Item No.2 231 10.3.2005 Planning

PLANNING COMMITTEE

Minutes of the proceedings at a meeting of the Committee held in the Council Chamber at South Lakeland House, Kendal, on Thursday, 10 March, 2005, at 10.00 a.m.

Present

Councillors

Janette Jenkinson (Chairman) Tony Rothwell (Vice-Chairman)

Charles Batteson Paul Braithwaite Robin Brown Simon Butterfield Joss Curwen David Foot John Galbraith Brenda Gray Jack Manning Howard Martin Gwen Murfin Reg Parker

Apologies for absence were received from Councillors Gill Cranwell, Gordon Jenkinson and Paul Little. Officers

Kate Bellwood for Assistant Director (Development) Margaret Graham for Committee Manager Wendy Graham for Assistant Director (Development) Nick Hayhurst for Assistant Director (Development) Barry Jackson for Assistant Director (Development) Debbie Storr Solicitor to the Council

P/166 MINUTES

RESOLVED – That the Chairman be authorised to sign, as a correct record, the minutes of the meeting of the Committee held on 10 February. 2005.

P/167 DECLARATIONS OF INTEREST

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

(1) Councillor Paul Braithwaite declared an interest in

Minute P/169 (Planning Application No.SL//2005/0002); Minute P/170 (Planning Application No.SL/2005/0041); Minute P/171 (Planning Applications Nos.SL/2004/1582 and SL/2004/1641); Minute P/173 (Planning Applications Nos.SL/2004/0892 & 0916 and SL/2005/0056)

(2) Councillor Simon Butterfield declared an interest in –

Minute P/169 (Planning Application No.SL//2005/0002); Minute P/170 (Planning Application No.SL/2005/0041); Minute P/171 (Planning Applications Nos.SL/2004/1582 and SL/2004/1641); Minute P/173 (Planning Applications Nos.SL/2004/0892 & 0916 and SL/2005/0056)

232 10.3.2005 Planning

(3) Councillor Tony Rothwell declared an interest in Minute P/174 (Planning Application No.SL/2005/0002; and

(4) Councillor Howard Martin declared an interest in Minute P/171 (Planning Application No.SL.2005/0120).

P/168 LOCAL GOVERNMENT ACT 1972 – EXCLUDED ITEMS RESOLVED – That it be noted that there were no items in Part II of the Agenda.

PUBLIC PARTICIPATION

P/169 Planning Applications

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

SL/2004/1667 GRANGE-OVER-SANDS. Kents Bank Hotel, Kents Bank, Grange-over-Sands. Conversion of hotel into nine apartments. (Quest Construction Ltd)

Mrs Ann Epps, who lives next door to the Kents Bank Hotel, spoke in objection to the proposal on behalf of a group of residents. She said that a pub is the focal point and hub of any village, and currently the Hotel is the largest, most dominant, building on the (Kentsford) road and is surrounded by smaller private dwellings. She said that the plans to extend the rear of the hotel would create an overbearing building which would overlook the back gardens of her property (No.94) and the bungalows at Nos. 8 and 10 Priory Lane. Amendments to the window arrangements would lead to overlooking and lack of privacy for the bungalows. The overall height and bulk of the rear extension would block out winter sunshine from the back of her property, a feature which had been enjoyed since the house was built 150 years ago¸ making it damp and gloomy. Further windows had appeared on the amended plans which made it difficult for neighbours to ascertain the true impact this building would have on their properties.

It was not clear from the amended plans whether or not the raised lawn area at the rear and north east boundary of the Hotel would remain. The properties on Kentsford Road are built on a hillside, and are supported by a series of terraces. The raised lawn at 96 Kentsford Road is part of the terrace on which her property is built. If the lawn should be excavated it would seriously jeopardise the foundations and stability of her home, and undermine the foundations of her access drive, exposing it to slippage. The resulting steep drop would be a potential safety hazard in case of a driving error or icy weather conditions. 233 10.3.2005 Planning

Mrs Epps commented on the Preservation Order on four tall Scots Pine trees in the garden of her property, three alongside the front boundary with the Kents Bank Hotel. These trees are a landmark for people out on the water or walking across Morecambe Bay. The foundations of any garage or outbuilding constructed over the roots of these trees would most certainly cause them to die.

A copy of Mrs Epps’ full submission has been placed on file.

Mr Brian Winter spoke in objection to the change of use of the Kents Bank Hotel into apartments. His main objection was the loss of a bar and hotel bedrooms, and the village amenity these provided. The alternative of Abbot Hall has no licence, nor could it be classed as a village centre. He limited his comments to his personal feelings and experiences; other people’s comments were already in the hands of the Planning Officer.

He said that he naively assumed people would tell him the truth but if he found otherwise he would look more closely at information previously given. His first meal under the new management was in July 2002. This was enjoyed and he and his wife regularly returned to the Hotel. During this time the owner said he was pleased with the continuing support of locals and the hotel was doing well. Three months later a group of Mr Winter’s friends had stayed at the hotel for a week and vowed never to return because of the owner’s attitude. From that point Mr Winter’s doubts started to build up.

On taking over a business surely it is essential to keep down costs until the likely level of trade is established. To spend allegedly £9,000 on marketing, then appoint a chef for work previously done in house, when the owner himself was an accomplished chef, was not good business sense. A change in menu had been made, omitting some basic pub grub items and then undercooking vegetables despite pleas from customers. This led directly to a decline in numbers; only a few faithful remained, largely because in the Kents Bank village there is nowhere else to go.

Round about July 2003 they had been told by the owner that he was considering a purchase elsewhere, in addition to the Kents Bank Hotel, for DSS clients. Three months later they were very surprised to find the Hotel up for sale by Christie & Co. While the owner claims the hotel is not viable and blames the locals, his own performance left Mr Winter unable to believe all his statements, including financial ones.

Finally, approval of the application would clear the way for any inept or unscrupulous business owner to apply for “change of use” for no better reason than to inflate property value. Mr Winter did not believe that this should be allowed.

A copy of Mr Winter’s full submission has been placed on file. 234 10.3.2005 Planning

Mrs Rita Denby delivered a speech prepared by Mrs Mary Rossall on behalf of a group of residents, objecting to the proposal. Mrs Rossall was unable to attend in person.

Contrary to objectives in the SLDC Local Plan, closure of the Kents Bank Hotel had already resulted in the loss of employment opportunities for local people, and a loss of trade for local businesses including those who regularly supplied goods and service. It had also had an adverse impact on local youngsters, without their own transport, who need work.

They had determined that Grange had lost over 120 hotel beds in the last ten years. It should not lose any more. The SLDC Local Plan recognises that “the tourist industry is the major employer” and “the conversion of hotel stock to alternative uses can weaken a seasonal town’s ability to retain its status as a tourism destination”. The Local Plan also states that “a significant proportion of Grange-over-Sands tourist accommodation has been converted to residential accommodation” and “ it is …. important to maintain and ….enhance the quality and range of accommodation such as hotels” in the area.

The Planning Application Report on the Kents Bank Hotel stated that the bar was open between 11.00 a.m. and 11.30 p.m. all through December (2003). Not so. On a number of occasions locals went to purchase bar meals and/or for a drink at lunchtime or in the evenings but found the hotel in darkness and locked up. It also stated that the hotel had daily staffing and running costs of £150.00. It quotes the owner as saying that bar receipts “did not reach the level of running and staffing costs on any one occasion …. during part of November and December 2003.” This is strange. On New Year’s Eve 2003 at least 29 people (mainly locals) paid £28 per head for a meal, (£812) and bought wine/drinks at the bar, and at least six guests were booked in for bed and breakfast. Their welcome included no staff or heating in the bar. When guests wanted a drink they had to go and find a member of staff. The owner did not even bother to wish his guests a Happy New Year. We know of at least one other group booking for a Christmas Party in December 2003 when the takings were £480 for that group. This hardly supports the contention that the owner did not cover his overhead running cost of £150 per day on any one occasion in December 2003.

During the summer of 2004 local residents noticed that the hotel appeared to have residential B&B guests. From November 2004 to February 2005, 15 cocklers have allegedly been paying £10 each per day for bed and the use of the hotel kitchen. If this is so the owner will have netted approximately £16,800 even though he has stated that his business is closed. In January 2004 an article featuring the Kents Bank Hotel appeared in the Evening Main. It was headlined “Why My Dead Duck Hotel Has to Close” – hardly likely to encourage prospective buyers to pay £500,000 for his hotel business. 235 10.3.2005 Planning

The owner was quoted as saying that he could not afford to provide a swimming pool and gym, he isn’t near a sandy beach, and he is in a poor location for passing trade. A small, 8-bedroom hotel in Kents Bank does not need such attractions. It is more likely that guests come for walking, golf, Cartmel Races, bird watching, Cross Bay Walks, or to meet up with friends/relatives living in the area.

The Kents Bank Hotel was successful in the past; it could be again. Under Policy H13, proposals for the conversion of rural facilities to residential use are only permitted where “a site does not represent a favourable position in terms of accessibility within the rural area” and, in addition “loss of the facility would not result in the loss of village vitality”. The Kents Bank Hotel does represent “a favourable position in terms of accessibility within the rural area”. It provided the only bar and meeting place within easy walking distance for a large number of local residents. It has always been at the centre of the community; a lively, welcoming place where friends, neighbours and visitors could meet for social activities. The loss of the hotel and bar has already resulted in the loss of village vitality. If this planning application for “change of use” is granted, Kents Bank will be condemned to become yet another dormitory village with no social focus.

A copy of Mrs Rossall’s full submission has been placed on file.

Mrs Val Kennedy also spoke in objection to the proposed development, on behalf of a group of residents.

She said she had lived in Kents Bank for over thirty years and witnessed the ebb and flow of business at the Hotel. During that time she had noticed that when the hotel owners had a genuine interest and understanding of the hotel and bar trade the business appeared to grow; when they had no interest it withered. When the Hotel was sold in July 2002 it appeared to be a vibrant business, attractive to locals and tourist alike. The owner had supported successful team and social events and festivities. In July 2002 the present owner bought the Hotel, as a viable business, for £250,000. Just one year later he put it on the market for £500,000, claiming it was never a viable hotel.

We were dismayed to learn that the owner planned to sell the Kents Bank Hotel to a property developer. We were delighted when we heard that a neighbour had received a letter of support from Mrs Williams (one of the former owners), saying that the hotel had traded well and had a buoyant bar trade before it was sold – then dismayed to hear that this letter had been retracted by Mr Williams who stated that his wife was not involved with the business accounts and did not fully understand the business. This is odd. It is inconceivable that someone running their own hotel would not be familiar with its accounts and profitability. 236 10.3.2005 Planning

The present owner advertised 8 quality en-suite letting bedrooms. Even using “back of envelope” calculations, the 31% occupancy rates quoted in supporting documents would have grossed some £126,000 over 50 weeks, taking into account bar meals and drinks this figure would be closer to £175,000. Deducting £133,000 for overheads would give a gross profit of £42,000 – not a bad return for a first year’s trading. The owner states that occupancy rates dropped to 11% for August – December 2003. This does not surprise us. A group of golfing guests were taken aback when the owner told them that breakfast was at 8.00 a.m. – “take it or leave it”. They were the only guests in the Hotel, had spent freely in the bar, and he was not prepared to serve them breakfast at 9.00 a.m. Not a good way of encouraging repeat trade or word-of-mouth recommendations. Similarly, the owner made it quite clear to local residents that he was not interested in their custom. [Here Mrs Kennedy quoted the “New Year” incident used as illustration by Mrs Denby (on behalf of Mrs Rossall)]. Mrs Kennedy concluded that her observation of the ups and downs in business at the Kents Bank Hotel over the last 32 years led her to believe that it was not the location that determined its success, but relevant business acumen and the hospitality of the person running the hotel and bar. A copy of Mrs Kennedy’s full submission has been placed on file.

Mrs Rita Denby spoke again, on behalf of a different group of residents. She said that, on behalf of many residents, local people and past guests, she would like to express their strong objections to the application to convert the Kents Bank Hotel into apartments. The closure of the hotel and bar to the local community would result in a total loss of village vitality (Policy H13). This was good quality middle income accommodation in short supply in Grange-over-Sands (Policy T2a). Inspection of the 89 letters of objection to the previous planning application, and the 39 to this re-application, made it very clear that the present owner failed to make this vital asset to Kents Bank work because of a hostile management style which increasingly lacked warmth and hospitality, consequently alienating patrons. The inevitable conclusion reached by most customers was that this was a deliberate policy to ensure that the business should under-perform, thus providing an excuse to sell it on for redevelopment. If this cynical application is granted then Policies H13 and T2a are no more than empty rhetoric – fine sounding words with no meaning.

Due to threatening behaviour by the owner a number of local residents felt unable to lodge objections to the latest planning application because they were afraid of possible repercussions. This fear arose from rumours, and the threatening letter that the owner sent to all Kents Bank residents who objected to the original application in January 2004. 237 10.3.2005 Planning

That letter had included the following comments “…. The hotel has closed, and the liquor licence has not been renewed, effectively preventing the premises being used as a public bar. The hotel will not reopen ….. You have already lost the use of the hotel and compounded the situation by not using the facilities and objecting to change of use.. “ Some recipients had complained to the police; some were frightened; others were angry. In many of the letters of objection there was anecdotal evidence of inhospitality by the owner towards hotel guests and customers. Last year a letter from the previous owners had been forwarded to the Planning Department which confirmed that the Kents Bank Hotel was a profitable business between 1997 and 2002. In February 2004, correspondence between the Planning Department and the present owner suggested that he would have to submit a strong case arguing the non-viability of the Hotel in order for planning permission to be approved. Subsequently the Planning Officer received a letter from the previous owners (Mr & Mrs Williams) stating that “the business could be non-profitable with additional liabilities on the property, and a downturn of the business” Significantly, since then the Williams have been incommunicado. Does this really constitute strong evidence on which to grant permission for development?

Cartmel supports four pubs and hotels plus several B&B establishments even though there is no passing trade. Grange residents generally, and especially those of Kents Bank, will support the efforts of any half-way decent hotelier, restaurateur or publican. We are hoping that somewhere out there is an hotelier who will be prepared to revive the Hotel and bar – such a person would find a lot of local support. Supporting documentation for this application appears to be flawed. If permission is granted it will be against Policy H13 of the Local Plan and could set a dangerous precedent for future planning applications. We trust that you will not allow this application to be approved. A copy of Mrs Denby’s full submission has been placed on file.

Mr Brian Barden responded on behalf of the applicants. He referred to the Planning Officer’s report setting out policy and marketing of the hotel. It was the Planning Committee’s duty to decide whether they wished to accept the feedback from experts as reliable, or not. The District Valuer had valued the property at £425,000 and it had been marketed on this basis by Christie & Co. No buyer had been found. The suggestion that it could still work as a hotel was unfounded. The accounts confirmed the hotel’s losses. “Back of envelope” calculations could produce a theoretic profit. In many cases businesses, which appeared profitable on the surface, were in fact skating on thin ice. 8 bedrooms was too small to very viable. 238 10.3.2005 Planning

As far as the comparison with Cartmel was concerned, that village was a “honeypot” destination with many attractive features. Kents Bank was closer to the coast and the location was not so attractive. Also, there was no passing trade. The evidence presented had been vetted by qualified people. The comments regarding construction difficulties were not well founded.

The Chairman instructed the Committee to concentrate on two issues:- Policies re change of use, and design of the proposed development.

The Assistant Director (Development) gave a resume of the report on the application. The proposal was to convert the existing building into nine apartments. This would entail excavating the front portion to expose the basement, and the construction of an extension to the rear. The existing single-storey extension would be removed and replaced with a two-storey extension. Since the original application in January 2004, an amended scheme had been negotiated to reduce the height of this extension.

There had been a substantial level of objection to the latest application, comprising 41 individual letters and one from a group. Objections raised had included:-

o Loss of the only public bar = loss of a community facility o Changes to the management style of the hotel by the owner, leading to running down of the business

o Conversion to residential use would lead to loss of tourist accommodation and would impact on the local economy

o Impact on the Conservation Area o Increased traffic o Some doubt about the financial and marketing information supplied as being inadequate

o The building being used by cocklers. The objectors had cast doubts on the financial information and asked SLDC for an independent audit. They disputed opening hours, bar takings, and accused the proprietor of inhospitability. One letter of support had been received, mentioning the sad appearance of the hotel and how it would be improved by the proposed new use. Grange Town Council had said it could not judge whether the evidence submitted was comprehensive. The Civic Society was concerned over the loss of tourist accommodation, and that the provision of apartments would increase the population density. 239 10.3.2005 Planning

Cumbria Tourist Board had provided brief and rather disappointing comments that small hotels struggle in Grange- over-Sands. Their occupancy statistics covered the whole of South Lakeland. The Planning Officer had spoken to SLDC’S Tourism and Marketing Officer who confirmed that conditions were tough and 40-50% occupancy rates were realistic. The Assistant Director (Development) said that the main planning issues raised by the proposal were:- Would the loss of the hotel have an effect on tourism and employment? Should the facilities offered by the hotel be retained to serve the needs of the local community? Would the proposed external alterations/extension detract from the character and appearance of the Conservation Area? Would the proposed extension harm the amenities of neighbouring occupiers? Grange-over-Sands was a seasonal tourist destination, based on key events; outside the peak period occupancy rates were fairly low. PPG Guidance Note 21 – Tourism states that “the conversion of hotel stock to alternative uses can weaken a season town’s ability to retain its status of a tourist destination.” Efforts were being made to counteract this, e.g. Time and Tide Project.

In response to the decline in tourist accommodation in Grange – over-Sands and the need to try and maintain and enhance the town’s role as a holiday resort, Policy T2a had been introduced to the Local Plan. Policy T2a seeks to retain tourist accommodation to provide for a strong basis for tourism and only allows for the loss where – • There is clear evidence it can no longer operate as a viable concern • Or, the proposal would result in major upgrading or structural condition of the building. The wording in the justification for this policy states viability will be assessed against information such as trading patterns, occupancy rates and a summary of trading accounts. It requires the Council to seek independent advice from Cumbria Tourist Board. In this case the comments from CTB had not been very helpful. 240 10.3.2005 Planning

The Assistant Director (Development) outlined the evidence received in support of the current application: • A summary from the accountant who concludes that the hotel is running at a loss • Occupancy rates have reduced since 2002 • Bar returns have fallen and local usage has declined • Marketing information from a national selling agent • A reduction in the selling price from £500,000 in August 2003 to £425,000 in 2004 to reflect the valuation undertaken by the District Valuer. The selling agent has confirmed that 17 viewings had been undertaken and the feedback received highlighted that there was concern about the location of the hotel and whether significant business revenue can be achieved and sustained.

The Assistant Director (Development) advised Members that, based upon Policy T2a, he had to conclude that the criteria set out have been met. Members also needed to consider whether the loss of the 8 bedrooms at the Kents Bank Hotel would constitute a significant loss to the tourist accommodation stock in Grange-over-Sands

It was accepted that it would be a controversial issue to have a local facility removed from the community, but he felt that Policy H13 was more relevant to remote rural villages, rather than towns. The site was within the designated development boundary for Grange-over-Sands and had been marketed. He felt that there was not sufficient reason, under Policy H13, to refuse the application. The design of the proposed development had been amended to minimise the building’s dominance in relation to its surroundings. While a site visit would not help Members gain an insight into the policy issues, they would be able to gauge the impact on neighbouring properties. The Assistant Director reluctantly recommended approval, based on the criteria in the Council’s Planning Policies. In response to questions from Members, the Assistant Director (Development) confirmed that there had been no bids in writing from prospective purchasers. In a lengthy debate on the application, Members discussed the following concerns and comments:- - That the hotel should be retained as a business unless it really was no longer viable (it had always been viable before) - The loss of bed spaces = more caravans (too many bed spaces had been lost already) - It had always been the policy to keep such establishments open, even if there were other bars etc in the vicinity, and this was a recently flourishing business 241 10.3.2005 Planning

- Apparent deliberate neglect of the business by the owner (based on letters of objection and representations)

- Appreciating that the issue was an emotive one for residents, the Planning Committee could only assess the application on policy issues and design. Whilst not disputing the hard work and commitment required to run a hotel business, it was felt that the current owner wanted to get out. We must stick to our policies (cf. the Royal Hotel in Kirkby Lonsdale) and refuse on the grounds of loss of employment / local facility.

- Why would anyone buy a business if the previous owners had struggled? It was not just that the hotel used to be viable, but that a precedent would be set.

- Had the District Valuer valued the property as a going concern? Members were not convinced of the accuracy of the financial and marketing information supplied.

The Assistant Director (Development) confirmed that the property had been valued as a going concern, and the District Valuer’s assessment could not be disputed. If Members wished to consider refusing the application, we have a clear Planning Policy brought in to deal with loss of accommodation. He would question the success at appeal. He felt the Planning Inspector would conclude that the professional evidence, from experts in the field, was sound. If Members chose to refuse planning permission he suggested the application be deferred for “cooling off”. The property had been marketed both nationally and locally. The Committee needed to be clear as what further information it required to clarify the situation, and have specific reasons if it decided to refuse the application.

Councillor David Foot felt there was a big disparity between local opinion and the professional opinions offered in respect of valuation and viability. Based on the CTB figures and those of our own Tourist Information Officer, could the Hotel be viable in the future? It had a history of success and local use. He felt that the case had not been completely made yet for closure.

Members were reluctant to go against the recommendations of the Planning Officer, but felt that the current application flies in the face of the Council’s policies.

DEFERRED for a site visit and further information.

Note – Councillor Charles Batteson requested that, under the Council’s Constitution, Part 4, Rules of Procedure Paragraph 15.6, his abstention be recorded as he had not been present in the Council Chamber for the whole debate.

Note – Councillor Paul Braithwaite declared a personal and prejudicial interest in the following item by virtue of the fact that, not only was he Chairman of the Kendal Town Council Planning Committee, but the applicant was a former work colleague. 242 10.3.2005 Planning

Note – Councillor Simon Butterfield declared a personal interest in the following item by virtue of the fact that he was a member of the Kendal Town Council Planning Committee.

SL/2004/0002 KENDAL. 142 Valley Drive, Kendal. Single storey extension and replacement garage. (Mr & Mrs Crossley)

Mr John Coward spoke in objection, on behalf of the residents of 1 Pine Close with which the property in question shared a boundary. He said that the building above the garage and extension would significantly affect the amenity of 1 Pine Close. He anticipated that the proposed garages would be used as an outside store and that cars would be parked outside. The extension was bulky, unneighbourly and had an over-shadowing effect on 1 Pine Close. If the extension was built, the existing rooms would become “inner rooms” without direct light. Would this aspect really be better for the owners?

Hilary Brown, agent for the applicants, responded on their behalf. She said that when the original application had been submitted in November 2004, the Planning Officer had offered no grounds for refusal. She was surprised at the neighbour’s objection, as she felt that the aspect from the rear elevation of 1 Pine Close would be improved by the proposal. The extension would allow the applicants’ family to remain in the property. The proposed garage was similar to existing garages in the vicinity. Party wall notices would need to be served. The lack of light to the existing rooms would be addressed by a Velux roof light in the new extension which would allow light to penetrate to the “inner” rooms.

The Assistant Director (Development) said that she had discussed the proposal with both the applicant and the objector, and she would still support approval. She confirmed that no comments had been received from Kendal Town Council.

She addressed Members’ comments about the resulting narrow space between the properties by saying that there was no planning legislation which requires a gap to be retained between properties. There would be just less than 1 metre between the new extension and the neighbouring property, and neighbourly relations would be required to use a ladder - at not too steep an angle – to carry out maintenance.

GRANTED, subject to the following conditions:

Condition (1) The development hereby permitted shall be commenced before the expiration of FIVE YEARS from the date of the decision notice.

Reason (1) To comply with the requirements of Section 91 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990. 243 10.3.2005 Planning

Condition (2) This planning permission relates to the amended drawings numbered 298-2D and 298-3D deposited with the Local Planning Authority on 25 February 2005.

Reason (2) For the avoidance of doubt.

REASON FOR GRANTING PLANNING PERMISSION:

The proposed extension is in accordance with the aims and objectives of Policy S2 of the South Lakeland Local Plan 2006.

P/170 STRAIGHTFORWARD APPLICATIONS

SL/2005/0059 KIRKBY LONSDALE. Lunesdale Bakery, 48-50 Main Street, LBC Kirkby Lonsdale. Conversion of part of existing bakery and shop to create café. (Lunesdale Bakery)

The Assistant Director (Development) said that the main concern with applications of this type was loss of retail frontage. This was not the case with the current application, as the tearoom would be in the bakery behind the shop. The objections received were based on protecting existing trade, but this was not a planning matter. He considered that the proposed use was appropriate and recommended approval.

In response to Member queries, he confirmed that the ventilation system which serves the bakery would also serve the café. This was barely noticeable. The same could not be said of the ventilation/exhaust system to the 1st floor restaurant above the Bakery – an issue which was being pursued with the owner of the building.

GRANTED, subject to the following conditions:

Condition (1) The development hereby permitted shall be commenced before the expiration of FIVE YEARS from the date of the decision notice.

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

Condition (2) This planning permission relates to the details illustrated on drawing no. L2229/21A deposited with the Local Planning Authority on 2 March 2005.

Reason (2) For the avoidance of doubt.

Condition (3) No extraction, ventilation or filtration system shall be installed, nor shall any external flues or chimneys be installed, without the prior written consent of the Local Planning Authority.

244 10.3.2005 Planning

Reason (3) To protect the appearance of this listed building and to ensure that the use hereby permitted is carried out in a manner consistent with the objectives of Policy C15 of the South Lakeland Local Plan.

REASON FOR GRANTING PLANNING PERMISSION:

The proposed use will not affect the character of either this listed building or the Kirkby Lonsdale Conservation Area and is, thereby, consistent with the aims and objectives of Policies R9, C15 and C16 of the South Lakeland Local Plan.

SL/2005/0058 KIRKBY LONSDALE. Lunesdale Bakery, 48-50 Main Street, FPA Kirkby Lonsdale. Conversion of part of existing bakery and shop to create café. (Lunesdale Bakery)

The Assistant Director (Development) said that the main concern with applications of this type was loss of retail frontage. This was not the case with the current application, as the tearoom would be in the bakery behind the shop. The objections received were based on protecting existing trade, but this was not a planning matter. He considered that the proposed use was appropriate and recommended approval.

In response to Member queries, he confirmed that the ventilation shaft which serves the bakery would also serve the café. This was barely noticeable. The same could not be said of the ventilation/exhaust system to the 1st floor restaurant above the Bakery – an issue which was being pursued with the owner of the building.

GRANTED subject to the following conditions:

Condition (1) The development hereby permitted shall be commenced before the expiration of FIVE YEARS from the date of the decision notice.

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

Condition (2) This planning permission relates to the details illustrated on drawing no. L2229/21A deposited with the Local Planning Authority on 2 March 2005.

Reason (2) For the avoidance of doubt.

Condition (3) No extraction, ventilation or filtration system shall be installed, nor shall any external flues or chimneys be installed, without the prior written consent of the Local Planning Authority.

245 10.3.2005 Planning

Reason (3) To protect the appearance of this listed building and to ensure that the use hereby permitted is carried out in a manner consistent with the objectives of Policy C15 of the South Lakeland Local Plan.

REASON FOR GRANTING PLANNING PERMISSION:

The proposed use will not affect the character of either this listed building or the Kirkby Lonsdale Conservation Area and is, thereby, consistent with the aims and objectives of Policies R9, C15 and C16 of the South Lakeland Local Plan.

SL/2004/0861 SKELSMERGH. Crossroads east of junction with A6, Watchgate, Kendal. Improvements to road junction. (United Utilities Water plc).

The Assistant Director (Development) reported that this proposal would improve vehicular access to Watchgate and improve the highway to facilitate HGVs, bringing about a distinct improvement in road safety. Five letters of objection had been received, and the main grounds of concern were outlined in the report from the Planning Officer.

Members considered that the proposal would improve vehicle access for heavy vehicles and also for local people.

GRANTED, subject to the following conditions:

Condition (1) The development hereby permitted shall be commenced before the expiration of FIVE YEARS from the date of the decision notice.

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

Condition (2) Within three months of the widened access being brought into use, the replacement stone wall shall be constructed and completed in a manner which matches the surrounding and remaining walls.

Reason (2) To ensure the local character of the area is maintained.

REASON FOR GRANTING PLANNING PERMISSION

The proposed new access will improve the existing access situation and will not have a significant adverse impact on the nearby properties. There are no Highways objections to the scheme and therefore the proposal is considered to be appropriate and in accordance with policy.

246 10.3.2005 Planning

Note – Councillor Paul Braithwaite declared a personal interest in the following item by virtue of the fact that he was Chairman of the Kendal Town Council Planning Committee.

Councillor Simon Butterfield declared a personal interest in the following item by virtue of the fact that he was a member of the Kendal Town Council Planning Committee.

SL/2005/0041 KENDAL. Land at rear of Kendal Town Football Club, and Parkside Business Park, Kendal. Formation of playing field area containing two football pitches and one cricket pitch. (Kirkbie Kendal School) The Assistant Director (Development) explained that Kirkbie Kendal School had applied to amend the original planning application for one pitch with floodlighting, to two smaller pitches and a cricket pitch (mainly for the School’s own use). There would be no floodlighting. The Environment Agency had no objections, subject to the results of a contamination study of the site. Eight letters of objection had been received from nearby residents and property owners. Members understood the concerns of residents, but appreciated the need for additional sports facilities. The Assistant Director (Development) was asked about changing facilities. She said that the School had no concerns over changing facilities. The Chairman indicated that no condition could be made to require adequate changing facilities for other users. Members asked about the distance from goalposts to the boundary with residential properties, and were told this was approximately 27 metres. They felt that, with this gap and adequate fencing/planting, there should be no issue with footballs being kicked into gardens. It was also felt that the removal of floodlighting from the application was a major bonus to residents. It was asked whether a condition could be made to exclude floodlighting in perpetuity. The Solicitor to the Council advised that any future application for floodlighting would be considered on its merits. The Council could not fetter its own discretion in the future by seeking to apply such a condition. GRANTED, subject to the following conditions:

Condition (1) The development hereby permitted shall be commenced before the expiration of FIVE YEARS from the date of the decision notice. Reason (1) To comply with the requirements of Section 91 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990. Condition (2) No floodlighting shall be provided for the pitches without a further grant of planning permission. Reason (2) To prevent any light pollution occurring to the nearby properties. 247 10.3.2005 Planning

Condition (3) The pitches shall not be used outside the hours of 09.00 to 21.30 hours. Reason (3) To protect the residential amenity of the nearby residents.

Condition (4) No seating or shelter facilities shall be provided along the eastern side of the site. Reason (4) To protect the residential amenity of the nearby residents.

Condition (5) The footpath from Wasdale Close to the site shall remain closed off, and shall not be re-opened. Reason (5) To prevent Wasdale Close being used for additional parking. Condition (6) Within six months from the date when the pitches are brought into use, trees/shrubs shall be planted on the land in accordance with a landscaping scheme to be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. Any trees/shrubs which are removed, die, become severely damaged or diseased within five years of their planting shall be replaced in the next planting season with trees/shrubs of similar size and species to those originally required to be planted unless the Local Planning Authority gives written consent to any variation. Reason (6) To protect the neighbouring residential properties.

REASON FOR GRANTING PLANNING PERMISSION:

The proposed pitches will provide additional recreational and leisure facilities for both the school and the local community. It is not considered that there will be a significant level of noise or disturbance associated with this use, and therefore the proposal accords with the provisions of Policy L3 of the South Lakeland Local Plan

P/171 COMPLEX PLANNING APPLICATIONS Note: - Councillor Howard Martin declared a personal and prejudicial interest in the following application by virtue of the fact that he was a Cartmel Parish Councillor, and left the Chamber during the discussion and voting thereon.

SL/2005/0120 LOWER ALLITHWAITE. Wells House Farm, Cartmel, Grange-over-Sands. Relaxation of conditions 2 and 4 on Planning consent 5/97/2773 re open period, removal of fence and increase in number of tents. (Mr & Mrs G A Viney) The Assistant Director (Development) reported that planning permission had been granted in 1998 for tents on this site. The northern field was open from 1st March to 14 November annually, while opening on the southern section (closest to two adjoining properties) was presently restricted to the month of August and 1st week in September annually. The applicant was seeking the removal of this restriction, and an increase in the number of tents permitted in the restricted area (from 55 to 59 tents). 248 10.3.2005 Planning

Cartmel Village Society had submitted an objection on the grounds of increased noise and pollution levels from barbecues and fires, the spread of campsites across the Cartmel area generally, and disturbance specifically to adjoining residents.

Four letters of objection and a petition including four signatures had been received. Their concerns related to noise, smells, loss of amenity, unneighbourliness, and inadequate screening to alleviate disturbance.

The applicants had stated that the hours between 10.30 p.m. and 9.00 a.m. were designated as a “quiet period”. Anyone not complying would be asked to leave the campsite. They had not received any direct complaints from neighbouring residents.

The Environmental Protection Manager had pointed out that existing conditions protect the nearest properties. The extension of the site nearer to these houses would lead to increased noise levels. He recommended retention of the area restriction, but had no problem with the extended opening period requested.

The Assistant Director (Development) recommended that planning permission could be granted based upon the Environmental Protection Manager’s requirements. Members agreed that the site seemed to be well-run, and accepted the officer’s recommendations.

The Assistant Director (Development) be authorised to grant the application, subject to a restriction in the area where tents can be sited, and the retention of the existing boundary fence.

Note: Councillor Simon Butterfield requested that, under the Council’s Constitution, Part 4, Rules of Procedure Paragraph 15.6, his abstention be recorded as he was not present in the Council Chamber for the whole of the debate.

SL/2005/0188 HELSINGTON. Land at Prizet Filling Station, Helsington, Kendal. 43 bed Travelodge with associated car parking and landscaping. (Travelodge Hotels Ltd & AUK Properties Ltd) The Assistant Director (Development) recommended deferral of the application. He said that there was a strong objection from the Highways Authority, with whom the applicant was still in discussion over a traffic impact assessment. Objections had also been received from the Parish Council, neighbours, and Friends of the Lake District (Council for the Preservation of Rural England). The proposal was broadly supported by the Cumbria Tourist Board. The Assistant Director (Development) advised Members that discussions were still in progress with the applicants in respect of screening of the site and use of materials. The Assistant Director (Development) asked if Members had any other issues which they wished to raise following the recent site visit. 249 10.3.2005 Planning

Members comments and concerns included:-

- Access from the site to the filling station - Adequacy of parking - Effect on Kendal hotels - Loss of Little Chef (this application is not related to the Little Chef restaurant) - Screening on north side (still under discussion with the applicant); and - Potential flooding (there was no report from the Environment Agency on this issue).

The Committee agreed to defer a decision on the application until more information was available.

DEFERRED for further information.

Note – Councillor Paul Braithwaite declared a personal interest in the following item by virtue of the fact that he was Chairman of the Kendal Town Council Planning Committee.

Councillor Simon Butterfield declared a personal interest in the following item by virtue of the fact that he was a member of the Kendal Town Council Planning Committee.

SL/2004/1641 KENDAL. 6 Hawesmead Drive, Kendal. First floor extension over existing garage and rear single storey extension. (Mr & Mrs D Spark) The Assistant Director (Development) reported concern about the impact of the 1st floor extension on the neighbouring property. An objection had been received from the owner of No.8 Hawesmead Drive in respect of scale, overbearing appearance, reduced light and the adequacy of the proposed soak-away. Members agreed that it was a large extension, and that a site visit should be undertaken to gauge the impact on neighbouring properties. DEFERRED for site visit.

SL/2004/1661 MIDDLETON. Holme Farm, Middleton, Sedbergh. Conversion of part of barn to undercover seating and refreshment area in association with open farm. (Mr Metcalf)

The Assistant Director (Development) explained that this had been open (working) farm for some 20 years and was frequently visited by parties of schoolchildren, who took refreshments in the barn. The applicant was seeking to formalise this arrangement by converting approximately half of the barn to a snack bar with kitchen/seating/serving area. 250 10.3.2005 Planning

Two objections had been received on the grounds that the proposal would generate additional traffic. The Assistant Director (Development) suggested a condition to restrict the use of the proposed facility to visitors to Holme Open Farm only.

GRANTED subject to the following conditions:-

Condition (1) The development hereby permitted shall be commenced before the expiration of FIVE YEARS from the date of the decision notice.

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

Condition (2) The use hereby permitted shall be limited to the provision of snacks and drinks to visitors to Holme Open Farm, as described in the letter dated 21 December 2004 from Alison Roland Town Planners Ltd, and shall not be construed as permitting the establishment of a café as defined by Class A3 of the Town and Country Planning (Use Classes) Order 1987, as amended, or in any provision equivalent to that Class in any statutory instrument revoking and re-enacting that Order with or without modification.

Reason (2) For the avoidance of doubt.

REASON FOR GRANTING PLANNING PERMISSION:

The proposed use is consistent with Holme Open Farm as a visitor attraction and is compatible with the objectives of Policy E10 of the South Lakeland Local Plan.

Note – Councillor Paul Braithwaite declared a personal interest in the following item by virtue of the fact that he was Chairman of the Kendal Town Council Planning Committee.

Councillor Simon Butterfield declared a personal interest in the following item by virtue of the fact that he was a member of the Kendal Town Council Planning Committee.

SL/2004/1582 KENDAL. Former Job Centre, Sandes Avenue, Kendal. Conversion and extension to form extra care nursing home. (Mr & Mrs Ellwood)

The Assistant Director (Development) said that the main issue was whether an extra-care nursing home was appropriate in this location, given its proximity to commercial properties and the bus depot. Was it right to introduce a form of residential development so close to an industrial site? Would it mean that over time pressure would be put on the Council to curtain the legitimate activities of nearby businesses in relation to the smells and noise arising from the reasonable running of an industrial estate? 251 10.3.2005 Planning

The Environmental Protection Manager had expressed concerns regarding

- the noise impact from the industrial area,

- road traffic,

- the impact on the living conditions of residents of sealed, non-opening windows,

- the proximity to the bus depot (which was open from 4.00 a.m. until 2.00 a.m. the following day)

- deliveries to the new Homebase premises at any time of day; and

- the effect of low-frequency rumbles (from the bus depot) on the structure.

He felt that a detailed assessment was required.

The Assistant Director (Development) said that PPG24 recognises that there is often difficulty in reconciling some activities (such as housing, schools, hospitals) with industrial use. He felt that the proposed use was incompatible with the location.

The applicants’ planning consultant had made a written submission acknowledging that the relationship to other premises was important. Part of the EHO’s report was misguided in relation to noise exposure however, and the concerns expressed were exaggerated. He said that suitable sites were very difficult to find, and the re-use of a former office building was appropriate in this instance.

The Assistant Director (Development) said that permission could be conditioned for use an extra-care home only but he was not sure of the usefulness of this. In the future the Council could find itself faced with an application for other domestic/residential use which might be difficult to refuse once residential use had been established.

Members asked if the applicants were experienced in this field, and also if the Health Authority had been consulted. There was also concern over the risk of flooding. The Assistant Director (Development) confirmed that the applicants already ran another similar establishment. The Health Authority had not been consulted, although accreditation would be required. He felt that the Health Authority would look at the application rather differently from the local planning authority.

If Members were minded to approve the application, he would recommend that a flood risk assessment be undertaken. 252 10.3.2005 Planning

Whilst accepting that the applicants were experienced, Members felt that the building was in a location which was totally unsuitable for chronically ill people who would have no choice or control over their living conditions.

It was reported that Kendal Town Council had recommended refusal on grounds of noise and loss of employment premises.

REFUSED for the reasons below

Reason (1) The building is in very close proximity to commercial businesses including a bus garage and the introduction of a residential use, in the form of an extra-care nursing home, into this environment would have an adverse effect on the existing businesses. Residents of the nursing home, together with their relatives, will be likely to seek to curtail the activities of neighbouring businesses to the disbenefit of the companies concerned. Thus, because of the commercial nature of the locality and the potentially adverse effect on existing businesses, it is evident that the proposal would result in the unacceptable juxtaposition of incompatible uses.

Reason (2) The building is located within Flood Zone 2 and the proposed use is likely to be more flood-risk sensitive than the existing use. As a consequence, a Flood Risk Assessment should have been submitted with the planning application to cover issues such as floor levels, warning and evacuation procedures and flood-proofing. The failure to submit a Flood Risk Assessment renders the proposal incompatible with the aims and objectives of Policy C22 of the South Lakeland Local Plan.

P/172 ADJOURNMENT OF MEETING

The meeting was adjourned for lunch at 1.23 p.m. and reconvened at 2.15 p.m. when the same Members were present, with the exception of Councillor Robin Brown.

P/173 COMPLEX PLANNING APPLICATIONS

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

Note – Councillor Paul Braithwaite declared a personal interest in the following item by virtue of the fact that he was Chairman of the Kendal Town Council Planning Committee.

Councillor Simon Butterfield declared a personal interest in the following item by virtue of the fact that he was a member of the Kendal Town Council Planning Committee.

253 10.3.2005 Planning

SL/2004/0892 KENDAL. Land adjacent to the Riverside Hotel, Beezon Road, FPA Kendal. Demolition of existing redundant buildings. Construction of 46 No apartments with associated car parking. Construction of retail unit. Provision of car parking for Riverside Hotel. (Russell Armer Ltd)

The Chairman reminded Members that major decisions on the mixed use of this site had already been agreed. The current application sought approval of the proposed design. The Assistant Director (Development) said that what the Committee had to decide was whether the proposed design was appropriate for this prominent riverside location. Details needed to be resolved. Was the Committee comfortable with the form, bulk, scale and articulation of the proposed building? The Assistant Director (Development) reported that Kendal Civic Society had objected to the design. It was said to be overpowering, and did nothing to enhance the Conservation Area. The range of styles was “toy-town” architecture. The overall effect was disjointed, a crude attempt to get the major development income from an oppressive and uninterrupted range of inferior designs. Their objections were unequivocal in terms of poor design, massive scale and unneighbourly development of a restricted site. He reported that Central Government’s view was that new buildings should “reinforce local distinctiveness” and be visually attractive. Local planning authorities were not to attempt to stifle innovative design by unsubstantiated requirements.

The provision of affordable homes within the scheme was reported by the Assistant Director (Development), and was welcomed by Members.

The Chairman pointed out that the Planning Officer needed guidance as to what elements of the design required further discussion with the applicant as to amendments/improvements.

Members felt the overall design was quite different from the existing building (the Riverside Hotel) and therefore could not be said to “reinforce local distinctiveness”, or even reflect the original buildings on the site. There was “too much going on”. The design comprised three distinct buildings, each of which had detailing which did not seem to be appropriate. Members were not impressed with the balconies, green glass panels, the windows in the retail section, and the flat roof; however, it was felt that, subject to the satisfactory resolution of detailed aspects of design, planning permission could be granted.

The Assistant Director (Development) be authorised to GRANT this application, subject to appropriate conditions, and subject to an appropriately worded Agreement made under Section 106 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 to ensure the provision of 12 affordable housing units.

254 10.3.2005 Planning

Note – Councillor Paul Braithwaite declared a personal interest in the following item by virtue of the fact that he was Chairman of the Kendal Town Council Planning Committee. Councillor Simon Butterfield declared a personal interest in the following item by virtue of the fact that he was a member of the Kendal Town Council Planning Committee. SL/2004/0916 KENDAL. Land adjacent to the Riverside Hotel, Beezon Road, CAC Kendal. Demolition of existing redundant buildings. (Russell Armer Ltd) The Chairman reminded Members that major decisions on the mixed use of this site had already been agreed. The current application sought approval of the proposed design. The Assistant Director (Development) said that what the Committee had to decide was whether the proposed design was appropriate for this prominent riverside location. Details needed to be resolved. Was the Committee comfortable with the form, bulk, scale and articulation of the proposed building? The Assistant Director (Development) reported that Kendal Civic Society had objected to the design. It was said to be overpowering, and did nothing to enhance the Conservation Area. The range of styles was “toy-town” architecture. The overall effect was disjointed, a crude attempt to get the major development income from an oppressive and uninterrupted range of inferior designs. Their objections were unequivocal in terms of poor design, massive scale and unneighbourly development of a restricted site. He reported that Central Government’s view was that new buildings should “reinforce local distinctiveness” and be visually attractive. Local planning authorities were not to attempt to stifle innovative design by unsubstantiated requirements. The provision of affordable homes within the scheme was reported by the Assistant Director (Development), and was welcomed by Members. The Chairman pointed out that the Planning Officer needed guidance as to what elements of the design required further discussion with the applicant as to amendments/improvements. Members felt the overall design was quite different from the existing building (the Riverside Hotel) and therefore could not be said to “reinforce local distinctiveness”, or even reflect the original buildings on the site. There was “too much going on”. The design comprised three distinct buildings, each of which had detailing which did not seem to be appropriate. Members were not impressed with the balconies, green glass panels, the windows in the retail section, and the flat roof; however it was felt that, subject to the satisfactory resolution of detailed aspects of design, planning permission could be granted. The Assistant Director (Development) be authorised to GRANT this application, subject to appropriate conditions, and subject to an appropriately worded Agreement made under Section 106 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 to ensure the provision of 12 affordable housing units. 255 10.3.2005 Planning

SL/2004/1295 PRESTON RICHARD. Gatebeck Caravan Park, Gatebeck Road, Endmoor, Kendal. Siting of 16 additional static caravans and new package sewage treatment plant. (South Lakeland Caravans Ltd)

The Assistant Director (Development) reported that neither Preston Richard Parish Council nor Preston Patrick Parish Council had objected to this proposal. A site visit had been undertaken which had established that the site was well wooded and effectively screened. However, the 16 additional static caravans proposed would be seen from the north.

Members were concerned that 16 additional caravans would result in lack of space for a play area. It was suggested that the application be refused on the grounds of visual intrusion.

REFUSED for the reason below:

The stationing of 16 caravans within this currently undeveloped part of the Gatebeck Caravan Park would be harmful to the visual quality of this area of countryside, which is within a Landscape of County Importance as designated by the Cumbria and Lake District Joint Structure Plan. The application site is clearly visible from the north, and caravans stationed here would be conspicuous and detrimental to the character and appearance of the locality. As a consequence, the proposal is inconsistent with the aims and objectives of Policy T6 of the South Lakeland Local Plan and Policy 123 of the Structure Plan 1991 – 2006 (carried forward by Policy E35 of the Cumbria and Lake District Joint Structure Plan 2001 – 2016 : Proposed changes June 2004).

SL/2004/1401 BARBON. Plot 1 Barnrigg, Barbon. Dwelling (Mr Mrs M Hibbs)

The Assistant Director (Development) reported that the application had been agreed in January 2005, subject to four changes. The applicants had accepted three of the four changes, but were reluctant to use obscure glazing in the kitchen window in the north elevation. This had been suggested to avoid overlooking of the property to the north. The applicants had agreed to use obscure glazing in the bedroom window in the north facing gable.

Having established that the window in question was not the only one in the kitchen, Members agreed that the application should be granted only subject to the inclusion of obscure glazing in that particular window opening.

GRANTED, subject to the following conditions:- 256 10.3.2005 Planning

Condition (1) The development hereby permitted shall be commenced before the expiration of FIVE YEARS from the date of the decision notice.

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

Condition (2) This planning permission related to drawing No.L2423/02F deposited with the Local Planning Authority on 8 February 2005.

Reason (2) For the avoidance of doubt.

Condition (3) The window openings identified by the Notation F on drawing No.L2423/02F, together with the bedroom window in the north facing gable, shall be permanently glazed with obscured or frosted glass.

Reason (3) To avoid the property to the north from being overlooked.

Condition (4) The kitchen/dining room window on the first floor north- facing elevation above the garage shall be permanently glazed with obscured or frosted glass.

Reason (4) To avoid the property to the north from being overlooked.

Condition (5) Notwithstanding the provisions of the Town and Country Planning (General Permitted Development) Order 1995, as amended, express planning permission shall be obtained for any development falling within Class A of Part 1 of the Second Schedule of that Order, including the installation of any new window openings.

Reason (5) To ensure that any alterations or additions do not exert an unneighbourly influence on nearby residential properties.

Condition (6) The roof of the dwelling shall be covered with natural slate. A sample of the slate to be used shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority before any building works commence.

Reason (6) To ensure the use of an appropriate roofing material in accordance with Policy S2 of the South Lakeland Local Plan.

Condition (7) As illustrated on drawing No.L2423/02F, the north elevation above the garage and the lobby, together with the west- facing gable elevation, shall be faced with natural stone. A sample of the stonework shall be erected on the site for the further written approval of the Local Planning Authority before any building works commence.

Reason (7) To ensure the use of appropriate external walling material in accordance with the provisions of Policy S2 of the South Lakeland Local Plan. 257 10.3.2005 Planning

Condition (8) A sample panel of the proposed external render shall be erected on the site for the further written approval of the Local Planning Authority before any building works commence.

Reason (8) To ensure the use of appropriate external walling material in accordance with the provisions of Policy S2 of the South Lakeland Local Plan.

Condition (9) The finished floor levels of the dwelling house hereby permitted shall be constructed in accordance with the details illustrated on drawing No.L2423/02F.

Reason (9) For the avoidance of doubt.

REASON FOR GRANTING PLANNING PERMISSION:-

The dwelling house as proposed is of a design which is consistent with the aims and objectives of Policies S2 and H5 of the South Lakeland Local Plan.

SL/2005/0035 BARBON. Ashmeadow Cottage, Moorthwaite Lane, Barbon, Carnforth. Two-storey extension. (Mr & Mrs N Udale)

The Assistant Director (Development) reported that the problem with the proposed extension was the arrangement of the windows. The applicants’ architect was adamant (quoting PPG 1) that the local planning authority should not make up its own rules, and that his clients wanted the design submitted. The property is in a prominent position on the southern edge of the village.

Members considered that the proposed design did not enhance or improve the cottage, or the entrance to the village, and in fact would detract from the attractiveness of the locality. It was felt that the design should reflect Policy S.2 – “to respect the character of the existing building”, and that the application should be refused.

REFUSED, for the reason below

The proportions of the window and door openings in the north west and north east elevations of the proposed extension lack affinity with the window openings in the existing dwellinghouse. If built in the manner proposed, the extension would contrast unfavourably with the character of Ashmeadow and would detract from the appearance of this part of the village. As a consequence, the proposal is not compatible with the aims and objections of Policy S2 of the South Lakeland Local Plan.

258 10.3.2005 Planning

SL/2005/0054 BEETHAM. Land adjacent to Green Lane, Storth, Milnthorpe. Dwelling. (S Sykes & P Gott)

The Assistant Director (Development) reported that one objection had been received, expressing concern that the new house would exacerbate an existing parking/access problem. The Assistant Director (Development) advised that the original planning permission for a dwelling on this site had been granted in 2002; therefore the principle of a dwelling on the site had already been agreed.

GRANTED, subject to the following conditions:

Condition (1) The development hereby permitted shall be commenced before the expiration of FIVE YEARS from the date of the decision notice.

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

Condition (2) This permission related to the amended plans drawing numbers 4.01A and 4.02A deposited with the Local Planning Authority on 2 February 2005.

Reason (2) For the avoidance of doubt.

Condition (3) The access and parking areas shall be constructed prior to the occupation of the dwelling.

Reason (3) To ensure a satisfactory level of parking is available for the dwelling and to prevent a highway nuisance being caused.

Condition (4) The roof shall be covered with flat, slate-type tiles of a colour and texture a sample of which is to be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority.

Reason (4) To ensure that the character of the area is not adversely affected by reason of the appearance of the type and colour of the materials to be used in the proposed development.

Condition (5) With the exception of the section of wall to be reduced as shown on the approved plans, no other alterations shall be carried out to the wall without the prior written approval of the Local Planning Authority.

Reason (5) To protect the character of the area.

Condition (6) Prior to the commencement of works on site, a detailed plan indicating current ground levels, proposed ground levels, and proposed floor levels shall be submitted to, and approved in writing by, the Local Planning Authority. A fixed datum point shall be provided on all plans.

Reason (6) To ensure the building is not unduly prominent in the landscape. 259 10.3.2005 Planning

REASON FOR GRANTING PLANNING PERMISSION:

The proposed dwelling is of an appropriate scale, design and materials and will not cause a loss of privacy or amenity to nearby properties or to the established character of the area, and therefore is considered appropriate in terms of Policy S2 of the South Lakeland Local Plan.

Note – Councillor Paul Braithwaite declared a personal interest in the following item by virtue of the fact that he was Chairman of the Kendal Town Council Planning Committee.

Councillor Simon Butterfield declared a personal interest in the following item by virtue of the fact that he was a member of the Kendal Town Council Planning Committee.

SL/2005/0056 KENDAL. Jacksons Garage, Castle Street, Kendal. Conversion of first floor storage area into two apartments. (HRJ Shopfitters)

The Assistant Director (Development) reported the comments of the Environmental Protection Officer, who had recommended refusal of the application on the grounds of fumes and noise from the garage.

Members agreed that there would be a conflict of use between the garage and residential units, and accepted the EPO recommendation.

REFUSED for the reason below:-

The introduction of residential use on the upper floor of this building would be incompatible with the existing ground floor garage premises. The activities within the garage will generate noise and amenity nuisance to the residents of the apartments, and is contrary to the advice given in Planning Policy Guidance 23 relating to Planning & Pollution Control.

P/174 STRAIGHTFORWARD PLANNING APPLICATIONS

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

Note – Councillor Tony Rothwell declared a personal and prejudicial interest in the following item by virtue of the fact that he had worked with the applicant recently, and left the Council Chamber during the debate and voting thereon.

16.SL/2004/1581 BEETHAM. Applemarden, Storth Road, Storth, Milnthorpe. Alterations and extensions. (Mr & Mrs S Nelson)

It was reported that an objection to the proposed development had been withdrawn.

GRANTED, subject to the following conditions: 260 10.3.2005 Planning

Condition (1) The development hereby permitted shall be commenced before the expiration of FIVE YEARS from the date of the decision notice.

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

Condition (2) Notwithstanding the provisions of the Town & Country Planning (General permitted Development) Order 1995, no new window openings shall be created in the north, or windows installed without the prior written agreement of the Local Planning Authority.

Reason (2) To protect the privacy of the adjacent landowners.

REASON FOR GRANTING PLANNING PERMISSION:

The proposed extension would not be overbearing or lead to material loss of light to the neighbouring property. The design and materials are appropriate. The proposal is therefore considered to be in accordance with the aims and objectives of Policy S2 of the South Lakeland Local Plan 2006.

SL/2005/0024 ULVERSTON. Land adjacent to York House, Churchfields Avenue, Ulverston. Dwelling and detached garage. (Mr & Mrs A Tinning)

The Assistant Director (Development) reported that outline planning permission had been granted in 2003. The design proposed was appropriate in this location, and the finished building would be of a similar size and height to nearby York House. As two objections had been received, the applicants had been approached in respect of relocating the dwelling and garage to increase separation distance. However, the applicant had pointed out that this would impact on the garden, and access to the turning area.

GRANTED, subject to the following conditions:-

Condition (1) The external walls shall be completed in the following manner:-

“with a finish of roughcast, being a finish in which the final coat contains a preparation of fairly coarse aggregate thrown on as a wet mix and left rough”.

The precise details of the finish of the external walls shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority before the necessary work is commenced; the work shall be completed in a manner which will comply in all respects with the details approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. 261 10.3.2005 Planning

Reason (1) To ensure that the character of the area is not adversely affected by reason of the appearance of the type and colour of the materials to be used in the proposed development in accordance with Policy S2 of the South Lakeland Local Plan.

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

Reason (2) To ensure that the character of the area is not adversely affected by reason of the appearance of the type and colour of the materials to be used in the proposed development in accordance with Policy S2 of the South Lakeland Local Plan.

Condition (3) Notwithstanding the provisions of the Town and Country Planning (General Permitted Development) Order 1995 as amended, express planning permission shall be obtained for any development falling within Classes A, B, C, D and E of Part 1, Schedule 2 of that Order.

Reason (3) To ensure that any further alterations to the property permitted by the Town and Country Planning (General Permitted Development) Order 1995 as amended will not detract from the appearance of the development in accordance with Policy S2 of the South Lakeland Local Plan, or the amenity of adjacent residents in accordance with Paragraph 64 of Planning Policy Guidance 1.

Condition (4) Prior to the commencement of the development hereby permitted, details of the access, parking and turning arrangements shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. These works shall be implemented prior to the occupation of the dwelling hereby permitted, and shall be maintained at all times thereafter.

Reason (4) To ensure that there is adequate parking and turning facilities to serve the proposed development and that a satisfactory access is provided in the interests of highway safety in accordance with Policy H4 of the South Lakeland Local Plan.

REASON FOR APPROVAL OF RESERVED MATTERS:

The proposed development is considered to be acceptable in terms of siting, scale and design and accords with Policy H4 of the South Lakeland Local Plan 2005.

262 10.3.2005 Planning

SL/2005/0067 STRICKLAND KETEL. Burneside Cricket Club, Ellergreen Park, Hollins Lane, Burneside, Kendal. Storage container (Retrospective) (Burneside Cricket Club)

GRANTED, subject to the following conditions:

Condition (1) Within two months of the date of the permission, the container shall be painted dark brown and thereafter maintained as such.

Reason (1) To ensure that the character of the area is not adversely affected by reason of the appearance of the type and colour of the materials to be used in the proposed development in accordance with Policy S2 of the South Lakeland Local Plan.

Condition (2) This permission shall be limited to a period of time five years from the date of the permission. At or before the expiration of the period specified in this condition, the land shall be restored to its former condition and use (unless the further written permission of the Local Planning Authority has been obtained before that date).

Reason (2) The building is to be constructed of materials of a temporary nature which are likely to deteriorate and become unsightly, and thereby cause the building to become injurious to the appearance of the area, in accordance with Policy S24 of the South Lakeland Local Plan.

REASON FOR GRANTING PLANNING PERMISSION:

The container does not harm the character or appearance of the site or surroundings and accords with Policy 24 of the South Lakeland Local Plan.

SL/2005/0113 BURTON-IN-KENDAL. Former Burton Garage, Burton, Carnforth. Variation of Condition No 3 on Planning Consent SL/2004/0459 to permit the installation of plastic window frames and door frames. (N Jackson Contractors Ltd)

GRANTED, subject to the following conditions:

Condition (1) The development hereby permitted shall be commenced before the expiration of FIVE YEARS from the date of the decision notice.

Reason (1) To comply with the requirements of Section 91 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990. 263 10.3.2005 Planning

Condition (2) This permission permits the installation of white upvc window frames and door frames only. It does not confer consent to any other changes to the plans and drawings which received planning permission under reference SL/2004/0459.

Reason (2) For the avoidance of doubt.

REASON FOR GRANTING PLANNING PERMISSION:

The installation of white upvc window and door frames would not prejudice the external appearance of the development to an extent which would justify the refusal of planning permission.

ENFORCEMENT P/175 Activity from 24 January to 18 February 2005

The Assistant Director (Development) presented a report, which informed Members about enforcement activity between 24 January and 18 February 2005. During that period 15 cases from the outstanding caseload had been resolved; 26 complaints had been recorded, of which five had been resolved; and two planning applications and an amended plan had been received in connection with these new cases.

The Committee was given an update on the following enforcement cases:-

04/089 2 Chester Terrace, Burton-in-Kendal

Members were asked to authorise enforcement action to secure the removal of upvc patio doors installed at this property. The present owner had been unaware of the need for Listed Building consent, but had accepted that the patio doors and an upstairs window installed by the previous owner would have to be removed. In view of the costs involved to the owner, the Assistant Director (Development) recommended a minimum time period of two years for compliance.

04/104 18 Silverdale Drive, Kendal

The Committee was advised that a retrospective planning application had been submitted in respect of the 2.4 metre high fence at this property. The Assistant Director (Development) advised Members that he intended to deal with this application under delegated powers.

04/159 Jessops, 7 Finkle Street, Kendal

It was reported that work had not yet been undertaken to relocate two air- conditioning units at the rear of this Grade II Listed Building. Consent had been granted on 7 October 2004, with a condition stipulating that the units should be relocated within three months of the decision date. Members were requested to sanction enforcement action.

04/185 Wellingrove, Holme Lane, Allithwaite

The Committee was advised that the large sign displayed at this property had been removed. The applicant had appealed against the decision, and in the meantime a smaller luminous sign was being displayed which did not require consent. 264 10.3.2005 Planning

RESOLVED – That (1) the report be received; (2) in the case of 2 Chester Terrace, Burton-in-Kendal (04/089) (a) the Solicitor to the Council be authorised to take enforcement action to secure the removal of upvc doors and the first floor upvc window, and appropriate restoration of the property; and (b) a minimum period of two years be specified for compliance; (3) in the case of 18 Silverdale Drive, Kendal (01/104), the retrospective planning application be determined by the Assistant Director (Development) under delegated powers; and (4) in the case of Jessops, 7 Finkle Street, Kendal (04/159), the Solicitor to the Council be authorised to take enforcement action to secure the relocation of two air-conditioning units at the rear of the building in accordance with the Listed Building Consent granted on 7 October 2004.

P/176 Ella’s Orchard, Green Lane, Flookburgh The Assistant Director (Development) presented a report, which allowed Members to consider whether they wished to encourage the submission of a planning application to regularise the position of bungalows on the site. Planning permission had been granted in 2003 for residential development of 16 dwellings on the site. Four bungalows were proposed to the north of the site, adjoining the boundary with Fairfield. Particular care had been taken with regard to the height and distance between the proposed bungalows and the existing properties on Fairfield. The approved scheme sited one pair of bungalows 5.25 metres from the boundary, and another pair 6.4 metres away. It was reported that one pair of bungalows (Plot Nos.11 and 12) had been built 5 metres from the boundary, 25 cm nearer than approved. Given the relationship with the property to the rear, which is off-set, and the 1.6 metre high boundary fence, it was considered that the discrepancy did not adversely affect the amenities of neighbouring residents. On this basis it was recommended that this be accepted as an amendment to the original plan. The other pair of bungalows (Plot Nos.9 and 10) have been built 5.75 metres from the boundary, 65 cm nearer than approved. Although it was not felt that the position created a significantly greater impact on neighbour’s amenity, the 1.6 metre high fence may not provide adequate privacy. Subject to negotiation with the adjacent occupiers, the fence could be increased in height to improve privacy. In this instance Members were recommended to encourage a revised application to regularise the position of these bungalows. Having considered the report, and photographs available at the meeting, it was RESOLVED – That (1) the report be received; and (2) to regularise the position of the bungalows as constructed (a) the position of bungalows on Plots 11 and 12 be accepted as an amendment to the original planning application; and (b) the developers be asked to submit a new planning application for the bungalows on Plots 9 and 10 of the site, to be determined by the Assistant Director (Development) under delegated powers. 265 10.3.2005 Planning

P/177 RESIDENTIAL MONITORING

The Assistant Director (Development) presented residential monitoring data for the period 1 April 2004 to 31 January 2005. It was confirmed that the new allocation for 2005/06 would start on 1 April 2005, and that any unused allocation from 2004/05 could be transferred to 2005/06 - but only within the designated area of the District.

RESOLVED – That the monitoring report be noted.

P/178 RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT: LOWGATE HOUSE, LEVENS

The Assistant Director (Development) presented a request to vary the requirements of a condition relating to the completion of an area of public open space before homes were occupied, as part of the residential development of this site. The developers had made the request based on the impracticality of creating an open space while construction work was still being carried out on the site and access was required by heavy vehicles for the delivery of materials, etc.

Members agreed that the existing condition was impractical on health and safety grounds, and that the request was reasonable and sensible.

RESOLVED – That the current condition be varied as requested, and that the developers be so advised.

P/179 ANALYSIS OF PERFORMANCE IMPROVEMENT/DETERIORATION BETWEEN 2002/03 AND 2003/04 AND SUMMARY OF PERFORMANCE TO DATE FOR 2004/05

The Policy and Performance Manager reminded the Committee of the background to the report. Best Value and legislation laid down in 1998 had set out various requirements on local authorities and, in addition, the Government had produced Best Value Indicators. Following on from that, the Council had approved its Corporate Plan which, in turn, had set out a number of actions and performance measures. This had resulted in National statutory indicators and local indicators being run in parallel.

A report was presented which compared performance outturns and targets for 2003/04 against the previous financial year. It was reported that the 2004/05 Best Value Performance Plan (BVPP) had received a clean bill of health. This suggested that the Council had made vast improvements in monitoring and recording information, and setting up robust systems to this effect. Unfortunately, this did not mean that performance in individual areas had improved. The overall figures demonstrated that significant improvements were required in performance in order to enhance the ratio of indicators which met/exceeded targets, improved on the previous year’s performance, and increased the number reaching the Top Quartile in comparison with peer authorities. The Policy and Performance Manager pointed out the relationship and differences between the figures for the Council overall, and those for the Planning function. She said that a key issue was whether the Council was setting the right targets, and improving performance in the right areas. The Council was engaged in a learning process; in the future it was hoped to introduce “exception reporting” which would mean that Members were not getting too many statistics all at one time. 266 10.3.2005 Planning

The Committee then discussed individual indicators, and raised concerns over the indicators 109a, 179 and 200b. It was suggested that particular concerns on Indicator 179 (standard searches in 10 working days) be brought to the attention of Cabinet.

Members then considered and endorsed the recommendations of Cabinet (9 February 2005).

RESOLVED – That

(1) the report be noted; and

(2) the concerns of the Committee in relation to BVPI 179 be drawn to the attention of Cabinet.

P/180 APPLICATIONS CONSIDERED PREVIOUSLY BY THE PLANNING COMMITTEE AND DETERMINED BY THE ASSISTANT DIRECTOR (DEVELOPMENT)

RESOLVED – That the report be received.

P/181 APPLICATIONS DETERMINED BY CUMBRIA COUNTY COUNCIL

RESOLVED – That the report be received.

P/182 APPEALS FOR THE PERIOD 29 JANUARY TO 27 FEBRUARY 2005

RESOLVED – That the report be received.

The meeting ended at 4.29 p.m.