Appendix 2

Agenda Item No 5 TS55-09

Eden District Council

Planning Applications Committee 21 May 2009

Erection of Twenty-Four Affordable Dwellings and Access Road Report of the Director of Department of Technical Services 1 Purpose of Report 1.1 To allow Members to consider further this planning application and to confirm any conditions to be attached to any decision should Committee continue to be minded to approve the application. 2 Recommendation:

It is recommended that: outline planning permission be refused for the following reasons: 1) The proposed development would encroach into the countryside outside the settlements of Penrith and Eamont Bridge and no overriding essential need for such development is established to the satisfaction of the Council sufficient to outweigh the environmental costs that would occur to the character of the site, its setting and the local environment. The development proposed would therefore be contrary to Policy NE1 of the Eden Local Plan and Policy E37 of the Cumbria and Lake District Joint Structure Plan

3 Report Details 3.1 This application was placed before Committee at its April meeting when Members resolved that contrary to officer advice Committee was minded to grant planning permission. 3.2 This report is to address the conflict between Committee resolution and the Officer recommendation. 3.3 It is the officer's recommendation that the application be refused for the reasons indicated in the report presented to the April Committee. This recommendation is made because the site is in the countryside outside the built urban form of Penrith and the Village of Eamont Bridge. In addition the site has been the SUbject of previous applications for housing development, which, as the officer report notes, have been refused and subsequently dismissed on appeal. The Council has consistently resisted the development of this land. Finally the Council is undertaking its housing land allocations work as part of the Local Development Framework and it is considered by officers that this work will demonstrate that there are likely to be better place sites available, in respect of sustainable locational considerations than that the subject of this application. 3.4 The development fails the test of the relevant policies as indicated in the officer report. In order to overcome this situation Committee should be able to offer

1 substantive reasons why policy is to be set aside. Such a reason might be an overwhelming need for housing of this nature that cannot be provided elsewhere because land is not available so the site might be treated as an exception to policy. Alternatively policy could be set aside if it can be established that the land is available for development and that development will take place in the immediate future in order to contribute to any identified shortfall in affordable housing provision. 3.5 If the above tests cannot be satisfied then there is the possibility that any approved scheme may not be implemented before the identification of the Council‟s preferred location for housing and as a consequence potentially compromise the allocation of more suitably located land. 3.6 If Committee resolves to approve the application it is recommended that such an approval be subject to the applicant entering into an Agreement under Section 106 of the Town and Country Planning Act to secure 100% occupancy of the site on an affordable basis and subject to the conditions listed below. 3.7 In respect of the S106 Agreement, Members are advised that officers have had initial discussions on the content of this with the applicants agents. From these discussions it is clear that the applicant remains committed to 100% affordability of dwellings on the site, although the precise nature of the tenure will have to be determined. However they also made clear that because of the outline nature of the application, the applicant may wish to reopen these negotiations at the stage when the development is ready to commence in order to address the precise requirement for affordability at that point in time and in the light of more precise costing of the development. In light of these discussions, and should Members resolve to grant planning permission, they are advised to record the fact that the site has only been granted permission as an exception to Council policy and on the basis that it is entirely for affordable housing and for a mix of tenure that is to be specified by the Council 3.8 The required Conditions are: 1) The development shall be begun before the expiration of three years from the date of this permission or before the expiration of two years from the date of the approval of the last reserved matter to be approved, whichever is the later. 2) Application for approval of all reserved matters must be made to the local planning authority before the expiration of three years of the date of this approval. 3) Approval of the details of the siting, design and external appearance of the buildings, means of access thereto and the landscaping of the site, (called the reserved matters), shall be obtained from the local planning authority in writing before any development is commenced. 4) No development shall commence within the site until the applicant has secured the implementation of a programme of archaeological work in accordance a written scheme of investigation which has been submitted by the applicant and approved by the planning authority. 5) The carriageway, footways, and footpaths shall be designed, constructed, drained and lit to a standard suitable for adoption and in this respect further details, including longitudinal/cross sections, shall be submitted for approval by the local planning authority before work commences on site. No work shall

2 be commenced before a full specification has been approved. These destails shall be in accordance with the standards laid down in the current Cumbria Design Guide. Any works so approved shall be constructed before the development is complete. 6) Ramps shall be provided on each side of every junction to enable wheelchairs, pushchairs and other similar vehicles to be safely manoeuvred at kerb lines. Details of all such ramps shall be submitted for approval to the local planning authority before development commences. Any details so approved shall be constructed as part of the development. 7) No dwellings shall be occupied until the estates road including footways to serve the dwellings has been constructed in all respects to base course level and street lighting where it is to form part of the estate road has been provided and brought into full operational use. 8) The access, including the provision of the ghost island junction as shown on Drawing Nos. C002/C003, shall be completed in accordance with such details that form part of an agreement with the Highway Authority under Section 278 of the Highway Act 1980 unless otherwise agreed in writing with the local planning authority before any building work commences on site so that construction traffic can turn clear of the highway. 9) Finished floor levels in the properties shall be set at or above 120mAOD. 10) Finished wearing levels on the access road shall be at or above 119.7mAOD. 11) There shall be no storage of any materials including soils within that part of the site which is in Flood Zone 3 outline. 12) No development approved by this proposal shall be commenced until a scheme for the provision of floodplain storage has been provided. The scheme shall be in accordance with details submitted by Tweddell and Slater Ltd in support of this proposal. 13) No development approved by this permission shall be commenced until a scheme for the provision and implementation of a surface water regulation system has been approved by the local planning authority. Post development surface water run-off rates should be at greenfield rates for the site up to the 1 in 100 year (1%) rainfall event. The scheme should take into account the effect of overland flow from higher ground on the proposed system. 14) No dwellings shall be occupied until signalised pedestrian and cycle crossing facilities at the A6/A66 roundabout have been provided and brought into full operational use. 3.9 In respect of Condition No 14, which is requested by the County Council, Committee should be aware and give consideration to the fact that that the view of the Highways Agency (with specific responsibility for road safety on Trunk Roads) is that such a crossing would not be permitted accross the A66 unless the whole of the Kemplay Bank roundabout was fully traffic light controlled.

3 4 Policy Framework 4.1 The Council has four corporate priorities which are: • Affordable Housing • Quality Environment • Economic Vitality • Quality Council Council on 7 February 2008 agreed fifteen strategic actions to achieve these priorities. 5 Implications 5.1 Legal 5.1.1 None 5.2 Financial 5.2.1 The Council has agreed an action plan to carry through the Balancing the Budget exercise. A key part of this is the Resource Allocation Categorisation which is designed to ensure that resource allocation reflects the Council‟s priorities. The full categorisation was agreed at Council on 7 February 2008 and the financial implications of any report must be consistent with this. 5.3 Equality and Diversity 5.3.1 The Council has to have regard to the elimination of unlawful discrimination and harassment and the promotion of equality under the Equalities Act, 2006 and related statutes. It is not considered that there are any such issues requiring consideration in the context of this application. 5.4 Environmental 5.4.1 The Council has to have due regard to conserving bio-diversity under the Natural Environment and Rural Communities Act. It is not considered that there are any such issues requiring such consideration in the context of this application. 5.5 Crime and Disorder 5.5.1 The Council has to have regard to the need to reduce crime and disorder in exercising its functions under the Crime and Disorder Act, 2004. There are no implications for the Council‟s responsibilities under this Act inherent in this application. 5.6 Children 5.6.1 The Council has to have regard to the need to safeguard and promote the welfare of children in the exercise of its functions under the Childrens Act, 2004. There are no particular implications inherent in the consideration of this application for the Council‟s duties under this Act. 5.7 Risk Management 5.7.1 No particular implications.

4 6 Reasons for Decision/Recommendation 6.1 The site is unsuitable in it environmental impact for development and as such is contrary to the retained planning policies of the Council. If the Committee considers that particular circumstances outweigh these policy objections the agreement and conditions recommended are required to make the acceptable as an exception to planning policy and, in respect of the suggested conditions, to make the development operationally acceptable. S Huddart Director of Director of Technical Services

Background Papers: Contact Officer: Malcolm Johnson Telephone Number: 01768 212446

5 APPENDIX 1

Item No:

Application Number: 09/0098

Statutory Decision Date: 15 May 2009

Parish: Penrith

Description: Residential development Location: Land at Beacon Farm, Eamont Bridge

Applicant: Atkinson Homes

Recommendation Site Plan:

6 The application is being brought before the Planning Committee at the request of the local Member and because objectors have expressed a wish to make representation to Committee.

Proposed Development: The application seeks outline planning permission for a development comprising of twenty-four houses. The drawings submitted with the application indicate a development comprising ten pairs of semi detached properties and a terrace of four. The road serving the development would be an improvement, by way of new turning lanes, to the roadway granted, on appeal, to serve the chicken sheds presently on the site. This would also necessitate a new junction arrangement to the A6 road. The houses would be set against the fall in the landform from the A66 roadway. The application follows a refusal by Committee of application ref.08/0447 which was a detailed proposal for twenty-seven dwellings which include a mix of affordable and market led.

Description of the Site and the Surroundings: The application site sits in an area of open countryside to the north of Skirsgill Lane, and to the west of the A6 at Kemplay Bank. The site is generally flat, although behind it the ground rises steeply up to the A66 trunk road. The site is presently occupied by a range of large chicken sheds and is accessed via an incomplete track from the A6 or alternatively from Skirsgill Lane. The agricultural use of the land is not accepted as brownfield development. The site is within the administrative area of Penrith but is more clearly physically and visually associated with the village of Eamont Bridge. Relevant Planning History: The most recent relevant planning applications are as follows: 89/1024 - nine detached bungalows with garages. Refused as the site lay beyond the limits of the village, adverse impact on amenity of the location; Skirsgill Lane incapable of accommodating additional residential development; approval would set a precedent for further residential development along the lane. 92/0853 - thirty detached houses and bungalows and ten low cost flats. Refused as the site is in open countryside outside consistently accepted limits of Eamont Bridge; no justification to override policy to protect the open countryside; affect on rural amenity; unacceptable reduction in separation of Penrith from distinct and detached settlement of Eamont Bridge; precedent for further development. An appeal against this refusal was dismissed. 00/0824 - Access road to agricultural development Refused because of the impact on the character of streetscape through loss of substantial part of wall; impact on highway. This application was allowed on appeal. 02/0168 - private access road.

7 Refused because of inadequate turning facilities; impact on flood plain; would lead to pressure for development since the design of the road was not commensurate with need; detrimental to visual amenity and amenity of local residents. 04/0689 - three affordable houses and associated car parking. Refused because site outside limits of village; contrary to policy and guidance with no demonstrable proven need. 08/0447 - development of twenty-seven affordable homes. Refused as the development would encroach into the countryside; no overriding need for the development is established.

Relevant Eden Local Plan (Retained Policies): NE1 Development in the countryside HS6 Affordable housing for local needs Cumbria and Lake District Joint Structure Plan: H19 Affordable housing outside the Lake District National Park ST5 New development and key service centres outside the Lake District National Park E37 Landscape character Regional Spatial Strategy:

Legal Requirements: None

Method of Publicity and Summary of Representations: Letters have been received from some fourteen local residents objecting to the development on the grounds of: • Impact on flooding in the locality. • Impact on road safety and congestion to the A6 and Kemplay roundabout on the A66(T). • Safety concerns about pedestrian movement particularly when accessing Penrith. • The junction would cause serious traffic congestion and will endanger the safety of cyclists and pedestrians. • The site is greenfield land and should not be developed in advance of more appropriate locations which would better fulfil local and national planning policy criteria. • The site is not sustainable being outside the village which is not identified as a local service centre. The development will encroach into the countryside outside of Penrith and Eamont Bridge contrary to Policy NE1. • The proposal does not accord with any sequential approach to site selection. The development will encroach into the countryside outside of Penrith contrary to Policy NE1.

8 • The development is not consistent with housing development in the village in terms of location or appearance. • Development of the site could lead to further development in the area which would erode the buffer separating Eamont Bridge from Penrith. • Dispute the need for this housing in Eamont Bridge. • The figures used for traffic and flood risk implications are questionable. • The application has also received twenty-seven letters of support, from both residents of the District and local building suppliers who support the provision of affordable housing, particularly for the young, the construction of which would support the building and supplies trade, helping to improve job security and restore some confidence to the industry.

Civic Society: This application reduces the number of proposed dwellings by three from the twenty- seven included in planning application No 08 0447, but otherwise all considerations remain virtually identical. We appreciate the need for affordable houses, for meeting targets for the provision of such and at this particular time, the need to support the local building industry but these considerations should not take priority over long-term environmental, amenity and safety issues. On another site, Penrith Civic Society would have been likely to have fully supported this proposal but from the very beginning we have expressed reservations about the creation of a new vehicular access point from the very steep Kemplay Bank section of the A6 road. The first application for such access related to a then existing agricultural use when vehicle movements in and out of the site would have been very low. At that time we were concerned at the visual impact of the removal of the then high sandstone wall and the removal of a vast quantity of earth behind on this west side of the road, opening up a huge gap and visually very much changing the character of Kemplay Bank. The resultant appearance we feel, fully justifies these concerns. We were also concerned that other developments might follow, and these too have been justified. If the agricultural operation for which the vehicular access was granted is no longer appropriate, then we suggest that the opening be closed off and the enclosing banking and stone boundary wall be reinstated to restore, as much as possible, the original appearance and character of the area. Subsequently we have expressed highway safety fears in relation to housing development that apply to the present proposal. We notice that a central pedestrian refuge with filter lanes both sides is to be provided as a pedestrian crossing over the busy A6. In other parts of the town, we have seen signage bollards associated with such refuges damaged by moving vehicles, all the more likely, we suspect on a steep hill. We do not believe that such provides a safe pedestrian crossing point over this road. The development now proposes twenty-four houses and we would imagine that they would be likely to appeal to and be occupied by younger families, perhaps with a rather higher than average ratio of children. It follows that there would be likely to be a higher than average vehicular use of the junction onto Kemplay Bank, considerably higher than is suggested in the planning application supporting documents.

9 We have previously stressed the lack of a continuous footpath provision on the west side of the Kemplay Bank section of the A6 road southwards of the new junction, resulting in all residents, including children wishing to use the facilities of Eamont Bridge having to either cross the A6 in a dangerous location, or walk down the nearside of the actual carriageway. It would seem reasonable to assume that the majority of children living in this development would attend school in Penrith. Since they are unlikely to be bussed into town, there will be likely to be an increase in the number of vehicles on the „school run‟ not only using the new junction, but Kemplay roundabout junction with the A66 trunk road at times of peak traffic flows. We would suggest that car journeys in and out of the development will, as a result, be considerably higher than suggested in evidence supporting the application. We would suggest that car journeys in and out of the development will, as a result, be considerably higher than suggested in evidence supporting the application. Alternatively, children walking into town will have to cross the A66 dual carriageway road that has no specific safe crossing facility. If anticipated visitor numbers to the Penrith New Squares development are to be achieved the A66 road and Kemplay roundabout can be expected to carry even higher traffic levels than at present. We understand that improvements to Kemplay roundabout are likely to form part of the Penrith New Squares development but have no knowledge of what these will be apart from the likelihood of a third lane on the roundabout itself. In our opinion, no matter what measures are taken other than a pedestrian bridge over the A66, the road will always present an element of danger. Our other concern has been that further development in this area is likely to debase Eamont Bridge to that of a suburb of Penrith rather than that of a separate village with its own identity. We retain our earlier opinion that any further development of the village should be on the south side of the river where any village amenities are located. Penrith Civic Society is sorry to comment negatively on this application but we do feel that there must be sites available better related to the amenities of the town and in particular schools, and that highway safety factors are particularly important in relation to any housing provision, but particularly so when children are involved.

Consultation Responses: Cumbria County Council (Environment): The site is considered acceptable in respect of its location and landscape impact and would contribute to meeting the affordable housing needs of both Eamont Bridge and Penrith. The County Council, subject to conditions, considers that the site complies with its relevant policies. Highways Authority: No objections subject to conditions County Archaeologist: The site lies within an area of archaeological value and request a condition requiring a scheme of archaeological investigation.

10 Environment Agency: No objection subject to conditions Director of Technical Services: The comments made in respect of flooding by objectors confirm my understanding of the flooding mechanism along Skirsgill Lane from the river and that the application site did contribute to surface water flooding of Skirsgill Lane properties in the 2005 event. The Council has no jurisdiction to enforce land drainage defences against surface water flooding and would look to the developer to identify the risk through a Flood Risk Assessment, which he has done. The sufficiency of the control measures arising from such an assessment is for the applicant to determine and to demonstrate through appropriate calculations that the measures proposed are sufficient to deal with the identified flood risk. I would recommend that if planning approval is granted for this development it is done so on the basis that the developer provides calculations to the satisfaction of the Council as Planning Authority that demonstrates the quantum of the surface water flooding risk, how this will be controlled and that the over ground flow discharging to land lower than the development site will not be in excess of the existing greenfield flow.

Main Planning Issues Raised: • Impact on character of the area • Development in the countryside Planning Assessment: The site is clearly within the countryside and in such a location needs to satisfy the tests inherent in Policy NE1. Whilst the application relates to the provision of affordable housing, although the application fails to identify what the term affordable means, it is considered that there are more sequentially preferable locations within, or appropriately adjacent to, the built area of the town suitable for the provision of housing. Such locations are identified in the Strategic Housing Land Assessment. The agricultural use of the land is excluded from the definition of previously developed land in Annex B of PPS3. The site does not accord therefore with the sequential approach to selection. In respect of highway considerations the County Council require that if the development is approved that no dwellings should be occupied, or work commenced, until a pedestrian controlled crossing is provided across both carriageways of the A66. This is in order to provide walkers/cyclists etc., with safe access to the facilities and public transport provision of Penrith. The Highways Agency however will not permit such a facility unless Kemplay Bank roundabout is traffic light controlled. This would have occurred as consequence of the Southend Road development but as that is now in abeyance and the County Council is of the view that such a condition is needed in view of the uncertainty about the redevelopment scheme. In terms of the area generally the local settlement pattern has a north/south linear character with a ribbon of development along Skirsgill Lane on the north bank of the River Eamont. The site in question contributes to the enclosure of the settlement by agricultural activity and to the separation of the settlement from Penrith itself, the site forming a distinctive break between the two. The development would intrude

11 significantly into that open break and reduce its value both as a break between the two settlements and the relationship of the village itself to the countryside beyond. In considering the appeal against the refusal of application 92/0853 the inspector took the view that the development would “significantly extend the built area of Eamont Bridge to the north and west into the open break between the existing northern limits of the settlement and the A66 and the southern limits of Penrith. The scale of the development would intrude significantly into that open break and reduce its value as an open buffer between two distinct settlements.” In addition the inspector considered that whilst the development would take place on relatively flat land and would be screened from some views by the steep rise in ground levels up to the A66 it would be open to view from roads and footpaths to the south and west and the proposed access would require major earthworks through a high embankment which would be prominent from the A6. This latter feature has of course already occurred. At the same appeal the matter of supporting the local building trade was raised by the then appellant as was the lack of available land, within the settlement of Eamont Bridge, for housing development. The inspector considered that these considerations did not justify approval of the site for development, even to meet a special requirement, since they would not outweigh the environmental harm the scheme would cause. In addition it was felt that if approved the development would be likely to lead to pressure for further development thus further eroding the character of the area. It is considered that this assessment remains appropriate to this site. In respect of the development itself it is considered that the scale and layout of the scheme does not reflect, by reason of its standardised house type and regularity of layout, imposed by the land form and flood plain constraints, the more informal, and individually distinctive, traditional disposition and architectural character of the settlement. It is considered that any residential development of the site will result, because of the constraints on the land, in a development which would have the character of simply a street of houses in a field unrelated to either the settlement of Eamont Bridge or Penrith itself, unlike the more typical form of rural development. In respect of housing need the Council‟s Housing Department advises that the need for the ward in which Eamont Bridge is located amounts to some seven houses, of which three would be for low cost ownership and four for rental. Clearly the proposed scheme exceeds this indicated need in terms of the number of houses proposed. In the case of Penrith, the ward in which the site actually sits administratively, the question of need does not arise, it generally being understood that Penrith as the principle settlement of the District requires the greatest numbers of „affordable‟ dwellings. In the present case the greatest indicated need is for rental housing rather than some form of shared ownership in a ratio of eighty to twenty respectively. On the question of numbers it is confirmed by the Council‟s housing officers that 145 units, in the ratio mentioned, is the identified requirement for Penrith over the next five years. The Council is has concluded its Strategic Housing Land Availability Assessment. That process has identified land suitable for housing development over a five, ten and fifteen year period. This site was eliminated from that study as being unsuitable for such development because of the negative impact it would have on the existing settlement and because it was considered to be an unnecessary expansion into the countryside poorly related to the village. Other more sequentially appropriate sites are identified as being available for development within the first five year period.

12 It is considered that the development would form an intrusion into open countryside contrary to good planning principles and the thrust of policy designed to protect the character of the countryside. It is not considered that the identified demand for housing of this character, or the ability of the Council through the planning process to provide it, is so overwhelming or unlikely to occur, that the approval of the application can be sustained in the light of the environmental costs that would accrue by the loss of this area as a buffer between the two settlements and its impact on the scale and character of the rural nature of the locality.

Human Rights Act: The implications of the Human Rights Act 1998 have been considered during the processing of this application. Any impact on the rights of local property owners to a private and family life and peaceful enjoyment of their possessions (Article 8 and Article 1 and Article 1 of Protocol 1) are acceptable.

Summary Conclusions: It is not considered that the application raises any new issues to warrant a reconsideration of the development of the land over and above that concluded for the previous application. The site remains in open countryside and would result in a development out of character with the area. The Council‟s Policy Section, in its consideration of land suitable for housing, does not propose the site for residential development and the strategic assessment the Council has undertaken of appropriate land for housing does not identify the site as such.

Recommendation: It is recommended that: 2) The proposed development would encroach into the countryside outside the settlements of Penrith and Eamont Bridge and no overriding essential need for such development is established to the satisfaction of the Council sufficient to outweigh the environmental costs that would occur to the character of the site, its setting and the local environment. The development proposed would therefore be contrary to Policy NE1 of the Eden Local Plan and Policy E37 of the Cumbria and Lake District Joint Structure Plan

Contact Officer: Mr M. Johnson Telephone Number: 01768 212446

13