dickie Doodles throughout the week. She expressed concern with regard to the route being used by people intoxicated by liquor. She felt they would cut through the Booths car park, when completed, and come out onto Low Fellside, next to her cottage, causing nuisance through swearing and shouting, which would wake up her two children. Mrs Gill informed the Committee that new apartments which were already being built outside her back door. She felt that this was enough. The applicant was not present to respond. The Planning Services Manager felt that the development of this yard would increase the vitality of the Town Centre. He 352 11.11.2003 Planning

informed Members that the A3 use for a bar was a legitimate use and that noise and disturbance from building work was not a material consideration. He welcomed the refurbishment of a tired looking yard in this area and pointed out that, should the application be approved, a condition would need to be attached regarding the surfacing of the yard. The Chairman highlighted the fact that there was a unique “fleur de lys” feature within the existing cobbles which needed to be preserved.

Concern was expressed that the Town Council had not been provided with details of the Smoke House elevations as requested, although the overall scheme had been welcomed.

DEFERRED for further details.

SL/2003/1896 KENDAL: Yard 2, Stricklandgate, Kendal. Redevelopment, (LBA) including creation of four new shop units, three flats and extension and conversion of smoke house into bar. (Kendal Liberal Club)

The applicant was not present to respond.

The Planning Services Manager felt that the development of this yard would increase the vitality of the Town Centre. He informed Members that the A3 use for a bar was a legitimate use and that noise and disturbance from building work was not a material consideration. He welcomed the refurbishment of a tired looking yard in this area and pointed out that, should the application be approved, a condition would need to be attached regarding the surfacing of the yard.

The Chairman highlighted the fact that there was a unique “fleur de lys” feature within the existing cobbles which needed to be preserved.

Concern was expressed that the Town Council had not been provided with details of the Smoke House elevations as 353 11.11.2003 Planning

requested, although the overall scheme had been welcomed.

DEFERRED for further details.

SL/2003/1628 HELSINGTON: Rose Cottage, Brigsteer, Kendal. Dwelling. (Mr I.W. Markham)

Mr Boyer, a neighbouring resident, spoke in objection to the application. He stated that the plot was inadequate for the size of the proposed dwelling and that there was no provision for car parking or garaging. He felt that an additional dwelling here would diminish the openness of the site and surrounding gardens and mature trees would have to be removed. Mr Boyer considered this to be over-development of the site. Mr Boyer said that Rose Cottage was one of the oldest cottages in the Village and adjacent to two similar properties, an attractive feature of the Village. The proposed four-bedroomed house on three floors was unsuitable for the plot and out of character with the low buildings adjacent to it. The proposed dwelling could be a family house which would result in more people, more cars and more noise. Mr Boyer informed the Committee that the road outside the proposed site was extremely narrow, without pavement or grass verge. The road bent round the front of Rose Cottage and was a blind corner. The proposed access was immediately opposite the pedestrian’s entrance to Fern Cottage. This was a hazardous situation as it would be impossible to see approaching traffic or pedestrians to the right when leaving the site. Mr Boyer pointed out that the only secluded area of his garden, the patio and doors opening onto it, were immediately next to the proposed dwelling. The back door of the proposed house would face his patio and the height of the house would also mean that his home could be overlooked from upstairs windows. Mr Boyer felt that over-development of the area would gradually spoil the Village and requested that the application be refused.

The applicant’s agent, Mr Ian Gibson, responded. He felt that the proposals were reasonable as this was a windfall opportunity. The design of the dwelling was of sympathetic scale and local materials were to be used. Mr Gibson felt the proposed dwelling would compliment the visual appearance of the Village. With regard to car parking, the drawings had been revised and provided additional space for cars and a turning area. Mr Gibson referred to the timing of the application and felt that his applicant had fallen foul of a change in planning policy as Brigsteer was no longer seen as a key service area. He expressed concern with regard to the fairness and equity of these planning changes and to the fact that this proposal was now seen as unsustainable development. He felt the proposal was an opportunity for a genuine windfall site, sustainable within the local environment.

The Planning Services Manager showed a photograph of the proposed site and informed Members that the existing structure 354 11.11.2003 Planning

in the garden was to be removed. He reported that there had been some revision to the plans, including improvements to the access. He shared the views of the objector with regard to the narrowness of the highway, although the Highway Authority had not yet had an opportunity to comment on whether the revised proposals were appropriate. The Planning Services Manager referred to the changes to Planning Policy of which Members were aware and pointed out that this was not a key service centre.

REFUSED for the reasons below:-

(1) Notwithstanding the fact that the application site constitutes previously developed land and is within the built up part of Brigsteer, the proposed development represents an over-provision of new housing development at a time when the District has already exceeded its Housing target for the period of the adopted Cumbria and Lake District Joint Structure Plan (1991-2006). As a consequence the development is in conflict with Policy 30 of the Adopted Structure Plan.

(2) Brigsteer is not identified as one of the key service centres under Policy ST2 of the Deposit Version of the Cumbria and Lake District Joint Structure Plan (2001-2016) published in May 2003. Residential Development outside the identified key service centres is not permitted unless it is in the form of affordable housing.

(3) The proposal is in conflict with Government advice contained in Planning Policy Guidance Note 3 (Housing) which aims to promote more sustainable patterns of development. The creation of a dwelling in this rural locality would be unsuitable and incompatible within the Government objective reducing rather than increasing the use of the car.

(4) The Local Planning Authority considers that clear visibility of 45 metres cannot be achieved along the public highway in both directions from a point 2 metres from the carriageway measured down the centre line of the minor/access road. Consequently the traffic generated by the proposed development would be likely to create conditions prejudicial to highway safety.

(5) The proposed development would result in a multiplicity of accesses onto the public highway, which would be likely to increase the risk of danger and inconvenience to all users of the road.

Note – Councillor Paul Little declared a personal and prejudicial interest in the following item of business by virtue of the fact that he was related to the person 355 11.11.2003 Planning

living in the flat associated with the application, and left the Council Chamber during the discussion and voting thereon.

SL/2003/2004 KENDAL: Orchard House and 39A Castle Garth, Castle Garth, Kendal. Change of use from office accommodation to children’s day nursery. (Mr Peter Graveson)

Mr Alan Easton addressed Members in objection to the application. He queried the need for a day nursery in this location as one already existed in Castle Street. The proposed nursery was to be open from 7.30 a.m. until 6.00 p.m. and would cause endless traffic problems. If the application was approved, problems would arise from Castle Garth through to Kirkbie Green and the noise of children would impinge on the residents’ right of peaceful existence.

The applicant was not present to respond.

The Planning Services Manager reported that the main issue relating to this application was of traffic generation. He informed Members that the residents of Castle Garth already parked their cars on the road. He felt that there was a lack of on-site parking (12 spaces) and pointed out that there would be 75 children attending the nursery and 12 members of staff. Although the applicant’s agent had indicated that the applicant would be willing to improve on-site parking and turning, the Planning Services Manager was not of the opinion that this could be achieved. The agent had also highlighted that Castle Garth was a public highway and that it was unreasonable for the residents to park on both sides of the road. He had pointed out that Orchard House had been in business use for many years, and accessed by cars during that time. It had also been the access to Kendal High School at one time and used as a route to school by children. The agent had said that not all of the 75 children attending the nursery would do so at any one time, nor would the 12 staff members, and many would arrive on foot. The agent felt that this was a much needed proposal and that the building was highly appropriate for use as a nursery.

Members were informed that the Town Council had recommended that the application be refused.

REFUSED for the reason below:-

On the information in the submission the proposal would be detrimental to road safety by reason of both the on-site lack of adequate parking and turning facilities and the impact on the local road system of the scale of traffic.

SL/2003/2014 KENDAL: Land adjoining 9 Clifford Drive, Kendal. Dwelling. (Mr and Mrs G. Adgie)

M/s Lindsey Ormesher, a neighbouring resident, spoke in objection to the application. She felt that the proposed application would compromise the privacy of the houses on 356 11.11.2003 Planning

Clifford Drive. The proposed dwelling would overlook her kitchen, bathroom and nursery. M/s Ormesher felt that the application would result in over-development of the complex. She felt that Russell Armer who originally developed the site would have put an extra dwelling in that location if they had been able to, however, the site was too small. M/s Ormesher raised issues with regard to parking and congestion within the area. When these houses has been built 20 years ago, most families only possessed one car. This was no longer the case and M/s Ormesher also felt that additional cars parked on the road would lead to problems for emergency services. M/s Ormesher highlighted the intended use of the property as rented accommodation. She felt that there was already enough property available to rent within the area and pointed out that what Kendal needed was affordable housing for locals.

The applicant, Mr G. Adgie, responded. He felt that all planning applications should be granted unless there were very good reasons for refusal. The proposed site lay within a sustainable area. He stated that he had originally intended to build an extension, however, this proposal seemed more sensible. He informed the Committee that the proposed dwelling was set back and mirrored that of the lady who was objecting. Mr Adgie referred to Policy H14 of the Lake District Joint Structure Plan (new deposit version), Policy UR4 of Regional Planning Guidance, Policy 3 and Policy 4. He also referred to a recent proposal which had been approved in Heversham which he believed to be a similar proposal to his. He felt his was a windfall site and asked the Committee to consider his application favourably.

The Planning Services Manager felt that this proposal would result in a cramped form of development.

REFUSED for the reason below:-

The proposal, by reason of its size and positioning, would be an unacceptable form of development resulting in a cramped appearance detrimental to the character of the street scene.

Note – Councillor Paul Little requested that, under Standing Order 15.6 his abstention from voting in respect of the above resolution be recorded.

528 COMPLEX PLANNING APPLICATIONS

RESOLVED – That the following application be determined in the manner set out:-

SL/2003/2010 STAINTON: Field at Barrows Green, Kendal. Building for the stabling of horses. (Alpha Amenity)

The Planning Services Manager reported that the Highway Authority had responded recommending refusal but that, should the application be granted, highway and access improvements would be required. An objection had been received from the 357 11.11.2003 Planning

Campaign for the Protection of Rural England on the grounds that the development was significantly larger than the existing building on the site and was not related to any other buildings which would cause a damaging effect. Three letters of objection had been received from nearby residents on the grounds of visual intrusion and traffic danger and referring to Local Plan Policy L9 controlling equestrian developments. The Planning Services Manager reported that a previous application for the site had been refused in July. The current proposal for a building on the same site had been reduced in scale but the Planning Services Manager was still concerned due to the rolling nature of the landscape which was designated as a Landscape of County Importance.

REFUSED for the reason below:-

The proposed building will not only be conspicuous within the landscape but also severely intrusive. If built, it will cause material harm to the character and appearance of the surrounding countryside and will, thereby, be in conflict with the aims and objectives of Policy 12 of the Cumbria and Lake District Joint Structure Plan and Policy L9 of the South Lakeland Local Plan.

529 GREAVES FARM, OLD HUTTON (5/02/1068 AND 5/02/3588)

The Planning Services Manager reported that a valid planning application had been received in July 2002 seeking planning permission for the conversion of a stone and slate barn to form a single dwelling at Greaves Farm, Old Hutton. Strong concerns had been raised by the Environmental Protection Group about the physical relationship between the existing farm operation at Greaves Farm and, the possibility that should the barn be occupied by someone not part of the working farm or their family, complaints could arise about nuisance from the farm operations. The proposal had been considered by the Planning Committee in September 2002 and approved, with a condition stating, “During the time in which Greaves Farm, Old Hutton, is a working agricultural enterprise, the occupation of the dwelling hereby approved shall be limited to a person or persons employed at Greaves Farm, Old Hutton, or related to a person employed at Greaves Farm, Old Hutton.”

Following the issuing of that decision, a further planning application (5/02/3588) had been received seeking to lift that condition. The applicant’s agent had advanced an argument that if the applicant were to sign up to a Section 106 Agreement with the Council not to accommodate stock or store manure or animal waste in the farmyard, then that would address the potential nuisance concerns of the Environmental Protection Group.

Members had considered this proposition at their meeting in February this year when it had been refused as, “The relationship of this building to a working farm operation would, if converted to an unassociated residential unit, result in a property likely to be adversely affected by noise and disturbances generated by the aforementioned farm operation.”

An appeal had been lodged against this refusal and an Informal Hearing scheduled for 2 December 2003. 358 11.11.2003 Planning

The applicant’s agent was keen to avoid the time and cost of the Hearing and had requested that the Council’s Solicitor review the appropriateness of a Section 106 Agreement to resolve the matter. Members were advised that the Section 106 Agreement was an appropriate way of controlling the potential nuisance issues. As the earlier proposal to lift the condition had been refused, a fresh planning application would need to be submitted and determined under delegated powers prior to 2 December 2003 to prevent an unnecessary Informal Hearing taking place, subject to the signing of the Section 106 Agreement previously referred to.

RESOLVED – That the revised form of control, as outlined within the report, be attached to the fresh Planning Application, to be negotiated and determined by the Director of Strategy and Planning under delegated powers prior to 2 December 2003.

530 DIRECTOR OF STRATEGY AND PLANNING SEEKING AUTHORITY TO DETERMINE

RESOLVED – That the following applications be determined in the manner set out:-

SL/2003/2015 LOWER ALLITHWAITE: Land at and adjoining Lakeland Leisure (FPA) Park, Moor Lane, Flookburgh, Grange-over-Sands. Nine hole golf course, extension to and redevelopment of caravan site, caravan sales area and office, reception and office and associated works and landscaping. (The Bourne Leisure Group)

The Planning Services Manager reported that this was a proposal to redevelop the dated eastern side of the site. The applicants had provided further information detailing proposals for works to Moor Lane, including a 30mph speed limit, white lines for pedestrians, pedestrian refuges and precautionary signage. They had outlined plans to carry out additional landscaping and pointed out that the extension of the site was to be phased.

There were a number of technical consultation responses outstanding and the Planning Services Manager pointed out that the comments which had been attributed to Lower Holker Parish Council within the report were actually those of Lower Allithwaite Parish Council. Lower Holker Parish Council had since objected to the application on the grounds of traffic dangers, the inadequacy of the road network to accommodate additional traffic and construction traffic, and queries about the results of a speed survey, the Travel Plan and the actual economic benefit to local villages. An additional letter of objection had also been received from a resident of Grange-over-Sands raising the issue of traffic danger.

The Planning Services Manager requested that a decision on this application be deferred for further consultation responses, but asked Members to guide him as to the specific points they wished to clarify in the interim. 359 11.11.2003 Planning

Members raised queries on several points but mainly expressed concern with regard to pedestrian use of the highway and a desire to include a specific pavement or footway along Moor Lane. Clarification with regard to lighting and landscaping details were also sought.

DEFERRED for further highway details.

SL/2003/2016 LOWER ALLITHWAITE: Land at and adjoining Lakeland Leisure (OPA) Park, Moor Lane, Flookburgh, Grange-over-Sands. Aqua bar extension, new swimming pool changing room facility, nine hole crazy golf, new adventure play area, new terraces and new splash zone (OPA). (The Bourne Leisure Group)

DEFERRED for further highway details.

531 PROPOSED WIND FARM AT WHINASH

The Planning Services Manager advised Members of a major Wind Farm proposed within Eden District, but close to the boundary with South Lakeland. Because of the scale of the proposal, the application had been submitted directly to the Department of Trade and Industry, rather than to Eden District Council. 360 11.11.2003 Planning

The Planning Services Manager outlined details of the proposal to the Committee. It was clear that the landscape and visual impact would be significant in this District, with consequent impacts on amenity and the tourist industry which needed to be weighed against the benefits of renewable energy production.

RESOLVED – That

(1) the Department of Trade and Industry be urged to hold a Public Inquiry into this major proposal as the only satisfactory means of allowing full consideration of the many far-reaching implications; and

(2) the Department of Trade and Industry be informed that this Council would wish to make representations at such an Inquiry.

532 ENFORCEMENT ACTIVITY FROM 25 SEPTEMBER TO 22 OCTOBER 2003

RESOLVED – That the report be received.

533 ADJOURNMENT OF MEETING

The Committee adjourned at 4.34 p.m. and arranged to reconvene at 1.00 p.m. on Thursday, 20 November 2003, in order to complete consideration of the remaining items on the Agenda.