Allerdale Borough Council
2/2013/0142
Reference No: 2/2013/0142 Received: 11 February 2013 Proposed Proposed erection of 114 dwellings comprising 10 no. 2 bedroom, Development: 41 no. 3 bedroom and 63 no. 4 bedroom houses; roads, garages and associated landscaping.
Location: Land Adjacent To Newlands Park Dearham Maryport
Applicant: Miss Elinor George Persimmon Homes Lancashire
Drawing Numbers: DR1 - Affordable Housing Statement DR2 - Sustainability Appraisal DR3 - Education Contribution Statement DR4 - S106 Agreement Heads Of Terms DR5 - Tree Asssessment DR6 - Geophysical Survey DR7 - Ecological Survey and Assessment DR8 - Design and Access Statement DR9 - Supplementary Planning Document DR10 - Flood Risk & Drainage Assessment DR11 - Flood Risk & Drainage Assessment DR12 - Flood Risk & Drainage Assessment Appendix B DR13 - Flood Risk & Drainage Assessment Appendix C DR14 - Flood Risk & Drainage Assessment Appendix D DR15 - Flood Risk & Drainage Assessment Appendix E DR16 - Flood Risk & Drainage Assessment Appendix F DR17 - Flood Risk & Drainage Assessment Appendix G DR18 - Flood Risk & Drainage Assessment Appendix H DR19 - Flood Risk & Drainage Assessment Appendix I DR20 - Flood Risk & Drainage Assessment Appendix J DR21 - Flood Risk & Drainage Assessment Appendix K DR22 - Flood Risk & Drainage Assessment Appendix L DR23 - Flood Risk & Drainage Assessment Appendix M DR24 - Transport Assessment DR25 - Interim Residential Travel Plan RUF - Rufford House Type Elevations and Floor Plans PEN - Penrose House Type Elevations and Floor Plans ROS - Roseberry House Type Elevations and Floor Plans PSW - Penshaw House Type Elevations and Floor Plans CLA - Clandon House Type Elevations and Floor Plans HAT - Hatfield House Type Elevations and Floor Plans WIN - Winster House Type Elevations and Floor Plans CRA - Cranthorne House Type Elevations and Floor Plans HAN - Hanbury House Type Elevations and Floor Plans CHR - Cherryburn House Type Elevations and Floor Plans CLA - Clandon House Type Elevations and Floor Plans received 27 th February 2013 and; MRD/PL1 - Planning Layout (amended drawing) received 15 th March 2013.
Constraints: Settlement Limit HS5 British Coal Area
Policies: North West Regional Strategy Policy DP2 - Promote sustainable communities Policy DP4 - Make the best use of existing resources and infrastructure Policy DP5 - Manage travel demand, reduce the need to travel and increase accessibility Policy DP7 - Promote environmental quality Policy L2 - Understanding housing markets Policy L4 - Regional housing provision Policy L5 - Affordable housing Policy RDF2 - Rural areas and key service centres Policy RT2 - Managing travel demand
Cumbria & Lake District Structure Plan Policy E37 - Landscape character Policy E38 - Historic environment Policy H19 - Affordable housing outside the Lake District National Park Policy ST4 - Major development proposals
Allerdale Local Plan, Adopted 1999 (Saved) Policy EN1 - Minimising Travel, Policy EN14 - Safeguarding Water Environment Policy EN20 - Protection of AONB, Policy EN25 - Protecting the open countryside, Policy EN3 - Landscaping, Policy HS14 - Affordable/local needs housing on large sites, Policy TR6 - Car parking guidlines, Policy TR9 - Access for disabled people,
National Planning Policy Framework – March 2012.
• Construct a robust and competitive economy • Address the challenge of climate change, • Addfress the issues of flooding and coastal change • Conserving and enhancing the natural environment • Conserving and enhancing the historic environment • Promoting sustainable transport • Providing for a wide choice of high quality homes • Prerequisite of good design • Promoting healthy communities
Relevant Planning SCR/2011/0022 History: DMM/2011/0010
Representations: Natu ral England – No Objection
This application may provide opportunities to incorporate features into the design which are beneficial to wildlife, such as the incorporation of roosting opportunities for bats or the installation of bird nest boxes. The authority should consider securing measures to enhance the biodiversity of the site from the applicant, if it is minded to grant permission for this application.
This proposal does not appear to be either located within, or within the setting of, any nationally designated landscape. All proposals however should complement and where possible enhance local distinctiveness and be guided by your Authority’s landscape character assessment where available, and the policies protecting landscape character in your local plan or development framework.
Cumbria County Council Archaeologist – No objection
The applicant commissioned an archaeological geophysical survey of the site in advance of submission of the application. The results show that it is unlikely the proposed development will have an impact on significant archaeological remains. I therefore confirm that I have no objections and do not wish to make any recommendations or comments.
English Heritage – No Objection
Allerdale Borough Council Housing Needs Team (19/04/2013)
The latest housing needs survey in Dearham took place in January 2013. The housing need figures for Dearham and its adjoining parishes of Bridekirk, Broughton Moor, Crosscanonby, Gilcrux and Dearham are as follows :
2 bed houses 36% 1 bed properties 34% 3 bed houses 19% 2 bed bungalows 9% 4 bed houses 2% 2 bed houses/flats 1% 6 bed houses 1%
A substantial part of the need is for one bedroom properties. However, due to issues with viability and a reluctance of housing association to commit to purchasing large amounts of this property type, Housing Services would be willing to accept less than 34% of the affordable provision being of this property type. The tenure split should be 2% LCHO and 98% social rent.
Highways Agency - No objection
County Highways - No objection subject to: • Legal agreement to provide for Traffic Regulation Orders to avoid inappropriate parking on Main Street and a financial contribution to the administration of a Travel Plan bond and works to improvement to The Went, provision of school footpath and footway/highway improvements; • Conditions in respect of improvements to The Went, provision of a school footpath, carriageway and footway improvements, visibility splays, provision of an estate road, the production of a Construction Method Statement, surface water drainage and, the provision of a Travel Plan
County Education Provision Requirements
This development of 114 houses, using a dwelling led model, is projected to yield 28 primary aged pupils and 20 secondary aged pupils. The catchment primary school is Dearham Primary School and the catchment secondary school is Netherhall School in Maryport.
Dearham Primary School is projected to be full for the foreseeable future, and therefore a contribution is sought towards the provision of primary school places. Using the Department for Education (DfE) multiplier of £12,200 per primary aged pupil, Cumbria County Council would therefore seek £341,600 (28 x £12,200). The money would be used either in providing additional accommodation in Dearham or providing transport to the next nearest school with space. It is projected that there is sufficient space within the secondary school so therefore Cumbria County Council would not seek a contribution towards the provision of secondary school places.
The applicant has provided an ‘Education Contribution Statement’ as part of their application submission. Within this Statement, the applicant acknowledges the fact that there will be a yield of 28 primary aged pupils and 20 secondary aged pupils from the proposed development.
The applicant recognises the need to make an Education contribution towards the provision for primary school places and accepts the guidance and principles included within Cumbria County Council’s draft Planning Obligation Policy document. The sum of £341,600 is included within the s106 Agreement Heads of Terms provided by the applicant as part of the application submission. The County Council welcomes the developer’s provision of this necessary contribution.
Environment Agency
Flood Risk With reference to the latest version of the Flood Map, the site is located in Flood Zone 1, which is defined as low probability of flooding and comprising of land having less than a 1 in 1000 annual probability of river flooding (<0.1%). We are providing flood risk comments on the planning application because the proposal is for operational development of 1 hectare or over. The Flood Risk Assessment provided is comprehensive and covers the main points in line with the National Planning Policy Framework Technical Guidance. However the EA make the following comments on the contents of the document:
The Flood Zone 1 definition at this location is a default definition and indicates that the catchment size is below that currently modelled as part of Flood Map. With reference to the Flood Risk & Drainage Assessment (FR & DA), evidence from other source indicates that the site is at some degree risk from other sources of flooding (e.g. groundwater and overland runoff), The FR & DA identifies that the existing green field site receives runoff from the surrounding catchment either overland or via the variety of existing of existing sewers that discharge into the network of watercourses on the site. It will be essential to ensure that no increase in flooding occurs downstream of the site as a result of the development. We would add that it will also be essential to ensure that any proposed development does not increase any flooding upstream and any land or property susceptible to any existing flooding on the peripheries of the site. Any proposed development of the site will have to ensure protection of the existing sewers and network of watercourses to ensure they continue to allow the flows onto or under the land in its natural quantity and quality without obstruction. The FR & DA involves proposals to discharge to watercourse D (and E). The function of this watercourse is critical to the drainage of the site and also to other areas in Dearham.
Environment Agency position The proposed development will only meet the requirements of the National Planning Policy Framework if the following measure(s) as detailed in the Flood Risk & Drainage Assessment submitted with this application are implemented and secured by way of planning conditions pertaining to surface water run-off; attenuation; protection and maintenance of existing water courses; finished floor levels and; access for essential maintenance..
As the surface water drainage proposals are currently only at preliminary stage and because the disposal of surface water is critical to flood risk management of the development site and wider catchment it may be propose a specific separate surface water drainage condition.
Advice to LPA/applicant The Flood Risk and Drainage Assessment identifies some scope for the inclusion of SUDS. As the current drainage proposals are only preliminary at this stage, we would recommend further investigation of the scope to include SUDS in the development. Surface water run-off should be controlled as near to its source as possible through a sustainable drainage approach to surface water management (SUDS). SUDS are an approach to managing surface water run-off which seeks to mimic natural drainage systems and retain water on or near the site as opposed to traditional drainage approaches which involve piping water off site as quickly as possible.
Foul Drainage The applicant has indicated that sewage will be disposed of to foul sewer, we are not aware of any capacity issues at Dearham. The site of the proposed development lies within the River Ellen (Lower) Water Framework Directive (WFD) catchment. The ecological potential is moderate and needs improving. The physio- chemical status is also moderate and is failing for phosphate and specific (Annex 8) pollutant Cypermethrin (Insecticide).Phosphate is a naturally occurring substance which has a low solubility in water. Phosphate is essential to all living organisms because it is used for energy transfer and is part of the genetic makeup of DNA. However none naturally occurring phosphorus is found in fertilisers, sewage effluent, sewage sludge and household washing powder. It can affect the water environment as the excess nutrients in a water body can lead to eutrophication. Eutrophication leads to rapid plant growth (often algal blooms) which reduces the amount of oxygen and light available to other aquatic species leading to stress.
The presence of Cypermethrin is a concern as this is a harmful pollutant to the water environment. The watercourse is also heavily modified; ways to open up the watercourse should be sought through the development. In order to meet the requirements of WFD it is essential that new development does not have a detrimental effect on the water bodies and that it improves and enhances them. This is especially important when a water body is currently failing. It is important to understand why a water body is failing so that any new development can focus on the particular issue to help solve the issue and avoid adding to the problem.
The Water Framework Directive (WFD) is a piece of EU legislation that requires member states to make plans to protect and improve the water environment. WFD is designed to improve and integrate the way water bodies are managed throughout Europe. Member States must aim to reach good chemical and ecological status in inland and coastal waters by 2015.
The Directive sets a target of aiming to achieve at least 'good status' in all waters. WFD reports on over 30 measures, grouped into ecological status and chemical status.
If any controlled waste is to be used on the site the operator will need to obtain the appropriate authorisation from us. We are unable at this time to specify what exactly would be required due to the limited amount of information provided. A Site Waste Management Plan is also required under the Statutory Regulation Framework.
United Utilities
United Utilities has no objection to the proposed development subject to the inclusion of conditions pertaining to surface and foul water drainage and easement to the public sewer crossing the site.
Drainage Prior to commencement of development, details for how foul and surface water shall be drained on a separate system shall be submitted to the local planning authority and approved in writing. The development shall be completed in accordance with the approved details .
Water A separate metered supply to each unit will be required at the applicant's expense and all internal pipework must comply with current water supply (water fittings) regulations 1999.
Environmental Health - No objection subject to conditions re: the submission of a Construction Management Plan.
Housing Officer - Confirms, in respect of affordable dwellings, that the properties most needed according to the Dearham housing needs survey are 3 bedroom houses.
Dearham Parish Council
With regard to planning application 2/2013/0142 Dearham Parish Council would recommend that the application is REFUSED:
(1) There is a risk of flooding - although the proposed development land has been designated as flood risk zone 1 with risk of flooding at 1 in 1000 years, some properties that are sited towards the rear of the development (on Newlands Park and Lonsdale View) have been flooded 6 times in the past 5 years. This development would only serve to exacerbate this problem for these residents. There are also open culverts around the perimeter of this development that stand in water after heavy rain which is not uncommon in this area. Note the comment in the email contained in Appendix D of the Flood Risk and Drainage Assessment contained within the application “The receiving Wastewater Treatment Work, Dearham is currently close to capacity. There is hydraulic incapacity in some parts of the sewerage network causing hydraulic flooding to some properties in the area; any additional flow connected to the network could exacerbate flooding events.”
(2) Dearham is at serious risk of over-development - without approval of Allerdale’s Core Strategy the parish council feels that the village of Dearham is having to bear a disproportionate share of the shortfall in supply for the designated 11 local service centres in the borough of Allerdale. With planning approval already given for 78 houses to be built by Story Homes and in recent years more than 50 houses that have been built on smaller sites and infill development village services have neither expanded or been modernised. The site itself is smaller than Newlands Park yet contains more houses, this would only serve to exacerbate the over-development of the village and flooding concerns. There is no provision for recreational facilities within the site other than to provide a path towards the Queen Elizabeth II Playing Field, Pottery Park (which is surrounded by a wire fence and open drainage ditches) nor is there a Heads of Terms S106 Agreement for a financial contribution towards a social amenity (for example a new village hall). The existing “village hall” is a former miners’ reading room which is far too small for all but the most basic of practical uses.
(3) The local village school is operating at capacity - even before the development of the Story Homes site. The parish council understand that £341k has been requested from the developer to contribute towards primary education provision but do not feel that this is sufficient to increase the capacity of the school to that which would be required, at a bare minimum two new classrooms, a new hall and parking provision. The parish council finds it totally unacceptable that if capacity at the school cannot be increased children aged between four and eleven would have to be bussed to other local schools where places are available but the standard of education provided did not match that of Dearham’s – described as outstanding in the recent Ofsted report. This would disadvantage some people already living in the village and fracture community life as some children would attend a variety of different schools.
(4) The ecological survey that was carried out appears flawed to those who know the area - the parish council would want to ensure that the character of the site is protected and an ecological survey is undertaken that not only looks at the site itself but also The Went, in particular the redundant wood yard where species such as red squirrels, bats and a variety of birds are regularly seen.
(5) Vehicular access to the site is poor - the parish council has reservations regarding the access of the proposed development via The Went which is essentially a school lane. Even if part of The Went was upgraded to the boundary of the development, it would inevitably increase traffic up and down this road which is single track with no passing places down to the school. It is recommended that a further traffic survey is carried out at peak times, for example school pick up and drop off times.
(6) There is a lack of affordable housing in Dearham - despite the Story Homes development fulfilling the affordable housing quota for the village there is evidence to suggest that a market exists for some more affordable homes to enable young first time buyers to stay in the village.
(7) Is such a development needed - the parish council does not believe that Persimmon Homes have demonstrated that there is a need for such a development in Dearham. While Allerdale may be experiencing the migration of its young working age population this is probably more to do with a lack of employment opportunities in the borough than housing availability.
Cumbria County Council
No objection is raised to the strategic planning principle of the development, provided that the Local Planning Authority: i. assess the need to meet the District 5 year supply shortfall, and be satisfied that the development would not undermine the delivery of the forthcoming Core Strategy and that the development would not lead to disproportionate development within Allerdale (see paragraphs 3.14-3.18 of this report); ii. is satisfied that the development reflects and protects the character of the site and its surroundings; that the density and siting of any houses is appropriate to the location; and measures to mitigate any adverse impacts are put in place; iii. ensures that full consideration of ecological issues are carried out prior to determination (see paragraphs 3.36-3.38 of this report); iv. considers the sewage, drainage, flooding and surface water implications of the proposed development and ensure that any issues are suitably addressed; v. ensure that measures are taken by the applicant to enable this housing development to be ‘broadband ready’ and; vi. Ensures that the applicant takes the opportunity to strengthen the northern boundary of the site and seeks to retain the existing hedgerows and trees on the west boundary.
Neighbours.
In excess of 300 letters have been received from local residents objecting to the proposal. Grounds for objection can be summarised as follows:
• The development would fail to encourage the effective use of land by the absence of prior consideration of previously developed land within the locality contrary to the guidance contained within paragraph 17 of the NPPF which encourages the reuse of previously developed land. • No weight is given to the policies of the emerging Core Strategy raising issues of prematurity. • The development would represent substantial and unsustainable growth of residential accommodation to the village; • No need for additional development of this size within the village has been established. • The school is already oversubscribed would not be easily accessible from the site • The drainage system is full to capacity and the proposal would place unacceptable additional pressure on the capacity to cope with the additional dwellings proposed; • There is already localised flooding within the village especially at Newlands Drive and Lonsdale View. The application site is itself prone to flooding. • Vehicular access from The Went is not considered to be viable and struggles to cope with school traffic at peak times
Dearham School
The application takes no account of the current school position. School is currently full in the following classes- Nursery, Year 1, Year 5 and Year 6. The remaining classes have extremely limited space. We have a waiting list for those classes and our reception place applications for entry 2013 have exceeded our capacity.
In the past three years the school has had a 36% increase in pupil numbers. This looks set to continue.
The school Board of Directors have voted to increase the published admission number (PAN) to 35 from September 2013 but this still does not guarantee all pupils living in the village entry into main school in September 2014.
We query the proposed increase of pupils generated by the Persimmon homes development. Most recently a local housing estate with a development of 12 houses has yielded 12 pupils.
As a Board of directors we are vehemently opposed to pupils from the village being taken by bus elsewhere. Our main concern and priority is that village children should be educated in the village school then they are part of the local community which is something we pride ourselves in. We question as to whether any parents would indeed allow their children to be taken by bus to another school at such a young age bearing in mind nursery children start from the age of 3. We would be by no fault of the child excluding them from social inclusion within the village and also causing issues within the village its self when one child may be admitted and their neighbours child not.
The application takes no account of highway and traffic issues
In terms of health and safety we also wish to point out that the Went does not provide appropriate vehicular access to the school. We would ask for a site visit at peak flow times e.g. 8.45 am and 3.00 p.m. to confirm this. The Went is narrow, and unfit for purpose in today's society.
To this end, the school has referred to the local police seven times in the past year regarding vehicular accidents, pedestrian accidents and general parking issues.
Given the above 'known facts' we feel that the proposed education contribution in no way meets the schools requirements to provide additional places.
Given the above pupil numbers both current and projected the school would need an additional four classrooms purely for the persimmon home development. Having taken professional advice on the cost of providing these the school would seek an educational contribution of £566.000.
In conclusion, the schools number one priority is to provide the best possible education, which includes social inclusion within village life for the primary aged children of Dearham. The application takes no account of how this can and will be maintained.
Consultation Response from County Councillor for Dearham and Broughton.
As a consultee, I would wish to raise the following observations and concerns with regard to this proposed development. I would be grateful if you would take them into consideration and ensure they are brought to the attention of the Members of the Development Control Committee and, for which, many thanks.
EDUCATION ISSUES:
Dearham Academy is a first-class, all-through (3yrs to 11yrs) reception, primary and junior school which has achieved an "Outstanding " assessment from OFSTED. It is, by any measure, a popular school and rightly so. The Academy's current pupil numbers stand at 257 and the pupil admission number (PAN) is set to increase from 30 to 35 next September. Effectively, however, the school is full, and forecasts suggest it is likely to remain so for the foreseeable future. Although the school currently has c40 pupils from neighbouring villages (with additional applicants for next September), the governors have now taken the decision to confine further entry to Dearham children only. Even with this restriction, it is apparent that the school will simply not be able to cope with the additional children from the proposed and from currently permitted housing developments/applications. In recent years Dearham has grown significantly with housing developments at Home (Wilson) Farm (13 homes), Craika Close (15 homes), Lonsdale View (10 homes), the Globe car park (4 homes), Greenlands Road (5 homes), Kilngate (3 homes), Home Housing redevelopment (generating 12 additional houses), recent approved planning permission for 78 Storey (Browside) homes, and now a proposal to build 114 additional dwellings; a total of 254 new dwellings. Using national criteria (0.2 children per new home) these homes will generate a minimum of 51 additional children. However, it is accepted that this is an exceptionally crude measure; for example, the additional 12 homes constructed by Home Housing generated 12 extra children. In theory, these new homes should have generated just two children. Nonetheless, and even with the school-imposed pupil- admission restrictions, it is apparent that only two choices remain to address the future education of Dearham's children:
Expand the capacity of the school . A proposal to expand the school by two additional classrooms and a school hall has already been carefully calculated to cost £650,000 . The proposed £341,000 contribution from Persimmon, through a S106 agreement, is clearly inadequate. Unfortunately, the Allerdale Development Committee accepted a S106 agreement contribution from Storey Homes of only £63,000 when the County Council – using nationally applied criteria and calculations - recommended a contribution of £108,000. So, the combined totals of the two S106 funding agreements is £404,000; i.e. £246,000 deficit . It could be argued that any 'surplus' pupils should be bussed, statutorily free of charge, within the revised catchment area; that would be to Broughton Moor school, (assuming it has spare capacity in the years ahead) just over 2 miles distance.
Embus children to neighbouring schools. At primary/junior school age, this has several significant disadvantages:
Part of the S106 funding arrangements would have to be used as a contribution to the additional transport costs. Clearly, this would considerably reduce the agreed funding available for school expansion purposes.
Few parents, if any, would agree to their primary-aged children being bussed several miles to another school even though adequate, statutory security and safety measures would be ensured.
Dearham children, embussed to another school, would be effectively disenfranchise from school/village activities and, in effect, would or could feel excluded.
It would be difficult for such children/parents to take part in additional school activities, such as breakfast club and after-school activities.
It would be difficult for parents to take part in school: parent evening/discussion activities particularly if the parents were not car owners.
The proposed Persimmon development will considerably aggravate the capacity problems of the school. The proposed S106 funding proposal of £341,000 is woefully inadequate and unless appreciably increased the application should be rejected.
OVERDEVELOPMENT : Allerdale's Draft Local Plan 2012 (Preferred Options) states that the preferred approach aims to promote sustainable development as a core principle. It seeks to ensure that new development within Allerdale is of a high standard, sustainable and sympathetic to the needs of both local communities and the environment. Notwithstanding the commercial benefits which developers might seek in buying land, obtaining planning permission and then storing it in a landbank to await more auspicious opportunities to develop it, such actions do little to satisfy the needs of the local community . I contend that Dearham and surrounding area simply does not need an additional 114 dwellings, given the developments listed above, the developments at Church Meadows, Broughton; development at Crosby; and, not least, Maryport. Indeed, the Draft Local Plan 2012 states that: "In order to achieve our vision and objectives the Plan must make provision for 4,560 dwellings (304 per year)". Given the combined totals of the various developments, thus far, Dearham will have already made a significant contribution to that objective without recourse to the Persimmon development. Indeed, there is a plethora of dwellings for sale in Dearham, some of which have been for sale for several years (e.g. Craika Close). 'Right Move' estate agents currently have 60 Dearham properties listed for sale. It is estimated that there are now over 100 properties for sale in Dearham. However, given that there is no intention to include 'low-cost' housing in the Persimmon development (or additional 'social housing') it is difficult to envisage who the prospective buyers might be or why the village (for that is what it is...) would need a further 114 dwellings. The proposed development, therefore, constitutes overdevelopment . t is the community's perception that its quality- of-life is being eroded by crowding, by an excess of buildings and vehicles - which causes congested roads, dangerous and difficult parking, visual pollution, and overstressed infrastructure. Indeed, "development", equated once with "progress", has meaning only when it indicates improvement; life-enrichment.
This proposed development will do nothing to improve the quality of life of the people of Dearham. Quite the contrary. It will undoubtedly contribute inexorably to urban sprawl towards Maryport. I submit further that the size of the project is not in keeping with the existing character of the Dearham settlement and it will not enhance the village form since it would effectively extend development into the attractive open countryside effectively beyond the confines of the existing village and the proposal would have an adverse impact on the landscape. Further, ABC's SHLAA states that the gross capacity of sites included exceeds the proposed housing target for the plan period, and that the gross capacity of sites included exceeds the housing targets identified for each tier of the proposed settlement hierarchy. It follows, therefore, that this Dearham site can be excluded from development without compromising Allerdale Borough Council's housing objectives.
The Developer's own Sustainability Report acknowledges that the site is not within the adopted Development Limit of Dearham. It should be rejected, therefore, in accordance with Policy HS4. This development would constitute prominent and non essential housing development outside the designated settlement limits, extending into an attractive area of open countryside to the detriment of the visual amenity and landscape quality of the site and its surroundings contrary to Policy HS4 of the First Alterations to the Allerdale Local Plan and Policy EN25 and Policy EN19 of the Allerdale Local Plan. The application should be rejected, therefore, in that its proposals, if approved, would constitute significant overdevelopment.
In addition, the Local Plan states that agricultural land should not be developed except in compelling circumstances. There are no compelling circumstances. I nsufficient evidence had been submitted to demonstrate that the proposed development would not result in the detrimental loss of the Grade 3/4 agricultural land (Agricultural land classification) contrary to policy EN17 of the Allerdale local plan (saved).
FLOOD RISK AND SURFACE WATER DRAINAGE
Allerdale BC's preferred policy establishes a presumption against development in high flood risk areas. The Developer acknowledges that the application site is in Flood Risk Zone 1. This area (and the associated Went) are all prone to frequent flooding, despite the beck and ditches/culverts which run alongside and through the area and which run ultimately to the River Ellen. The Developer's ground survey report states that "However, at TP09 a significant ingress of water was noted at c.2.60m bcgl’s, the water appeared to ‘flow’ rapidly into the base of the trial pit, with c.0.30m-c.0.40m depth recorded within c.5 minutes.” The ABC policy also highlights issues relating to surface water flooding ensuring that new development does not as far as is practically possible increase runoff. The Persimmon development, with associated hard standing, will certainly increase runoff and will exacerbate the drainage and flooding problems experienced in Newland Park and along The Went.
I am further advised that United Utilities state that their water treatment works is at near capacity, that a pumping station will be required, that the sewage pipes are too small in capacity and that a public sewer crosses this site and UU will not permit building over it.
HIGHWAYS
Whilst Dearham has grown somewhat haphazardly since its predominantly coal-mining days in the 19th/20th centuries, it is a village, nonetheless, steeped in a rich tapestry of fascinating history dating back to Norman times. However, the incremental growth in the number and rich variety of dwellings has left much of the central village particularly with a legacy of poor infrastructure and inadequate highways. Increased car ownership and the lack of adequate parking facilities results in considerable on-street parking particularly in Maryport Road (the A594), Central Road, Church Street, Towncroft and Main Street. Considerable traffic congestion in these areas is already inevitable such that it poses frequent difficulties for the regular bus service and compromises access by emergency vehicles. The considerable highways difficulties in the village should not be understated or underestimated. Of especial note is the quaint but wholly impractical access, particularly to the school, via The Went. There is a self imposed, voluntary one-way system along The Went from Main Street to the school, exiting at the southern end of The Went on to Maryport Road but, at peak times, Main Street and Central Road are severely congested and access to the school for staff, deliveries and parents is both difficult and potentially dangerous. The Went is a narrow lane which only euphemistically can be called a 'highway', which narrows even further as the school is approached, and is restricted to single vehicle passage. The Developer proposes to widen The Went but only for the length of the development area, and install a footpath. At peak times traffic emerging from or entering into the development will encounter considerable traffic from the school. The Went requires widening, where possible, along its entire length and a footpath to the school needs to be installed. A formal TRO will be required to establish a statutory, lit, signposted one-way system along The Went with appropriate traffic calming measures as the school is approached from Main Street. However, access on to Maryport Road is already problematical for motorists especially from the Newlands estate and additional traffic from the Persimmon development will exacerbate the difficulties. The addition of nearly 200 homes (Storey and Persimmon) will have a considerable traffic and other impact on the village and that has not been assessed. There is no comprehensive Traffic Impact Assessment. The Developer draws attention in the Sustainability Report to the presence of the village shop, the village hall and the fish and chip shop. All of these are located in or near Central Road which simply cannot take any further increase in vehicular traffic or parked vehicles without seriously exacerbating the congestion already experienced. I believe the proposed development would increase traffic and pedestrian movements within the village's central highway network which lack satisfactory paveway/highway facilities, thus increasing pedestrian and vehicular conflict to the detriment of highway safety Given the traffic difficulties which will arise from this development and the inadequate infrastructure this application should be rejected.
Finally, it is noted, with regret that the Developer does not offer or intend to provide additional 'green spaces', children's play areas or other social facilities (such as a contribution to a new village hall). This is most unfortunate. If the village is to be required to accept this development, the people of Dearham should be adequately recompensed.
District Councillor
Application Ref: 2/2013/0142 As a ward councillor for Allerdale Borough Council representing Ellen Ward, I have received representations from a number of people regarding the above planning application by Persimmon Homes to build 114 houses on land adjacent to Newlands Park, Dearham. I thought it would be helpful to summarise some of these concerns for you to consider following the consultation.
Proportionate Development, Amenities and Services. Many people in the local community are concerned about the number of additional houses that this development will generate in Dearham. The village has grown quite considerably in recent years including new housing developments at Home Farm (13 new homes), Craika Close (15 homes), Lonsdale View (10 additional homes), land adjacent to the Globe and re-development of the pub itself (6 homes), Croft Crescent re-development (8 additional new homes) and land adjacent to Browside (78 new homes being developed by Storey Homes). Dearham has been identified as one of 11 local service centres in the Core Strategy preferred options for Consultation 2012, which will generate 20% of the preferred housing target of 4,560, i.e. 912 dwellings. Taking the 78 houses being developed by Storey Homes, granted planning permission last year, Dearham has contributed a significant number of dwellings to this target. The development of a further 114 houses raises the question of how much development should be designated to each local service centre and following that the Borough Council must ensure that this would not lead to disproportionate development, creating sustainability issues in Dearham. Members of the community have also expressed concern as to whether the village has the amenities and services to support such a development. This proposal alongside the development by Storey Homes will increase the size of the village by over a fifth. In the words of one resident “this development will only serve to bring more homes to a village which is already struggling to cope”. As a Councillor, I note that the application does not contain any provision for a children’s play area, of which they are none within reasonable walking distance of the proposed development. Storey Homes for example, have provided funding for a children’s play area but also have supported the Parish Council considerably, contributing to the development of a new village hall to serve the community. I am extremely disappointed that Persimmon have chosen not to conduct any community consultation. I have not been contacted by them as either a District or Parish Councillor.
Several residents have questioned whether the village could cope with the additional traffic this development would generate. Given that each home is likely to have an average of 2 cars, indeed they will need to have some form of transport as access to public transport is limited, this would generate an additional 228 cars on the village roads which are already congested with traffic and parked vehicles. I am aware that WYG have completed a Residential Travel Plan on behalf of Persimmon but I would urge the Council to request a full traffic survey taking into account the additional traffic the development would generate at peak times, for example school pick up and drop off times.
Dearham Primary School There is an excellent local primary school located in the village which accommodates children aged between 3 and 11. The school however is full to capacity at present (a full breakdown of pupil numbers will be provided by the school) and this is without the additional children that the Storey development of 78 houses will generate. The current roll call at the school stands at 264 pupils including children attending the nursery. The Governors at the school have recently agreed to increase the pupil admission number from 30 to 35 to cater for the demand from children living in the village. Some children not living in the village have had to be sadly turned away. The Governors have had to take this decision because of the increasing number of applications to the school, in the most part generated by the new housing developments listed above. For example, the redevelopment of Croft Crescent created an additional 8 houses which generated an additional 11 children of primary school age. Unfortunately the school was not able to accept all of these new incumbents and some of these children are educated at other primary schools. Even with the increase in the pupil admission number there is now insufficient capacity within the school to take any additional children from the village. There are two options for the education of children of primary school age: (a) To increase capacity at the local primary school (b) To transport children to the nearest primary school where capacity does exist (Cumbria County Council has determined that Broughton Moor is the nearest primary school and will provide free transportation to this school if places are available) The Education Contribution Statement within the planning application acknowledges that the local primary school is currently at full capacity. Using County figures it is estimated that the development will generate 28.2 children of primary age and multiplying this by £12,200 gives a total sum of £341,600 that the developer will contribute towards either option a or b above. Whilst this sum of money appears to be a significant amount, when you consider the expansion that will be required at the school, this sum will in no way begin to cover the cost. In order to accommodate the additional children the school will have to move to two form entry, i.e. two classes per year group, which will require two class rooms for each year group. The school has already consulted with experienced architects who have estimated that it will cost approximately £650,000 to build a new school hall and two additional classrooms. The total build cost including the four further classrooms that would be required is estimated to be £1.3 million. Given these figures, the proposed contribution of £341,600 by Persimmon will not cover the redevelopment that would be required at the school to accommodate the additional children.
If the Education Contribution was increased to allow the school to expand the new school hall could also be used for community use, subject to agreement with the school, acting in essence as a new village hall. The Local Plan seeks to ensure that any new developments that are within the borough are of a high standard, sustainable and sympathetic to the needs of both local communities and the environment. Unless, the Education Contribution is substantially increased this development could be construed as threatening the sustainability of the village, forcing parents already living in the village to transport their children of primary age out of the village for education. This will seriously fracture the community and damage the bonds of children living in the village. Please note that the current roll call at the school is significantly more than that stated in the Education Contribution Statement at 178 and I would recommend that this is revised to reflect up-to- date figures.
Flood risk, sewerage capacity and surface water drainage Several residents from across the village have contacted me regarding flood risk, sewerage capacity and surface water drainage. One resident, whose property borders the proposed development and has been flooded on more than one occasion, has brought to my attention an e-mail from Josephine Wong, United Utilities, dated 4 May 2012 which states that “the receiving Wastewater Treatment Works, Dearham, is currently close to capacity. There is hydraulic incapacity at some parts of the sewerage network causing hydraulic flooding to properties in the area; any additional flow connected to the network could exacerbate flooding events”. Many residents have expressed concern about who will be accountable if their properties are flooded again and this is a legitimate concern given the statement above. However, I note that the land has been designated as flood risk zone 1, with a 1 in 1000 year flood risk. Significant mitigation measures would need to be introduced to ally the concerns of residents and I would urge the Council to consider including conditions within any permission that is granted to ensure a line of accountability for these residents if flooding occurs again in the future. Access A number of residents have expressed concern to me regarding the access of the development via the Went, essentially a village lane which also serves as access to the local primary school. The Went struggles to cope with the volume of traffic generated by the school at peak times at present. With the additional 35 children who will attend the local primary school, the cars that this development will generate will have a significant impact on the Went. I would urge the Council to request that the developer undertakes a full traffic survey that will allow a proper assessment of what measures can be put in place to ensure the Went is fit to take the additional traffic, for example upgrading of the Went, introducing a one way system (an informal one way system is already operated by the school) or traffic calming measures. Given that the development is likely to increase the number of children attending the local primary school, I would strongly urge the Council to consider that the upgrading of the entirety of the Went from the school right up to the junction be included within any planning consent given. Please also note that there are issues regarding the ownership of the land towards the rear of the houses on Newlands Park that border the Went. I believe that it is the intention to use this strip of land to widen the Went but the Council has previously acknowledged that this land is in the ownership of the property holders. If this is the case the developer would need to enter into negotiations with the property holders to purchase this land.
Ecological Concerns have listened to concerns from some residents regarding the ecology of the site and its surrounding area. Whilst not resident on the proposed development site, species such as red squirrels, bats and barn owls have been seen either in people’s back gardens that border the Went, in the Went itself or on wild scrub land opposite the proposed development. I would therefore advise the Council to consult with Natural England to determine the fragility of these species and to ensure that the developer undertakes a full ecological survey taking into account appropriate habitats very close to the development that may be disturbed by the build.
Report The Proposal
This application seeks full planning permission for the erection of 114 dwellings on the 3.73ha site comprising of 10 x 2 bedroom; 41 x 3 bedroom; and; 63 x 4 bedroom dwellings together with associated garages, roads and landscaping. Of these, six three bedroom dwellings would be offered by the developer, in the form of a unilateral undertaking, at 80% of open market value (OMV) to local people deemed to be in affordable housing need by the Council.
As well as detailed site plans, layouts and elevation drawings of the development the application is accompanied by a design and access statement; Flood Risk and Drainage Assessment; Ecological Survey and Assessment; Housing Land & Supply SPD and accompanying sustainability Appraisal; Geophysical Survey; Arboricultural Impact Assessment; Assessment of Existing Watercourse Flows; Interim Residential Travel Plan; Transport Assessment & Phase 2 Ground Investigation Report;
Site and Surroundings
Location of the site is adjacent to but outside of the previously defined settlement limits of the village as defined by the now lapsed policy HS4 of the Allerdale Local Plan occupying a site bounded by the existing residential developments of Newlands Park to the south and Lonsdale View to the west. Land to the north and east are in agricultural use with The Went defining the eastern boundary of the site.
Population of the village is around 2000 with the settlement currently supporting a primary school, a church, a combined post office and village shop, a petrol station with shop; two hot food takeaways and a number of public houses. A wider range of local services such as secondary education and doctor’s surgeries and a wider range of shops are available in the nearby major centres of Maryport and Cockermouth, both of which have good road and public transport links with the village.
The Development
A total of 114 two storey with some 2.5 storey dwellings would be provided comprising of a mixture of detached and semi-detached two, three and four bedroom dwellings.
Elements common to all dwellings within the development would be the use of a traditional double pitch roof design with gable end elevations with some dwellings such as the Winster, Hatfield and Rufford having a secondary gable element to the front elevation. The ‘Penshaw’ 2.5 floor would have a front dormer window to serve the upper floor. Dwellings would be of faced timber frame construction and details of all external finishes, window & door details and roof tiles are to be agreed by condition.
Some dwellings would have integrated garages and each dwelling would be provided with sufficient driveway to the front curtilage to provide for a minimum of 2 off street parking spaces per dwelling. All dwellings would be afforded with sufficient rear amenity space, enclosed individually by 1,8m high close boarded fencing, to maintain satisfactory levels of ground level ‘back door’ privacy between the dwellings.
An average density of 31 dwellings per hectare would be achieved with main window to window distances of some 20 metres achieved within the estate sufficient to maintain the residential amenity of the residents in terms of their privacy. Main window to window distances in excess of 20 metres would also be achieved in respect of relationships with existing dwellings in Newlands Park and Lonsdale View across established gardens in which views would be further mitigated by mature tree and shrub growth.
No substantial landscape details have been submitted with this application. However, there is an almost total absence of tree growth in the interior of the site with the exception of a small group of Hawthorne bushes positioned centrally across a ditch. There is some remnant hedge on the northern boundary and some fragmented mixed hedging on the southern boundary. The indicative plan does indicate some common areas to be retained to the north east of the site and a comprehensive landscaping scheme would be conditioned to any planning permission granted.
Vehicular access onto the site would be primarily provided from the south west positioned access from the Went to cul-de-sacs serving the majority of the development. A secondary access would provide a separate access to 11 dwellings positioned to the north west of the site. Both estate roads would be constructed to adoptable standards and not provide a through route for vehicular traffic.
Pedestrian access would be provided from the south onto Newlands Park and through the north western corner of the site to the Pottery Fields public open space.
As part of this development, a 320 metre long section of The Went from Maryport Road would be widened to 5.5m width carriageway to provide for an improved two –way traffic link from the main highway to the development. In addition, a 1.8m wide footway would be provided along this stretch of improved road to link into an existing footpath to the school. Provision of all highways work would be subject to conditions, where appropriate and a Section 278 agreement to ensure the works is carried out to a standard acceptable for adoption by the County Highway Authority.
Policy
Since its publication in March 2012, the National Planning Policy Framework is the determining policy where there is no up to date Local Plan available (Core Strategy & DPD).
The site lies adjacent to but outside of the previously defined Settlement Limit of Dearham as indicated in the Allerdale Local Plan. However, from the end of March of this year (2013), the policies within the Allerdale Local Plan, can no longer be considered as saved polices and, as such, this application will need to be determined on policy guidance and direction contained within the National Planning Policy Framework. Though it is considered acceptable to still apply some weight to the Allerdale Local Plan Policies where they fully compliant with the NPPF, it is no longer acceptable to regard any application that is contrary to these policies as a departure.
The NPPF advises the purpose of the planning system is to contribute to the achievement of sustainable development the three dimensions of which are:
1. ‘an economic role – contributing to building a strong, responsive and competitive economy, by ensuring that sufficient land of the right type is available in the right places and at the right time to support growth and innovation; and by identifying and coordinating development requirements, including the provision of infrastructure;
2. a social role – supporting strong, vibrant and healthy communities, by providing the supply of housing required to meet the needs of present and future generations; and by creating a high quality built environment, with accessible local services that reflect the community’s needs and support its health, social and cultural well-being; and
3. an environmental role – contributing to protecting and enhancing our natural, built and historic environment; and, as part of this, helping to improve biodiversity, use natural resources prudently, minimise waste and pollution, and mitigate and adapt to climate change including moving to a low carbon economy”.
Central to the NPPF is a presumption in favour of sustainable development and , when considering planning applications this means that “where the development plan is absent, silent or relevant policies are out-of-date, granting planning permission unless:
• any adverse impacts of doing so would significantly and demonstrably outweigh the benefits, when assessed against the policies in this Framework taken as a whole, or: • specific policies in this Framework indicate development should be restricted”.
Five Year land Supply
A key objective of the NPPF is meeting the need to deliver a wide choice of high quality homes. In this, local planning authorities are required to identify a supply of specific deliverable sites sufficient to provide five years supply of housing against the identified housing requirement. Where there is a record of under delivery of housing, LPA’s need to provide a buffer of an additional 20% to provide a realistic prospect of achieving the planning supply and to ensure choice and competition in the market for land.
Notwithstanding recent planning permissions including a recent residential development for 78 dwellings at Browside, Dearham, the Authority is unable to demonstrate, at present, the provision of a 5 year supply of housing land based on the requirements of the still extant but soon to be outgoing Policy L4 of the North West of England (RSS) which, at present, remains part of the Development Plan. Past delivery rates necessitate taking into account the need to provide an additional buffer of 20% as required by the NPPF.
A five year land supply is currently under preparation as part of the emerging Allerdale Core Strategy. However, in its absence, the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) indicates that outgoing Local Plan, Structure Plan and RSS policies for the supply of housing cannot be considered up to date, and therefore cannot be relied upon to resist development outside defined development limits.
The NPPF defines “deliverable” and “developable” as two different things. To be “deliverable ” means that a site be available to offer a suitable and viable location for development now, and for development to be achievable with a realistic prospect that housing will be delivered on the site within a five year timeframe. To be considered “ developable ”, sites should occupy a suitable location for housing development with a reasonable prospect of viability and availability to be developed at some future point envisaged
Whilst the application site lies outside the previously defined but now moribund settlement boundary, it relates well to the settlement, associated amenities and nearby public spaces and, therefore can be given some consideration as a sustainable location owing to its proximity to the centre of the village and local transport links. Together with the Browside development of 78 dwellings (Storey Homes), the development would be likely to contribute to any future 5 year land supply that may be set in the Core Strategy for the village and, as such, contribute to the ongoing sustainability of the settlement without detracting from the overall character of the village.
The issue of prematurity has been raised by some objectors in the belief that the proposed development could compromise the future outcomes of the developing Core Strategy or any future 5 year housing land supply allocations that may emerge. However, the emerging Core Strategy is still at an early stage and is yet to be subject to an Inquiry which expected to take place late in 2013. This, in turn, may result in significant alterations to the strategy. As such, nascent policy elements of the emerging Core Strategy are at too early a stage to be given any significant weight. As already indicated in this report paragraph 49 of the NPPF requires that, in the absence of an up to date local plan, housing applications should be considered in the context of the presumption in favour of sustainable development. Policies for the supply of housing should not be considered up-to-date where the Local Planning Authority cannot demonstrate a five-year supply of deliverable housing sites.
A refusal of the proposal purely on the grounds of being located outside the now superseded settlement limit boundary or, on grounds of prematurity, are not relevant to current requirements within the NPPF and cannot now be considered to be justified.
The Strategic Housing Land Availability Assessment, produced last year (2012) has identified a number of sites within the village as offering potential for housing development. Including the application site and the now approved Browside site. A number of other sites within the village have also been identified in the SHLAA as having the potential for housing development. However, the applicant maintains that this site is ‘deliverable’ and is capable of delivering housing development within 12 months of any planning permission being granted. Within this, a mixture of houses would be provided that, in itself, would go some way to meet the identified local need for family homes . Such a development would therefore comply with the requirements of Paragraph 47 of the NPPF in being able to provide a sustained and deliverable supply of housing over time and within a short period
Housing Mix The proposal is for a total of 114 dwellings which are proposed to be a mix of two, three and four bedroom. The Council’s Housing Services have confirmed that the latest housing needs survey in Dearham took place in January 2013 and identified housing needs as follows :
2 bed houses 36% 1 bed properties 34% 3 bed houses 19% 2 bed bungalows 9% 4 bed houses 2% 2 bed houses/flats 1% 6 bed houses 1%
The survey identifies an outstanding need for one bedroom properties (34%) which this development, centred on providing for family homes, would be unable to address. However, the survey has identified issues with viability and a reluctance of housing association to commit to purchasing large amounts of the one bedroom property type, Though there would be a considerable provision of 63 four bedroom dwellings (55%) the provision of 41 three bedroom dwellings (36%) and 10 x two bedroom dwellings (11%) would contribute towards providing a wide mix of dwellings, as required in paragraph 50 of the NPPF that would go some way to meeting local housing need and providing a commercially viable mix for the developer to proceed with the development.
Affordable housing
The applicant, under advice from the Council’s Housing Department, initially took the view that current affordable housing need within Dearham had recently been fully met by the provision of 7 affordable dwellings contained within the recently approved Browside Road (2/2011/0704) and, as such, there was currently no need for further affordable housing provision within the village . However, the applicant is agreeable to making an affordable housing contribution of 6 x 3 bedroom dwellings at 80% of open market value to local people deemed to be in affordable housing need by the Council. The Council’s Housing Officer has indicated that the provision of three bedroom houses would best suit the identified affordable housing need within the village and delivery would be by a unilateral undertaking by the applicant.
Local Community Infrastructure Issues
In terms of potential Education infrastructure, the catchment schools for this development are Dearham School and Netherall School in Maryport for secondary education. Using a dwelling-led model, the Education team within the County Council has projected that the proposed 114 dwellings would generate, over time, 28 primary school pupils and 20 secondary students primary aged pupils. Using the DfE multiplier a contribution of £341,000 was calculated as the requirement towards the provision of extra school places at Dearham School. County Education project that there is sufficient space within the secondary school so therefore have not sought a contribution towards the provision of secondary school places.
Local residents and Dearham School question whether these estimated numbers will fall short of the actual need generated by 114 dwellings with the school expressing concern that it would be unable to accommodate increased pupil numbers without a considerable increase in contributions from the developer. A recent development for 12 dwellings peaked shortly after first occupation and happened to generate, according to the school, an immediate requirement for 12 pupils. However, this is likely to have been a statistical exception with the DfE multiplier, used over the County and nationwide for the purpose of calculating pupil numbers, providing a more realistic estimated figure, over time, of pupil numbers likely to be generated from this development.
This sum offered by the application as an educational contribution would allow for the delivery of either additional on-site educational facilities (the preferred option) or provide a financial contribution towards transportation of pupils to other schools. However, this would be a matter for consideration by the Education Authority.
These concerns have already been raised early in the processing of this application with the sum being calculated using the well established County Council Education multiplier. The County Education Authority estimate that this amount would be both reasonable and sufficient to provide for additional classroom accommodation sufficient to meet the additional pupils It is therefore considered that the sum would, on balance, be sufficient to provide the additional primary school places at the school likely to be generated from this development.
Public Transport Links
The Travel Plan indicates that the majority of dwellings are located within 400 metres of an existing bus stop served by a regular bus route running between the primary service centres of Maryport and Cockermouth. This provides for eight buses each way, considered adequate by the County but with no evening or Sunday service available. Rail links to local and main line services are available from Maryport station, some 3km distant.
Ecology
There is no record of any protected species being present on the site with a marked absence of any suitable habitat for either Bats or nesting bird populations within the interior of the site. Natural England has raised no objections or conditional requirements in respect of this site in their consultation response other than to observe that the development of the site might introduce opportunities to incorporate features into the design which are beneficial to wildlife, such as the incorporation of roosting opportunities for bats or the installation of bird nest boxes.
Any hedging on the boundaries is remnant and fragmented and not considered to provide suitable habitats or foraging areas for bats. However, as with any development, the contractor is obliged to carry out a ‘bats in trees’ assessment prior to commencement with an obligation in law requiring the work to cease, if evidence of bats is found, until such time as a scheme of mitigation has been agreed with Natural England. A similar process also applies to birds in the nesting season.
Flood Risk and Drainage
The Parish Council, the District Councillor and local residents have expressed their concerns with regard to any residential development of this site which, in their experience, has been subject to periods of waterlogging both historically and in recent months.
In their recent consultation response, the Environment Agency identifies the site as being in Flood Zone 1 which is defined as low probability of flooding and comprising of land having less than a 1 in 1000 annual probability of river flooding (<0.1%).
The Flood Risk & Drainage Assessment (FR & DA) prepared by the applicant has identified that the site receives runoff from the surrounding catchment either overland or via a number of existing sewers that discharge into the network of watercourses on the site. The FR & DA confirms the importance of ensuring that there would be no increase to flood risk downstream as a result of the development. The Environment Agency has reiterated this in their comments and adds that it is also essential to ensure that any proposed development does not increase any flooding upstream and any land or property susceptible to any existing flooding on the peripheries of the site. Therefore any proposed development of the site would need to secure protection of the existing sewers and network of watercourses to ensure they continue to allow the flows onto or under the land in its natural quantity and quality without obstruction. In addressing this, the FR & DA proposes to discharge to designated watercourse identified in the report as D and E. The function of this watercourse is considered by the Environment Agency to be critical to the drainage of both the site and other areas in Dearham. Should the proposal be approved the watercourse would likely need to be designated under Schedule 1 (Risk Management: Designation of Features) of the Flood and Water Management Act 2010.
Qualified by the observation made, the Environment Agency have raised no objection to the proposed development provided that conditions are applied to any planning permission that may be granted requiring: • mitigation to limit surface water run off are carried out in accordance with the measures details in the FR & DA; • The provision of a surface water drainage scheme for the site based on SUDS principles and capable of demonstrating that the run off would not exceed the run off from the undeveloped site;
In respect of foul drainage, the Environment Agency is not aware of any capacity issues at Dearham
Local Finance Considerations
Having regard to S70 (2) of the Town and Country Planning Act the following local finance considerations are relevant to the consideration of the application:
• There will be benefits arising from the scheme through the New Homes Bonus Scheme. It is considered the New Homes Bonus is of little weight in judging the overall planning merits of the current scheme. • The scheme will provide education contribution which will be secured through a S106 agreement.
Public Open Space
No provision has been made within the site for the provision of additional public open space for the village. However, a footpath link would be provided from the site onto the adjoining Pottery Park which is centrally positioned within the village serving as an established recreational area with a child’s play area and playing fields. Pottery fields would be easily accessed by the residents of the development and the village has no identifiable shortfall in open space provision that needs to be met. The proposal would provide an opportunity to allow for the use of this somewhat currently underused purpose built recreational space by the occupants of family dwellings proposed and, as such comply with spirit of Policy L1 of the Local Plan.
Highways
The merits of the scheme include a range of highway improvements to the Went’s link to the A594 involving the widening of the carriageway to provide a single vehicular means of access to the site. The highway authority advise that the design specification for these works is acceptable and meets their current standards subject to highway conditions, plus a s106 to secure the necessary traffic regulation orders and travel bond. Although some concern has been expressed in the representations on the pedestrian links to the school. The proposal has included a new footway link alongside the Went’s highway verge carriageway to an existing footpath link behind a hedgerow to connect to the school This is considered to be a substantial highway improvement to the existing highway network segregating pedestrian and highway traffic along this single track lane.9to be secured under a Grampian condition. Therefore overall, in view of the highway authorities’ response the highway merits of the scheme are considered acceptable.
Conclusion
This proposal would constitute a substantial addition to housing stock available within the village and the wider borough on a site that, on balance, provides for much needed family accommodation, is well related to the village and its services, well positioned close to main road routes and, is located close to regular bus services to the nearby major centres of Maryport and Cockermouth.
Benefits accrued in the locality would include a significant contribution to the local primary school for the provision of additional teaching space; other school improvements and, what has not been generally acknowledged, provide for an increased base of family housing within the village that is likely to provide a source of future pupils to assist the continued viability of the school.
Other benefits include improvements to The Went that will also facilitate improved access to the school and a unilateral undertaking from the applicant to contribute toward local affordable housing provision.
Issues of drainage & flood risk travel plan, highways provision and adoption, landscape and external finishes can all be satisfactorily addressed by conditions to any planning permission granted and appropriate legal agreements.
The proposal would serve to provide for a sustainable form of housing development that, in the absence of the still emerging Local Plan and 5 year land supply, would satisfy the requirements of the paragraph 49 National Planning Policy Statement (NPPF) in providing a sustainable form of development in the absence of an up to date local plan and Paragraph 47 of the NPPF in being able to provide a sustained and deliverable supply of housing over time and within a short period.
Recommendation: Subject to a s106 to secure education and highway contributions the application be 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 development hereby permitted shall be carried out in accordance with the following plans and details: DR1 - Affordable Housing Statement; DR2 - Sustainability Appraisal; DR3 - Education Contribution Statement, DR4 - S106 Agreement Heads Of Terms, DR5 - Tree Asssessment, DR6 - Geophysical Survey, DR7 - Ecological Survey and Assessment, DR8 - Design and Access Statement, DR9 - Supplementary Planning Document, DR10 - Flood Risk & Drainage Assessment, DR11 - Flood Risk & Drainage Assessment, DR12 - Flood Risk & Drainage Assessment Appendix B, DR13 - Flood Risk & Drainage Assessment Appendix C, DR14 - Flood Risk & Drainage Assessment Appendix D, DR15 - Flood Risk & Drainage Assessment Appendix E, DR16 - Flood Risk & Drainage Assessment Appendix F, DR17 - Flood Risk & Drainage Assessment Appendix G, DR18 - Flood Risk & Drainage Assessment Appendix H, DR19 - Flood Risk & Drainage Assessment Appendix I, DR20 Flood Risk & Drainage Assessment Appendix J DR21 - Flood Risk & Drainage Assessment Appendix K, DR22 - Flood Risk & Drainage Assessment Appendix L, DR23 - Flood Risk & Drainage Assessment Appendix M, DR24 - Transport Assessment, DR25 - Interim Residential Travel Plan, RUF - Rufford House Type Elevations and Floor Plans, PEN - Penrose House Type Elevations and Floor Plans, ROS – Roseberry House Type Elevations and Floor Plans, PSW - Penshaw House Type Elevations and Floor Plans, CLA – Clandon House Type Elevations and Floor Plans, HAT - Hatfield House Type Elevations and Floor Plans, WIN – Winster House Type Elevations and Floor Plans, CRA – Cranthorne House Type Elevations and Floor Plans, HAN - Hanbury House Type Elevations and Floor Plans, CHR - Cherryburn House Type Elevations and Floor Plans, CLA - Clandon House Type Elevations and Floor Plans; all submitted to the Local Planning Authority on 27th February 2013 and; MRD/PL1 - Planning Layout;(amended plan) submitted to the Local Planning Authority on 15 th March 2013. Reason: In order to ensure a satisfactory standard of development.
3. The works to the Went highway shall be designed, constructed, drained and lit to the satisfaction of the Local Planning Authority and in this respect further details, including longitudinal/cross sections, shall be submitted to the Local Planning Authority for approval before work commences on site. No work shall be commenced until a full specification has been approved and the agreed improvements (up to base course level) completed. Reason: To ensure a minimum standard of construction in the interests of highway safety
4. The works to the school footpath linking the application site to the school shall be designed and constructed to the satisfaction of the Local Planning Authority and in this respect further details, including longitudinal/cross sections, shall be submitted to the Local Planning Authority for approval before work commences on site. No work shall be commenced until a full specification has been approved and the agreed improvements completed. Reason: To ensure a minimum standard of construction in the interests of highway:
5. The carriageway, footways, footpaths, cycleways etc, shall be designed, constructed, drained to the satisfaction of the Local Planning Authority and in this respect further details, including longitudinal/cross sections, shall be submitted to the Local Planning Authority for approval before work commences on site. No work shall be commenced until a full specification has been approved. Any works so approved shall be constructed before the development is complete. Reason:To ensure a minimum standard of construction in the interests of highway safety in support of Local Transport Plan Policies: LD5, LD7, LD8.
6. The development shall not commence until the visibility splays shown on the indicative masterplan (70m x 2.4m x 70m) is provided on each access onto the highway. These splays should provide clear visibility down the centre of the access road and the nearside channel line of the major road 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 grown within the visibility splay which obstruct the visibility splays. The visibility splays shall be constructed before general development of the site commences so that construction traffic is safeguarded. Reason: In the interests of highway safety.
7. 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 level 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.
8. The whole of each of the access areas bounded by the carriageway edge, entrance gates and the splays shall be constructed and drained to the specification of the Local Planning Authority in consultation with the Highway Authority . Reason: In the interests of highway safety.
9. Development shall not be begun until a Construction Method Statement including details of all on-site construction works, post-construction reinstatement, drainage, mitigation, and other restoration, together with details of their timetabling has been submitted to and approved by the local planning authority and shall include measures to secure: • formation of the construction compound and access tracks and any areas of hardstanding; • dust management; • cleaning of site entrances and the adjacent public highway; • pollution control relating to water courses and ground water, subsoil, bunding of fuel storage areas and sewage; • temporary site illumination; • disposal of surplus materials; • the sheeting of all HGVs taking spoil to/from the site to prevent spillage or deposit of any materials on the highway; • soil storage and handling; • post-construction restoration/reinstatement The Construction Method Statement shall be carried out as approved Reason: In the interests of highway safety
10. Development shall not be begun until a Construction Traffic Management Plan (CTMP) has been submitted to and approved in writing by the local planning authority. The CTMP shall include details of: • the construction of the site access and the creation, positioning and maintenance of associated visibility splays; • access gates will be hung to open away from the public highway no less than 10m from the carriageway edge and shall incorporate appropriate visibility displays; • the pre-construction road condition established by a detailed survey for accommodation works within the highways boundary conducted with a Highway Authority representative; • details of proposed crossings of the highway verge; • retained areas for vehicle parking, manoeuvring, loading and unloading for their specific purpose during the development; • the surfacing of the access roads from the public highway into the site shall extend for a minimum of 25m; • construction vehicle routing; • the management of junctions to and crossings of the public highway and other public rights of way/footway; • the scheduling and timing of movements, temporary warning signs and Temporary Traffic Regulation Orders. Development shall be carried out in accordance with the approved CTMP. Reason: In the interests of highway safety.
11. Within six months of the occupation of the first dwelling, the developer shall prepare and submit to the Local Planning Authority for their approval a Travel Plan which shall identify the measures that will be undertaken by the developer to encourage the achievement of a modal shift away from the use of private cars to visit the development to sustainable transport modes. The measures identified in the Travel Plan shall be implemented by the developer where practicable prior to the occupation of the first dwelling, in order to encourage the use of sustainable modes from the outset, including targets and the appointment of a Travel Plan Co-ordinator. The Travel Plan shall be the subject of annual review for a period of five years following the occupation of the first dwelling. Reason: To aid in the delivery of sustainable transport objectives.in support of Local Transport Plan Policies: WS1, LD4 and Structure Plan Policy T31.
12. A scheme detailing the provision of a 6 metre wide (3m each side of sewer) easement for the main foul sewer that passes through the site shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority prior to the commencement of the development. The easement, as approved, shall be in place prior to the residential first occupation of the site and maintained thereafter to the satisfaction of the Local Planning Authority. Reason: In order to prevent water pollution.
13. The development permitted by this planning permission shall only be carried out in accordance with the approved Flood Risk & Drainage Assessment (FRA) dated 14 November 2012, referenced A076209 and compiled by White Young Green and the following mitigation measures detailed within the FR & DA:
1. Limiting the surface water run-off generated by the 1 in 100 year plus climate change event so that it will not exceed the run-off from the undeveloped site and not increase the risk of flooding off-site. 2. The above shall include the provision of the required amount of attenuation storage. 3. Demonstration within the FR & DA that the improvement/protection and maintenance of existing watercourse will be provided. This shall include the proposals to widen, re-grade and improve flow and any other measure necessary to reduce any existing flood to properties within Newlands Park adjacent to watercourses A&B. 4. Finished floor levels are set no lower than 150 mm above finished ground levels to ensure unimpeded flow path of flood waters through the site in the event of a storm occurring which would exceed the 1 in 100 year plus climate change event.. 5. The site layout shall be developed to ensure adequate access for essential maintenance.
The mitigation measures shall be fully implemented prior to first occupation and subsequently in accordance with the timing/ phasing arrangements embodied within the scheme, or within any other period as may subsequently be agreed, in writing, by the local planning authority. Reasons: 1. To prevent flooding by ensuring the satisfactory storage of/disposal of surface water from the site. 2. To prevent flooding elsewhere by ensuring that attenuation storage of flood water is provided. 3. To ensure the integrity and function of existing watercourse is maintained and improved where required, thereby reducing the risk of flooding and to reduce the risk of flooding from blockages to the existing culvert (s). 4. To reduce the risk of flooding to the proposed development and future occupants. 5. To ensure the open watercourse can be maintained to manage flood risk on and of the site for the lifetime of the development.
14. Prior to the commencement of development, a scheme for surface water and foul water drainage (inclusive of how the scheme shall be maintained and managed after completion) shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The drainage scheme submitted for approval shall be in accordance with the principles set out in the planning application proposing surface water discharging into the local watercourse. Foul water from the site must discharge into the 225mm diameter combined sewer crossing the development site. No part of the development shall be occupied until the drainage scheme has been constructed in accordance with the approved details. For the avoidance of doubt, neither surface water, land drainage, nor highway drainage shall connect into the public sewerage system (directly or indirectly). The development shall be completed, maintained and managed in accordance with the approved details. Reason: In order to prevent water pollution.
15. Construction Management Plan No development shall take place until a Construction Method Statement has been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The statement shall include the following: a) Traffic Management Plan to include all traffic associated with the development, including site and staff traffic; b) Procedure to monitor and mitigate noise and vibration from the construction and demolition and to monitor any properties at risk of damage from vibration, as well as taking into account noise from vehicles, deliveries. All measurements should make reference to BS7445; c) Mitigation measures to reduce adverse impacts on residential properties from construction compounds including visual impact, noise, and light pollution; d) Mitigation measures to ensure that no harm is caused to protected species during construction; e) A written procedure for dealing with complaints regarding the construction or demolition; f) Measures to control the emissions of dust and dirt during construction and demolition; g) Programme of work for Demolition and Construction phase; h) Hours of working and deliveries; i) Details of lighting to be used on site. The approved statement shall be adhered to throughout the duration of the development. Reason:In order to mitigate the level of disturbance to the local community during the period of construction.
16. In the event that contamination is found at any time when carrying out the approved development that was not previously identified it must be reported immediately to the Local Planning Authority. Development on the part of the site affected must be halted and a risk assessment carried out and submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. Where unacceptable risks are found remediation and verification schemes shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. These shall be implemented prior to the development (or relevant phase of development) being brought into use. All works shall be undertaken in accordance with current UK guidance, particularly CLR11 . Reason: In order to prevent pollution of the environment.
17. Each dwelling hereby approved shall not be occupied until the respective vehicular access, parking and turning requirements have been constructed in accordance with the approved plans and have been brought into use. The vehicular access, parking and turning provisions shall be retained and capable of use at all times thereafter and shall not be removed or altered without the prior consent of the Local Planning Authority. Reason: To ensure a minimum standard of access, parking and turning provision when the development is brought into use.
18. 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, in compliance with the National Planning Policy Framework and Policy HS8 of the Allerdale Local Plan, First Alterations June 2006 (Saved).
19. No residential development shall commence until details of the phasing of the residential elements of the approved scheme have been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The development shall be carried out in accordance with the approved programme unless the Local Planning Authority gives its written consent to any variation. Reason: To ensure an ordered and comprehensive development of the site.
20. The works to provide pedestrian footpath links from the development onto Newlands Drive and public open space and play area located to the north east of the site shall be designed and constructed to the satisfaction of the Local Planning Authority and in this respect further details, including longitudinal/cross sections & location and design of gates, shall be submitted to the Local Planning Authority for approval before work commences on site. No work shall be commenced until a full specification has been approved and the agreed improvements completed. Reason:In the interests of residential amenity and to ensure a minimum standard of construction in the interests of highway
Reasons for Approval
The decision to grant planning permission has been taken having regard to the Development Plan, any comments from consultees (including statutory consultees) and any responses from third parties. The decision was taken having regard to relevant planning policy and it was considered that the proposal was acceptable having regard to the national, strategic and local plan policies, supplementary planning guidance/documents and design guidance (set out below) and when taking all other material planning considerations into account. It was considered that there is not a demonstrable harm to interests of acknowledged importance caused by the development that justifies withholding permission.
Proactive Stat ement
Application Approved Without Amendment
The Local Planning Authority has acted positively and proactively in determining this application by assessing the proposal against all material considerations, including planning policies and any stakeholder representations that may have been received and subsequently determining to grant planning permission in accordance with the presumption in favour of sustainable development, as set out within the National Planning Policy Framework.
Notes to United Utilities will require the provision of an access strip width of Applicant: 6 metres, 3 metres either side of the centre line of the sewer for maintenance or replacement. Therefore a modification of the site layout, or a diversion of the affected public sewer at the applicant's expense, may be necessary. To establish if a sewer diversion is feasible, the applicant must discuss this at an early stage with Josephine Wong by email, [email protected] as a lengthy lead in period may be required if a sewer diversion proves to be acceptable. Deep rooted shrubs and trees should not be planted in the vicinity of the public sewer and overflow systems.
United Utilities will require a separate metered supply to each unit will be required at the applicant's expense and all internal pipework must comply with current water supply (water fittings) regulations 1999.
The applicant should contact United Utilities Service Enquiries on 0845 7462200 regarding connection to the water mains/public sewers. United Utilities offer a fully supported mapping service at a modest cost for our water mains and sewerage assets. This is a service, which is constantly updated by United Utilities Property Searches Team (Tel No: 0870 7510101). It is the applicant's responsibility to demonstrate the exact relationship between any assets that may cross the site and any proposed development.
Please note, due to the public sewer transfer, not all sewers are currently shown on the statutory sewer records, if a sewer is discovered during construction, please contact Sue Lowe of United Utlities [email protected] to discuss the matter further.
Environment Agency Informative 1. As a result of Commencement of Schedule 2 (Amendment of Other Acts), Flood and Water Management Act 2010 on the 6 April 2012, the Environment Agency will no longer be dealing with Flood Defence Consent applications made under S.23 of the Land Drainage Act i.e. applications for works in non main (ordinary) watercourses. We would recommend general discussion with the LFRM, as their input may be required on a number of matters. To discuss your proposal please contact LFRM, Cumbria County Council, Park House Building, Kingmoor Park, Carlisle, CA6 4SJ; Email: [email protected]
2. If any controlled waste is to be used on the site the operator will need to obtain the appropriate authorisation from us. We are unable at this time to specify what exactly would be required due to the limited amount of information provided. If the operator wishes more specific advice they will need to contact the Environment Management Team at our Penrith office on 03708 0506 0506 or look at available guidance on our website http://www.environment-agency.gov.uk/subjects/waste .
3. Site Waste Management Plan In England it is a legal requirement to have a site waste management plan (SWMP) for all new construction projects worth more than £300,000.The level of detail that your SWMP should contain depends on the estimated build cost, excluding VAT. You must still comply with the duty of care for waste. Because you will need to record all waste movements in one document, having a SWMP will help you to ensure you comply with the duty of care. Further information can be found at http://www.netregs-swmp.co.uk
Notes to None Applicant: