1089 24.4.2001 Development Control DEVELOPMENT CONTROL SUB

Home , Aldingham, Egton with Newland, Grayrigg, Helsington, Preston Patrick

1089

24.4.2001 Development Control

DEVELOPMENT CONTROL SUB-COMMITTEE

Minutes of the proceedings at a meeting of the Sub-Committee held in the Council Chamber at South Lakeland House, Kendal, on Tuesday, 24 April 2001, at 10.30 a.m.

Present

Councillors

C.C. Hodgson (Chairman) Mrs J.E. Jenkinson (Vice-Chairman)

M.G. Alston P.E. Ball Mrs A.B. Barratt J.A. Blamire R.N. Bolton J.W. Curwen Mrs J. Ewing L. Hadwin Mrs P.H. Himsworth B. Jameson G. Jenkinson R. Leach W.H. Robinson B.J. Stainton Mrs B.E. Woof

An apology for absence was received from Councillor R. Parker.

2197 MINUTES

RESOLVED – That the Chairman be authorised to sign, as a correct record, the minutes of the meeting of the Sub-Committee held on 27 March 2001.

2198 DECLARATIONS OF INTEREST

RESOLVED – That it be noted that Councillors P.E. Ball, J.A. Blamire and R. Leach declared an interest in Minute Nos.2203 (Planning Application No.5/01/0557); 2207, 2208 and 2209; and 2200 (Planning Application No.5/01/0109) respectively.

2199 LOCAL GOVERNMENT ACT 1972 – EXCLUDED ITEMS

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

2200 PUBLIC PARTICIPATION

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

5/01/0109 GRANGE-OVER-SANDS: Crag Bank, Grange Fell Road, Grange- over-Sands. Classroom block. (Conservation Area) (Mrs M. Ward)

Councillor R. Leach declared an interest in this application and left the Council Chamber during the discussion and voting.

Mrs Freda Bradbury objected to the application on behalf of four residents in Highfield Road. She said that, in order to get to Grange Fell Road people needed to drive round and down a hill with bends in it which resulted in very poor visibility. Cars tended to be parked on the right hand side, and sometime both sides, of the road, and further traffic would exacerbate the situation. The parents of children attending Grange Primary School had expressed their concerns 1090

24.4.2001 Development Control

regarding parking and traffic problems. The application had indicated a maximum of four staff and eight pupils using the proposed building. There had been no mention of cooking/domestic staff or visits from other agencies such as Social Services, the Education Authority, etc. Crag Bank was a business which had chosen to care for children who had serious problems; the proposed building would result in absolutely minimal space for children to play. Crag Bank had a responsibility to the children they care for to provide appropriate facilities. This being so, it appeared that a larger property was needed. Members were asked to note and support residents’ objections.

Dr A. Sharpe spoke on behalf of himself and residents of Dearden Close. His property and the Dearden Close properties shared a long common boundary with Crag Bank. Their objections were not born out of middle-class snobbery or ignorance, but out of knowledge and experience of the former Riverside School. The great majority of his experience with Riverside had been negative, with noise and aggression on the part of the children. According to the OFSTED report, Riverside had been specialist in catering for children who had been rejected by other specialist schools, and he assumed that Appletree (Crag Bank) would be operating the same policy. He said it had been found that residential childcare was always the worst option; fostering was better and cheaper. The use of residential childcare had declined by 50%. These children had serious problems and it was unsuitable to bring them to a site such as Crag Bank with its restricted area of play. Because the children were on site all year round, all day every day, it was impossible not to create noise and disturbance.

Mrs Ward responded that the current application had nothing to do with Riverside and that it was a different client group of children who would be using the building was mostly younger, at 6 – 10/11 years. There would be a much less intense use of the site with a maximum of eight children the aim was to provide better facilities to do the job. As far as the provision of play space was concerned, this was regulated by the Department of Education. It was appreciated that there had been additional traffic and car parking while the building was being converted, but this would cease once the renovations were complete.

The Director of Amenities and Development read out a letter from Brian Barden, Planning Consultants, on behalf of the applicants, which stated that the use of the site was not subject to restrictions. The building as proposed was felt to be acceptable. Traffic and parking changes would result in very little difference., and the turning point could be improved. There would be additional traffic movement if the children had to be taken to another site for teaching. The close boarding fencing suggested by the Council was felt to be inappropriate, and the applicant wished to see the proposed wire mesh fencing retained. The applicants were also prepared to accept any non-residential conditions.

The Director of Amenities and Development was concerned about the 1091

24.4.2001 Development Control

impact a separate building would make on the site, which was rather tight. However, there was scope for an extension of the existing building which would provide a more managed approach, and avoid concentrating play space close to boundaries with neighbours. The applicants had indicated that they would prefer a separate building.

Members considered that development on this extremely tight, restricted and sloping site would not be appropriate, and emphasised the need for a large play area for the children. It was also felt that in normal circumstances children would expect to leave their residence to go to the place where they were to be schooled. However, they would be prepared to reconsider the application on the strength of an extension to the existing building.

REFUSED for the reason below:-

An additional building of this scale and in this position would be over-intensive and unneighbourly and detrimental to the pleasant character of the area and would be liable to reduce the area of amenity land available to occupants on the site with consequential impact for surrounding occupiers.

5/01/0415 KENDAL: 113 – 119 Stricklandgate, Kendal. Change of use from A1 (retail) to A3 (food and drink). (Conservation Area) (Burleigh Estates Plc)

Note – Councillor B.J. Stainton declared an interest in this item of business and left the Council Chamber during the discussion and voting.

Mr Colin Burrow spoke against the application on behalf of the Kendal and District Licences Victuallers Association. Members were asked to consider very carefully the implications of these larger business premises on existing licensed premises in the vicinity. It was felt that any employment benefits to the town might be negated by loss of jobs at existing licensed premises. There were also concerns regarding un/loading, parking and taxi pick-up at a site on the corner of Stricklandgate/Sandes Avenue, and the proximity of the proposed business to residential properties. It was felt that there would be congestion problems similar to the existing situation in Stricklandgate. While the Association were not opposed to healthy competition, they were concerned about the implications on existing licensed premises, cafés etc from a large organisation about whom very little was known and whose commitment to Kendal was uncertain. Members were requested to consider all aspects of the application very carefully.

Mr C.R. Haigh of Haigh Architects spoke against the application on behalf of the First Church of Christ Scientist which was opposed to the change of use of the premises. He explained that the alleyway adjacent to the Church provided a right-of-way access to the rear of these two properties. He said that un/loading restricted the parking available to the Church and to Java (hairdressing business on Stricklandgate), whilst the traffic flow in Sandes Avenue was restricted when vehicles needed to back into the alleyway. These 1092

24.4.2001 Development Control

were the two main issues. It was felt that the situation would be exacerbated with the introduction of two-way traffic flow later in the year. In addition, there appeared to be no provision for car parking and it was felt that this would encourage illegal use of the Church car parking facilities. In the past the alleyway had been abused by drunks and others. This had been discouraged by the diligence of the Church Warden and the Church did not want to see the situation reversed. Also, taxis used the front of the Church as a drop-off point. The proposed use would change the character of the vicinity, and it was felt that this was against Policy R11 of the Council’s development policies.

Speaking on behalf of the applicants, Mr K. Walsingham said that this application was for change of use only and other applications would be submitted to cover details. This would be one of a chain of Burleigh Restaurants, providing restaurant/café/bar facilities. He pointed out that the Director of Engineering had raised no objections to loading/unloading. Each week there would be daily deliveries of fresh food, in the early morning, and two deliveries of other items. This was felt to be less than the number of deliveries at present. The existing shops would continue to have right of way. As far as car parking was concerned, Mr Walsingham quoted Policy PPG13 which recommended no parking on individual premises within town centres, but on town centre car parks. Waste would be stored as agreed with the Director of Environment and Housing. It was proposed that the rear of the building would be floodlit, which it was felt would discourage abuse of the alleyway. The comments of the Director of Environment and Housing were reported. It was not felt that residential properties were in close proximity but the applicant was to provide a written report on sound pressure levels prior to approved use. The Director of Amenities and Development provided a brief résumé of information supplied by the applicant in respect of use of the site and the importance which the organisation attached to customer quality and standards. The Director said that he was keen to get the right use for this very visible site. The comments from the Director of Environment and Housing tended to suggest that issues of noise concern could be dealt with by condition. The County Council had raised no objections on highway grounds in the light of revised traffic circulation. Whilst sensitive to the concerns of nearby traders and car parking provision, these were not relevant to the planning application. The Ward Member expressed her concern at the report from the Director of Environment and Housing, which she had subsequently raised with that Department. There were actually over 100 homes within 60 yards of the premises. Although residents were used to the regular working hours of retail premises in the vicinity, their quality of life was bound to change with the proposed use. She was disappointed with the Director of Engineering’s report in the light of revised traffic circulation from October 2001. She was sympathetic to the views of the Licensed Victuallers Association and felt they were right to be wary of the unknown. The Director of Amenities and Development responded that he had 1093

24.4.2001 Development Control

not received any further comment from the Director of Environment and Housing, and had to advise Members on the basis of the comments received in his report. This suggested that there was scope for controlling noise output. Other Members commented that, although they wanted to see Kendal flourish and did not want to see this site become derelict, there were a lot of unanswered questions about the future use of the site.

DEFERRED for further information on noise impacts on adjacent residents and loading and unloading issues for the new highway circulation pattern.

5/01/0493 GRANGE-OVER-SANDS: Land on Kents Bank Road, Grange-over- Sands. Two dwellings. (Conservation area) (Booker Bros)

Mr David Bartley of Pentlands objected to the revised design in the current application. Although a one metre enlargement might not seem to be significant, it would bring the proposed buildings too close to his house. The new proposal was even more intrusive and would result in loss of privacy because of the french windows in the new design. Noise from open windows, even at normally acceptable levels, would be intrusive because of proximity. Residents would be unable to have a private conversation in either garden. He felt strongly that the enlargement of the houses was intrusive and unneighbourly.

Mrs L. Goodwin of West House said that she had been unaware of the original application and had not had the opportunity to comment. The effects could not be seen from the roadside, only in her garden. Any format of extension would exacerbate the situation, blocking light to her living room, bathroom and two bedrooms because of the two foot drop in level. Any extension would be intimidating and unneighbourly.

The Director of Amenities and Development reported receipt of a letter from the applicant’s agent, Alan Pixton, who claimed that there would be no loss of light to the adjacent dwellings. The Town Council also objected to the application.

REFUSED for the reasons below:-

(1) The design, detailing and materials would not preserve and enhance the special character of this part of the Grange-over- Sands Conservation Area but rather detract from it and be contrary to the advice of the adopted Design Guide for Grange- over-Sands.

(2) The development by reason of its size and position would be unneighbourly and over-intensive to adjoining dwellings.

5/01/0527 KIRKBY IRELETH: Beckside Rooms, Beckside, Kirkby-in-Furness. Use of adjoining land as a car park and extension of existing building. (Kirkby Ireleth PCC) 1094

24.4.2001 Development Control

Mr M. Williams objected to the application on the grounds that an additional car park was unnecessary in this tiny hamlet of circa 40 dwellings. There was a car park for 50 cars only 150 yards away. The provision of a new car park would use the only green field in the vicinity, creating a loss of amenity to the residents of Beckside, none of whom had been consulted. He had no objections to the creation of a disabled access. The people of Beckside would not be able to use the new car park, therefore it would be an eyesore of no benefit to the community. At 400 square metres it was not a small area of tarmac. In addition, an existing five+ metre high traditional drystone wall would be replaced by a three foot high wall.

Mr Brian Hagan said that he was objecting on the same grounds and produced a signed petition from residents of Beckside. A new car park would create an unsafe environment for residents and a danger to children, including the risk of vandalism and littering, ball games and skateboarding. The car park would be of no benefit to residents as it was not available to non-users of the Beckside Rooms. He felt that the provision of a car park would destroy the area for residents and would violate their human rights.

The Director of Amenities and Development quoted from a letter submitted by the Reverend G. Murfet. The main problem was to create a disabled access, and the Director reminded Members of the need for the management of public halls to review and establish means of access to the disabled under the Disability Discrimination Act.

Letters of opposition had been received, together with a petition, objecting to loss of view, devaluation of properties, and loss of a green field site. There were also letters of support from people who would benefit from disabled access and car parking. The director said that the need for disabled access to these public rooms would need to be balanced against the human rights of adjacent residents. He explained that the Beckside Rooms were owned by the Parish Church and were widely used by the community for an art class, clubs and societies, WI, children’s and elderly groups. The Community Centre was 150 yards down the Main Street, and had car parking spaces for approximately 50 cars. While there were facilities for bowling, etc, the small size of other rooms at the Centre restricted the activities that could be undertaken.

Members were reminded that the site in question had been designated in the Local Plan for housing, but had been taken out. It was felt that the only appropriate use was for car parking. Whilst appreciating that the addition of a car park for users of Beckside Rooms would relieve congestion on Beckside, there was some concern that the Highways Authority might use it as an opportunity to restrict on-street car parking. Members were also concerned that there was no provision for residents to use the car park. In view of the fact that this was a greenfield site, it was suggested that a grascrete rather than a tarmac surface might be more appropriate. The Director of Amenities felt that there might be some room for 1095

24.4.2001 Development Control

negotiation with the applicant and the owner of the land.

The Director of Amenities and Development be authorised to grant this application on the agent’s satisfactory response to requests to modify the car park surface to retain disabled access, but to ensure a rather less striking contrast to the open field in terms of car park surface. 2201 APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION

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

5/00/2147 HELSINGTON: The Wheatsheaf, Brigsteer. External works, including retaining wall, fire escape and bridge. (Pubs in Line Property)

The Director of Amenities and Development reported that it had not been possible to negotiate with the applicant regarding the Sub- Committee’s suggested amendments, and the current application did not meet the Sub-Committee’s requirements. Objections had been received from neighbouring residents and these had been supported by the Parish Council. It was, therefore, recommended that the application be refused.

REFUSED for the reason below:- By reason of the creation of an external paved public space adjoining the proposed new rear entrance the development would lead to an increased public use of this portion of the site with consequent unneighbourly impact of noise and activity on the adjoining residential development which lies in close proximity. 5/01/0229 ULVERSTON: 46 Rowan Avenue, Ulverston. Rear extension. (Mrs M. Holland) The Director of Amenities and Development referred to the site visit undertaken by Members. He felt that the proposed extension did impact on the neighbouring property, but not significantly so. The Human Rights Act aspect of the application balanced on the applicant’s need to enjoy her property against the right to respect for private and family life. Members generally felt that there was a fairly minimal impact on the neighbouring property and that the application conformed to the Council’s standards. Although the side wall of the extension would be visible above the existing 2 metre boundary wall, it was not felt that this was significantly unneighbourly. GRANTED 5/00/2271 PRESTON PATRICK: Warth Farm, Endmoor. Conversion of barns to three dwellings and installation of septic tank. (Mr Nicholson) The Director of Amenities and Development reported that he had received confirmation from the Director of Environment and Housing that the water supply was adequate for the proposed use. The Director of Amenities and Development be authorised to grant this application with appropriate conditions following the 1096

24.4.2001 Development Control

consultation responses from the Director of Environment and Housing. 5/00/3055 KENDAL: 115 Highgate, Kendal. Additional use as sports hall and gym. (K and G Leisure) It was reported that the applicant felt that it would be difficult to find a cost-effective solution to the concerns raised regarding noise vibrations. REFUSED for the reason below:-

In the absence of details to prove the contrary, the proposal would be likely to cause noise nuisance to the occupiers of nearby premises and properties to the detriment of their commercial and residential amenities.

5/01/0026 MANSERGH: Adjacent to Rigmaden Park Farm Cottages, Kirkby Lonsdale. Conversion of farm building into dwelling. (William Wilson)

The Director of Amenities and Development presented a montage of the proposed extension. The Ward Member said that the montage gave a good impression of what the extension would look like, and felt that the proposed treatment was very acceptable.

GRANTED subject to:-

(1) Notwithstanding the provisions of the Town and Country Planning General Permitted Development Order 1995 as amended, express planning permission shall be obtained for any development falling within Classes A or B of Part I, Schedule 2 of that Order.

(2) No part of the building shall be taken down and rebuilt without the prior written consent of the Local Planning Authority.

(3) The roof of the building shall be covered with natural slate; a sample of which shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority before any building works commence.

(a) To ensure that subsequent alterations do not detract from the appearance of the development.

(b) For the avoidance of doubt.

2202 ADJOURNMENT OF MEETING

The meeting adjourned for luncheon at 12.56 p.m. and reconvened at 2.00 p.m. when the same Members were present. 1097

24.4.2001 Development Control

2203 APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION

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

5/01/0088 ARNSIDE: Land adjacent to Fayrestowe, Church Hill, Arnside. Dwelling (Revised scheme of 5/00/0539). (Mr and Mrs I.S. Perris)

The Director of Amenities and Development reminded Members that a visit had been made to the site some months previously as there had been an issue about the width of the plot and the impact on adjacent properties. Eventually planning permission had been granted for a very small building on the basis that the separation dimensions were critical. Since then the plot had been sold and the new owner had submitted a planning application for a larger building. Although there would be an impact of over shadowing the Director did not feel the proposal was unreasonable. He displayed the drawings to Members.

Members were concerned about the over shadowing of Fayrestowe and felt that the proposed building was too large and out of context.

REFUSED for the reason below:-

Although the dwellinghouse illustrated on drawing no B2001/24 (revised), deposited with the Local Planning Authority on 12 April 2001, is an improvement in terms of its appearance when compared to the dwelling which received planning permission under reference 5/00/0539 it will, nevertheless, exert an over- bearing influence on adjacent properties to an extent which will harm the living conditions for the occupiers of those properties.

5/01/0423 EGTON-WITH-NEWLAND: Machell Arms, Greenodd. Change of use from public house to dwelling. (Mr and Mrs T. Ward)

Members were advised that the premises had not been used as a public house since 1997 and that it had been marketed as a going concern without success. The Director of Amenities and Development pointed out that current policy did not address the issue of public houses and recommended that the application be granted in this instance.

GRANTED subject to:-

This permission only permits the creation of one residential unit within the building formerly known as the Machell Arms, Greenodd.

The Local Planning authority would wish to carefully examine any subdivision of the building to assess whether the development would be acceptable in terms of policy, access, parking and amenity.

5/01/0443 URSWICK: Church Road House, Great Urswick. Erection of summerhouse. (Mr and Mrs C. Dent) 1098

24.4.2001 Development Control

The Director of Amenities and Development reported that the summerhouse had been moved back 8 metres to within the applicant’s own curtilage. The effect would be that it would now be seen against the hedge and not the tarn.

GRANTED subject to:-

(1) This permission relates to the amended plan drawing no 128/17A deposited with the Local Planning Authority on 18 April 2001.

(2) The summerhouse hereby approved shall be of a timber construction.

For the avoidance of doubt and to ensure that the summerhouse will not have a detrimental impact on the character and appearance of the tarn.

5/01/0444 SEDGWICK: 14 Hill Close, Sedgwick. Balcony. (Mr G. Pocock)

The Director of Amenities and Development agreed with the comments put forward by the Parish Council. The Sub-Committee was advised that the house was prominently sited at the head of a cul-de-sac. While there were a number of other balconies in the Close these were not so prominent as the one proposed.

A letter from the applicant was read out to the Sub-Committee. He advised that the proposed balcony would have the most effect on his neighbours and that he had discussed the proposal fully with them and neither had objected. He did not feel that it would alter the appearance of the Close and, in fact, the bland appearance of the house would be improved by the addition of the balcony. He also stated that other houses in the village also had balconies.

The Director advised that it was a design issue and suggested that Members might wish to visit the site.

DEFERRED for a site visit.

5/01/0462 ULVERSTON: 15 Cavendish Street, Ulverston. Two dwellings. (Conservation Area) (Mr E. Sharpe)

GRANTED subject to:-

The external walls shall be completed in the following manner:- (a) with a finish of roughcast, being a finish in which the final coat contains a preparation of fairly coarse aggregate thrown on as a wet mix and left rough; or (b) with a render of white or natural coloured cement the render being smooth. The precise details of the finish of the external walls shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning 1099

24.4.2001 Development Control

Authority before the work is commenced. (2) The roof shall be covered with natural slate being blue/grey in colour, a sample of which shall be submitted to and agreed in writing with the Local Planning Authority prior to the commencement of work. (3) The precise details of the proposed windows and external doors shall be submitted to and approved by the Local Planning Authority prior to the commencement of the development. All external joinery shall have a painted finish. Colours to be agreed in writing with the Local Planning Authority. To ensure that the character of the Conservation Area is not adversely affected by reason of the appearance of the type and colour of the materials to be used in the proposed development. 5/01/0497 KIRKBY LONSDALE: 48/50 Main street, Kirkby Lonsdale. Change of use to dwelling. (Conservation Area) (Listed Building) (R. Coates and Mrs H. Pleasance)

The Civic Society had no objections to the proposal. Members were advised that the café site and applications site were in the same ownership. The number of windows on the rear elevation had been reduced to reduce overlooking and impact and as a consequence the Director of Amenities and Development recommended approval. The occupier of the café had raised some verbal concerns but the Director did not feel that these were significant enough to warrant refusal of the application.

Some concern was expressed about parking and the Director undertook to negotiate assigning one of the Bakery parking spaces for use by the occupier of the new dwelling.

The Director of Amenities and Development be authorised to grant this application having attempted to secure a residents’ parking space within the yard.

5/01/0498 MILNTHORPE: Chestnut Way, Milnthorpe. Removal of planning condition no.9 on 5/99/0205 re. play area. (K.M. McVie)

The Director of Amenities and Development read out a letter from the Parish Council in which they raised strong objections to the proposal.

The Director of Amenities and Development reported that the current application had been submitted by residents on the basis of a number of points, not all of which were relevant to planning.

He advised that, now the site was nearly completed, there were some concerns about the location of the play area because of the way the land sloped. Although the Sub-Committee could resist the change of use on policy grounds, on a pragmatic level, the Director felt that there were some arguments to support a change of use.

REFUSED for the reason below:- 1100

24.4.2001 Development Control

The removal of the play area from the Chestnut Way development would be contrary to the provisions of Policy S6 of the South Lakeland Local Plan.

5/01/0499 HINCASTER: Greenside Farm, Hincaster. Conversion and extension of outbuilding to form dwelling. (W.A. McHardy and Son Ltd.)

The Sub-Committee was advised that a formal structural survey was still awaited.

The Director of Amenities and Development be authorised to grant this application on the submission of a satisfactory structural survey.

5/01/0500 ULVERSTON: Ground Floor, 1 Poplar Grove, Ulverston. Single storey extension. (Mr W. Kolbe)

Note – Councillor R.N. Bolton declared an interest in this item of business and left the Council Chamber during the discussion and voting.

Members felt that a condition should be applied to ensure that the works were carried out within a reasonable period of time.

GRANTED subject to:-

(1) The external walls of the extension shall be completed with a render of the same colour and texture as the render finishes on the existing property.

(2) The roof shall be covered with flat, grey slate-type tiles a sample of which is to be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority.

(3) The extension as approved shall be completed within six months of the grant of this permission.

(a) To ensure that the character of the area is not adversely affected by reason of the appearance of the type and colour of the materials to be used in the proposed development.

(b) The temporary extension was considered unsatisfactory in its design appearance and execution and should be replaced as a matter of urgency in view of its current unauthorised situation.

5/01/0519 GRAYRIGG: Browhead, Grayrigg. Conversion of barns into two dwellings, including installation of septic tank. (C.M. Rigg)

The Director of Environment and Housing had advised that he did not share the concerns of the Building Control Manager with regard to foul drainage and the water supply. The Director of Engineering had commented that there needed to be additional parking made available. An amended plan had been submitted addressing the issue and a 1101

24.4.2001 Development Control

structural report had also been received.

The Director of Amenities and Development be authorised to grant this application on the outcome of discussions concerning water supply and structural survey.

5/01/0309 ULVERSTON: Devonshire Arms, 1 Braddyll Terrace, Victoria Road, Ulverston. Front extension and alterations to car park. (Mitchells of Lancaster)

A letter and photographs had been received from the adjacent owner. He had pointed out that the High School used Braddyll Terrace as a main access and that this led to pedestrian congestion at peak times. He had also stated that the pub car park was being used to sell cars and this issue had been referred to the Enforcement Officer for investigation. The Director of Amenities and Development reported that, after the last Sub-Committee meeting, the Brewery had verbally agreed to delete the beer garden and had advised that amended plans would be forwarded. The Director also advised that he was negotiating with the Brewery regarding the removal of the french windows. He therefore suggested that he be given delegated authority to grant the application when the respective amended plans had been received.

The Director of Amenities and Development be authorised to grant this application on the successful outcome of negotiations to secure the removal of the beer garden proposals and french windows, to undertake marking out car parking and turning space and refurbishment of the boundary wall.

5/01/0520 PRESTON PATRICK: Tavern House, Cow Brow, Lupton. Conversion of part of dwelling to form self-contained holiday letting unit. (Mr and Mrs J.E. Wilson)

The Parish Council had no objection to the proposal but the Highways Agency wanted the existing access onto the A65 closed. The Director of Amenities and Development felt that this could be made a condition of planning permission.

The Director of Amenities and Development be authorised to grant this application on the expiry of the consultation period subject to a condition regarding access being from the minor road and not the A65.

5/01/0543 ALDINGHAM: Roosebeck House, Roosebeck. Conversion of redundant barn to form holiday accommodation. (Mr and Mrs Haddock)

The Director of Engineering had no objection to the proposal. The Director of Commercial Services had no objections regarding the footpath or the drainage issues. The Environment Agency had advised that they were satisfied with the percolation tests for the septic tank. In addition, it was reported that the rooflights were to be replaced.

The Director of Amenities and Development be authorised to grant 1102

24.4.2001 Development Control

this application on the expiry of the consultation period.

5/01/0553 URSWICK: Site adjacent to former Grammar School, Little Urswick. Two adjacent dwellings with garages. (Mr S. Sharp)

The Director of Amenities and Development reported that the applicant was in negotiation with the Parish Council regarding access and design. He recommended that consideration of the application be deferred pending the outcome of the negotiations.

DEFERRED to enable further details of house design and levels to be supplied by the agent. 5/01/0557 PRESTON PATRICK: OS Field No. 6938, Warth Sutton Farm, Crooklands. Fishing lake, hospitality building and car parking. (F.E. and C.M. Robinson and Son) Note – Councillor P. Ball declared an interest in this item of business and left the Council Chamber during the discussion and voting thereon. The Environment Agency had stated that he had no knowledge of flooding in the area. A letter had been received from the Parish Council which recommended that the application be approved subject to visibility improvements. The Director of Engineering wanted to see improvements to the access to the car park and additional passing places provided.

Some concern had been expressed that potentially there was the possibility that the site would become commercialised. However, the Director of Amenities and Development felt that at the level of use proposed he could recommend approval subject to the resolution of access details to meet the Director of Engineering’s concerns.

The Director of Amenities and development be authorised to grant this application subject to confirmation that the lake will not cause drainage/flooding problems for surrounding land and in accordance with a scheme of access improvements concerning visibility gradient and width.

5/01/0571 HELSINGTON: Lane Head House Hotel, Helsington. Change of use from hotel to dwelling. (R. Miller)

No objections had been raised by the neighbour or the Director of Engineering.

The Director of Amenities and Development be authorised to grant this application on the expiry of the consultation period.

5/01/0582 LOWICK: Barns at Groffa Cragg, Broughton Beck. Conversion of barns to four dwellings. (D. Cadman and R. Briggs Mandraw Properties Ltd.)

The Director of Amenities and Development advised that the original consent had been for a less pleasing scheme than the current application and that the number of rooflights had been reduced by seven. No objections had been raised by the Director of Engineering and the Environment Agency had indicated that subject to conditions 1103

24.4.2001 Development Control

they had no objections.

However, the Director of Amenities and Development felt that the suitability of the septic tank should be rechecked.

Members raised concerns about the Leylandii trees which had been planted at the entrance as they felt it restricted visibility.

The Director of Amenities and Development be authorised to grant this application following negotiations to secure the removal of roadside conifers if they fall within the applicants’ control.

5/01/0634 KENDAL: Riverside Centre, Yard 39, Highgate, Kendal. Change of use to café. (Conservation Area) (Andrew Coates)

The Town Council had recommended approval of the application subject to adequate ventilation. A letter from an objector, Mr Kelly, who lived and worked close to the application site was read out to the Sub- Committee. He felt that the building was inappropriate for use as a café and that the Listed Building would require a number of alterations to make it suitable. He also raised concerns about the noise, smells and the management of waste.

The Director of Amenities and Development advised that the applicant had still to respond about issues regarding storage of waste but that in view of other nearby businesses, he felt that it was difficult to see how use of these premises as a café would worsen Mr Kelly’s situation.

He felt that, subject to adequate proposals for the disposal of waste, waste ventilation and subject to conditions regarding noise, the application could be approved. Members felt that a restriction to normal trading hours should be applied.

The Director of Amenities and development be authorised to grant this application on the expiry of the consultation period and subject to adequate proposals for ventilation, noise attenuation and waste food disposal to ensure that these matters do not unreasonably impact on the occupiers of adjoining residential units, together with a condition requiring daytime operation of the A3 activity.

5/01/0291 PRESTON PATRICK: Land at Peasey Beck, Endmoor. Dwelling. (Outline) (Adrian and Lucinda Dolan)

The Director of Amenities and Development reported that ownership issues were still not clear and he therefore recommended that the application be refused.

The Director of Amenities and Development be authorised to refuse this application on the completion of issues concerning ownership of the site.

5/01/0347 KENDAL: 40 Archers Meadow, Kendal. Conservatory. (E.G. Mellors) 1104

24.4.2001 Development Control

WITHDRAWN from schedule.

5/01/0363 PENNINGTON: Bracken Park Farm, Beckside, Pennington. Extension and alterations (Mr and Mrs C. Benefield)

GRANTED subject to:-

(1) This permission relates to the revised plans drawing nos 02/B and 03/A deposited with the Local Planning Authority on 5 April 2001.

(2) This permission authorises no greater extent of reconstruction than that described in the submitted structural report compiled by M. and P. Gadsden received by the Local Planning Authority on 5 April 2001.

(3) The whole of the conversion hereby permitted shall take place within the existing walls and existing roof of the building.

(4) The windows and doors shall be of a timber construction and shall be set back in a reveal from the face of the building a minimum depth of 100mm.

(5) The roof shall be covered with slates being blue/grey in colour and of a similar texture to those mined within the County of Cumbria a sample of which shall be submitted to and agreed in writing with the Local Planning Authority before any development work commences on site.

(6) No development shall be carried out on the site which is the subject of this permission until details of the materials to be used on all hardsurfaced areas have been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority, and the development shall not be carried out otherwise than in full accordance with such approved details.

(7) Notwithstanding the provisions of the Town and Country Planning General Permitted development Order 1995, express planning permission shall be obtained for any development falling within Classes A, B, C, D, E, or H of Part I, Schedule 2 of that Order.

(8) Within six months from the date when any of the buildings hereby permitted is completed trees/shrubs shall be planted on the land in accordance with a landscaping scheme to be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. Any trees/shrubs which are removed, die, become severely damaged diseased within five years of their planting shall be replaced in the next planting season with trees/shrubs of similar size and species to those originally required to be planted unless the Local Planning Authority gives written consent to any variation. 1105

24.4.2001 Development Control

(a) For the avoidance of doubt and to ensure a satisfactory form of development.

(b) To ensure compliance with Policy H12 of the South Lakeland Local Plan which is designed to protect the environment from inappropriate change.

(c) To ensure that the character of the area is not adversely affected by reason of the appearance of the type and colour of materials to be used in the development.

(d) To ensure that any further alterations or extensions to the property permitted by the General Permitted Development Order 1995 as amended will not detract from the appearance of the development.

(e) To ensure that the development is adequately screened.

5/01/0388 KENDAL: 17 Hawesmead Drive, Kendal. Replacement garage. (David Whitehead)

REFUSED for the reason below:-

The proposal would, by reason of its size and relative positioning, be an unsympathetic form of development which would be unneighbourly to nearby residents.

5/01/0449 ULVERSTON: Land adjacent to 1 Green Bank, Ulverston. Two double garages. (Conservation area) (Mr I. Hoggarth)

It was reported that the Arboriculturist had inspected the trees and that the garage was to be moved further away. The Director of Amenities and Development felt that the application could therefore be approved.

GRANTED

5/01/0467 BARBON: 1 Box Tree, Barbon. Garage and stable block (resubmission 5/00/1752). (M.F. and L.M. Hart)

Members felt that the application should be conditioned so that use was restricted.

GRANTED subject to:-

(1) The external walls of the building shall be clad with natural stone to match Box Tree Barn. A sample panel of the proposed stonework shall be erected on the site for the further written approval of the Local Planning Authority before any building works commence.

(2) The roof of the building shall be covered with natural slate; a sample of the slate to be used shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority before any building 1106

24.4.2001 Development Control

works commence.

(3) The garage and stable shall be used only for purposes incidental to the residential enjoyment of Box Tree Farm Barn and for no commercial purposes whatsoever.

(4) Before any building works commence details of the method to be undertaken to protect the drainage pipes which run through the curtilage of Box Tree Farm Barn from damage both during and after building operations shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority.

(5) No drainage connection shall be made from the stable to the existing septic tank.

(6) No building works shall commence until a scheme for the containment and storage of manure has been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The approved scheme shall be fully implemented before the building is first brought into use.

(7) The building hereby permitted shall be used only for the garaging of private motor vehicles, the storage of household effects and equipment and the stabling of horses incidental to the residential enjoyment of 1 Box Tree, Barbon and for no other purposes whatsoever.

(a) To ensure an appropriate external appearance.

(b) To protect the residential character of the locality.

(d) To prevent pollution of the water environment.

(e) For the avoidance of doubt.

5/01/0487 KENDAL: 7 Undercliff Road, Kendal. Glazed carport/covered entrance. (Dr A.M. Finlay)

GRANTED

2204 BUILDINGS OF ARCHITECTURAL AND HISTORIC INTEREST

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

5/01/0350 KENDAL: 29 Stramongate, Kendal. Demolition of chimney stack. (Conservation Area) (Listed Building) (Ms A. Irving)

GRANTED

5/01/0400 KENDAL: Hillcote, 80 Gillinggate, Kendal. Velux rooflight. (Conservation Area) (Listed Building) (Mr M. Conroy)

The Director of Amenities and Development stated that he agreed with 1107

24.4.2001 Development Control

the views put forward by the Town Council. The Civic Society had objected to the proposal as they felt that a rooflight was not appropriate on so significant a Listed Building.

REFUSED for the reason below:-

The insertion of a rooflight on this distinctive and prominent Listed Building would adversely affect its character and appearance.

5/01/0547 ULVERSTON: Ulverston Railway Station, Princes Street, Ulverston.

DEFERRED to enable research to be undertaken with the rail regulator on the requirements and duties of Railtrack.

2205 ADVERTISEMENTS RESOLVED – That the following application be determined in the manner set out:- 5/01/0810 BEETHAM: Land adjacent to A6 and Moss Lane, Hale. Sign (retrospective). (Mr Ian Dutton) The Parish Council had no objection to the sign. REFUSED for the reasons below:-

(1) It is not for the policy of the Local Planning Authority to permit the display of advance directional signs advertising individually named commercial establishments in order to protect the attractive character of the area, designated to be a Landscape of County Importance in the Cumbria and Lake District Joint Structure Plan (and designated as an Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty on the western side of the A6) and within an Area of Special Control of Advertisements, so defined because of the special landscape qualities of the area.

(2) The amount of information contained on the sign is a distraction to drivers on the A6 and is, therefore, a potential road safety hazard.

2206 APPLICATIONS TO BE DETERMINED BY CUMBRIA COUNTY COUNCIL

RESOLVED – That Cumbria County Council be informed that this Local Planning Authority is of the opinion that the following application should be determined in the manner set out:-

5/01/9007 HOLME: OS Field No 3500, Station Road, Holme. Waste water pumping station. (North West Water Ltd.)

The District Council objects to the glass-fibre kiosk; the pumping equipment should be housed in a stone-faced, slate-roofed building.

Note – Councillor J.A. Blamire declared an interest in the following three items of business and left the Council Chamber during the discussion and voting thereon. 1108

24.4.2001 Development Control

ENFORCEMENT 2207 Enforcement Activity The Sub-Committee considered a report on enforcement activity during the period 12 March to 6 April 2001. RESOLVED – That the report be noted. 2208 Riverside Hotel, Beezon Road, Kendal A banner advertising a “Beat the clock Dinner Promotion” had been displayed at the Riverside Hotel without the necessary planning permission. However, the Sub- Committee was advised that it had since been removed. RESOLVED - That the situation be noted. 2209 Burgundy’s Wine Bar, Lowther Street, Kendal The Director of Amenities and Development reported that a banner, promoting a beer festival, had been displayed across Lowther Street without the benefit of advertisement consent. It was apparent that the banner had been displayed at least twice during the past three years one week before the festival was due to start. The owner was aware that permission was required but had failed to apply for consent. The Director reported that the owner felt victimised by the attitude of the council and its Officers to his displays. Members also raised concerns during the debate about signs placed outside the Leisure Centre, Kendal

RESOLVED – That

(1) the owner be advised that the situation would be closely monitored in the future and, should a similar occurrence take place, the Director of Administration be authorised to use all necessary powers, including prosecution, against the owner; and

(2) the Director of Amenities and Development be asked to write to the Director of Commercial Services regarding the situation at the Leisure Centre and to Abbott Hall concerning unauthorised advertising.

2210 Amendment to Section 106 Agreement – Land adjacent to Church Road House, Great Urswick

Members were reminded that planning permission had been granted for the use of this land as an extension to a garden area on the basis that a Section 106 Agreement would be made which would ensure that the District Council would be able to retain control over its future appearance. The reason for this had been concern from the Sub-Committee and objectors that planting could lead to the loss of the open views across the land to the tarn and a change in the character and appearance of the land. At the time the applicant had stated that his intention was to keep the land as an informal grass area.

The Agreement had been signed in July 2000 but the applicant had since requested that it be amended to allow the creation of a rose bed on the site and to plant twelve trees along the curtilage boundary. The Arboriculturist had advised that the majority of the trees proposed would be likely to reach a medium height but some would grow into larger trees. 1109

24.4.2001 Development Control

The Director of Amenities and Development considered that any planting would have an impact on the character and appearance of the setting of the tarn and would restrict the views from a number of dwellings and the main carriageway through the village. He also felt that a flower bed would result in a more formal appearance.

RESOLVED – That the request to amend the Section 106 Agreement be refused.

2211 YEW TREES COTTAGE, BEETHAM

An application had been received for grant assistance for repairs to the Grade II Listed Building.

RESOLVED – That a grant of £800 be offered in this case.

2212 APPLICATIONS CONSIDERED PREVIOUSLY BY DEVELOPMENT CONTROL SUB-COMMITTEE AND DETERMINED BY THE DIRECTOR OF AMENITIES AND DEVELOPMENT