Reference No: 2/2007/0076 Received: 29/01/2007 Proposed Erection of four wind turbines and associated infrastructure Development: and services including site road, crane pads, substation control building and temporary construction compound, as amended by letter received on 30 April 2007. Drawing Numbers:
Location: Park Head Farm Silloth Applicant: N Power Renewables Ltd
Constraints: Allerdale Flood Zone 1 Allerdale Flood Zone 2 Allerdale Flood Zone 3
Policies: Government guidance on renewables is contained in PPS22: Renewable Energy and the companion guide that goes with it. It includes advice on proposals close to nationally designated areas i.e. AONB’s.
The Draft Regional Spatial Strategy Policy EM17 sets out acceptability criteria for renewable energy proposals.
County Structure Plan Policy ST4 sets criteria for considering major development. Policy R44 sets criteria for renewable energy proposals. Policy E34 considers areas of nature conservation importance and confirms that the setting of AONB’s should be taken into account. Policy E36 considers landscapes of County Importance and Policy E37 again looks to safeguard landscape character.
Allerdale Local Plan EN19 considers landscape protection, EN20 looks to protect the AONB, EN22 protects county landscapes and EN25 protects the open countryside. Policy CO24 protects the setting of Hadrians Wall World Heritage Site.
Wind Energy Development in Cumbria (SP9 1997).
Cumbria Wind Energy SPD – Allerdale Borough Council have resolved to adopt this document. The appraisal of the proposal undertaken on behalf of the Council has used the document as a framework for identifying sensitivities and issues specific to wind energy development.
Representations: Dundraw Parish Council – No objections but concerned that “… dotting them around the countryside does spoil our area”.
Holme Abbey – Recommend refusal – impact on AONB, impact on tourism and the local economy, number of other comments, health, low flying, distraction to motorists, TV, local roads, precedent, wildlife, lack of need.
Holme St Cuthberts – Recommend refusal – impact on AONB, SSSI, detrimental to tourism, impact on wildlife, low frequency noise, highways, infrastructure.
Silloth Town Council – Recommend refusal – harmful to AONB and landscape, visual intrusion.
Carlisle Airport – No objections.
Cumbria County Council – Offer an objection and consider the proposal would cause significant harm to the landscape character and visual setting of the Solway Coast AONB.
Fire Officer – No objections.
CPRE (Cumbria) – Object – landscape, visual impact on AONB and recreational routes.
Solway Coast AONB Partnership – Object – landscape and visual impact, impact on wildlife, cumulative impact.
Ramblers Association – Impact on AONB and a variety of national, European and international designations; would seriously detract from recreational routes.
NATS – No safeguarding objection.
Cumbria Wildlife Trust – Object – collision risk, disturbance/displacement of birds, direct habitat loss, inadequate monitoring.
County Archaeologist – No objections subject to condition.
English Heritage – No objection - consider that the World Heritage Site landscape will not be affected.
Environment Agency – No objections subject to conditions.
Arqiva Ltd – No objections – will not affect broadcast.
Civil Aviation Authority – No objections.
MoD – No objections.
The application has been advertised on site and within the local press.
11 letters of support have been received for the proposal.
Approximately 1080 letters of objection have been received. Many, but not all, are in the form of a standard letter. Of the letters some 78% are from within Allerdale, 10% from the rest of Cumbria, and 12% from outside of Cumbria. Matters referred to generally consider the impact on the area and the AONB, impact on tourism and businesses, impact on wildlife, lack of benefit, the cumulative impact of this scheme and others is referred to.
Stanwix Park Holiday Centre has submitted a letter objection to the proposal, referring to the impact on business and other tourist establishments; precedent; and refers to number of existing wind turbine developments in Allerdale. The letter includes a petition headed, “I object to the proposed wind farm development” which is signed by 380 people.
REPORT This application proposes the erection of 4 wind turbines with a hub height of up to 80m and an overall height of up to 121m. Each would have a 2MW capacity, which it is said could meet the electricity needs of around 3,950 households. There are around 1400 households in the Silloth area.
The development is approximately 3km to the south-east of Silloth. It lies 2km outside of the boundary of the Solway Coast AONB and close to the setting of the Hadrians Wall World Heritage Site.
The site is bisected by a minor road. Access to the site is along the C2015 road to the east of Parkhead Farm. An access track of around 6m wide would be constructed to connect each turbine. Also included are a single storey ancillary building, temporary crane hard standings and a construction compound. A 50m anemometer mast is proposed next to one of the turbines. The application is for a 25 year period.
In October 2004 permission was refused for 6 turbines at this site for eight reasons, which all referred to the inadequacies of the submitted Environmental Impact Assessment and issues relating to landscape and visual impact, impact on residential amenity, impact on the AONB, impact on Hadrians Wall WHS, impact on protected wildlife conservation areas, cumulative with other schemes, impact on archaeological sites, impact on local highway network.
The planning application was submitted in January 2007. The application is supported by an Environmental Impact Assessment and supporting documents that are available for inspection.
By reason of the number of objections and the fact that a group representing those opposed to the development exists (Silloth on Solway Action Committee), letters inviting people to attend the meeting to speak have not been sent to all objectors but just the Action Committee. This is at variance to normal practice.
As part of the consideration of the proposal, an independent appraisal of the landscape and visual issues raised by the application was commissioned. A detailed assessment has been received and is available for inspection.
8 SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS
8.1 These conclusions respond to the landscape related planning considerations identified in Section 3 of this report and are structured accordingly. In some areas the findings cannot be entirely conclusive due to a lack of information in the ES and its supplements.
Siting and Design
8.2 The main locational draw back of this site is its close proximity to and central location between the northern and southern sections of the Solway Coast AONB (1.8 and 2.7km respectively) rendering a large part of the designated area within range of potential long term landscape effects of national significance.
8.3 Secondly due to its close proximity to a concentration of important coastal recreation routes and relative alignment such that views would frequently be channelled towards the proposal visitors would be vulnerable to prolonged effects from both Hellrigg individually or cumulatively (in combination or sequentially) with other wind energy schemes and the existing manmade verticals of the Anthorn masts. The AONB and the recreation routes lie to the SE and NW of the proposal where effects would be exacerbated by exposure to the longest period of moving blades in full plane due to the prevailing south-westerly wind direction.
8.4 Thirdly its location on a narrow coastal plain fragmented by rolling farmland and within a tight sequence of contrasting landscapes has made it difficult to achieve a development that appears logical and clearly related to a consistent set of key characteristics. For example the wind farm would have a mixed relationship with the horizon sometimes appearing in sharp contrast to the coastal plain and elsewhere appearing in an unpredictable way against undulations and ridgelines creating disconcerting partial views. Also in terms of scale and openness, from large scale coastal margins with broad views that would not be intimidated to smaller scale areas inland enclosed by ridges where the turbines are likely to feel over dominant.
8.5 Fourthly the location of the wind farm adjacent or close to local roads and the B5302 would tend to raise its landscape and visual profile. The position of the turbine group set back from a public highway of suitable width for access and layout bridging the U2042 increases the internal access track requirement by 0.7km and number of openings off public highways to five. These openings would again increase visibility of both the site infrastructure and turbines.
8.6 The wind farm composition has fundamental weaknesses. In the majority of viewpoints the turbines do not read collectively as a single cohesive group and they also appear disconnected into either two groups of two or a central group of two with outlying single turbines either side. These effects are due to the wide separation distances between turbines required for rotor diameters of 82m and their grid arrangement. Under the terms of the application and description in the ES the blade to tower height proportions of the turbines could vary considerably from those illustrated, a much squatter turbine with reduced hub height and/or longer blade is a possibility. This together with the possibility of separate transformer kiosks and compositional weaknesses would undermine any sculptural quality.
8.7 Locally important landscape features will be damaged or may be at risk due to the site layout. The north-easterly turbine (no. 4) and crane pad is insensitively sited in a marshy area which is probably a remnant of a much broader wetland, known as Low Holme Mire, that stretched across this part of the coastal plain prior to agricultural drainage. A mature species rich hedge and associated string of mature hedgerow trees, which are locally scarce and potential bat roosts, appear vulnerable in terms of visibility splay requirements at the site entrance which Npower has failed to consider at this application stage despite direct requests.
Compatibility
8.8 The proposed wind farm would stand out within the open coastal margins due to the high vertical contrast between the turbines and the flat or subdued topography and the introduction of blade movement into this largely still receiving landscape. In terms of scale the small group of turbines would not intimidate the wide views and large scale of the coastal margins setting appreciated in mid range views. However in close range the group would sit uncomfortably in the finer grained and more enclosed coastal plain context behind Silloth. Here turbines of up to 121m high are likely to appear over dominant dwarfing the nearby farm buildings, small copses, hedges, hedgerow trees, and the adjacent Tarns ridge which only reaches 45m AOD. Set back from the outer coastline in a low lying position on the edge of the sheltered inner Solway the scheme would not benefit from a strong sense of purpose or rationality in terms of exposure.
8.9 The proposed turbines, which overtly display a modern manmade character, are likely to appear incongruous against the rural coastal plain farmland of small fields, traditional farm buildings, narrow lanes and natural accents of hedges, copses, wetland and associated wildlife. The more accommodating context of the airfield, hangars and industrial fringes of Silloth are general concealed apart from occasional elevated views from within Silloth or the Tarns ridge. The wind farm would compromise the unspoilt peaceful backwater character of the local setting where large scale development and communication routes are generally absent. These characteristics are at their strongest within the AONB resulting in a remote quality, recognised as remarkable in the national context. The existing Anthorn masts, 7.5km away on the other side of Moricambe Bay, are already considered to be alien to this overall remote character and the introduction of turbines at Hellrigg would further impinge on this nationally recognised quality.
8.10 The wind farm would create a strong new focal point with its presence emphasised by blade movement. At 227m high the fourteen Anthorn communication masts are an existing focal point and can be seen from most of the AONB. From Mawbray and Wolsty Banks the proposed group of turbines would appear as a new focal point just to the side of the masts competing for attention and creating an effect known as unresolved duality where the eye tends to jump from one element to the other. In so doing they would tend to deflect attention away from attractive seaward views to the Scottish coast and the focal point of Criffel as well as views inland to the Lakeland fells.
8.11 Locally the integrity of the existing hedgerow fabric would be damaged and disfigured by the requirement for five new openings to facilitate access or crossing of the local roads. These openings, each 16-30m wide and remaining in place throughout the 25 year operational life of the wind farm, together with 2.1km of stone surfaced internal access track equivalent in width to the adjacent C road would be discordant with the immediate fine grained setting in terms of both scale and character.
Significant Landscape Effects
8.12 Significant long term effects on landscape character would occur across a large part of the southern section of the AONB between Dubmill Point and Silloth (approximately 40%). Within these dune and coastal plain landscapes (sub-types 2a and 2c) of high national value the wind farm would generally read as a prominent key element, reducing to conspicuous at the southern end. Significant long term effects on landscape character would also occur across a large part of the northern section of the AONB around Moricambe Bay within a line between Grune Point, Skinburness, Calvo, Abbeytown, Newton Arlosh and the southern edge of the Cardurnock Peninsula (approximately 25%). Within these coastal marsh, dune and coastal plain landscapes (sub-types 1b, 2a and 2c) of high national value the wind farm would generally read as a prominent key element, varying to dominant or conspicuous on the fringes.
8.13 Outside the AONB within the immediate setting encompassing the coastal plain behind Silloth and low farmland on the north side of the Tarns ridge (sub-types 2c and 5b), a landscape of medium value, significant effects would occur within a radius of 2-3km of the wind farm. Here the wind farm would become a dominant focus. Beyond this range significant effects on the open coastal plain are expected to extend SW up to the boundary of the AONB with it remaining as a prominent key element. Inland effects would more rapidly reduce to an insignificant level due to greater complexity and visual interruption in the undulating low farmland landscape. Seaward of the AONB significant effects would occur across the intertidal mudflats or open water of Moricambe Bay, which as a Landscape of County Importance is of medium/high value.
8.14 Significant long term effects would occur on landscape character in and around the site due to disfigurement and direct damage to the integrity of the hedgerow fabric and discordant nature of the five new openings and internal tracks would be locally significant (substantial magnitude of change on a local landscape of medium value).
8.15 Given the compatibility problems with key characteristics and scenic qualities described above and short comings in the design of the wind farm it is considered that landscape effects would generally be adverse.
8.16 There would be a long term adverse effect on the landscape fabric due to the loss of hedges on site, mostly at the five new roadside openings. This would be locally significant as hedges are recognised as a key landscape feature, have associated wildlife interest, have a relatively high visual profile compared to the proposed new hedgerow planting to internal boundaries, and because these new hedges would only attain an equivalent stature and richness in the medium to long term.
Significant Visual Effects
8.17 There would be significant long term visual effects on visitors using a range of recreational facilities that are mostly concentrated along the coast including the B5300 coast road, B5302 ‘gateway’ road to the AONB and resort of Silloth, Cumbria Coastal Way/Allerdale Ramble and Hadrian’s Cycleway (NCR 72) and a number of CROW open access areas namely Mawbray Banks, Skinburness/Calvo Marsh, Common Moss and Wedholme Flow. Whilst recognising perceptions of wind farms are variable given that visitors seek this area for a sense of wildness, remoteness, scenery, views, and peace and quiet together with the adverse compositional effects on views described above the wind farm is expected to detract from these amenities and recreation experience.
8.18 There would be significant long term effects on the residential visual amenity of properties on the fringes of Silloth, Abbeytown and Newton Arlosh. Apart from these larger settlements it is difficult to be conclusive due to the inadequacies of the ES and additional information however it is estimated that significant effects would occur in relation to at least 8 individual properties and several properties in the small settlements of Causewayhead, Calvo and Highlaws.
Standard of Assessment, Design and Mitigation
8.19 Concerns expressed at the preliminary design stage1 regarding the scale of the turbines and the relationship between them have not been addressed with the design concentrating instead on the relative height and ‘clutter’ of turbines in comparison to the original proposal. Consequently problems of over dominance in relation to the immediate setting and lack of cohesion and disconnection in the composition of the turbine group remain a concern.
8.20 The selection of the taller turbine with rotor diameters of approximately 82m requiring larger separation distances appears to have dictated the insensitive location of turbine no. 4 in the wetland area.
8.21 The design and assessment has failed to have sufficient regard to the integrity and value of the roadside hedgerow fabric and visual intrusion likely to be created by the five new openings, large scale tracks proposed, site entrance visibility splay and external access route requirements. The site reinstatement proposals on decommissioning are vague. Whilst additional information provided by Npower suggests three options for restoration of the internal access tracks2 no proposals have been made with regard to the openings at the site entrance and crossings of the U2042 and associated hedgerow losses. Given visibility from local roads around the site mitigation measures to minimise the operational impact of the extensive access tracks (2.1km) and five new roadside openings, as well as their downgrading or reinstatement on decommissioning are considered essential.
8.22 The environmental assessment and design, particularly in relation to wind farm composition, visualisations, effects on recognised qualities of the AONB, visual
1 Coates Associates Comments on behalf of Allerdale Borough Council dated 16/6/06 2 Additional Information dated 24/4/07 effects on residents, and cumulative effects fall short of national standards and best practice set out in references such as the Guidelines for Landscape and Visual Impact Assessment (2002), PPS 22 Companion Guide (2004), SNH Guidelines on the Environmental Impacts of Windfarms and Small Hydroelectrical Schemes (2001) and SNH Good Practice Guidance on Visual Representation of Windfarms (2006).
Significant Cumulative Effects
8.23 There would be significant long term cumulative effects on the character of saltmarsh, dune and coastal plain landscapes around Moricambe Bay in the northern section of the AONB. This would occur in successive combination3 with the existing Anthorn communication masts where they would appear as prominent or dominant manmade verticals on either side of the bay. There could also be significant long term cumulative effects on the character of dune and coastal plain landscapes at Mawbray and Wolsty Banks in the southern section of the AONB. This would occur in simultaneous combination4 with the Anthorn masts to the NE and in successive combination3 with the proposed wind farms at Brownrigg Hall and Westnewton to the SE. Turbines and masts could potentially become a key characteristic of these open landscapes particularly from the elevated dunes and together they would deflect attention from existing distinctive skylines and natural focal points such as Criffel. In good visibility there could also be significant long term cumulative effects on the character of raised beach and coastal plain landscape on the south side of Allonby Bay within the AONB. This would occur in simultaneous combination4 with the proposed wind farms at Brownrigg Hall and Westnewton. Turbines could potentially become a key characteristic of these open landscapes with prolonged views channelled by the coastline and frequently into the full plane of moving blades. In so doing they would dilute the value of existing subtle landmarks around the sweep of the bay such as Allonby village and Swarthy Hill and disrupt the restful balance between them. In all three areas these cumulative effects would compound the potential harm to the remote quality of the AONB.
8.24 There would also be significant long term cumulative effects on recreation facilities particularly CROW open access areas within the AONB and sequentially on the
3 Where observer has to turn to see two or more developments 4 Where observer sees two or more developments without the need to turn their head popular coastal routes of the Cumbria Coastal Way, Allerdale Ramble, Hadrian’s Wall Cycleway (NCR 72) and the B5300/5302 with turbines or masts potentially appearing regularly with short time lapses between. It is expected that they would detract from the wildness, peace, remoteness and scenic amenities and recreation experience in a similar way to Hellrigg individually as described above at 8.17.
Acceptability of Location and Scale
8.25 It is concluded that this proposal would individually and cumulatively compromise the primary objective of the Solway Coast AONB designation which is to conserve and enhance natural beauty resulting in significant long term adverse effects on the primary quality of remoteness and special scenic qualities over a large part of the designation. Within the AONB development of more than one turbine with a hub height of more than 25m or more is unlikely to be acceptable (PPS22 and JSP Policy 45). There appear to be no exceptional circumstances justifying a large scale development of four turbines in the order of 80m to hub height in this location in very close proximity to the AONB given their potential prominence within the designated area. In addition the proposal would individually and cumulatively have long term significant effects on the recreational experience from important open access areas and route ways along the Solway coast. It should be noted that there are alternative sites further away from the AONB and the coastal recreation strip with potential for less harm in these respects and that this is a material consideration under JSP Policy ST4. As with many other schemes across the lowland landscape of the Solway Basin which has a relatively heavy but dispersed settlement pattern there would be significant effects on the visual amenity of a fairly large number of residents.
Reference in the above is made to cumulative impact.
Nearby wind turbine development proposals include the scheme refused planning permission early this year at Brownrigg Hall, Allonby, which is now the subject of a planning appeal; Warwick Hall, Westnewton, a current application for 5 wind turbines which may be considered by this Panel in February 2008. Other schemes known to be in preparation for submission include Flimby Brow, Flimby; Fleeter Wood, Tallentire; Tallentire Hill, Tallentire. There is also developer interest at sites at Broughton Lodge and at Dean Moor/Moresby Moss.
Operational sites include Great Orton; High Pow; Bolton Low Houses; Wharrells Hill, Bothel; Voridian, Oldside, Siddick, all around Workington; Winscales and Winscales Moor (consented but work not commenced), Robin Rigg Offshore (consented but not yet constructed).
The assessment offered in support of the application comes to differing conclusions. There has been dialogue with the applicant and there remains a number of matters on which agreement as to methodology adopted has not been reached. There is disagreement as to findings within the assessments.
The applicant does not suggest the development will not have an impact but does consider the impact can be accepted. The applicant comments that:
“Given the small number of turbines, their simplicity and location in an area of limited settlement and large scale open agricultural land, the development is not anticipated to overwhelm receptors.”
A further comment is that:
“The landscape and visual assessment confirms that the proposed wind far at Hellrigg, when considered in relation to existing and consented wind farms, would be seen as a distinct feature which, whilst highly visible, may be accommodated without becoming a defining character of the landscape. This is due in part to the limited number of turbines and simple layout of the proposed Hellrigg wind farm, as well as the physical and visual separation of the various other wind farm developments included in the cumulative assessment.”
These are selective quotes from the non-technical summary and the matters are given detailed consideration within the Environmental Impact Assessment documents.
If Members were to conclude that the development was harmful it is necessary to consider if the harm can be justified by reason of a need to secure more energy production by renewable means.
The benefits might be summarised by reference to the Government’s sustainable developments strategy PPS22 Renewable Energy.
Increased development of renewable energy resources is vital to facilitating the delivery of the Government’s commitments on both climate change and renewable energy. Positive planning which facilitates renewable energy developments can contribute to all four elements of the Government’s sustainable development strategy:
- social progress which recognises the needs of everyone - by contributing to the nation’s energy needs, ensuring all homes are adequately and affordably heated; and providing new sources of energy in remote areas;
- effective protection of the environment - by reductions in emissions of greenhouse gases and thereby reducing the potential for the environment to be affected by climate change;
- prudent use of natural resources – by reducing the nation’s reliance on ever diminishing supplies of fossil fuels; and,
- maintenance of high and stable levels of economic growth and employment – through the creation of jobs directly related to renewable energy developments, but also in the development of new technologies. In rural areas, renewable energy projects have the potential to play an increasing important role in the diversification of rural economies.
Whilst each application should be considered on its merits there is a concern that we should be exercising a precautionary principle and seeking to see the less objectionable sites delivered first. Officers would suggest there are less objectionable sites. In addition, it is to be noted that Allerdale has a number of operational wind farms and does make a significant contribution to the production of electricity by renewable means. The report that considered the recent proposal at Winscales Moor recognised a need to manage and enable such development elsewhere. This is the other side of the precautionary principle. Winscales Moor was permitted.
The development would, given the opinions received, on balance be harmful to the landscape and visual qualities of the Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty and its setting.
There has been detailed discussion regarding wildlife issue, in particular the impact on pink footed geese; an important issue when considered as part of the Solway Special Area of Conservation. The key issue is the risk of collision. There are various opinions from Natural England, the RSPB and Cumbria Wildlife Trust.
An appropriate assessment further to the Habitat Regulations is required. The legislation requires caution unless there is certainty of the outcome. Natural England considers there is little reliable data available to allow reliable conclusions. The risk is associated with birds colliding with turbines. Natural England has suggested that in the unlikely scenario that collision because of flight lines proves to be an issue there is a need under the habitat regulations to compensate for the damage to the site. The applicant has actively engaged in discussion on this issue and is willing to accept conditions that would include for a monitoring group to be established and a willingness to provide mitigation measures if a problem was experienced post construction. Such actions would probably be the securing of feeding areas that would pull flight lines away from the wind farm.
The issue is then one of whether or not the developer can secure any agreed option within the limited land available to them. The concern has been raised with Natural England and comments invited. On the evidence available there continues to be a slight risk that could not be overcome by a planning condition(s). If further views from Natural England can resolve this concern, it would not need to appear as a reason for refusal.
In considering other issues, the appraisal of the scheme comes to a conclusion that:
“… there would be a significant effect on the visual amenity of a fairly large number of residents.”
The case against this view is not fully considered within the Environmental Impact Assessment.
Other matters referred to within objections are considered capable of being resolved by conditions should permission be granted or not supported by adequate evidence.
Having regard to the detailed submissions of the applicant and to the representations received, it is recommended that planning permission be refused as the proposal is harmful to the AONB and its setting.
Recommendation: Refused
Conditions/ 1. The proposed development would individually and Reasons: cumulatively have a harmful effect on the landscape and visual impact on the character and appearance of the Solway Coast Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty and its setting. As a consequence, the proposed development is contrary to Policy EM17 of the emerging Regional Spatial Strategy for the North West; contrary to Policy ST4, Policy E34, Policy E36 and Policy E37 of the adopted Cumbria and Lake District Joint Structure Plan and contrary to Policy EN19, Policy EN20, Policy EN22 and Policy EN25 of the adopted Allerdale Local Plan.
2. In the opinion of the Local Planning Authority the proposed development would individually and cumulatively have a harmful effect on the enjoyment of a number of recreational facilities and routes to the detriment of both local users and those visiting the area.
3. In the absence of detail to prove the contrary the Local Planning Authority cannot be satisfied that the proposed development will not have a harmful effect on the Upper Solway Flats and Marshes European Site generally, but specifically in terms of impact on pink footed geese by reason of loss of feeding habitat and as a result of death through collision. As a consequence the development would be contrary to Policies EM1 and EM17 of the emerging Regional Spacial Strategy for the North-West, contrary to Policy E34 and R44 of the adopted County Structure Plan and Policy EN26 of the adopted Allerdale Local Plan.
4. In the absence of detail to prove the contrary, the Local Planning Authority cannot be satisfied that the proposed development will not have a harmful effect on residential amenity and the locality. As a consequence the development is contrary to Policy R44 of the adopted County Structure Plan.
______
Reference No: 2/2007/0858 Received: 21/08/2007 Proposed Revised layout for affordable housing development Development: (retrospective) incorporating minor changes to siting. Drawing Numbers:
Location: Land at Holmewood Avenue Cockermouth Applicant: Home Housing Association Ltd
Constraints: Site Of Arch Interest Public Right Of Way Settlement Limit HS5 Radon Assessment Allerdale Flood Zone 1 Conservation Area: COCKERMOUTH ASCA Area Adv Control Exclusion – Cockermouth
Policies: This site is inside the Cockermouth settlement limit in the Allerdale Local Plan.
Policies HS5 and HS8 govern residential development in the Allerdale Local Plan.
Policy HS7 seeks the development of brownfield sites before greenfield sites are released for housing.
The Interim Housing Policy accepts only affordable local needs housing in the Cockermouth settlement limit.
Structure Plan Policy ST3 – Principles applying to all new development.
Representations: Town Council – Recommend refusal. The Council feels the original approved siting and plans should be adhered to. In making this recommendation it is obvious that the site procedure in setting out the units was obviously carried out unprofessionally and it should have been expected that engineers would carry out their duties to the approved drawings. It would appear there has been a breakdown of management and supervision. The fact that houses have been built in the wrong position, and one block in particular has led to unwarranted intrusion on the neighbouring properties and has caused a great deal of stress and worry to the occupants of the dwellings which could have been avoided.
County Archaeologist – No objections.
Cumbria Highways – No objections.
Environmental Health – No objections.
Fire Officer – No objections.
Ramblers Association – No objections.
The application has been advertised on site and within the local press. Adjoining owners have been notified.
Letters of objection have been received from three neighbouring properties. Strong displeasure and amazement that all the properties are in the wrong place and larger in footprint than shown on the original plan; large sections of boundary trees and hedges removed; strong message should be sent by the Planning Committee; overlooking and loss of amenity; difficult to believe errors are accidental; loss of light; hedge at 12 Holmewood Avenue should be retained as existing; kerbs on Holmewood Avenue lowered, promoting parking on footway. Unneighbourly development in respect of Plots 9 and 10.
Further objections were received in relation to moving the first floor bedroom windows from the rear to the site of Plot 10 (recessed prior to plan showing Oriel design), to the boundary fencing erected on site at the entrance from Holmewood Avenue and to the loss of hedges.
REPORT In April 2007 planning permission was granted for a development of affordable housing for local people in a small paddockat the end of Holmewood Avenue, Cockermouth (2/2005/0924). The permission was subject to a S106 Agreement governing the occupancy of the properties.
During construction, a neighbouring resident alerted the Authority to the fact that some of the units appeared to be being built in the wrong position. This was taken up with the developer and the current application has resulted. The developers have chosen to continue building while the application awaits determination.
Although it was originally believed that only two of the units were significantly out of position, it emerged during the consideration of the proposal that all of the properties are affected to a greater or lesser extent. It also became clear that the footprint of the units had also changed so that their land-take was greater.
In relation to the majority of properties, the change is of no consequence to the quality or acceptability of the scheme, but Plots 7, 9 and 10 have their rear elevations brought closer to the back of existing residential properties in circumstances where on the approved scheme the new dwellings had very restricted rear gardens. The gable end of Plot 11 is also now positioned almost on the boundary of a neighbouring garden where previously a 1m clearance strip was to be achieved.
The developers suggest that the discrepancies have arisen from errors in the site survey, though this clearly does not account for changes in the plot sizes.
In relation to Plot 7, the property is at an angle to properties to the rear and is separated from them by a bridleway, so the prospects of overlooking are reduced. Although the property would have a very small triangular rear garden (between 6m and 2m in depth), it has a more usable garden to the side. This is considered acceptable.
Plots 9 and 10 are a pair of semi-detached houses which back directly onto single storey properties on Brackenhill Lane. Nos. 18 and 20 are affected. On the approved plans Plot 9 has a back garden depth approaching 4.5m, but on the revised plan this is reduced to between 3.5 and 4m.
The properties at Brackenhill Lane which are affected by the development were built with extensive rear gardens (11m minimum depth in the case of No. 20 and 12m in the case of No. 18), though this has been compromised by the addition of a conservatory to No 18 in the recent past.
In relation to the amenity space available to each of the new properties, Plot 9 has a reasonably proportioned side garden and Plot 10a much smaller side garden.
In an attempt to reduce the impact of the proposal on Brackenhill Lane properties, revised plans have been submitted which modify the house types on Plots 9 and 10 by moving first floor bedroom windows from the rear elevation to the side. In relation to Plot 10, this would take the form on an Oriel window with mirror glass on the angle looking towards the rear of properties on Brackenhill Lane. Thus the outlook from this window would be solely towards the new estate road. The agents have been in touch with one of the objectors with a view to additional planting in his garden, but this is not part of the application.
The agents also have undertaken to re-examine their landscaping proposals to address issues relating to the loss of hedging and the use of intrusive fencing at the entrance to the site from Holmewood Avenue.
The Authority must consider whether the revised scheme is acceptable in terms of its relationship with the Brackenhill Lane properties and in terms of the standard of amenity which would be achievable for the new properties themselves.
At its last meeting the Panel resolved to defer consideration of the application until such time as re-consultation on the revised plans was complete and the applicants had a further opportunity to address the impact of the scheme on neighbouring residents. This is ongoing at the time of writing and it is expected that further information will be available when the Panel meets.
Subject to the receipt of satisfactory amended planting plans and to the outcome of consultations, it is recommended that planning permission be granted. Any permission should be subject to a S106 Agreement governing the occupancy of the properties, in line with the previous permission.
Recommendation: Approved
Conditions/ 1. No dwelling hereby permitted shall be occupied after the Reasons: end of the first planting and seeding seasons following the completion of building works unless the landscaping scheme and schemes for the provision of bat and house sparrow boxes have been completed in accordance with the approved plans AWAITED. Any trees or plants which within a period of 5 years of planting die, are removed, or become seriously damaged or diseased shall be replaced with others of similar size and species. Any bird or bat boxes which within the same period are removed or become seriously damaged shall be replaced with others of similar design. Reason: In order to enhance the appearance of the development and its contribution to biodiversity in compliance with Policies EN3 and EN35 of the Allerdale Local Plan.
2. The carriageway, footways and footpaths shall be constructed, drained and lit to a standard suitable for adoption and shall be constructed before the development is completed. Reason: To ensure a minimum standard of construction in the interests of highway safety.
3. No dwellings shall be occupied until the estate road, including footways and cycleways to serve such dwellings, has been constructed in all respects to base course leve,l and street lighting where it is to form part of the estate road has been provided and brought into full operational use. Reason: In the interests of highway safety.
4. All approved works to prevent water discharging onto/off the highway 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.
5. The access drives shall be surfaced in bituminous or cement bound materials, or otherwise bound, and shall be constructed and completed before the development is brought into use. Reason: In the interests of highway safety.
6. No articulated vehicles shall be used on a public highway in connection with the transportation of minerals or plant or machinery from the site as a result of the operations hereby permitted. Reason: In the interests of highway safety as the local road network is not suitable for large or articulated vehicles.
7. No dwelling shall be occupied until the access and parking requirements have been constructed in accordance with the approved plan. Any such access and/or parking provision shall be retained and be capable of use when the development is completed and shall not be removed or altered without the prior consent of the Local Planning Authority. Reason: To ensure a minimum standard of access provision when the development is brought into use.
______
Reference No: 2/2007/0896 Received: 31/08/2007 Proposed Erection of 51 units and associated works, as amended by Development: letter received on 23 October 2007 and letter received on 16 November 2007. Drawing Numbers: 358/SL01D - Site Location Plan 358/PL01 Rev D - Planning Layout 358/ED/01A - Engineering Layout 1289/DET186 - Fence Details GF1 2278/DET/02 G04 - Triple Garage Elevations & Floor Plans G03 - Double Garage elevations & Floor Plans G01 - Single Garage Elevations & Floor Plan 358/Pm4/01A - Palmerston House (Elevations & Floor Plans) 358/Kin/01A - Kingston House (Elevations & Floor Plans) 358/Mai/01A Maidstone House (Elevations & Floor Plans) 358/Esk/01A - Eskdale House (Elevations & Floor Plans) 358/Pal/01A - Palgrave House (Elevations & Floor Plans) 358/Enn/01A - Ennerdale House (Elevations & Floor Plans) Location: Land to the East of Ryehill Road Flimby Maryport Applicant: Barratt Homes (Manchester Division)
Constraints: Settlement Limit HS5 Allerdale Flood Zone 1 British Coal Area Adv Control Exclusion – Flimby
Policies: The application site is located within the settlement limits for Flimby, one of the settlements which is not affected by the housing restrictions within the Council’s Interim Housing Policy. The site is allocated for housing under Policy H2 of the Allerdale Local Plan.
Policies HS5 and HS8 of the Allerdale Local Plan outline the design criteria for residential development within the designated settlement limits. The adopted alterations to Policy HS8 seek a minimum density of 30 dwellinghouses per hectare.
Policy HS7 of the alterations to the Allerdale Local Plan seeks the preferable development of brownfield sites prior to greenfield sites.
Policy HS9 of the alterations to the Allerdale Local Plan seeks the provision of satisfactory access and drainage facilities for new housing development.
Policy TR6 seeks development proposals to comply with the County Council’s parking guidelines.
Policy L1 of the Allerdale Local Plan requires the provision of a local area for play for estates between 15-60 dwellings.
Policy EN3 of the Allerdale Local Plan seeks to secure appropriate landscaping schemes for new development (where appropriate).
Policy EN9 of the Allerdale Local Plan requires an assessment of risk for proposals on (potentially) contaminated land and remediation measures if necessary.
EN12 of Allerdale Local Plan seeks to resist development on land which is liable to flood.
Representations: Town Council – Recommend refusal due to potential flooding of the area. Also it was refused at the last Panel.
Cumbria Highways – Identify issues requiring resolution.
Environmental Health – Request desk top study.
Natural England – No objections.
United Utilities – No objections – site can be drained to the combined sewer.
Park Officer – No objections.
County Planning – No response necessary.
Fire Officer – No objections.
Environment Agency – Raise the issue that land drainage consent will be required.
The application has been advertised on site and within the local press. Adjoining owners have been notified.
Seven letters of objection to the proposal have been received citing the following concerns:
1. The amount of traffic likely to be generated by the proposal as the existing infrastructure of the village is inadequate to cope - implications for highway safety. 2. Part of the site includes greenfield land – contrary to planning policy. 3. The amount of surface water generated by the development as the area is prone to flooding and nearby houses already experience problems – where will the surface water go? 4. Over development of the village – to the detriment of its character. 5. Site incorporates marshland – will development be harmful to local wildlife and their habitats?
REPORT The applicant seeks full consent for the erection of 51 dwellings (11 No. 2 bedroom, 16 No. 3 bedroom and 24 No. 4 bedroom) on a 1.3 hectare site located within the village of Flimby. This T-shaped site has frontage onto Rye Hill Road, the principal thoroughfare through the village, and extends behind a number of dwellings located on Rye Hill Road, Rye Hill Crescent and School Drive.
A request for the application to be referred to the Development Panel has been made by a ward councillor for the following reasons: 1. Over provision of housing. 2. Lack of provision of low cost and social housing. 3. House types not in keeping with the area. 4. Lack of privacy from windows in this development to existing properties. 5. Lack of children’s play area. 6. Improvement to sidewalks on this area.
Members may recollect that an application (2/2006/1257) for an identical number of dwellings on the site was approved at the committee meeting held in January of this year. The site has subsequently been sold and the new owners/applicant seeks modifications to the approved scheme – in the form of different house designs and minor alterations to parking arrangements.
The fundamental elements of the scheme (and principal concerns of objectors’ and Ward Member) have already been established as part of the previous application. These are:
• Over-development of Village & Over-provision of Housing - given the existing approval (and the allocated status of the site) the merits of the principle of residential development of this extent at this location have already been accepted.
• Lack of Low Cost & Social Housing - no affordable dwellings were included under the previous consent as it was considered residential property prices within the village were affordable relative to local salary incomes. It would therefore be unsustainable to introduce the issue of affordability at this stage.
• Access & Increased Traffic - it was concluded under the previous application that the proposed access and its associated filter roads onto the A596 can satisfactorily accommodate the traffic generated by the development. The traffic impact on the nearby access corridors of Brook Street and Wedgwood Street onto Main Street was also assessed and found to be insignificant.
• Integration of Scheme into Existing Village Infrastructure – the development will need to be integrated into the village infrastructure. This will be achieved by way of new footways which will link to existing pavements along Rye Hill Road. Ramps will also be provided either side of road junctions leading into the development. These details are conditioned and reserved for later approval (in consultation with the Highways Authority).
• Surface Water Management & Food Risk - a fundamental issue relates to flood risk and surface water drainage for the site. The applicant has confirmed their intention to dispose of surface water via the public sewer. United Utilities has confirmed acceptance of this arrangement (subject to the discharge rate not exceeding 10 litres per second). The applicant will also provide a drainage link from the ditch to the north of Penny Gill and no objections from the Environment Agency or the Council Engineer have been raised pertaining to this. Officers consider the drainage details satisfactory, with the scheme presenting no increased flood risk to the locality.
• Ecology & Wildlife - an ecological survey has already been undertaken on the site as part of the previous application, which considers the development would have little impact on the watercourse. Concerns were raised relating to the impact of the development on the neighbouring wetland reed bed area to the south of the site. As the course of Penny Gill traverses along the southern boundary of the site (between the proposed estate and the wetland) it is considered there should be little impact on the hydrology/habitats of the wetland area.
• Play Area - the proposed layout of the estate includes an area of open space, which complies with the policy requirements for proposals for developments of 15-60 dwellings. To trigger the requirement for a ‘local equipped area for play’ proposals must constitute development of 60-150 dwellings.
Therefore, officers consider the merits of this application relate solely to the proposed revisions to the approved scheme. These are:
• Housing Design - concerns have been raised that the revised house types are not in keeping with the character of the village. The dwellings comprise of red brick elevations, white uPVC fenestration underneath tiled roofs, and are not generally reflective of the architecture found in the village. Much work has been undertaken to ensure the dwellings under the current scheme incorporate elements of local vernacular. Window openings have been amended to replicate the vertical proportions evident in the locality. Sills and lintels have also been incorporated on the front elevations to accentuate the vertical proportions of the windows. Officer consider that the dwellings proposed as part of this scheme achieve a better relationship with existing development and are an improvement on those approved under the previous scheme.
• Layout - the layout of the estate, in general, remains unchanged from that approved. The adjustments to the parking provision, following amendment, raise no objections for the Highways Authority. Attention has been given to the minor alterations to the layout, to ensure that both existing and proposed dwellings retain the levels of amenity secured under the existing scheme. Officers are satisfied that the proposal is satisfactory in this respect.
Consent has already been granted for 51 dwellings at this site and therefore no objections are raised to the principle of this proposal. The core elements remain unchanged from the approved scheme and therefore are considered acceptable. Officers consider the proposed revisions to the design of the dwellings would result in an enhancement to the approved scheme, which would improve the contribution of the development to the village from a visual perspective.
Recommendation: Approved
Conditions/ 1. The development hereby permitted shall be begun Reasons: before the expiration of THREE years from the date of this permission. Reason: In order to comply with Section 51 of the Planning & Compulsory Purchase Act 2004.
2. No part of the development hereby permitted shall be commenced until a desk study has been undertaken and agreed by the Local Planning Authority to investigate and produce an assessment of the risk of the potential for on site contamination. If the desk study identifies any potential contamination, a detailed site investigation should be carried out to establish the degree and nature of the contamination and its potential to pollute the environment or cause harm to human health. If remediation measures are necessary they will be implemented in accordance with the assessment before the development hereby permitted is brought into use. A validation report shall be submitted to the Local Planning Authority once all remediation works are completed. All work shall be undertaken in accordance with current UK guidance, particularly CLR11. Reason: To ensure a safe form of development that poses no unacceptable risk of pollution to water resources or human health, having regard to Policy EN9 of the Allerdale Local Plan.
3. No part of the development hereby permitted shall be commenced until a detailed landscaping scheme indicating the type, height, species and location of all new trees and shrubs, has been submitted to and approved by the Local Planning Authority. No part of the development shall be brought into use after the end of the first planting and seeding seasons following the approval of the landscaping scheme, unless those elements of the approved scheme relating to dwellinghouses have been implemented. Any trees or plants which within a period of 5 years of planting die, are removed, or become seriously damaged or diseased, shall be replaced with others of similar size and species. Reason: In order to enhance the appearance of the development and minimise the impact of the development in the locality, having regard to Policy EN3 of the Allerdale Local Plan.
4. No part of the development hereby permitted shall be commenced until details of the foul and surface water drainage system into the public sewer (including attenuation details and a discharge rate not exceeding 10 litres per second) have been submitted to and approved by the Local Planning Authority. The approved scheme shall be fully implemented prior to the occupation of any of the dwellings hereby approved. Reason: To ensure a satisfactory means of foul and surface water drainage for the development hereby approved and minimise the risk of any inward flooding in the locality, have regard to Policies HS9 and EN12 of the Allerdale Local Plan.
5. The carriageway, footways, footpaths and cycleways, etc, 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 to the Local Planning Authority for approval before any work commences on site. No part of the development hereby permitted shall be commenced until a full specification has been approved. These details 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 completed. Reason: To ensure a minimum standard of construction in the interests of highway safety.
6. Ramps shall be provided on each side of every road junction to enable wheelchairs, prams and invalid carriages to be safely manoeuvred at kerb lines. No part of the development hereby permitted shall be commenced until details of all such ramps have been submitted to the Local Planning Authority. Any details so approved shall be constructed as part of the development. Reason: To ensure that pedestrians and people with impaired mobility can negotiate road junctions in relative safety.
7. The access drive shall be surfaced in bituminous or cement bound materials, or otherwise bound and shall be constructed and completed before the development is occupied/brought into use. Reason: In the interests of highway safety.
8. No part of the development shall be commenced until details of traffic calming measures for Wedgewood road have been submitted to and approved by the Local Planning Authority. The approved scheme shall be fully implemented prior to the commencement of works on the site in accordance with the approved details. Reasons In the interests of highway safety.
9. No part of the development hereby permitted shall be commenced until details of all measures to be taken by the applicant/developer to prevent surface water discharging onto or off the highway have been submitted and approved by the Local Planning Authority. 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.
10. The development shall not be brought into use until visibility splays providing clear visibility of 2.4 metres x 90 metres measured down the centre of the access road and the nearside channel line of the major road have been provided at the junction of the access road with the county highway. Notwithstanding the provisions of the Town and Country Planning (General Permitted Development) Order 1995 (or any Order revoking and re-enacting that Order) relating to permitted development, no structure, vehicle or object of any kind shall be erected, parked or placed and no trees, bushes or other plants shall be planted or be permitted to grow above 1m within the visibility splay which obstruct the visibility splays. Reason: In the interests of highway safety.
11. The local play area hereby approved shall be fully implemented prior to the occupation of sixteen dwellinghouses at the estate. Reason: To ensure the provision of satisfactory public amenity facilities for the estate in compliance with the criteria of Policy L1 of the Allerdale Local Plan.
12. No part of the development hereby permitted shall be commenced until a detailed schedule of works for the maintenance of the local plan area and public open spaces has been submitted to and approved by the Local Planning Authority. Upon implementation of this consent, the scheme shall thereafter be maintained at all times in accordance with the approved scheme. Reason: To ensure the provision of satisfactory public amenity facilities for the estate in compliance with the criteria of Policy L1 of the Allerdale Local Plan.
13. No development shall take place until a buffer strip of land 1 metre wide is defined between the development and Penny Gill in accordance with details which shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. Reason: To protect ecological and maintenance interests by providing a buffer between the development and the watercourse.
14. No part of the development hereby permitted shall be commenced until details and representative samples of all external and roofing materials have been submitted to and approved by the Local Planning Authority. The materials so approved shall be used in the development as approved. Reason: To ensure a satisfactory standard of development which is compatible with the character of the surrounding area, having regard to Policy HS8 of the Allerdale Local Plan.
______
Reference No: 2/2007/0972 Received: 24/09/2007 Proposed Proposed loft conversion with dormer window & dormer Development: access to new external viewing terrace at roof level (resubmission to 2/2007/0738) Drawing Numbers: A2853/01 - Site Location Plan A2853/04B - Proposed Floor Plans and Elevations Location: Grune House Skinburness Wigton Applicant: Mr Peter Stevens
Constraints: SSSI Upper Solway Flats & Marshes Special Protection Area Hadrians Wall Setting English Nature Conservation Area Upper Solway Flats & Marshes Hadrians Wall Setting, CO24 AONB Site Of Archaeological Interest 353 Public Right of Way 253009 Allerdale Flood Zone 1 Allerdale Flood Zone 2 ASCA Area EN20
Policies: HS12 – Extensions to Dwellings EN20
Representations: Town Council – No objections.
County Archaeologist – No objections.
Natural England – No objections.
Cumbria Highways – No objections.
Ramblers Association – No objections.
English Heritage – No comment.
Environmental Health – No representations received to date (22/11/2007). There were no objections from them to the previous application.
County Planning – No representations received to date (22/11/2007).
The application has been advertised on site. No representations have been received to date (22/11/2007).
REPORT Planning permission is sought for proposed loft conversion with dormer window and dormer access to new external viewing terrace at roof level (resubmission to 2/2007/0738), Grune House, Skinburness, Wigton.
The original planning application, 2/2007/0738, was withdrawn until a bat survey could be carried out. The survey has now been submitted with the application.
The application site is a detached property set back from the road, down a lane and then there is a long access drive from the lane to the property. The property overlooks the sea and there are no neighbouring properties surrounding the property. There is a lot of garden area surrounding the property. There is a public footpath that runs to the front of the property. The proposal is to convert the roof space to create an extra bedroom with en-suite by the installation of dormer windows and to build a terraced area at roof level running from part of rear elevation and the full length of the side gable elevation supported on cantilever brackets.
The design and materials of the changes to the roof in relation to the dormer windows and roof lights are considered acceptable and match those on the existing property. There would be no overlooking issues created with the installation of the dormer windows, and there are adequate parking facilities to accommodate the additional bedroom.
With regard to the installation of the viewing terrace at roof level, it is felt that the design details arising from the elevated and projecting cantilever scale of the structure imbalance the character of the building, resulting in a detrimental effect on the property which would also be harmful to the character of the building. The site also lies within an area of outstanding natural beauty and it is the opinion of the officers that the viewing terrace would not create a satisfactory level of development, to the detriment of the appearance of the dwelling in this sensitive landscape location.
The applicant has declined to re-site this feature to a less prominent height (e.g. first floor on the building).
The agent has stated that they will be submitting a further statement to support their proposal.
Silloth Town Council, The Ramblers Association (South), English Heritage, the County Archaeologist, Natural England and the Highways Authority have no objections to the proposal. Environmental Health has not replied to date (22/11/07) although they had no objections to the original application. County Planning has also not replied to date (22/11/07). There have been no adverse comments received from any third parties or neighbouring properties.
Taking all of the above into account, it is considered that the proposed design would result in a detrimental effect on the property itself and the surrounding area as a whole. The proposal therefore is considered acceptable and complies with Policy HS12 of the Allerdale Local Plan.
Recommendation: Refused
Conditions/ 1. The proposed external viewing terrace will be an Reasons: unsympathetic and alien feature to the dwelling, to the detriment of its character and to the setting of the Solway Coast Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty, contrary to EN20 of the Allerdale Local Plan.
______
Reference No: 2/2007/0983 Received: 01/10/2007 Proposed Outline application for proposed residential development Development: (resubmission to 2/2007/0580) Drawing Numbers: F - Site Location Plan 06/18/01Ph 2 - Site Plan Location: Land off Ellenborough Place Maryport Applicant: Mr Anthony Collier Messers Robinson, Moore, Moore & Collier
Constraints: NLUD Sites Site Of Arch Interest 2908 Public Right Of Way 244045 Settlement Limit HS5 Vacant Land & Buildings Allerdale Flood Zone 1 Allerdale Flood Zone 2 British Coal Area Adv Control Exclusion – Maryport
Policies: The application site is allocated for industrial use under Policies MEM2 and EM3 of the Allerdale Local Plan.
Policies HS5 and HS8 of the Allerdale Local Plan outline the criteria for residential extension development.
Policy HS9 seeks the provision of satisfactory access and drainage facilities for new housing development.
Policy HS7 seeks the development of brownfield sites prior to greenfield sites.
Policy HS14 seeks, where appropriate, the provision of local affordable dwellinghouses.
Policy EN14 seeks to avoid proposals which result in unacceptable levels of surface water run-off.
Representations: Town Council – No representations have been received to date.
Cumbria Highways – No objections subject to condition re: provision of access, parking and drainage.
United Utilities – Require 5m easement to either side of an existing public sewer. Sewer may require diversion or amendment to layout. Prefer only foul drainage to sewer.
Fire Officer – No objections.
Ramblers Association – No objections.
Allerdale Engineer – Potential flood risk adjacent to Eel Beck which should be considered at the design stage.
Network Rail – No objections subject to criteria to safeguard the railway.
County Archaeologist – Site is of archaeological interest – archaeological evaluation condition to be applied.
Environmental Health – No objections – seek contamination assessment under a planning condition.
Environment Agency – Small area of the boundary and access in Flood Zone 2, but is satisfied with the submitted Flood Risk Assessment. No objections on flood risk. Seek condition re: contamination and advise of their respective regulations of development in proximity to the watercourse.
The application has been advertised on site and adjoining owners have been notified.
One letter of objection was received on the grounds of: (i) Flooding. (ii) Flood risk implications from surface water drainage. (iii) Seek access along the edge of the beck for the maintenance of the watercourse. (iv) Seek retention of trees on the banks of the beck.
REPORT A former outline application for residential development on the application site (2/2007/0580) and a neighbouring site (2/2006/0202) were withdrawn.
A detailed resubmission application (2/2007/0526) for residential development on the neighbouring site was refused on the grounds of inadequate surface water drainage and lack of certainty regarding local affordable housing.
A further outline application for residential development (2/2007/1008) is still pending.
The applicant’s current outline application seeks consent for residential development on an open area of flat land. It is bordered by Eel Beck on its western boundary (which traverses into an underground culvert). The railway constitutes the site’s eastern boundary and the access road to the site is via an access road link to the one way public highway.
In assessing the principle of the proposal, although allocated for industrial use, it is bordered on two boundaries by residential use. It is poorly related to the other designated allocated industrial land as it is segregated by the beck, which would hinder any means of access to the site. There are no other industrial land uses on the neighbouring site.
In officers’ opinion, therefore the development of the site would be well related to existing development and woud not undermine industrial land supply within the town.
An indicative plan has been submitted with the application and the applicant has agreed to a S106 Legal Agreement to restrict the type of housing required for local affordable housing (representing 20% of the overall units on the site, as recommended by the Council’s Housing Department).
It is considered the physical constraints are contamination, archaeology, etc, which can be addressed under planning conditions.
The Environment Agency is satisfied with the submitted Flood Risk Assessment. Surface water and attenuation are reserved under a condition to minimise flood risk. The Environment Agency will restrict the siting of development under their own respective drainage consent regulations, and the majority of trees on the beck are outside the site and therefore do not form part of the development.
It is recommended that the principle of residential development on this site be supported subject to a S106 Agreement.
Recommendation: Approved
Conditions/ 1. Approval of the details of the layout, scale and Reasons: appearance of the building[s], the means of access thereto and the landscaping of the site (hereinafter called "the reserved matters") shall be obtained from the Local Planning Authority in writing before any development is commenced. Reason: To enable the Local Planning Authority to assess all the details of the development.
2. Plans and particulars of the reserved matters referred to in Condition 1 above, relating to the layout, scale and appearance of any buildings to be erected, the means of access to the site and the landscaping of the site, shall be submitted in writing to the Local Planning Authority and shall be carried out as approved. Reason: To enable the Local Planning Authority to assess all the details of the development.
3. Application for approval of the 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 Section 51 of the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004.
4. The development hereby permitted shall be begun either before the expiration of FIVE years from the date of this permission, or before the expiration of TWO years from the date of approval of the last of the reserved matters to be approved, whichever is the later. Reason: In order to comply with Section 51 of the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004.
5. 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 to and approved by the Local Planning Authority. 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.
6. No building or structures shall be erected within 2m of the railway boundary. Reason: To safeguard the satisfactory future maintenance of the railway.
7. No buildings or structures shall be erected within 5m of either side of the existing public sewer traversing across the site. Reason: To safeguard the satisfactory future maintenanceof the existing public sewer traversing across the site.
8. Development approved by this planning permission shall not be commenced unless:
(a) A desk study has been carried out which shall include the identification of previous site uses, potential contaminants that might reasonably be expected given those uses and other relevant information. Using this information a diagrammatical representation (Conceptual Model) for the site of all potential contaminant sources, pathways and receptors has been produced.
(b) A site investigation has been designed for the site using the information obtained from the desk top study and any diagrammatical rpresentations (Conceptual Model). This should be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority prior to that investigation being carried out on the site. The investigation must be comprehensive enough to enable:
- A risk assessment to be undertaken relation to groundwater and surface water associated on and off the site that may be affected; and - refinement of the Conceptual Model; and - the development of a Method Statement detailing the remediation requirements.
(c) The site investigation has been undertaken in accordance with details approved by the Local Planning Authority and a risk assessment undertaken.
(d) A Method Statement detailing the remediation requirements including measures to minimise the impact on ground and surface waters using the information obtained from the Site Investigation, has ben submitted to the Local Planning Authority. This should be approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority prior to that remediation being carried out on the site.
Reason: To ensure that the proposed site investigations and remediation will not cause pollution of Controlled Waters.
9. Prior to the commencement of works details of the surface water drainage system and any attenuation measures shall be submitted to and approved by the Local Planning Authority. Any approved drainage scheme shall be fully implemented prior to the occupation of any of the dwellinghouses hereby approved. Reason: To ensure the satisfactory drainage of the site and minimise the risk of flooding, in compliance with Policies EN14 and HS9 of the Allerdale Local Plan.
______
Reference No: 2/2007/1028 Received: 08/10/2007 Proposed Proposal to install a small wind turbine on a 12m free Development: standing tower in the field behind the house. Drawing Numbers: 1 - Site Location Plan DIP 071/02 - Tower Assembly Location: Bonny Hill Bridekirk Cockermouth Applicant: Mr Fayyaz & Mrs Sarah Chaudhri
Constraints: Radon Assessment Flood Zones Radon Assessment Allerdale Flood Zone 1
Policies: Allerdale Local Plan (First Alteration, May 2006)
EN25 - Protecting the open countryside
Cumbria & Lake District Joint Structure Plan 2001-2016 (Adopted Plan April 2006)
R44 - Renewable energy outside the Lake District National Park and AONB's
ST3 - Principles applying to all new development
Supplementary Guidance
PPG22/PPS22 - Renewable energy
PPS1 - Delivering sustainable development
SPG - 'Wind Energy Development in Cumbria'
Representations: Bridekirk Parish Council – Visual impact precedent – recommend refusal.
Papcastle Parish Council – No objections.
Natural England – No objections.
Environmental Health – No objections.
Civil Aviation Authority – No objections.
County Archaeologist – No objections.
NATS – Object, subject to hub height and rotor diameter.
The application has been advertised on site and within the local press. Adjoining owners have also been notified.
4 Letters of support have been received. 12 Letters of objection have been received.
REPORT This application is for a domestic wind turbine in the agricultural field to the rear of the dwelling. A similar proposal with a different siting was refused by Members for the following reasons:
1. No need has been demonstrated that would justify the harm that the siting, design and appearance of the proposed turbine will have on the visual amenity of the open countryside, contrary to Policies EN25 and RE2 of the Allerdale Local Plan and Policies R44 and ST3 of the Cumbria & Lake District Joint Structure Plan 2001-2016 (Adopted Plan, April 2006).
2. If approved the development may set an undesirable precedent for similar development elsewhere in the district, contrary to Policies EN25 and RE2 of the Allerdale Local Plan and Policies R44 and ST3 of the Cumbria & Lake District Joint Structure Plan 2001-2016 (Adopted Plan April 2006).
3. It has not been demonstrated that the proposed development could be achieved without a detrimental impact on nature conservation interests in the immediate locality, contrary to Policies EN32 and RE2 of the Allerdale Local Plan and Policies R44 and ST3 of the Cumbria & Lake District Joint Structure Plan 2001-2016 (Adopted Plan, April 2006).
Firstly it is worth noting that the policy framework relevant to this application has changed. Policy RE2 used as a previous reason for refusal is not a 'saved ' policy in the forthcoming LDF, and Policy R44 of the Structure Plan effectively supersedes it. Planning Policy Statement 1 comments on landscape impact and need in its DRAFT revised form. Council has commented on these changes. No significant weight can be given to this DRAFT Government Guidance.
Since the refusal, an appeal was submitted and considered by the Planning Inspectorate. The Inspector's conclusion is as follows:
"Although I have found that the contribution of the turbine to meeting the household's expected energy needs would outweigh the harm to the landscape, I have also found that there is insufficient information to establish that it would make proper provision for its effect on a protected species. For this reason, and having regard to all other matters raised, I conclude that the appeal should not succeed."
The Inspector has effectively judged that the harm to the landscape would be "limited in extent". She goes on to say that "there is a specific locational need because this is a domestic scheme". Furthermore she adds that "the local benefits from no longer using oil or coal weigh in favour of the proposal". Her final comments also address the issue of precedent. She concludes that any other application for a similar structure should be assessed on its own merits in the light of relevant policies.
In short, the Inspector has discounted reasons 1 and 2 (see above) for refusal but dismissed the appeal on the lack of information that no harm would result to nature conservation interests, namely bats and their habitat.
With regard to this current application, the structure is identical in size, design and appearance to that previously considered. The siting, however, is significantly different and places the turbine in a more open and exposed position away from the hedgerow and trees (which the Inspector noted and which contributed a level of screening, reducing landscape impact). The reason for this siting is evidently to position the turbine clear of the bat habitat identified in the hedgerow.
On this basis it is Officers’ opinion that the impact on the visual amenity of the open countryside is still at issue. The open site is more prominent than that previously considered and on balance considered inappropriate. Twelve letters of objection on such grounds have been received, with four letters of support recognising the benefits of such renewable energy apparatus.
With regard to nature conservation interests, Natural England has consulted with the applicant and has not objected. Their formal response confirms that the siting of the turbine is unlikely to have an adverse impact on bat habitat.
In conclusion, it is clear that the Inspector accepted some elements of the original proposal but the revised siting considered under this application is significantly different. It is recommended that permission be refused. The reasons for refusal, however, are different in the light of the Inspector’s findings and the support from Natural England. Refusal is therefore simply based on the grounds of visual impact and impact on the open countryside.
Recommendation: Refused
Conditions/ 1. No need has been demonstrated that would justify the Reasons: harm that the siting, design and appearance of the proposed turbine will have on the visual amenity of the open countryside, contrary to Policy EN25 of the Allerdale Local Plan and Policies R44 and ST3 of the Cumbria and Lake District Joint Structure Plan 2001- 2016 (Adopted Plan, April 2006).
______
Reference No: 2/2007/1035 Received: 11/10/2007 Proposed Temporary installation of a 50m meteorological mast. Development: Drawing Numbers: Figure 1 - Site Location Plan Figure 2 - Site Plan Figure 3 - Typical Anemometer Mast Details Location: Land at Broughton Lodge Great Broughton Applicant: Mr Eric Adams Harworth Power Ltd
Constraints: Radon Assessment Allerdale Flood Zone 1 British Coal Area
Policies: The companion guide to PPS22 Renewable Energy comments on test masts and suggests a minimum of 12 months.
Policy ER13 of the Regional Spatial Strategy addresses aspects related to renewable efficiency and energy.
Policy R44 of the Cumbria & Lake District Joint Structure Plan (2001-2006) refers to schemes relating to ‘renewable energy outside the National Park and AONB’. More recently Members supported a document, ‘Cumbria Wind Energy Supplementary Planning Document’.
Policy EN25 seeks to ensure that any proposals in the open countryside are essential and do not adversely affect its landscape quality.
Representations: Broughton Parish Council – Object – will severely affect the visual impact; potential hazard for low flying aircraft, e.g. microlight; and detrimental impact on wildlife. They are also of the opinion that Cumbria is becoming the target for wind turbine installations which are reaching saturation point.
Broughton Moor Parish Council – due to the huge impact of other wind farms, it is felt that the opening of another site would add to the cluttering/destruction of the wide open countryside and natural views.
Dearham Parish Council – Recommend refusal on the grounds of prominence and visual impact in the landscape and would lead to an application for a wind farm or turbine cluster. Seek consideration of the cumulative effect of all these potential sites and refusal of further applications.
Bridekirk Parish Council – Recommend refusal – Suggest proposal’s research data will result in more wind turbines and consider Allerdale is becoming the “valley of the wind turbines”, and seek exploration of alternative natural resources (e.g. sea).
The application has been advertised on site and within the local press.
Six letters of objection were received on the grounds of: (i) Detrimental impact on wildlife, including those species of bird which guy wires would be hazardous to; birds/bats increasing death rates. (ii) Soddy Gap’s opencast site has been restored into a nature reserve for recreational use, which is being disregarded. (iii) Detrimental cumulative impact of masts/turbines in the local landscape, to the detriment of its visual amenity, including views from the village and high profile locations, e.g. National Park. (iv) Further exploration proposals should be deferred pending the decisions on applications at other sites. (v) Detrimental visual impact of the mast and its design on its sensitive environment.
One letter supported the principle of renewable energy. It did not support land based farms.
REPORT The applicant seeks consent for a 30m tall meteorological mast for 3 years to gather wind speed and direction information at the application site.
The site is located in the open countryside on an open area of land to the south of the redundant Broughton Lodge Farmhouse.
The 6 inch diameter trestle tower mast is supported by metal guy wires, anchored to the ground to railway sleepers embedded into the ground. A range of anemometers would be installed to the tower at different heights to record the wind speeds and directions.
The current proposal follows a feasibility study of the Broughton Lodge land holding which included consideration of annual wind speeds from data from the Department of Trade and Industry’s database on wind speeds in the UK.
The mast is to enable a proper assessment, of wind speed at 10 metre intervals. (No wind farm is sought as part of this application and any future application would be dependant on the technological and economic viability of the project arising from the wind measurements). The applicant states the proposal is temporary and would be removed, resulting in no long lasting impact on the environment.
The applicant advises that he has sought to avoid any ecological constraints.
In reference to appearance, the applicant considers the proposal would be similar in appearance to a telecommunications mast and, by virtue of its temporary nature, does not require any additional landscaping.
Access to the site will be via the existing track from the road connecting Broughton Moor to the A594, and the site would be inspected on a monthly basis.
The merits of this type of development have been assessed under similar applications and appeals including:
(i) 2/1997/0334 – Bothel 40m anemometer mast for 18 months. Refused on grounds of visual impact on landscape and precedent for further similar proposals. Appeal allowed.
(ii) 2/2006/0206 – Tallentire Hill Farm, Cockermouth, 2 70m anemometer masts. Application refused on grounds of detrimental impact on landscape and their associated planning policies. Appeal dismissed on grounds of insufficient evidence to demonstrate the timescale (36 months), number and height of the proposed masts.
(iii) 2/2004/0097 – Derwent Forest 50m mast (3 year temporary consent). Approved.
(iv) 2/2002/0492 – Westnewton 50m anemometer mast for 3 years. Approved.
(v) 2/2004/1070 – Winscales 50m anemometer mast for 2 years. Approved.
In assessing the principle of the development, PPS22 highlights that the purpose of such anemometer masts is to ascertain whether sufficient wind speed and direction is evident at the site.
The application is solely for the anemometer mast and is not for a wind turbine development.
Although officers acknowledge that the proposal may be a precursor to a future wind turbine proposal, as highlighted in the dismissal of the appeal at Tallentire, this cannot constitute a material consideration (i.e. any future application for any future wind turbines will be assessed on its individual merits). Weight also needs to be attached to the temporary nature of the works (i.e. any impact is reversible).
The cumulative impact of any wind turbines with any others in the locality would have to be assessed at a later stage. The temporary nature of these investigative works is acceptable in principle. The site does not benefit any landscape designation.
The mast itself is very slim and, although sited in an open location, views from the south would have the backdrop of the Lodge and its neighbouring block of woodland.
The site is relatively isolated, with the nearest dwelling being approximately 430m approximately from the application site and a woodland footpath along an unmade track passes close to the base of the proposed mast.
Other similar masts have been approved in the locality at Derwent forest, Broughton Moor, and indeed a 25m radio mast was approved and implemented (2/1995/0374) to the west of the site.
Given the slim line nature of the mast and its limited visual impact, little weight can be attached to its cumulative visual impact with other masts.
The comments of Natural England and Cumbria Wildlife Trust on the ecological/wildlife details (i.e. birds and bats) are awaited.
Subject to confirmation on the precise site and a reduction in the timescale for the mast, and no objections from Natural England, the proposal is considered acceptable and may be approved.
Recommendation: Approved
Conditions/ 1. The development hereby permitted shall be begun Reasons: before the expiration of THREE years from the date of this permission. Reason: In order to comply with Section 51 of the Planning & Compulsory Purchase Act 2004.
2. The developer shall notify the Local Planning Authority when the development commences. The use hereby approved shall be discontinued and the land returned to its former condition on or before the expiration of a period of ….. months from the date of commencement, in accordance with a schedule of work to be submitted to and approved by the Local Planning Authority. Reason: To minimise the visual impact of the development on the landscape and enable the satisfactory restoration of the site.
______
Reference No: 2/2007/1086 Received: 19/10/2007 Proposed Erection of 12 no. new detached and semi-detached Development: dwellings together with associated works, i.e. garages, roads, sewers etc. and demolition of existing buildings on site Drawing Numbers: 0602.01.01 - Location plan 0602.04.01rev.D - Housing layout 0602.05.01 - Finishes and enclosure layout plan SD.001 – 1 Screen wall SD.005 - Wall details 0602.09.01 - Indicative street elevations 0602.P.A.20.01 - House type A2 floor plans 0602.P.A.30.01revB - House type A2 elevations 0602.P.A+.20.01revB - House type A+ floor plans 0602.P.A+.30.01revC - House type A+ elevations 0602.P.B.20.01revC - House type B floor plans 0602.P.B.30.01revC - House type B elevations 0602.P.C.20.01revA - House type C floor plans 0602.P.C.30.01revC - House type C elevations 0602.P.D.20.01 - House type D floor plans 0602.P.D.30.01revB - House type D elevations 0602.P.F.20.01revA - House type F floor plans 0602.P.F.30.01revB - House type F elevations 0602.P.SG2g.20.01 – Garage type SG2g 0602.P.SGg.20.01 – Garage type SGg HS70014-D-002 – Highway layout HS70014-D-003 – Drainage details HS70014-D-004 - Private drainage HS70014-D-006 - Road long sections Location: Ivydene B5307 Kirkbride Wigton Applicant: Mr David Edwards Ivydene Homes
Constraints: Site Of Arch Interest 10074 Settlement Limit HS5 United Utilities Consultation Zone,Kirkbride Allerdale Flood Zone 1 ASCA Area EN20
Policies: The application site is located within the designated settlement limits for Kirkbride.
Policies HS5 and HS8 of the Allerdale Local Plan outline the design criteria for new residential development within settlement limits.
Policy HS9 seeks the provision of satisfactory access and drainage facilities for new housing development.
Policy HS7 of the Allerdale Local Plan seeks the preferable development of brownfield sites prior to greenfield sites.
Policy HS4 of the approved alterations to the Allerdale Local Plan seeks, where appropriate, the provision of a quota of affordable housing.
Policy H17 of the Cumbria and Lake District Joint Structure Plan outlines the housing supply provision for the Borough.
Policy SH1 of the Council’s Interim Housing Policy restricts any future housing within northern services centres (including Kirkbride) to local affordable dwellinghouses only.
Representations: Parish Council – No representation has been received to date (23/11/2007).
Cumbria Highways – No objection subject to highway conditions. (Advise that some of the highway works will require their agreement under a S278 agreement.)
United Utilities – No representation has been received to date (23/11/2007).
Assistant Engineer – Seek further details on the surface water drainage system.
Fire Officer – No objections.
County Archaeologist – No objections.
County Planning – No strategic planning comments.
The application has been advertised on site and within the local press. Adjoining owners have also been notified.
Objections have been received on grounds of:- i) Hazardous access ii) Inadequate parking provision iii) Overdevelopment iv) Potential loss of amenity to neighbouring properties v) De-valuation of property vi) Adverse impact on village infrastructure – drainage, schools etc vii) Excessive scale of development for the village An additional letter was received from Friends of the Lake District whilst not objecting to the principle of the development sought the proposal to comply with the criteria of Policy SH1 of the Interim Housing Policy in providing local affordable housing.
REPORT The application site was originally the subject of an outline application (2/2004/0155) for residential development. The application was supported by an indicative drawing and also included the provision of a detached upgraded footpath facility on the opposite side of the highway frontage to provide a satisfactory pedestrian link to the village.
Drainage for the proposed development was foul drainage into the public sewer and surface water via a soakaway. The outline application was submitted prior to the introduction of the Interim Policy and therefore not restricted by its criteria. The approved outline consent did not restrict the scale of development to a specific number of dwellings but included conditions to restrict the soakaway to a British Standard (as recommended by the Environment Agency).
A further detailed application (2/2006/1205) for 12 dwellinghouses on the outline site was received. However, the drainage details referred to surface water drainage via soakaways or into the culvert. Further to the submission of objections on flood risk, the applicant was unable to supply details to demonstrate a satisfactory means of surface water drainage. The application was withdrawn to investigate this issue.
The current application constitutes a resubmission of the withdrawn scheme for 12 dwellinghouses but as a full application as the outline consent has lapsed.
(A former bus garage building on the site has been demolished and cleared from the site.) The scheme would also require the demolition of an existing bungalow at the site.
The proposal comprises of a cul-de-sac of semi-detached and detached properties with 4 four bedroomed dwellings, 6 three bedroomed dwellings and 2 two bedroomed dwellings. The design of the dwellings are finished in rendered, stone and brick walls and slate roofs.
Access to the site is onto the B5307 with 4.5 x 90m splays to the north and 85m to the south. A footpath link is provided from the opposite side of the B5307 to the centre of the village.
In a supporting access and design statement the applicant advises the proposed density represents 35 dwellings per hectare.
Each dwellinghouse has been sympathetically designed and safeguards two off-street parking facilities.
In reference to affordable housing, the applicant refers to the former outline consent. Whilst it is recognised the Interim Housing Policy was introduced in 2005 which restricts Kirkbride to local affordable housing, the applicant considers the current proposal should be given special consideration under the adopted policies due to the delays experienced on the withdrawn application which were outside the applicant’s control. The statement also refers to extracts from PPS3 relating to housing mix, sustainable locations and housing density.
Officers in assessing the merits of the proposal accept that the principle of the development had been previously accepted under the former outline consent.
However, there has since been a fundamental change of policy through the introduction of the Interim Housing Policy whose policies no longer support the principle of open market housing in Kirkbride, but will under its service centre status allow only local affordable dwellings.
At the time of the outline application no affordable housing need was identified in the village. The latest Council Housing department survey of Kirkbride does identify the need for affordable housing in Kirkbride. The scheme as submitted does not incorporate any affordable houses (which would need to be secured under a S106 legal agreement).
The resubmission scheme, by virtue of the change of policy and new evidence on identified local affordable need for the village, results in the proposed scheme being contrary to the Local Plan policies.
In view of the consultation responses there are no objections to the design details of the site or its highway details.
The housing density reflects the minimum 30 dwellinghouses per hectare ratio and would redevelop a brownfield site.
The main physical constraint is related to the method of surface water drainage. The applicant was unable to qualify that the soakaway system proposed on the outline consent would practically work. United Utilities had, under the outline consultation response, only supported the principle of foul drainage to the public sewer. Further to the withdrawal of the previous application and other detailed discussions it is understood United Utilities have agreed to accept the discharge to the existing combined sewer subject to additional evidence to demonstrate the surface water drainage details to the combined sewer are acceptable (especially given previous flooding in the locality of the site).
It is therefore recommended the principle of open market housing is not presently acceptable under the Interim policies. Whilst officers acknowledge the applicant was delayed in resolving the surface water drainage it is considered the proposal should be considered under current policies. (If allowed it would act as an adverse precedent for other non-essential residential development in any service centres undermining the objectives of the Interim policy.)
Recommendation: Refused Conditions/ 1. The Local Planning Authority consider the proposed Reasons: development in the absence of any restriction relating to local affordable housing surveys, constitutes non- essential resdiential development contrary to Policy HS14 of the Allerdale Local Plan and Policy SH1 of the Interim Housing Policy. The proposal would therefore contribute inevitably to to the over-supply of housing within the Borough to the detriment of its proper planning, contrary to Policy H17 of the Cumbria and Lake District Joint Structure Plan 2001-2016.
2. If allowed the proposal would act as an adverse precedent for similar non-essential residential development within designated settlement limits under Policy SH1 of the Interim Housing Policy.
______
Reference No: 2/2007/1097 Received: 26/10/2007 Proposed Demolish existing garage and build new two storey extension Development: and detached garage. Drawing Numbers: 2007.224.LP - Site Location Plan 2007.224.01 - Proposed Elevations 2007.224.02 - Proposed Floor Plans & Block Plans Location: 82 Brigham Road Cockermouth Applicant: Mr & Mrs J Molyneux
Constraints: Settlement Limit HS5 Radon Assessment Allerdale Flood Zone 1 Adv Control Exclusion – Cockermouth
Policies: HS12 – Extensions to Dwellings
Representations: Town Council – No representations received to date (22/11/2007).
County Highways – No objections.
The application has been advertised on site and adjoining owners have been notified.
Three letters of objection were received on grounds of reduced light and loss of privacy.
REPORT Planning permission is sought to demolish existing garage and build new two storey extension and detached garage, 82 Brigham Road, Cockermouth.
The application site is a semi-detached property with garden area to the front and rear. To the side of the property is a drive leading to a garage. The property is an end property on a junction. Adjacent to the side of the site is an area of grassed land. To the rear of the property is an existing detached garage and a single storey extension. The proposal is to demolish the existing single storey extension to the rear and the detached garage and build a new small garage to the rear of the property and a two storey extension to the rear of the property. The extension will consist of a kitchen, utility room and toilet to the ground floor and a bedroom with a walk in wardrobe to the first floor.
The proposed materials are slates for the roof of the house extension and flat grey concrete tiles for the garage, dashed walls and white PVCU windows and doors. The design and materials of the proposed garage are considered acceptable and will tie in with those on the existing property. There will be adequate off road parking facilities both in the garage and on the drive.
With regard to the extension it will protrude 5 metres from the property, a further 3 metres more than existing and will be 7 metres long at ground floor level. The extension at ground floor level will be approximately 0.8 metres from the boundary of the neighbourng semi-detached dwelling. The first floor extension has been set back a further 1.7 metres from the boundary. Whereas there are no major problems with the proposed extension at the ground floor level it is the opinion of officers that the first floor extension would have a detrimental effect on the neighbouring semi-detached property.
It is felt the extension would be contrary to HS12 as it would significantly reduce the daylight available to the adjacent property. The layout of the adjoining property means the existing dining room window at ground floor level adjacent to the boundary is the only way of gaining natural daylight to that room. The overall scale and proportions, therefore, are considered unacceptable. Although the proposal has tried to limit the loss of daylight to the neighbouring property by setting the first floor level further back from the boundary, it is felt that the proposal will result in loss of light with regard to the neighbouring properties.
It is considered the cumulative scale of the height and depth of the extension and its proximity to the boundary results in an unneighbourly development.
Whilst officers do not oppose the principle of a two storey extension on the rear elevation, it is recommended that it be sited further away form the neighbours’ boundary to reduce its impact on the amenity of the adjacent property. The applicant has declined to amend the scheme.
The agent has stated that he will be submitting a supporting statement to accompany the application.
Cockermouth Town Council has not replied to date (21/11/07). The Highways Authority has no objections to the proposal. There have been four objection letters received. The two properties to the rear of the site consider that the proposed extension would result in a loss of light and privacy and the extension would be out of keeping, intrusive and detrimental to the view from the bungalow and out of scale with other surrounding properties.
There are various styles and sizes of dwellings surrounding the site so it is not felt that the proposal would be out of scale if allowed. It is also felt that it would not create a loss of privacy as the extension would still be 10 metres away from the property to the side, and nearly 20 metres away from the property to the rear. The other two objection letters are from the adjoining property. They are concerned that the proposal will:
1. Reduce the light available to their property. 2. Infringe on the privacy due to the extension being within 1 metre from the boundary. 3. Result in the re-routing of the electricity supply. 4. Significantly enlarge the property. 5. The construction of a new manhole close to the party wall may damage the wall.
With regard to the re-routing of the electricity supply and the construction of the manhole damaging the party wall, these are not valid planning issues on which the Council could refuse an application. Whilst the floor space of the property would be significantly increased the proposal will not result in the loss of 50% or more of that criteria of the undeveloped curtilage and is in compliance with Policy HS12 of the Allerdale Local Plan. It is felt the close proximity of the extension at ground floor level would not infringe on the privacy of the neighbouring property, there are no windows proposed in the side elevation of the proposal. They are concerned that if the proposal was allowed then the natural light available to the flat and conservatory would be significantly reduced. Officers have been on the neighbouring property, and it is officers’ opinion that light would be reduced significantly to a room that already receives no direct sunlight due to it being north facing.
Taking all of the above into account, it is considered that the proposal would result in a loss of light and be unneighbourly to the adjoining property. The proposal is therefore not considered acceptable and will not comply with Policy HS12 of the Allerdale Local Plan.
Recommendation: Refused
Conditions/ 1. The proposed extension, by virtue of its size, design and Reasons: position relative to the adjoining property, would be unduly dominant and unneighbourly when viewed from the adjoining property, causing an unacceptable loss of light to the detriment of the residential amenities of the occupiers of that property. The proposal is therefore contrary to Policy HS12 of the Allerdale Local Plan.
______
Reference No: 2/2007/1109 Received: 30/10/2007 Proposed Construction of 12 No. units for B1, B2 and B8 use, together Development: with associated access, servicing, parking and landscaping (resubmission to 2/2007/0336) Drawing Numbers: 0701 101 - Sections received 30/10/07 SP1 - Site Location Plan received 30/10/07 M06140 (0) 01 - Proposed Site Layout received 30/10/07 M06140 (0) 02 - Units 1&2 received 30/10/07 M06140 (0) 03 - Units 3,4&5 received 30/10/07 M06140 (0) 04 - Units 6 to 10 received 30/10/07 M06140 (0) 05 - Units 11&12 received 30/10/07 Location: Land at Derwent Mills Commercial Park Cockermouth Applicant: Priority Sites Limited
Constraints: Settlement Limit HS5 Radon Assessment Residential Allerdale Flood Zone 1 Allerdale Flood Zone 2 Conservation Area:,COCKERMOUTH ASCA Area Adv Control Exclusion – Cockermouth
Policies: Allerdale Local Plan Policy EM2 reviews the allocation of this site for light industrial (B1) and limited general industrial (B2) development
Policy EN6 governs noise pollution
Policy EN3 governs landscaping
Policy EN40 governs development on the edge of the urban area
Policy CO2 - Development in Conservation Areas
Policy CO13 - Setting of the Conservation Areas
Policy CO22 development affecting an archaeological site
Structure Plan Policy ST3 - General principles
Policy E37 - Landscape character
Representations: Town Council – No representation has been received to date (22/11/2007).
Cumbria Highways – No objection subject to conditions.
County Planning – No comment.
Environmental Health – No representation has been received to date (22/11/2007).
Access Officer – No representation has been received to date (22/11/2007).
County Archaeologist – No representation has been received to date (22/11/2007).
Environment Agency – No representation has been received to date (22/11/2007).
Fire Officer – No representation has been received to date (22/11/2007).
The application has been advertised on site and within the local press. Adjoining owners have also been notified.
One letter of objection has been received – does not overcome previous objections.
REPORT This application relates to land to the east of the present Derwent Mills Commercial Park at Cockermouth. The site abuts residential properties at Derwentside Gardens and agricultural land in the Derwent Valley owned by Lady Egremont which featured in a painting by Turner.
An earlier application for the development of this site was considered by the Panel in September. After hearing objections from nearby residents and considering outstanding Highways Authority concerns councillors asked the developers to redesign the scheme (2/2007/0336).
The applicants withdrew that application in order to consider their options for the site. The current proposal follows extensive discussions with officers, residents and the Highways Authority. Whilst moving the industrial units further away from the nearest residents’ properties the designers have also managed to achieve additional floorspace on the site. This has been done by removing the areas of private gated curtilage from each unit and gating the estate as a whole.
In assessing the details of this proposal it is considered that the main planning considerations relate to the visual impact of the proposal, particularly in relation to the Derwent Valley and the Conservation Area, the impact of the scheme on neighbouring residents, flood risk and highway safety.
Landscape and Visual Impact
As a proposal on the edge of the urban area within the Conservation Area and adjacent to a landscape of recognised quality, the appearance of the proposed units and their landscaping are considered particularly important.
The submitted plans show a group of twelve single storey units which incorporate a mounded landscaped buffer at the southern edge of the site, but which otherwise relies on screening provided by the adjacent landowner in anticipation of the scheme and additional planting which the adjoining landowner proposes to plant in the future. Additional lower level planting within the adjoining landowner’s ground is the subject of ongoing discussions following recommendations from the applicant’s landscape consultant.
Were the neighbouring landowner’s screen planting not in evidence and no additional planting on the neighbouring land proposed, it is considered that the development, which includes the removal of an existing (though sparse) hedge within the site, would be unacceptable in terms of its visual impact. Furthermore, the Local Planning Authority cannot condition additional planting, or the retention of existing planting when this involves a third party’s property over which the applicant has no control.
The representative of the adjoining landowner has indicated to the Council, however, that his client, Lady Egremont, is herself anxious to ensure that both the outlook from Cockermouth Castle and the landscape painted by Turner are safeguarded from any adverse impact of the development of this allocated site. Lady Egremont would be unlikely to remove any of the planting she has recently commissioned and indeed is herself minded to add to it in future years. She would not be inclined, however, to be a party to a S106 Agreement requiring additional planting on her land in association with the present scheme.
Following discussions with Lady Egremont and her agent, the developers have proposed an olive green colour for the rear face of the units backing onto her land thereby attempting to reduce their visual impact on the Derwent Valley.
The circumstances of this case are somewhat unusual, but officers are of the view that in this instance reliance on the good will of the neighbouring landowner to maintain her planting and potentially add to it is sufficient. Were Members not to share this view, alternative planting within the confines of the site could only be achieved by a complete redesign of the scheme, probably involving a significant reduction in the number of units. The developers indicate that the viability of the scheme is marginal at present and that such a reduction in unit numbers would be likely to mean that it could not go ahead.
Flood Risk
The applicants have produced a flood risk assessment and undertaken a sequential test demonstrating that no more appropriate site for this development exists within Cockermouth.
The Environment Agency assessed these documents in relation to the earlier application and recommended a series of conditions.
Highway Safety
The Highways Authority has raised no objections to the new scheme.
Impact on Neighbours
Whilst residents on the neighbouring Derwentside Gardens had reason to be aware of the Local Plan designation of this land, there were strong objections to the previous scheme because the proposed units were significantly closer to their properties than existing industrial units were to other houses on the same estate. This is addressed by the new application which shows distances of 38.6m and 32.8m from proposed industrial units to the nearest bungalow and house respectively. A landscaped, mounded buffer would add to the visual separation.
It is considered that the relationship between the new units and the nearest dwellings would be similar to that between nearby houses and existing industrial units and represents an acceptable standard of development. The advice of the Environmental Health officer is awaited, though the conditions recommended in relation to the last application are considered appropriate in relation to the protection of residential amenity.
Subject to the views of outstanding consultees (the majority of which are expected to reflect those expressed in relation to the previous scheme) it is recommended that planning permission be granted.
Recommendation: Approved Conditions/ 1. The development hereby permitted shall be begun Reasons: before the expiration of THREE years from the date of this permission. Reason: In order to comply with Section 51 of the Planning & Compulsory Purchase Act 2004.
2. 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 Planning Authority. This written scheme will include the following components:- i) An archaeological evaluation to be undertaken in accordance with the agreed written scheme of investigation; ii) An archaeological recording programme, the scope of which will be dependent upon the results of the evaluation and will be in accordance with the agreed written scheme of investigation; iii) Where appropriate, a post-excavation assessment and analysis, preparation of a site archive ready for deposition at a store approved by the Planning Authority, completion of an archive report and publication of the results 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.
3. Units 8-12 shall not be used except for purposes within Use Class B1 of the Town and Country Planning Use Classes Order 1987 as amended. Reason: In the interests of the amenity of neighbouring residents and in compliance with Policy EN6 of the Allerdale Local Plan and Policy ST3 of the Cumbria and Lake District Joint Structure Plan.
4. Noise emanating from the B2 units shall not exceed an LAEQ of 55 dBA between 11:00pm and 07:00am when measured at the boundary between the B1 and B2 uses as highlighted on the attached plan. Reason: In the interests of the amenity of neighbouring residents and in compliance with Policy EN6 of the Allerdale Local Plan and Policy ST3 of the Cumbria and Lake District Joint Structure Plan.
5. No power tools shall be used outside units; similarly, all doors shall remain closed when mechanical or power plant are in operation within the units. Reason: In the interests of the amenity of neighbouring residents and in compliance with Policy EN6 of the Allerdale Local Plan and Policy ST3 of the Cumbria and Lake District Joint Structure Plan.
6. All finished ground floor levels shall be set at not less than 45.17 mAOD. Reason: To reduce the danger to intended occupants of the building(s) from potential flooding.
7. No development approved by this permission shall be commenced until a scheme for the provision of surface water drainage works has been approved by the Local Planning Authority. The scheme shall be completed in accordance with the approved plans. Reason: To reduce the increased risk of flooding by ensuring the provision of a satisfactory means of surface water disposal.
8. Any facilities for the storage of fuels, oils or chemicals shall be sited on impervious bases and surrounded by impervious bund walls, details of which shall be submitted to the Local Planning Authority for approval. The volume of the bunded compound should be at least equivalent to the capacity of the tank plus 10%. If there is multiple tankage, the compound should be at least equivalent to 110% of the capacity of the largest tank, or 25% of the total combined capacity of the interconnected tanks, whichever is the greatest. All filling points, vents, guages and sight glasses must be located within the bund. The drainage system of the bund shall be sealed with no discharge to any watercourse, land or underground strata. Associated pipework should be located above ground and protected from accidental damage. All filling points and tank overflow pipe outlets should be detailed to discharge downwards into the bund. Reason: To prevent pollution of water resources.
9. Prior to being discharged into any watercourse, surface water sewer or soakaway system, all surface water drainage from the site shall be passed through an oil interceptor designed and constructed to have a capacity and details compatible with the site being drained. Roof water shall not pass through the interceptor. Reason: To prevent pollution of water resources.
10. Before development commences full details of the proposed electronic gate shall be submitted to and approved by the Local Planning Authority. Reason: In order to ensure a satisfactory standard of development.
______