Item 2 Date of Committee: 20 April 2017
Planning Application No: 17/0095 Date Received: 13 February 2017
OS Grid Ref: 350335, 526794 Expiry Date: 20 April 2017
Parish: Sockbridge & Tirril Ward: Eamont Bridge
Application Type: Outline
Proposal: Outline planning permission for residential development.
Location: Land off access road to Sockbridge, adj Walmar Croft Head, Sockbridge and Tirril, Penrith
Applicant: Mr & Mrs Morrison
Agent: Holt Planning Consultancy Ltd
Case Officer: Caroline Brier
Reason for Referral: This application is before Members as the recommendation is contrary to that of the Parish Council
1 1. Recommendation
It is recommended that planning permission be granted subject to the following conditions/for the following reasons: Time Limit for Commencement 1. An application for approval of all reserved matters shall be made to the Local Planning Authority before the expiration of three years from the date of this permission. Reason: In order to comply with the provisions of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990. Approved Plans 2. The development hereby granted shall be carried out in accordance with the drawings hereby approved: i) 115-167-02B received 8 February 2017 ii) 115-167-01C received 8 February 2017 Reason: To ensure a satisfactory development and to avoid any ambiguity as to what constitutes the permission. Before the Development is Commenced 3. No development shall commence within the site until the applicant has secured the implementation of a programme of archaeological work in accordance with a written scheme of investigation which has been submitted by the applicant and approved by the Local Planning Authority. This written scheme will include the following components: i) An archaeological evaluation; ii) An archaeological recording programme the scope of which will be dependent upon the results of the evaluation; iii) Where significant archaeological remains are revealed by the programme of archaeological work, a post-excavation assessment and analysis, preparation of a site archive ready for deposition at a store approved by the Local Planning Authority, completion of an archive report, and submission of the results for publication in a suitable journal. Reason: To afford reasonable opportunity for an examination to be made to determine the existence of any remains of archaeological interest within the site and for the preservation, examination or recording of such remains. It is necessary for the condition to be on the basis that “No development shall commence until” as compliance with the requirements of the condition at a later time would result in unacceptable harm contrary to the policies of the Development Plan. 4. Prior to the commencement of any development, a surface water drainage scheme, based on the hierarchy of drainage options in the National Planning Practice Guidance with evidence of an assessment of the site conditions shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority.
The surface water drainage scheme must be in accordance with the Non- Statutory Technical Standards for Sustainable Drainage Systems (March 2015)
2 or any subsequent replacement national standards and unless otherwise agreed in writing by the Local Planning Authority, no surface water shall discharge to the public sewerage system either directly or indirectly. The development shall be completed in accordance with the approved details. Reason: To promote sustainable development, secure proper drainage and to manage the risk of flooding and pollution. This condition is imposed in light of policies within the NPPF and NPPG. It is necessary for the condition to be on the basis that “No development shall commence until” as compliance with the requirements of the condition at a later time would result in unacceptable harm contrary to the policies of the Development Plan. 5. The carriageway, footways, footpaths, cycleways etc shall be designed, constructed, drained to the satisfaction of the Local Planning Authority and in this respect further details, including longitudinal/cross sections, shall be submitted to the Local Planning Authority for approval before work commences on site. No work shall be commenced until a full specification has been approved. Any works so approved shall be constructed before the development is complete. Reason: To ensure a minimum standard of construction in the interests of highway safety. It is necessary for the condition to be on the basis that “No development shall commence until” as compliance with the requirements of the condition at a later time would result in unacceptable harm contrary to the policies of the Development Plan. 6. Details of all measures to be taken by the applicant/developer to prevent surface water discharging onto or off the highway shall be submitted to the Local Planning Authority for approval prior to development being commenced. Any approved works shall be implemented prior to the development being completed and shall be maintained operational thereafter. Reason: In the interests of highway safety and environmental management. It is necessary for the condition to be on the basis that “No development shall commence until” as compliance with the requirements of the condition at a later time would result in unacceptable harm contrary to the policies of the Development Plan. 7. No development shall commence until detailed drawings showing the development and means of access thereto have been submitted to the Local Planning Authority for approval. Any such approved means of access shall be completed in accordance with the approved details before the development is occupied. Footways shall be provided that link continuously and conveniently to the nearest existing footway. Pedestrian within and to and from the site shall be provided that is convenient to use. The (building/dwelling) shall not be occupied until a means of vehicular access has been constructed in accordance with (plans to be approved by the local planning authority/the approved plans).
Reason: To ensure a suitable standard of vehicular access in the interests of highway safety. It is necessary for the condition to be on the basis that “No development shall commence until” as compliance with the requirements of the condition at a later time would result in unacceptable harm contrary to the
3 policies of the Development Plan. 8. Before any development takes place, a plan shall be submitted for the prior approval of the local planning authority reserving adequate land for the parking of vehicles engaged in construction operations associated with the development hereby approved, and that land, including vehicular access thereto, shall be used for or be kept available for these purposes at all times until completion of the construction works. Reason: The carrying out of this development without the provision of these facilities during the construction work is likely to lead to inconvenience and danger to road users. It is necessary for the condition to be on the basis that “No development shall commence until” as compliance with the requirements of the condition at a later time would result in unacceptable harm contrary to the policies of the Development Plan. 9. No development shall commence until a construction surface water management plan has been agreed in writing with the local planning authority. Reason: To safeguard against flooding to surrounding sites and to safeguard against pollution of watercourses downstream of the site. It is necessary for the condition to be on the basis that “No development shall commence until” as compliance with the requirements of the condition at a later time would result in unacceptable harm contrary to the policies of the Development Plan. 10. No development shall take place until full details of both hard and soft landscape works, including a phased programme of works, have been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority and these works shall be carried out as approved prior to the occupation of any part of the development or in accordance with the programme agreed by the Local Planning Authority. Any trees or other plants which die or are removed within the first five years following the implementation of the landscaping scheme shall be replaced during the next planting season. Reason: To ensure that the development is landscaped in the interest of the visual character and appearance of the area. It is necessary for the condition to be on the basis that “No development shall commence until” as compliance with the requirements of the condition at a later time would result in unacceptable harm contrary to the policies of the Development Plan. Pre-Occupancy or Other Stage Conditions 11. Foul and surface water shall be drained on separate systems. Reason: To secure proper drainage and to manage the risk of flooding and pollution.
4 2. Proposal and Site Description 2.1 Proposal 2.1.1 This application seeks outline planning consent for the erection of five single storey dwellings on land off the access road to Sockbridge, adjacent to Walmar Croft Head, Sockbridge and Tirril. The application seeks to gain approval for the matters of access and layout only. Approval is not being sought for the scale, external appearance of the development or landscaping at this stage. 2.1.2 A plan has been submitted showing the layout of five single storey dwellings with one access for four of the properties and one property having its own access. 2.2 Site Description 2.2.1 The site, comprising of 0.74 hectares, is within the settlement of Sockbridge and Tirril which is a local service centre as defined within the adopted Core Strategy and therefore an area in which appropriate levels of development will be allowed. 2.2.2 The application site relates to a field which is approximately 82 metres wide and 90 metres long. It is bounded by a stone wall to the west and adjoins the garden area of Burnrill, Tirril, a field and Mardale, Sockbridge. A post and rail fence bounds the north and east of the site which sees the access road into Sockbridge to the north and a field to the east with a property, Greenacre, adjoining the site in the south east corner. A post and wire fence runs along the south of the site and abuts the rear of the properties whose frontage faces the main road through Tirril. 2.2.3 In terms of land form, the land rises slightly from the north to the south. 3. Consultees 3.1 Statutory Consultees Consultee Response Highway Authority No objection Lead Local Flood Authority No objection The following are detailed responses as outlined above: 3.1.1 Highway & Lead Local Flood Authority - The application for Outline planning permission for residential development. The access from the U3184 Highway maintainable at public expense road within the 30mph speed limit to the private site. The highway network which serves five dwellings, would be classed as Shared private access, which serves up to 5 dwellings, we would not look to adopting the highway, These are not adoptable roads as they do not form part of the public domain however where they meet the adoptable network designs must address required visibility splays and surface treatments. A plan should be submitted showing that adequate off-road parking can be provided within the site. As there is no safe opportunity for communal or on-street parking adjacent to the proposal site, we would expect the following number of parking spaces to be provided for each proposed dwelling: • 1 bedroom dwelling - 2 spaces • 2 bedroom dwelling - 2 spaces • 3, 4 or 5 bedroom dwelling - 3 spaces
5 Also a construction management plan should be submitted, reserving adequate land for the storage of materials and parking of vehicles/plant engaged in construction operations associated with the development and that land, including vehicular access thereto, shall be used for or be kept available for these purposes at all times until completion of the construction works. The access and parking/turning requirements, shall be substantially met before any building work commences on site so that constructional traffic etc: is accommodated clear of the highway. We can therefore confirm that the Local Highway Authority and the Lead Local Flood Authority has no objection to this application but we would recommend that the following conditions are included in any consent you might grant (see conditions 5, 6, 7 & 8) We would need to see much more detail regarding the drainage, this would include information identifying how the developer will deal with surface water discharge form the potential development site and measures taken to prevent surface water discharging onto the highway public highway or onto existing neighbouring developments. The applicant would need to undertake detail invasive ground investigation such as Trial pits which would need to be carried out to BRE 365 standards. The applicant would need to provide Calculations to determine if the site is suitable to undertake infiltration techniques and details showing that any proposed attenuation structure etc has the adequate capacity to deal with the volume of water running off the additional impermeable areas, if infiltration is not suitable for the proposed development then the applicant would need to provide detailed assessment which indicates that any discharge is attenuated to Greenfield runoff rates, the developer needs to show that they will not increase the volume of water leaving the site which could potential have a negative impact on existing developments downstream. With the above in mind Cumbria County Council as Lead Local Flood Authority would recommend the following (see conditions 4 & 9) 3.2 Discretionary Consultees Consultee Response Environmental Health No objection United Utilities No objection County Archaeologist No objection The following are detailed responses as outlined above: 3.2.1 Environmental Health - No observations to make on this application. 3.2.2 United Utilities - No objection to the proposed development provided that the following conditions are attached to any approval (see condition 4 & 10). A public sewer crosses this site and we may not permit building over it. We will require an access strip width of six metres, three metres either side of the centre line of the sewer which is in accordance with the minimum distances specified in the current issue of "Sewers for Adoption", for maintenance or replacement. Therefore a modification of the site layout, or a diversion of the affected public sewer at the applicant's expense, may be necessary. To establish if a sewer diversion is feasible, the applicant must discuss this at an early stage with our Developer Engineer at [email protected] as a lengthy lead in period may be required if a sewer diversion proves to be acceptable.
6 Deep rooted shrubs and trees should not be planted in the vicinity of the public sewer and overflow systems. 3.2.3 County Archaeologist - Our records indicate that the site lies in an area of archaeological interest. It is located on the edge of Tirril and Sockbridge villages, both of which are mentioned in documents from the 12th century. The 16th century Sockbridge Hall lies to the north and the course of a Roman road runs adjacent to the site. Furthermore, a Bronze Age mace has been found nearby. It is therefore considered that there is the potential for buried archaeological assets to be disturbed by the construction of the proposed development. I therefore recommend that, in the event planning consent is granted, an archaeological evaluation and, where necessary, a scheme of archaeological recording of the site be undertaken in advance of development. I advise that this work should be commissioned and undertaken at the expense of the developer and can be secured through the inclusion of a condition in any planning consent. I suggest the following form of words (see condition 3) 4. Parish Council Response Please Tick as Appropriate Parish Council No View Object Support No Response Expressed Sockbridge & Tirril 4.1 Summary 1. Sockbridge & Tirril is not a sustainable location for market housing because it would generate excessive car usage, due to there being too few jobs and services here. 2. Previous applications for the development of this site and adjacent sites were rejected on the grounds that this open land provides an important break between the two villages of Sockbridge & Tirril, which is a vital part of the settlement 1 pattern. 3. The proposed development is suburban in character, adjacent to the historic core of the village and the application fails to respect the character of the settlement, as well as the setting of Grade II listed buildings. 4. This is a greenfield site and building on it would form an extension to the village of Tirril and significantly change its character. It would be an unacceptable intrusion into open countryside. 5. The proposal would harm the landscape, on the edge of the Lake District National Park in a prominent position on the approach to the village from Penrith. 6. The proposal would cause harm to the living conditions of nearby residents. 7. The proposed development is contrary to the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF), because the adverse impacts of the proposed development significantly and demonstrably outweigh the benefits, when assessed against the policies in the NPPF taken as a whole. 8. The application is contrary to the Core Strategy because, in a Local Service Centre, it is not development which would sustain local services, support rural businesses or meet local needs. Furthermore, it would cause harm to the landscape and the character of the village.
7 9. Sockbridge & Tirril are not going to be a Key Hub for housing in the emerging Local Plan, which is at an advanced stage of preparation. This planning application for speculative market housing would not be approved under the emerging Local Plan. Furthermore, approval would undermine plan policies to sustain services in villages which do have them. Sockbridge & Tirril is not a Sustainable Location for Market Housing 10. The NPPF highlights the importance of sustainable development, and recognises three dimensions: economic, social and environmental.2 This application for market housing in Sockbridge & Tirril fails the test of sustainability on all three of these dimensions, as follows.
1 Planning Applications no: 81/0434, 89/0232 & 91/0070 and associated appeal decisions 2 National Planning Policy (NPPF), 2012, Paragraph 6 & 7 11. Economic: Apart from short term construction activity, the development will have little or no economic benefit, whilst permanent harm would be caused to agriculture and tourism; the balance of economic effects is negative: a) The Inn and the garage rely on trade from tourists and customers from a wide range of other settlements. They are unlikely to benefit significantly from 5 new bungalows in the village. b) These and other businesses derive income from tourism. There are four serviced accommodation establishments and more than a dozen self- catering units in the village. Tourism in the area is based upon the high quality local landscape and the traditional character of the built environment, both of which would be compromised by the proposed development.
Local agriculture would be harmed by the loss of productive agricultural land. Although the application claims the land is vacant and formerly of no use, it is in fact good quality agricultural land and has been intensively grazed by sheep and cattle for as long as can be remembered. Stocking rates have recently reduced, but until the middle of March there were still sheep in the field. When the field was sold in 2014, the estate agents described it as permanent 3 grassland in sound heart and well fenced. 12. Social: The Inspector at the Eden Local Plan hearings in 2016 made it clear that Sockbridge & Tirril is an unsustainable location for market housing development, primarily due to the lack of a reasonable level of services in the settlement. His judgement is set out in detail in his letter to the Council dated 19 May 2016.4 In summary: a) Key Hubs (where market housing will be permitted) should be villages with a good range of services, thereby resulting in fewer journeys to other places and a commensurate reduction in greenhouse gas emissions. b) Development should be focused in a smaller number of Key Hubs in order to safeguard their services. c) Allowing the development of market housing in the smaller villages like Sockbridge & Tirril, would undermine the agreed strategy of focusing development in the Key Hubs, where it can deliver the greatest benefit; to do otherwise would diminish the benefit of planned sustainable development. 13. Housing development in Sockbridge & Tirril will not sustain local services. There
8 are no existing services which would be protected or enhanced by housing development: a) The Queen’s Head Inn would not benefit significantly from 5 new bungalows, as stated above. The business is not under threat. b) The village hall is well used and has recently undergone substantial renovation. More users would exacerbate the parking problems there.
3 NWA Property, Sales particulars for auction of 0.76 hectares of permanent grassland, Situated at Tirril near Penrith, 28 August, 2014. 4 Letter from Inspector Melvyn Middleton to Mr Megson, Eden District Council, 19 May 2016 c) The villages happen to be on the bus route between Patterdale and Penrith, which is dependent for passengers on tourists and people living throughout the Ullswater valley. The poor frequency of the tourist-related service rules out its use for commuting to work or for evening social and educational activities. Use of the bus service is unlikely to be significantly increased by the occupants of new speculative housing in Sockbridge & Tirril, who are more likely anyway to use the car. d) The nearest primary school in Yanwath has recently been expanding its premises, mainly due to demand from Penrith and other communities. It does not need more children in Tirril to secure its future. Anyway, the application states that the proposed development is aimed at the elderly, rather than families. 14. Environmental: Harm would be caused as follows: a) Rather than meet the NPPF requirement5 of contributing to protecting and enhancing our natural, built and historic environment, the proposed development would cause substantial environmental harm, as described in Paragraphs 16-30 below. b) Rather than meet the requirement to mitigate and adapt to climate change including moving to a low carbon economy, the proposed development would have the opposite effect, by generating excessive car journeys, due to the lack of jobs and services in this settlement. 15. Sockbridge & Tirril is not a sustainable location for market housing. Harm to the Form & Character of Sockbridge & Tirril 16. Previous applications for the development of this site and adjacent sites have been rejected consistently on the grounds that this open land provides an important break between the two villages of Sockbridge and Tirril, which is an essential part of the character of the settlement. Previous decisions include: a) 81/0434 - Application for 2 bungalows on the south-east part of the Chambers Garage field (Field no: 1981, outlined in blue in the map overleaf), adjoining (to the west of) the current application field - refused by the Council, stating: If permitted it would result in further intrusion of development into this important open space between the villages of Sockbridge & Tirril. b) 81/0434 - Appeal decision T/APP/5165/A/82/1315/07, 21 May 1982 - appeal dismissed, stating: I am bound to say that if it were allowed, I consider that it would make it difficult to resist proposals to develop other parts of the field. The net result would be the coalescence of the 2 settlements and it is a
9 situation which I am not disposed to encourage.
5 NPPF, Paragraph 7
c) 89/0232 - Application for 21 houses on the current application site (Field no: 3475, outlined red on the map above) - refused by the Council, stating: The development proposed would amalgamate the two villages of Sockbridge & Tirril to the detriment of adjoining property and the rural locality in general. The development proposed would establish a precedent for further extensions to the village form. d) 91/0070 - Application for 2 bungalows on part of field 1981, adjoining (to the west of) the current application field - refused by the Council, stating: If permitted, it would result in a further intrusion of development into the open space between Sockbridge & Tirril, amalgamating the two villages to the detriment of the adjoining property and the rural locality in general. e) 91/0070 - Appeal decision T/APP/H0928/A/91/192715/P8, 29 Jan 92 (part of field no. 1981) - appeal dismissed, stating: In my view, Tirril has the character of long established linear built development alongside the Pooley Bridge to Penrith road and a side road to the south. Sockbridge is a large area of primarily modern estate development which has expanded relatively recently. OS Field no 1981 divides the 2 and, in my opinion, the appeal site, although small and narrow, is a strategic neck of open land separating these distinct settlements and joining the larger field to the west to the open countryside to the east (which is the site of the current planning application). The proposal would introduce harmful built development into a vital part of that open break and furthermore, if allowed, would be likely to lead to pressure for further development of nearby open land which would gradually erode its visual amenity value. I conclude that the proposal would significantly harm the character and appearance of the area. 17. These decisions emphasise the importance of protecting the open break between
10 Sockbridge & Tirril. They may have been made some time ago, but the logic remains precisely the same. If this development were approved, it would significantly harm the character and appearance of the area. Furthermore, approval of the current application would be likely to lead to pressure to develop other parts of that open break, to cause further harm. Harm to the Historic Core of Tirril 18. The proposed development is suburban in character and the application fails to respect the character of the settlement. The application site adjoins the historic heart of Tirril; it imposes a development that is inappropriate to the village and has an adverse effect on the setting of several Grade II listed buildings. 19. The established character of Tirril, as one passes through, is of a traditional Eden Valley village, the road lined with vernacular buildings with a triangular green providing a focus and open space surrounded by historic buildings. The modern dwellings of Sockbridge are largely concealed, for the most part being away from the main road and situated in a former quarry. The proposed development is in such a prominent location on the approach to the settlement that it would be a discordant and dominant modern feature which would harm the traditional character of the village.
6 20. Historic maps, such as the 1900 example above, demonstrate how the settlements of Tirril and Sockbridge were clearly separate, each with their own character and historic background. The physical separation has been maintained even with modern development having been accommodated in Sockbridge. This current proposal would remove the physical and visual separation and would detract from the distinctive character the settlements make to the Eden countryside. As the Eden Design Summary states, any new development should aim to enhance the countryside character rather than detract from it and any proposed development on the edge of a settlement should respect the character and be undertaken with sensitivity.
6 Ordnance Survey 1900 series, surveyed between 1896 & 1904
21. There are 27 listed buildings in Tirril and Sockbridge; each contributes to the rich historic character and quality of these settlements. A number of the listed buildings would be directly affected by the imposition of this development and would harm the contribution they make to the village. The historic core of the village of Tirril, which includes the listed buildings directly affected by the
11 development (The Green and The Old Post Office), contributes to a pleasing distinctive village character. The imposition of the development of 5 bungalows would lead to the loss of local distinctiveness and erode the special character of the place. The layout of the proposed application is characteristic of a 1970s development; it does not respect the linear nature of the existing village and has no relationship to the traditional form of the historic buildings. It would be an incongruous addition detracting from the village and countryside environment. 22. On a site of 0.76 ha, the proposed development is a low density of 6.6 dwellings per ha, which is in marked contrast to the tightly packed nature of the established settlement pattern in the village (and is inefficient use of land). Cumbria County Council considers that the site has potential archaeological significance and has advised Eden District Council that in line with national planning policy, evaluatory work should be undertaken to assess the site for the presence of archaeological remains7. The field falls within a site on the County Historic Environment Record for the former medieval village of Sockbridge and Tirril. The Roman road passes close to the site and there was also a find of a prehistoric stone mace in the vicinity. We believe that the site is of such archaeological significance that it should not be developed. Extension to the Village 23. This is a greenfield site and building on it would form an unwelcome extension to the village and significantly change its character. 24. The site is bounded to the south by houses and there is a bungalow adjoining the north-west corner. The site is open agricultural land, outside the boundary of the village. This was endorsed by the Inspector who dismissed the appeal on application 91/0070. He described the current application site, being ‘land to the east of the appeal site’, as open countryside. (Paragraph16 (e) above). Harm to Landscape and Wildlife 25. The Local Plan (ENV2) states that the impact of potential new development will be assessed against the criteria within the Cumbria Landscape Character Guidance and Toolkit. The site is located within Landscape Character Type 12b: ‘Rolling Fringe’ as categorised in the Guidance. The vision associated with this 8 character type states: in order to avoid intrusion into this landscape development will be strictly controlled particularly where it could affect key views in to the Lake District National Park.
7 See Cumbria County Council representation on this planning application, March 2017. 8 Cumbria County Council, Cumbria Landscape Character Guidance, Page 148, Sub-Type 12: Rolling Fringe.
26. On the approach to Tirril from Penrith (one of the main routes for visitors to the Ullswater valley), there are fine views of Mell Fell and the Helvellyn range above glimpses of the roofs of distant village buildings. These views would be marred by the proposed development, which would be very prominent from the B5320. For walkers and riders on Sockbridge Lane, which is part of the popular walk around the village, there are fine views of the Lake District fells and the traditional heart of the village across the field. These views would be seriously compromised by the proposed development, which would be very prominent from the Lane. 27. This site is categorised as an important transitional pastoral landscape. The
12 proposed suburban development of 5 bungalows and associated access would have an adverse impact on the local landscape character and the setting of the National Park. 9 Under guidance for development: These ‘transitional’ landscapes are traditionally fragile in nature and new development may further exaggerate this trend eroding distinctive characteristics. Protect settlement fringes from unsympathetic development Ensure that new development respects scale, form and distinctive character of villages. 28. The location of the site on the edge of the existing village is particularly sensitive to change and will have an impact upon the traditional settlement character as a whole, thus contrary to the guidelines outlined above. 29. Soon after the site was sold to the prospective developers in 2014, around 130 metres of hedgerow and trees around the field were removed. A colony of tree sparrows (a species which has suffered a catastrophic UK decline in recent years) was displaced. This unauthorised development caused harm to the landscape and wildlife around the village. The removal of this hedgerow has allowed the applicant to imply that there is no hedgerow ecosystem that the Council has to consider when deciding on this application. Regardless of the outcome of the current planning enforcement investigation, we submit that the applicants should not be able to rely on their own unlawful act in their planning application and that the Council should consider the application on the basis that the site is in the condition it ought to be, ie as if this hedgerow and its tree sparrow population were still there. Harm to the Living Conditions of Local Residents 30. The houses adjoining and to the south of the application site have short rear gardens and low fences. Consequently the proposed development would adversely affect their living conditions, through loss of privacy and from noise and disturbance from traffic and pedestrians. 31. Residents in those houses to the south of the site claim established rights of access across the site to the backs of their houses. This is the only means of access to their rear gardens, without going through the house. The current Land
9 Cumbria County Council, Cumbria Landscape Character Guidance, Page 148 & 149, Sub- Type 12: Rolling Fringe.
Registry entry for the application site10 records that it is subject to a restrictive covenant prohibiting the erection of any building on the site. 32. Car parking in the village, especially near the village hall and along the main street, is inadequate. Elderly residents from the new development would not be able to park near village facilities. The busy B5320 is hazardous for motorists and pedestrians due to blind bends and lack of pavements at critical points. The proposed development would exacerbate these problems. Adverse Impacts in relation to the National Planning Policy Framework 33. NPPF Paragraph 28: planning should support sustainable rural tourism and leisure developments that benefit businesses in rural areas; this proposal is harmful to rural tourism.
13 34. NPPF Paragraph 34 & 37: planning should minimise travel; this proposal would result in excessive travel. 35. NPPF Paragraph 54: plan housing development to reflect local needs; the application does not reflect local needs. 36. NPPF Paragraph 95: plan for new development in ways which reduce greenhouse gas emissions; this proposal would have the opposite effect. 37. NPPF Paragraph 109: the planning system should contribute to and enhance the natural and local environment and minimise impacts on biodiversity; this proposal would damage the environment and local ecosystems. 38. NPPF Paragraph 112: local planning authorities should seek to develop poorer quality agricultural land in preference to higher quality; this proposal would result in loss of good farm land. 39. NPPF Paragraph 115: Great weight should be given to conserving landscape and scenic beauty in National Parks; this proposal would harm the landscape close to the Lake District. 40. NPPF Paragraphs 128 & 129: In determining planning applications the local planning authority should require an applicant to describe the significance of any heritage assets affected and undertake appropriate assessment and evaluation; this has not been done and there is concern that heritage assets may be affected. 41. NPPF Paragraph 132: harm caused by development within the setting of a heritage asset, including Grade II listed buildings should be avoided; this proposal adversely affects the setting of several Grade II listed buildings. Contrary to the Core Strategy 42. Policy CS1 of the Core Strategy states that development should: Reflect and enhance landscape character having regard to the sensitivity of the Eden Valley, the North Pennines AONB, the Lake District National Park, and their settings. The proposed development fails to reflect and enhance the local landscape character, as detailed in Paragraphs 16-30 above.
10 Land Registry, Official Copy of Register of Title No: CU101189, issued 7 March 2017
43. Sockbridge and Tirril is defined as a Local Service Centre in the Core Strategy. Policy CS2 states that the following development is appropriate here: small scale development to sustain local services, support rural businesses and meet local needs, including housing, provision of employment and improvements to accessibility. The proposed development is in conflict with this policy as it will not sustain local services or support rural businesses (as detailed in Paragraphs 10-13 above). It does not meet local needs: the application states no affordable housing required, and bungalows are not needed as explained in Paragraph 50 below. 44. The proposed development contravenes Policy CS3 and CS17, by failing to respect and reinforce the character of the wider landscape and the special character and sense of place of villages and hamlets, by failing to conserve listed buildings and their settings, and by failing to protect the open countryside from inappropriate development (Paragraphs 16-33 above).
14 45. By causing the coalescence of Sockbridge & Tirril, it contravenes Policy CS24 which states that development proposals should not result in the unacceptable loss of open space within settlements…unless there would be no harm to spaces which contribute to the distinctive form and character of a settlement. Contrary to the Emerging Local Plan 46. Sockbridge & Tirril is not a village where Eden District Council envisages any growth beyond local needs. It is not a sustainable location for market-led housing development. It does not have the basic services and facilities which the Council has identified as minimum requirements for a Key Hub, where such development would be acceptable and beneficial. 47. The Inspector has advised11 on the soundness of the settlement policy in the Local Plan and the Council has agreed revisions to make that part of the plan sound. The number of Key Hubs has been reduced from 28 to 12. Sockbridge & Tirril were among the first settlements to be eliminated from the Key Hub category12 and it is highly unlikely that this would be reversed at this advanced stage of plan formulation, in view of the Inspector’s advice. 48. In the emerging Local Plan as recently published,13 Sockbridge & Tirril will be governed by policies for Smaller Village & Hamlet (Policy LS1), limiting development to reuse of previously developed land or on greenfield sites to meet local demand only. This is a greenfield site and the application does not meet local demand only. 49. Policy HS2 in the Local Plan restricts housing development in Smaller Villages & Hamlets to infill and rounding off, with no more than 150 square metres of gross floorspace, and where there is a condition or legal agreement restricting occupancy to only those meeting local connection criteria. The proposed
11 Letter from Inspector Melvyn Middleton to Mr Megson, Eden District Council, 19 May 2016 12 Eden District Council, Key Hubs - Housing Distribution & Sites, January 2017, Para. 4.18 13 Eden District Council, Key Hubs - Housing Distribution & Sites, January 2017 Appendix 20 – Revised wording for Policy LS1 (Locational Strategy).
development fails to meet these criteria. It is not infill or rounding off: infill or rounding off means one or two houses in a small gap between existing buildings, not an extension of the settlement into what a Planning Inspector has described as open countryside. The application is for dwellings of 200 square metres. The application itself states that this development is not for local needs. The application suggests that there is a shortage of bungalows and it aims to tackle
the widely acknowledged deficiency of this house design in addressing the poorly-served ageing population - a phenomena more acute in Eden than 14 most places elsewhere.
There is no such shortage. There are 65 bungalows already in Sockbridge & Tirril (32% of the housing stock, in comparison with 9% for England as a whole15) and they frequently come on the market. Persimmon Homes recently argued that 16 there is insufficient demand for new bungalows to justify building them. 50. The application contravenes Policy ENV2 by failing to take account of and complement firstly the form of the settlement within its landscape setting, and secondly natural elements such as hedgerows.
15 51. The application contravenes Policy ENV10 by causing substantial harm to the historic environment including the setting of grade II Listed Buildings. Conclusion 17 52. The NPPF states that: Relevant policies for the supply of housing should not be considered up-to- date if the local planning authority cannot demonstrate a five-year supply of deliverable housing sites. 53. However, as identified in a recent planning appeal decision in Allerdale18, it is important to note that the lack of a five-year housing land supply is a temporary circumstance and as a short-term problem it must be weighed against the permanent harm caused to the character of an area and the living conditions of nearby residents. 54. Because the Council cannot demonstrate a five-year land supply, the Core Strategy and its settlement policies are out of date and more weight should be given to the emerging Local Plan which is at an advanced stage. Some weight may be given to the Core Strategy and it should be concluded that the proposed development is not in accordance with its policies CS1, CS2, CS3, CS17 and CS24, as established in Paragraphs 43-46 above. 55. The latest version of the Local Plan agreed by the Council rules out this proposed development, as established in Paragraphs 47-52 above. The Council’s Executive resolved in October 201519 that
14 Holt Planning Consultancy, Statement submitted with the application, page 1, Summary 15 DCLG, 2010, English Housing Survey, Table 1.1 – Stock Profile 16 Persimmon Homes, Evidence presented to Eden District Council Planning Committee, application number 14/0405 on 16 March 2017 17 National Planning Policy Framework, 2012, Paragraph 49 18 Allerdale Borough Council, planning appeal ref. APP/G0908/A/13/2193690 19 Eden District Council Executive, minute E/62/10/15
once published for consultation, weight be given to the draft Eden Local Plan as a material consideration when undertaking decision making on planning applications, in accordance with Paragraph 216 of the National Planning Policy Framework. Paragraph 216 of the National Planning Policy Framework states: From the day of publication, decision-takers may also give weight to relevant policies in emerging plans according to: a) the stage of preparation of the emerging plan (the more advanced the preparation, the greater the weight that may be given); b) the extent to which there are unresolved objections to relevant policies (the less significant the unresolved objections, the greater the weight that may be given); and c) the degree of consistency of the relevant policies in the emerging plan to the policies in this Framework (the closer the policies in the emerging plan to the policies in the Framework, the greater the weight that may be given). Regarding a): the plan has been modified to meet the advice of the Inspector after consultations and public hearings to examine its soundness, and the
16 amended policies are currently out for consultation. This is an advanced stage of the process and considerable weight should therefore be given to the Local Plan. Regarding b): there are no unresolved objections to Sockbridge & Tirril being removed from the category of Key Hub, and this is most unlikely to change in view of the Inspector’s advice and the lack of sufficient services in the village. Policies LS1 (the section which guides development in Smaller Villages & Hamlets), HS2, ENV2 & ENV10 are not contentious, there are no unresolved objections to them and they are unlikely to change prior to adoption, so should be given full weight in determining this application. The application is not consistent with any of those policies. Regarding c): the Local Plan’s revised settlement policy and policies LS1, HS2, ENV2 & ENV10 are fully consistent with the NPPF and should be given appropriate weight in determining this application.
56. At the heart of the NPPF20 is a presumption in favour of sustainable development. For decision making this means: where the development plan is absent, silent, or relevant policies are out-of- date, granting permission, unless: any adverse impacts of doing so would significantly and demonstrably outweigh the benefits, when assessed against the policies in this Framework taken as a whole.
20 National Planning Policy Framework, 2012, Paragraph 14
57. Mr Justice Jay in the Cheshire East case21 clarifies how this presumption should be applied. There should be an element of flexibility: If, taking just one example, the impact or harm is substantial but not such as significantly and demonstrably to outweigh the benefits, then the decision- taker has sufficient flexibility to refuse permission, provided of course that the other material considerations, if any, are carefully defined and assessed. 58. The main benefit of the proposal is the construction of 5 bungalows. However, no local need has been demonstrated for these dwellings and none is intended. The evidence indicates there is no local need for bungalows in Sockbridge & Tirril (Paragraph 50 above). There has been an over-supply of housing development in the Local Service Centres and Key Hubs. Continued over-supply in Smaller Villages like Sockbridge & Tirril undermines the settlement policy in the emergent 22 23 Local Plan, as judged by the Inspector and accepted by the Council. 5 bungalows are insignificant in the context of the housing needs of the district, but the permanent harm caused is disproportionally great. 59. We describe in Paragraphs 10-15 above the harm which would be caused by this development, in relation to the three dimensions of sustainable development set out in the NPPF.24 Paragraphs 16-33 describe the harm which would be caused to the form and character of the settlement of Sockbridge & Tirril, to the setting of the historic buildings in the heart of Tirril, to the landscape and open country on the approach to the National Park, to the local economy and to the living
17 conditions of nearby residents. These adverse effects are contrary to policies in the NPPF (as established in Paragraphs 34-42 above). We believe that the permanent adverse impacts of the proposed development significantly and demonstrably outweigh the benefits, when assessed against the policies in the NPPF taken as a whole. Therefore, in accordance with the NPPF25 as well as the local development plan, this application should be refused.
21 Mr Justice Jay’s Judgement, Case No: CO/5040/2015, Date: 16/03/2016, Paragraph 28 22 Letter from Inspector Melvyn Middleton to Mr Megson, Eden District Council, 19 May 2016, page 2 4th paragraph & page 3, bottom paragraph 23 Eden District Council, Key Hubs - Housing Distribution and Sites, January 2017, Para. 4.4 24 NPPF, Paragraph 7 25 NPPF, Paragraph 14 5. Representations 5.1 Letters of consultation were sent to nearby neighbours and a site notice was posted on 1 March 2017. No of Neighbours Consulted 13 No of letters of support 1 No of Representations Received 37 No of neutral representations 0 No of objection letters 36 5.2 Letters of support were received which provided the following comments: It represents in fill and not expansion. It is small scale and entirely appropriate to meet the needs of the village. I do not share the view of some residents and the parish council that Sockbridge and Tirril are fine as we are and therefore no building is welcome. The village needs to accommodate residents who raise their children in the village and ultimately want them to stay. In order for that to happen we have to have more houses in the village. It is fool hardy and in fact unrealistic to just stand still. I am confident the dwellings proposed will be built sympathetically and in keeping with the character of the village. 5.3 Letters of objection raised the following material considerations to the application: Previous applications for development have been refused as the site provides a separation between Sockbridge and Tirril. Greatly concerned regarding access to the site as the entrance to 4 of the properties would be from the sharp, blind corner. Numerous large farm vehicles use the road at all times, a substantial increase in traffic would be liable to cause even more dangers as vision is greatly restricted when turning right into the cul- de-sac. Any building would significantly change the character of the village. The proposed development is urban in nature and fails to respect the historic character of the village. Due to the poor level of services available and the irregular bus service, each new household would require 1, 2 or perhaps more cars to be introduced into the area, with consequent pollution effect on the environment. This is particularly harmful to any intention to reduce the carbon footprint of the district, which in turn adversely affects the Government’s commitment to carbon reduction in the Climate Change Act 2010.
18 A local archaeologist has researched into what lies in the field; it has historical and archaeological significance. It has the potential to be listed as a National Heritage Listing. Inadequate village infrastructure to support such a development (roads; pavements; lighting; drainage; sewage and parking facilities). Yanwath Primary School is oversubscribed and is currently on special measures in relation to financial governance. There is no safe method to reach Yanwath School by foot despite being within walking distance. The buildings seem rather suburban in design, which seems wrong considering they are in the historic end of a picturesque village. Proposed development is not in-keeping with the adjacent houses of Tirril, many dating back to the 18th century. It makes profligate use of a large greenfield site for very few dwellings. Concerned over the loss of sunlight and daylight. The wholly inappropriate development shows no evidence that it will either meet local demand or support the development of our community. 5 bungalows are too many as it would almost double the amount of properties in the area. It would be harmful to the landscape, as it would be very visible on the approach to the village from Penrith, and on the approach to the Lake District National Park. 5.4 Letters of objection raised the following non-material considerations: The site is green field, prime agricultural land and would form an extension to the village. The District Council have decided that this field should not be included as a possible housing site in their Land Availability assessment 2015. The Land Registry entries for this property record that it is subject to a Restrictive Covenant which prohibits the erection of any building on the land. Sockbridge and Tirril are not going to be a key hub for housing under the new local plan. In the re-evaluation of the 28 settlements previously put forward, Sockbridge and Tirril were ranked 26 out of 28, and are not one of the 12 now selected. It is a matter of fact that Sockbridge and Tirril are two distinct settlements. This is evident by road signs in the area, ordinance survey maps and the addresses of properties in common use. First, in a planning appeal relating to land adjoining this site (Application 81/0434 decided on 21 May1982), where the inspector concluded: “I have decided that the principal issue in this case is the impact that the proposed development would have on the area... I consider that the field, of which the site is part, provides a quite useful and distinct break between the two (villages). While it may not be readily apparent to those passing through, I am satisfied that it is a strong amenity feature for local residents and one which I consider to be worthy of protection. ...The net result would be the coalescence of the two settlements and it is a situation which I am not disposed to encourage.”
19 In rejecting Planning Application 89/0232, which related to this particular site(LTi1), EDC included in its decision of 18 May 1989 the reason: “The development proposed would amalgamate the two villages of Sockbridge and Tirril to the detriment of the amenity of adjoining property and the rural locality in general.” When rejecting the 1989 application in relation to the site, EDC gave the reason: “The development proposed would establish a precedent for further extensions of the existing village form”. There is a right of way across this piece of land because without it (occupiers of the houses adjacent) would struggle to access their back gardens. The site is designated as permanent grassland and was sold as such. In a referendum organised by the District Councillor (November 2015) the electorate were very clear in their objections to more housing in Sockbridge and Tirril (majority of 80% against on a 75% turnout). It has no ‘affordable’ element (the number of units may have been chosen to avoid any such obligation). The proposal doesn’t make provision for off-road parking at the rear of the traditional houses south of the proposed site, ie facing the ‘narrows’ of the B5320. Concerned over loss of views would affect properties within the area. Changes the status of the village, it becomes a dormitory town. There are houses for sale in the village already so no need for more. The planning application is being rushed through whilst the village is awaiting village status as per the Local Plan. The hedge which used to house rare birds and fronted this site has been removed without planning permission it would appear. The proposed dwellings are for profit purposes only and will not be occupied by people within Sockbridge or Tirril. The residents of the (nearby) houses will have to suffer noise, dirt and dust. Heavy machines and heavy lorries when all the construction work is being carried out. This could go on for up to 2 years. The proposed site plan is not correct in some of the detail, ie house names. 6. Relevant Planning History Application No Description Outcome 89/0232 Residential development with Play Area, FR 18/05/89 Bowling Green and Related Pavilion 7. Policy Context 7.1 Core Strategy DPD Policy: CS1 - Sustainable Development Principles CS2 - Locational Strategy CS7 - Principles for Housing CS8 - Making Efficient Use of Land
20 CS10 - Affordable Housing CS18 - Design of New Development Supplementary Planning Documents: Housing (2010) 7.2 Other Material Considerations National Planning Policy Framework: Delivering a wide choice of high quality homes Requiring good design National Planning Practice Guidance 7.3 The policies detailed above are the most relevant policies relating to this application. 7.4 Eden Local Plan 2014-2032: This is the emerging local plan for Eden District Council, but is not yet at the stage where any of the individual policies or allocations can be considered to have any weight. 8. Planning Assessment 8.1 Key/Main Planning Issues Principle Landscape and Visual Impact Housing Need Residential Amenity Infrastructure Archaeology Emerging Eden Local Plan Position Other Matters 8.2 Principle 8.2.1 It is noted that planning applications must be determined in accordance with the Development Plan unless material considerations indicate otherwise. At the present time, the Council is unable to demonstrate a five year housing land supply and in accordance with the National Planning Policy Framework (the NPPF) paragraph 49 “relevant policies for the supply of housing should not be considered up-to-date if the local planning authority cannot demonstrate a five-year supply of deliverable housing sites”. In light of this the development plan policies which relate to the supply housing are considered out-of-date and they are therefore afforded less weight in the planning assessment. The NPPF requires in paragraph 14 that “where the development plan is out-of-date, planning permission should be granted unless… the adverse impacts would significantly and demonstrably outweigh the benefits when assessed against the policies in the NPPF…or specific policies in the NPPF indicate development should be restricted”. It is considered that Sockbridge and Tirril is a sustainable location for new housing with local services and public transport links which is supported by the NPPF. 8.2.2 It is important to note however, that whilst the lack of a five year housing supply is a serious concern, at a planning appeal in Allerdale (APP/G098/A/13/2193690), the Inspector noted that the lack of a five year housing supply is a temporary circumstance and as a short term problem it must be weighed against the permanent harm caused to the character of an area and the conditions of nearby residents. 8.2.3 The proposal site is on a piece of greenfield land which currently creates an open area of undeveloped land between the villages of Sockbridge and Tirril. Sockbridge and
21 Tirril are defined as one Local Service Centre within the adopted Core Strategy; they are not defined as separate Local Service Centres. Development in such villages would be limited to “small scale development to sustain local services, support rural businesses and meet local needs including housing, provision of employment, improvements to accessibility”. 8.2.4 Policy CS10 Affordable Housing seeks a target of 30% affordable housing for each development above the minimum size threshold of 4 units and any variance from that proportion may require a site based viability assessment. In this case the Council would previously have sought one unit to be affordable under CS6 and the Housing SPD. However following changes to Planning Practice Guidance on 19 May 2016, it is no longer possible to secure affordable units for applications of this size. However, the Council is still able to secure a commuted sum payable to the Council’s affordable housing fund for schemes of 6-10 units. For schemes of 5 or less, such as the proposed scheme, no commuted sum or affordable housing contribution is required. 8.2.5 Therefore the principle of residential development at this site is considered acceptable. 8.3 Landscape and Visual Impacts 8.3.1 With regards to the visual impacts of this proposal objectors have commented on a previous application that was refused for a residential development on this area of land. This application was refused in 1989 and two of the reasons were: ‘The development proposed would amalgamate the two villages of Sockbridge and Tirril to the detriment of the amenity of adjoining property and the rural locality in general’; and ‘The development proposed would establish a precedent for further extensions of the existing village form’. It is important to note that whilst the above reasons for refusal may have been appropriate to the Development Plan at that time, this application is being considered under an updated Development Plan. In both the Eden Local Plan (1996) and Core Strategy (2010) Sockbridge and Tirril are considered as one settlement for planning purposes. 8.3.2 The site would be visible on the approach to Sockbridge and Tirril from the B5320 road which continues through Tirril and also the U3184 road into Sockbridge. Whilst visible it is not considered that a detrimental harm would be caused on the amenity of the area. The site is behind the historical and listed buildings of Tirril and as such it is not considered that this proposal would harm the character of these buildings. 8.3.3 This site is considered well related to Sockbridge and Tirril. It is noted that in the past the separation of the two villages has been deemed an important distinction. When considering if the adverse impacts of losing the separation would significantly and demonstrably outweigh the benefits of housing in this location, the benefit of retaining the separation is considered lesser. 8.3.4 The Core Strategy Policy CS8 - Making Efficient Use of Land has a requirement for schemes to have a minimum density of 30 dwellings per hectare. This site is 0.75 hectares which suggests a target of 22 dwellings for this site. It is considered that this level of density would be too high for this location. Whilst it is considered that the site could provide more dwellings, the developer has expressed no wish for further dwellings on the site. It can be argued that this lesser density scheme is more in- keeping with the surrounding area and that of the cul-de-sac to the north west of the site. The reduced level would enable the proposed development to offer a more traditional village layout which is more in-keeping with the historic core of the village. It
22 is therefore considered that the density of the proposed development is acceptable in this instance. 8.3.5 It is understood that a mature hedgerow was removed from the north and east boundaries of the site a couple of years ago without the requisite permission. This matter is being investigated separately through Planning Enforcement, which may look to serve a Hedgerow Replacement Notice. Consideration would be given to this issue if this application was approved and a Reserved Matters application forthcoming. 8.3.6 It is considered that with the appropriate landscaping and with a high quality design the scheme would be acceptable. 8.3.7 An objector has raised concern that the proposal would create a loss of sunlight and daylight to their property. As this is an outline application, no detail of design has been provided at this stage. Should this application be approved and a Reserved Matters application forthcoming, this issue would be addressed at this time; however it is considered unlikely that a loss of sunlight and daylight would be caused due to the distances and single storey nature of the proposal. 8.4 Housing Need 8.4.1 It is noted that a number of objections to the application have raised concerns that there is no need for further housing within the village of Sockbridge & Tirril. This view is supported by a village referendum held in 2016 in which 80% of the participants voted against further housing. Although this referendum outlines the views of local residents to the current proposal, it is not afforded any weight in the determination of this planning application. 8.4.2 In terms of housing need, whilst a need has not been solely identified for additional housing within the village, it is noted that district wide there is a housing need of circa 242 houses per year. In line with Eden District Council’s adopted Council Plan (2015) a key corporate priority is providing access to good quality housing that reflects local need and supports both employment and thriving communities. This includes providing for the districts rural communities. 8.4.3 Therefore, whilst the comments and concerns from objectors are noted, a housing need does exist within the District which should be delivered within sustainable and appropriate locations such as Local Service Centres like Sockbridge & Tirril. 8.5 Residential Amenity 8.5.1 There are eight properties which front the Tirril road and their rear gardens abut the proposal site, two of these properties are Grade II Listed Buildings. The closest proposed bungalow is 20 metres from the south boundary and to the west boundary a side elevation is proposed to be 5 metres from the boundary which adjoins the rear of the garden of a property known as Burnrill. To the north end of the site, the closest proposed bungalow to the existing bungalow named Walmar on the location plan, however confirmed to be known as Mardale by its owner, is 21 metres away. 8.5.2 It is considered that the proposed positioning of the bungalows would not be over- dominant on occupiers of nearby properties, nor would there be any adverse impact on their privacy or amenity. 8.5.3 Objectors living in the properties to the south of the site have raised concern that they access their rear gardens through the site and claim to have acquired access rights due to the number of years they have done this. A fence runs continuously along this boundary of the field, and whilst it is accepted that some of the rear gardens do have gates, they do not appear to have been in use for some time. If it were proven that the
23 owners of these properties did have access rights, this would be a legal matter and is not a material planning consideration for this application. 8.5.4 It is considered that the proposal would protect the living conditions of the adjacent properties in accordance with CS18. 8.6 Infrastructure 8.6.1 With regards to drainage, the application is in outline and there are no drainage details at this time. It is noted that United Utilities has no objection to the proposal subject to conditions which have been applied to the permission. 8.6.2 Highway Authority has raised no objection to the application subject to conditions. They have provided guidance as to the level of detail that would be required through a further application should this application be approved. 8.6.3 It is recognised that there will be a level of disruption through the construction stage however this will be over a relatively short period of time and is expected for housing schemes of this size. 8.7 Archaeology 8.7.1 It is noted that objections have raised concerns about the historical and archaeological significance of the site which is alleged to have the potential to be listed as a National Heritage Listing. 8.7.2 The matters raised in relation to the sites archaeological potential are duly noted. The County Council’s Historic Environment Officer has confirmed that there is the potential for buried archaeological assets to be distributed by the construction of the proposed development. As such, it has been recommended that, in the event of planning consent being granted, a scheme of archaeological recording of the site be undertake in advance of the development. Notwithstanding the comments made by objectors on this matter, it is considered that this matter can be controlled through the suggested condition and does not nor represent sufficient justification for the refusal of this planning application. 8.8 Emerging Eden Local Plan Position 8.8.1 A number of objectors to the proposed development have made comment that the application should be assessed against the policies contained within the Emerging Local Plan. However, it is noted that at the current time the Development Plan forms the policies contained within the existing Eden Local Plan and the Core Strategy. 8.8.2 In terms of the Emerging Local Plan, draft Policy LS1 (Locational Strategy) initially set out the settlement hierarchy in which residential development would be focussed. This included a list of 28 Key Hubs in which appropriate and sustainable development would be supported including housing. At the time, the village of Sockbridge & Tirril was proposed as a Key Hub. 8.8.3 However, following Inspectors Hearing sessions that took place in September 2016, draft Policy LS1 was amended with the number of Key Hubs significantly reduced from 28 to 12. As a result, the village of Sockbridge & Tirril was re-assessed as a ‘Smaller Village and Hamlet’. Development in such areas would be restricted to infill sites or rounding off development. 8.8.4 However, it is noted that the Emerging Local Plan is currently still subject to a period of consultation in relation to annual housing requirement, distribution strategy, new site allocations and the revised number of key hubs. As such, no certainty can be given to the final form that the plan will take or to the policies it will contain at this stage, all of which have the potential to change. This includes draft Policy LS1.
24 8.8.5 Therefore, for the reasons detailed above it is considered that the draft policies contained within the Emerging Local Plan are afforded no weight in the determination of this planning application. 8.8.6 In terms of prematurity in determining this planning application, it is noted that Local Planning Authorities are bound to determine applications within the statutory timescales by Section 34 of the Town and Country Planning (Development Management Procedure) (England) Order 2015. In the case of the current application, a statutory period of 8 weeks is set. 8.8.7 It is noted that planning applications should be determined in accordance with the development plan unless there are material considerations that indicate otherwise. As no certainty can be given at this stage with regards to the adoption of the Emerging Local Plan or the form it will take. It would be inappropriate and unreasonable to delay the determination of this application for such reasons. Therefore the current planning application is not being determined prematurely. 8.9 Other Matters 8.9.1 It is noted that a further outline planning application (ref: 17/0080) for a residential development within Sockbridge & Tirril is currently being determined by the Eden District Council. Although this other application seeks to further increase the number of housing within the village, both applications must be viewed and determined independently. The current application cannot be determined on the basis of the cumulative number of houses proposed through both applications, and must be viewed and determined independently as separate and unrelated development. As such, this matter should be afforded limited weight in the determination of this planning application and does not represent sufficient justification for the refusal of either planning application. 8.9.2 It is acknowledged that several objectors have raised that a restrictive covenant prohibits any building to be erected on the site. This is a legal matter and not a material planning consideration for this application. 9. New Homes Bonus 9.1 The prospect of receiving a Bonus is, in principle, capable of being taken into account as a ‘material consideration’ in determining a planning application. Whether potential Bonus payments are in fact a material consideration in relation to a particular application will depend on whether those payments would be used in a way which is connected to the application and to the use and development of land. For example, potential Bonus payments could be a material consideration if they were to be used to mitigate impacts resulting from development. But if the use to which the payments are to be put is unclear or is for purposes unrelated to the development concerned a decision maker would not be entitled to take them into account when making a decision on a planning application. In this particular case, there are no plans to use the New Homes Bonus arising from this application in connection with this development. 10. Implications 10.1 Legal Implications 10.1.1 The following matters have been considered but no issues are judged to arise. 10.2 Equality and Diversity 10.2.1 The Council must have regard to the elimination of unlawful discrimination and harassment, and the promotion of equality under the Equality Act 2010.
25 10.3 Environment 10.3.1 The Council must have due regard to conserving bio-diversity under the Natural Environment and Rural Communities Act 2006. 10.4 Crime and Disorder 10.4.1 Under the Crime and Disorder Act 1998, the Council must have regard to the need to reduce crime and disorder in exercising any of its functions. 10.5 Children 10.5.1 Under the Children Act 2004, the Council has a duty to safeguard and promote the welfare of children in the exercise of any of its functions. 10.6 Human Rights 10.6.1 In determining applications, the Council must ensure that all parties get a fair hearing in compliance with the provisions of Article 6 under the European Convention on Human Rights, as now embodied in UK law in the Human Rights Act 1998. 11. Conclusion 11.1 It is considered that the proposal accords with the Development Plan for the following reasons which are not outweighed by material considerations: It is considered that this proposal represents an opportunity to secure 5 new dwellings in the district in a sustainable location. Based on the details available at this outline stage, the layout of the dwellings is considered acceptable and will have limited effect on the closest residential properties.
Jane Langston Assistant Director Technical Services
Checked by or on behalf of the Monitoring Officer
Background Papers: Planning File
26