Date: 12 August 2015

Please note that this meeting will commence at the rising of the previous meeting or at 9.40am whichever is the later Town Hall, Penrith, Cumbria CA11 7QF Tel: 01768 817817 Fax: 01768 890470 Email: [email protected]

Dear Sir/Madam Planning Committee Agenda - 20 August 2015 Notice is hereby given that a meeting of the Planning Committee will be held on Thursday, 20 August 2015 at the Council Chamber, Town Hall, Penrith at the rising of the previous meeting or at 9.40 am whichever is the later.

1 Apologies for Absence

2 Minutes

To sign the public minutes:

1. Pla/37/7/15 to Pla/45/7/15 of the meeting of this Committee held on 16 July 2015; and

2. Pla/47/7/15 of the meeting of this Committee held on 16 July 2015

as a correct record of those proceedings (copies previously circulated).

3 Declarations of Interest

To receive any declarations of the existence and nature of any private interests, both disclosable pecuniary and any other registrable interests, in any matter to be considered or being considered.

Mr P G Foote BA Solicitor www.eden.gov.uk Director of Corporate and Legal Services 4 Appeal Decision Letters (Pages 5 - 16)

To receive the decision letters from the Planning Inspectorate for the appeals relating to: Application Applicant / Appeal Appeal Number(s) Decision 14/0281 Mr Russell Bowman The appeal is Land to the south-east of Ainstable, dismissed Penrith, Cumbria

The appeal is made under section 78 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 against a refusal to grant planning permission.

The development proposed is the erection of a wind turbine 13/0917 Mr Steven Dunning The appeal is Raisgill Hall, Tebay, Penrith, Cumbria, dismissed CA10 3UB

The appeal is made under section 78 of the Town and Country Planning act 1990 against a refusual to grant planning permission.

The development proposed is the erection of a wind turbine.

5 National Planning Policy Guidance Amendments

To receive a verbal update from the Principal Development Control Officer on an amendment to the National Planning Policy Guidance (NPPG).

6 Hay Close Wind Farm (Pages 17 - 44)

To consider report CD60/15 of the Head of Planning Services which is attached and which is to inform Members of the Planning Committee:

1. to seek Members’ approval that as a significant new material planning consideration relating to onshore wind had been introduced by the Government an additional reason for refusal should be promoted as part of the Council’s case at the appeal inquiry; and 2. to seek Members’ approval that Reason for Refusal (3) be conditionally withdrawn; and 3. to seek Members’ approval that Reason for Refusal (4) be conditionally withdrawn; and 4. to update Members of the progress of the appeal.

7 Planning Issues (Pages 45 - 66) www.eden.gov.uk 2 To note the attached lists of the Head of Planning Services: a) Applications determined under office delegated powers for the month of July 2015 b) Reasons for refusal on delegated decisions for the month of July 2015.

8 Planning Issues - Applications for Debate (Green Papers)

a) To consider the reports of the Head of Planning Services on the following applications:

Item Officer Page Application Details No Recommendation Number 1 Planning Application No: 15/0315 Recommended to: Residential development (comprising 5 APPROVE dwellings) with approval sought for Subject to access and scale Location here 3 Land at Levens House Farm, Conditions Mellbecks, Kirkby Stephen Mr Davis 2 Planning Application No: 15/0466 Recommended to: Siting of playground equipment (part APPROVE retrospective) Subject to 19 Lazonby Church of England School, Conditions Lazonby Mrs Yvonne Standing (head teacher) 3 Planning Application No: 15/0486 Recommended to: Erection of detached dwelling APPROVE Land at Orchard Cottage, Little Salkeld, 24 Subject to Penrith Mr and Mrs D Addis Conditions

b) Confirmation of site visits (if any).

9 Date of Next Meeting

The next meeting of Planning Committee will be held on 17 September 2015.

10 Any Other Items which the Chairman decides are urgent

11 Exclusion of the Press and Public

To consider whether, in accordance with Section 100A(4) of the Local Government Act 1972, members of the public (including the press) should be excluded from the meeting during discussion of the following items of business on the grounds that they involve the likely disclosure of exempt information as defined in paragraph 2 of Part 1 to Schedule 12A of the Act www.eden.gov.uk 3 12 Minutes

To sign the confidential minute Pla/46/7/15 of the meeting of this Committee held on 16 July 2015 as a correct record of those proceedings (copies previously circulated).

Yours faithfully

P G Foote Director of Corporate and Legal Services

Democratic Services Contact: L Rushen

Please Note: Access to the internet in the Council Chamber and Committee room is available via the guest wi-fi – no password is required

Encs

For Attention

All members of the Planning Committee, ie

Chairman – Councillor W Patterson (Independent Group) Vice Chairman – Councillor J G Thompson (Conservative Group)

Councillors A Armstrong, Conservative Group J C Lynch, Conservative Group I Chambers, Conservative Group Mrs E Martin, Conservative Group Miss M Clark, Independent Group H Sawrey-Cookson, Independent Group D Holden, Liberal Democrat Group J Tompkins, Liberal Democrat Group Mrs V Kendall, Conservative Group

Standing Deputies M Eyles, Liberal Democrat Group S Jackson, Conservative Group Ms P Godwin, Independent Group K Morgan, Independent Group A Hogg, Conservative Group Mrs S Orchard, Conservative Group R Howse, Liberal Democrat Group M Smith, Independent Group

For information – All remaining members of the Council

www.eden.gov.uk 4 Agenda Item 4

Report No CD59/15

Eden District Council

Planning Committee 20 August 2015

Appeal Decision Letters

Report of the Head of Planning Services

Attached for Members’ information is a list of Decision Letters received since the last meeting:

Application Applicant Appeal Decision Number(s)

14/0281 Mr Russell Bowman The appeal is Land to the south-east of Ainstable, Penrith, dismissed Cumbria

The appeal is made under section 78 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 against a refusal to grant planning permission.

The development proposed is the erection of a wind turbine.

13/0917 Mr Steven Dunning The appeal is Raisgill Hall, Tebay, Penrith, Cumbria, CA10 dismissed 3UB

The appeal is made under section 78 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 against a refusal to grant planning permission.

The development proposed is the erection of a wind turbine.

Gwyn Clark Head of Planning Services

Pack No 5

Appeal Decision Site visit made on 31 March 2015

by Richard McCoy BSc MSc DipTP MRTPI IHBC an Inspector appointed by the Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government

Decision date: 7 July 2015

Appeal Ref: APP/H0928/A/14/2228402 Land to the south-east of Ainstable, Penrith, Cumbria  The appeal is made under section 78 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 against a refusal to grant planning permission.  The appeal is made by Mr Russell Bowman against the decision of Eden District Council.  The application Ref 14/0281, dated 26 March 2014, was refused by notice dated 17 July 2014.  The development proposed is the erection of a wind turbine.

Decision

1. I dismiss the appeal.

Main Issues

2. The main issues are the effect of the proposal on the surrounding area in terms of landscape character and visual impact, the effect on nearby heritage assets, and whether any harm, in the light of the development plan, would be outweighed by the national objective of promoting renewable energy generation.

Reasons

Background and Policy

1. The appeal site is an agricultural field which is located in open countryside around 650m from the village of Ainstable. The proposed turbine would have 3 blades and would stand around 77m to the blade tip (with a rotor diameter of around 54m), on a concrete base. The proposal includes an access track and a transformer. Two public footpaths (301013 and 301014) converge around 630m to the west of the appeal site with other footpaths passing to the southwest (301011 and 301012) and to the south (301010).

2. The National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) states a presumption in favour of sustainable development at paragraph 14 and paragraph 93 makes clear that the provision of renewable energy infrastructure is central to the economic, social and environmental dimensions of sustainable development. This is reflected in the national planning practice guidance (PPG) which states that increasing the amount of energy from renewable and low carbon technologies will help to make sure the UK has a secure energy supply, reduce greenhouse gas emissions to slow down climate change and stimulate investment in new jobs and businesses. It goes on to state that planning has

www.planningportal.gov.uk/planninginspectorate Pack No 6 Appeal Decision APP/H0928/A/14//2228402

an important role in the delivery of new renewable and low carbon energy infrastructure in locations where the local environmental impact is acceptable.

3. The PPG also makes clear that there are no hard and fast rules about how suitable areas for renewable energy should be identified, but in considering locations, local planning authorities will need to ensure they take into account the requirements of the technology, and critically, the potential impacts on the local environment, including from cumulative impacts. The views of local communities likely to be affected should be listened to.

4. Policy CS20 of the adopted Eden Core Strategy Development Plan Document (CS) is supportive of proposals for renewable energy if there is no significant adverse effect on landscape character, biodiversity, natural heritage or local amenity and if all practicable measures are taken to reduce such impacts. CS policy CS18 requires new development in the countryside to protect, and where possible, enhance the distinctive rural landscape, while CS policy CS17 seeks to conserve and enhance areas of archaeological interest, and listed buildings and their settings. These policies reflect those of the NPPF which in paragraph 98 states support for renewable energy development if its impacts are (or can be made) acceptable.

5. The Cumbria Joint Wind Energy Supplementary Planning Document (SPD) was adopted by the Council and identifies the area within which the appeal site is situated as Landscape Character Type 11a Foothills. The SPD advises that that the landscape has a low/moderate capacity and is sensitive to wind energy development unless it is well sited to avoid over dominance and visual confusion.

Landscape character and visual impact

6. From the evidence, it would appear that the appeal site has no local or national landscape designation. It occupies an elevated position within an attractive rolling agricultural landscape with tree lined hedgerows, blocks of conifer and deciduous woodland and scattered dwellings. The North Pennines Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty is located around 4km to the east while the Settle to Carlisle Railway Line passes around 3km to the west. I observed that the surrounding rolling landscape contains few built vertical structures. A mast can be seen on a nearby hilltop with electricity poles also present in the area.

7. A Landscape Visual Impact Assessment (LVIA) was submitted by the appellant which includes 8 representative views of the proposal. The LVIA assessed the magnitude of impact using the document; Guidelines for Landscape and Visual Impact Assessment 2013. It considered the potential landscape character and visual effects within a 5km and 10km radius of the proposal respectively, with reference to a Zone of Theoretical Visibility. An additional series of photomontages was submitted by the Ainstable Turbine Action Campaign (ATAC) which I have also taken into account.

8. The LVIA concluded that the proposal would have a low magnitude of effect on the immediate landscape and an overall negligible magnitude of change on landscape character within the study area. It further concludes in respect of the effect on visual amenity that there would be a low overall magnitude of change. From my observations, I consider that over longer distances of greater than 5km, views of the proposal would tend to be intermittent due to the screening effects of the intervening topography, mature vegetation and

www.planningportal.gov.uk/planninginspectorate 2 Pack No 7 Appeal Decision APP/H0928/A/14//2228402

existing buildings, either collectively or individually. This is apparent from LVIA viewpoint 7. Within these longer range views, the proposal would not have an overbearing presence such that the harm in terms of the effect on landscape character and visual impact would be minor.

9. However, at around 77m tall, the proposal would be a very conspicuous feature in the local landscape. The receptors within 5km include residents of Ainstable (LVIA viewpoints 1 and 2, ATAC viewpoints 1 and 3), travellers on the local roads which pass close by (B6412 and B6413), Armathwaite Railway Station (LVIA viewpoint 3) and footpaths (LVIA viewpoint 5, ATAC viewpoint 5). From these closer range views the turbine would appear as a prominent, alien feature that would often be seen against the skyline. As a tall vertical feature with moving blades it would be a visually jarring element in the landscape when seen from nearby settlements, and local roads and recreational routes. It would have an overbearing presence such that the harm in terms of the local effect on landscape character and visual impact would be moderate.

10. Accordingly, as a proposal that would cause minor landscape character and visual impact harm in longer range views and moderate landscape character and visual impact harm from nearby vantage points, it would conflict with CS Policies CS18 and CS20.

Setting of the heritage assets

11. Of the heritage assets within 3km, concerns were raised that the proposal would have an adverse effect on the Church of St Michael (Grade II listed building) and the Settle to Carlisle Conservation Area as a development within their settings. Other heritage assets were not considered to be affected due to the intervening topography preventing inter-visibility with the turbine and from my assessment I have no reason to disagree.

12. The NPPF defines the setting of a heritage asset as the surroundings in which it is experienced. The extent is not fixed and may change as the asset and its surroundings evolve. Elements of a setting may make a positive or negative contribution to the significance of an asset; may affect the ability to appreciate that significance; or, may be neutral. Section 66(1) of the Planning (Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas) Act 1990 states that special regard should be paid to the desirability of preserving the settings of listed buildings, where those settings would be affected by proposed development.

13. With regard to the Settle to Carlisle Conservation Area, this heritage asset is a long linear feature and the turbine would be in view intermittently over a very short part of its length. The appeal site itself is not integral to the understanding or appreciation of the heritage asset and given the very minor part of its setting that would be affected, I consider that the proposal would not result in any harm to its significance.

14. However, in respect of the Church of St Michael, there would be a considerable degree of inter-visibility between the proposal and this heritage asset as they would stand on rising land on opposite hill sides. This would be apparent from close quarters on the footpath behind the church, minor roads in the vicinity of the appeal site and views from Ainstable (LVIA viewpoint 2, ATAC viewpoint 3). I consider that the scale and position of the church make it a notable feature in the landscape which means its setting would have a high sensitivity to change. The proposal would form a major element within this setting, exerting a strong

www.planningportal.gov.uk/planninginspectorate 3 Pack No 8 Appeal Decision APP/H0928/A/14//2228402

visual dominance over the heritage asset, thereby having an adverse effect on its significance.

15. The church derives some of its significance from its setting which would be adversely affected by the proposal. This would be contrary to CS Policy CS17 and would equate to less than substantial harm (for the purposes of paragraph 134 of the NPPF) which requires to be weighed against any public benefits of the proposal, a matter to which I return below.

Other matters

16. The closest dwelling to the proposal is around 500m distant, the next being around 550m distant. From the evidence and what I observed, views of the proposal from nearby dwellings would be tempered by the orientation of the dwellings and intervening mature vegetation, topography and other buildings either in combination or individually. Consequently, these factors along with the limited degree of the available panorama that would be occupied by the proposed turbine would mean that the proposal would be unlikely to harmfully change the living conditions of the occupiers of these dwellings in respect of any loss of outlook.

17. Furthermore, with regard to noise, shadow flicker, highway safety and ecology, these matters were considered by the Council taking advice from its own Environmental Health Officer, the highway authority and Natural England. I note from the officer report that the conclusion is drawn that subject to conditions, there would be no negative effects arising from the proposal in respect of these matters and from my assessment I have no reason to disagree.

18. Concerns were also raised regarding cumulative impact. There are several built and consented wind energy schemes within the wider area. However, instances where 2 or more of these schemes would be seen either singly or in a sequence of views would be limited and given the separation distances between them, I consider that they would not collectively become a significant or defining characteristic of the area, such that they would have a harmful effect on the overall experience of the landscape.

19. The appellant drew my attention to “recent relevant appeals” where turbine schemes were granted planning permission. However, many of these are located within different Council and landscape character areas, and several relate to smaller turbines. In any event, given the site specific circumstances identified above, I do not consider that they are directly comparable.

Benefits

20. The proposed turbine would produce around 1,631,00kWh per annum with an annual CO2 saving of around 853 tonnes. The appellant pointed out that the income from the power generated would help develop a new farm business and put his farm business on a secure, economically sustainable footing. The proposal would offset the current energy requirements of the business.

21. The development plan provides in-principle support for renewable energy and the NPPF at paragraph 98 recognises that even small-scale projects provide a valuable contribution to cutting greenhouse gas emissions. The development would contribute to the generation of renewable energy which would assist in meeting national targets that seek to reduce carbon emissions in order to

www.planningportal.gov.uk/planninginspectorate 4 Pack No 9 Appeal Decision APP/H0928/A/14//2228402

tackle climate change. It would also make a contribution to supporting rural enterprise and economic activity.

Planning balance

22. The benefits arising from the generation of renewable energy, reduction in carbon emissions and the economic benefits to the rural enterprise lend substantial weight in favour of the proposal. Nevertheless, although likely to be time limited to a period of 25 years, the proposal would result in less than substantial harm to the significance of a heritage asset as a development within its setting, moderate landscape character and visual impact harm when seen from nearby vantage points and minor landscape character and visual impact harm over longer range views.

23. Consequently, giving considerable weight to the desirability of preserving the setting of the listed building, in line with Section 66(1) of the Planning (Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas) Act 1990, I consider that the benefits accruing, both public and private, would not outweigh the totality of the harm and the proposal would be contrary to CS Policies CS17, CS18 and CS20, and NPPF paragraph 134.

Conclusion

24. I have had regard to the changes to policy arising from the Written Ministerial Statement entitled Local Planning, dated 18 June 2015, which in the light of the facts of this case, do not alter my conclusion that for the reasons given above, the appeal should be dismissed.

Richard McCoy

INSPECTOR

www.planningportal.gov.uk/planninginspectorate 5 Pack No 10

Appeal Decision Site visit made on 16 April 2015 by Richard McCoy BSc MSc DipTP MRTPI IHBC an Inspector appointed by the Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government

Decision date: 8 July 2015

Appeal Ref: APP/H0928/A/14/2223447 Raisgill Hall, Tebay, Penrith, Cumbria CA10 3UB  The appeal is made under section 78 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 against a refusal to grant planning permission.  The appeal is made by Mr Steven Dunning against the decision of Eden District Council.  The application Ref 13/0917, dated 29 November 2013, was refused by notice dated 13 March 2014.  The development proposed is the erection of a wind turbine.

Decision

1. I dismiss the appeal.

Main Issues

2. The main issues are the effect of the proposal on the surrounding area in terms of landscape character and visual impact, the effect on nearby heritage assets, and whether any harm, in the light of the development plan, would be outweighed by the national objective of promoting renewable energy generation.

Reasons

Background and Policy

3. The appeal site is an agricultural field which is located in open countryside around 1.6km to the north of the village of Old Tebay. The proposed turbine would have 3 blades, and would stand around 40m to the hub and 67m to the blade tip, on a concrete base. The proposal includes an access track and a transformer. Access would be taken from the road which passes along the northern boundary of the field containing the appeal site. Footpaths pass within 165m of the appeal site to the north (355029) and 540m to the east (355028). Several others traverse the countryside further afield. The electricity generated would be exported to the National Grid and bought back by the appellant at a discounted rate.

4. The National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) states a presumption in favour of sustainable development at paragraph 14 and paragraph 93 makes clear that the provision of renewable energy infrastructure is central to the economic, social and environmental dimensions of sustainable development. This is reflected in the national planning practice guidance (PPG) which states that increasing the amount of energy from renewable and low carbon technologies will help to make sure the UK has a secure energy supply, reduce

www.planningportal.gov.uk/planninginspectorate Pack No 11 Appeal Decision APP/H0928/A/14/2223447

greenhouse gas emissions to slow down climate change and stimulate investment in new jobs and businesses. It goes on to state that planning has an important role in the delivery of new renewable and low carbon energy infrastructure in locations where the local environmental impact is acceptable.

5. The PPG also makes clear that there are no hard and fast rules about how suitable areas for renewable energy should be identified, but in considering locations, local planning authorities will need to ensure they take into account the requirements of the technology, and critically, the potential impacts on the local environment, including from cumulative impacts. The views of local communities likely to be affected should be listened to.

6. Policy CS20 of the adopted Eden Core Strategy Development Plan Document (CS) is supportive of proposals for renewable energy if there is no significant adverse effect on landscape character, biodiversity, natural heritage or local amenity and if all practicable measures are taken to reduce such impacts. CS policy CS18 requires new development in the countryside to protect, and where possible, enhance the distinctive rural landscape, while CS policy CS17 seeks to conserve and enhance areas of archaeological interest, and listed buildings and their settings. These policies reflect those of the NPPF which in paragraph 98 states support for renewable energy development if its impacts are (or can be made) acceptable.

7. The Cumbria Joint Wind Energy Supplementary Planning Document (SPD) was adopted by the Council and identifies the area within which the appeal site is situated as Landscape Type 12a Limestone Farmland. The SPD advises that that the sensitivity of the landscape to development is moderate to high based on its intimate scale, restricted zone of visibility, historic field patterns, ancient villages and remoteness. The SPD goes on to advise that the landscape has a low/moderate landscape capacity for up to a small group of turbines.

Landscape character and visual impact

8. From the evidence, it would appear that the appeal site has no local or national landscape designation. Around 6.7km to the south is the boundary of the Yorkshire Dales National Park (YDNP), while around 7.5km to the west is the boundary of the Lake District National Park. Both parks are under consideration for boundary extensions which would bring them closer to the appeal site. The M6 motorway passes around 2km from the proposal. The surrounding landscape is undulating in character, containing an irregular field pattern subdivided by dry stone wall boundaries. The expansive skyline is a prominent feature of the area which also has a strong traditional rural character. I did not observe other turbines in the vicinity.

9. A Landscape Visual Impact Assessment (LVIA) was submitted by the appellant. The LVIA assessed the magnitude of impact on landscape character and visual amenity using the SPD, the Cumbria Landscape Character Guidance and Toolkit, and the Guidelines for Landscape and Visual Impact Assessment (2nd Edition). It considered the potential landscape character and visual effects, and included a Zone of Theoretical Visibility (ZTV) and 8 representative viewpoints of the proposal. An additional series of photomontages was submitted by the Orton Fells Walking Group (OFWG) which I have also taken into account.

www.planningportal.gov.uk/planninginspectorate 2 Pack No 12 Appeal Decision APP/H0928/A/14/2223447

10. The LVIA found that the proposal would be of an appropriate size to be absorbed into the local landscape without causing a significant impact. It is claimed that the ZTV demonstrates that beyond 5km the turbine would not be widely visible. In respect of visual impact, the LVIA concludes (using the ZTV model which considered radii of 5km and 15km from the proposal) that the proposal would not significantly affect any designation or residential amenity.

11. From my observations, I consider that over distances greater than around 5km, views of the proposal would be intermittent due to the screening effects of the intervening topography, mature vegetation and existing buildings, either collectively or individually. This is apparent from LVIA viewpoints 6, 7 and 8. Within these longer range views, the proposal would not have a dominant or overbearing presence in any vistas and prospects, such that any harm arising in respect of the effect on landscape character and visual impact would be minor.

12. However, although of a modest scale in wind turbine terms, at around 67m to the blade tip, the proposal would be a very conspicuous feature in the local landscape. The receptors within 5km include residents of Tebay (LVIA viewpoint 2), travellers on the local roads which pass close by (B6260, B6261 and the lane to the north of the appeal site) and local footpaths (LVIA viewpoints 1 and 5, OFWG viewpoints 1- 10). From these closer range views the turbine would appear as a prominent, alien feature that would often be seen against the skyline. Its solid mast construction with moving blades would make it a stand out feature that would add a sense of visual clutter to the area. In this regard, there would appear to be no detailed consideration in the LVIA of the landscape character and visual impact effects of the proposal specifically in relation to the proposed extension to the YDNP. If the Order to vary is approved, the boundary would be located around 150m from the appeal site.

13. In my judgement, such a prominent and striking addition to the area would be at odds with the inherent characteristics of the local landscape, notably its traditional rural character, and sense of remoteness and tranquillity. Notwithstanding the fact that the landscape has been identified as one that could accommodate small scale wind energy developments and contains a number of man-made features, I consider that the proposal would be a visually jarring element that would have an overbearing presence such that the harm in terms of the local effect on landscape character and visual impact would be moderate.

14. Accordingly, as a proposal that would cause minor landscape character and visual impact harm in longer range views and moderate landscape character and visual impact harm from nearby vantage points, it would conflict with CS Policies CS18 and CS20.

Setting of the heritage assets

15. The officer’s report lists the heritage assets within 2km of the appeal site, and assesses the effect of the proposal on their settings. These are identified as; 5 Grade II listed buildings (Fawcett Mill, Gaisgill Farm and outbuilding, Gaisgill New House, Town Head Farm and barn, and Orton Hall), 2 no. Scheduled Ancient Monuments (SAM) (Castle Howe Motte and Bailey, and Ring Cairn north west of Raisgill Hall) and Orton Conservation Area.

www.planningportal.gov.uk/planninginspectorate 3 Pack No 13 Appeal Decision APP/H0928/A/14/2223447

16. The NPPF defines the setting of a heritage asset as the surroundings in which it is experienced. The extent is not fixed and may change as the asset and its surroundings evolve. Elements of a setting may make a positive or negative contribution to the significance of an asset; may affect the ability to appreciate that significance; or, may be neutral. The significance of an asset is defined in the NPPF as its value to this and future generations because of its heritage interest. Significance derives not only from a heritage asset’s physical presence, but also from its setting. Significance may be harmed by a development. Section 66(1) of the Planning (Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas) Act 1990 states that special regard should be paid to the desirability of preserving the settings of listed buildings, where those settings would be affected by proposed development.

17. With regard to Orton Conservation Area, the separation distance and intervening landscape features, would greatly limit any inter-visibility between the heritage asset and the proposal. In which case, this heritage asset is not readily experienced or appreciated in views from, and across, the appeal site. The appeal site itself is not integral to its understanding or appreciation and I consider that the proposal would not result in any harm to the significance of this heritage asset as a development within its setting.

18. Furthermore, in respect of the listed buildings and Castle Howe Motte and Bailey SAM, I consider that the proposal would not exert visual dominance over any of these heritage assets given the limited inter-visibility, as there would be few vistas, prospects and panoramas that would include the proposal and these heritage assets. The constraints brought about by landform, mature vegetation, intervening distances, buildings and roads, along with the modest scale of the proposed turbine would give it a very peripheral presence within their settings. As such the magnitude of change to their settings would be very minor.

19. However, there would be a considerable degree of inter-visibility between the proposal and the Ring Cairn north west of Raisgill Hall SAM which would be situated around 600m from the proposal at a lower level. The significance of this heritage asset lies in its historical, evidential and communal values. As a designated SAM, it is clearly of national importance and the values identified above give it a high degree of significance.

20. While the setting of this SAM has been compromised to some degree by the erection of an agricultural building nearby, I nevertheless consider that its position makes it a notable feature in the landscape which means its setting would have a high sensitivity to change. The height of the proposal allied to the movement of the blades, would make it a major element within this setting, exerting a strong visual dominance over the heritage asset, thereby having an adverse effect on its significance.

21. NPPF paragraph 132 states that “when considering the impact of a proposed development on the significance of a designated heritage asset, great weight should be given to the asset’s conservation. The more important the asset, the greater the weight should be. In my judgement, the Ring Cairn is a heritage asset of considerable importance and it derives some of its significance from its setting which would be adversely affected by the proposal. This would be contrary to CS Policy CS17 and would equate to less than substantial harm (for

www.planningportal.gov.uk/planninginspectorate 4 Pack No 14 Appeal Decision APP/H0928/A/14/2223447

the purposes of paragraph 134 of the NPPF) which requires to be weighed against any public benefits of the proposal, a matter to which I return below.

Other matters

22. With regard to the effect of the proposal on the occupiers of nearby dwellings, from the evidence and what I observed, views of the proposal would be tempered by topography, orientation of the dwellings and mature vegetation, either singly or in combination. Consequently, these factors along with the modest scale of the proposal and limited degree of the available panorama that it would occupy would mean that it would be unlikely to harmfully change the living conditions of the occupiers of these dwellings in respect of any loss of outlook.

23. Furthermore, with regard to noise, shadow flicker, highway safety and ecology, these matters were considered by the Council taking advice from its own Environmental Health Officer and the highway authority. I note from the officer report that the conclusion is drawn that subject to conditions, there would be no negative effects arising from the proposal in respect of these matters and from my assessment I have no reason to disagree.

24. Concerns were also raised regarding cumulative impact. There are several wind energy schemes in the general area and while there may be some locations within the surrounding area from where 2 or more of these schemes may be seen in particular views or in a sequence of views, given the separation distances between them, I consider that they would not collectively become a significant or defining characteristic of the area such that they would have a harmful effect on the overall experience of the landscape.

Benefits

25. This proposal is a joint enterprise between Mr Dunning and First Milk Energy Limited. The proposed turbine would have a power rating of around 500kW and the appellant claims it would enable the diversification of his dairy farm whilst reducing carbon emissions. It would also help the appellant to achieve economic security by providing significant rental income. Additionally supermarkets are now looking for green credentials from their suppliers. This is reflected in the representations submitted in support of the proposal.

26. The development plan provides in-principle support for renewable energy and the NPPF at paragraph 98 recognises that even small-scale projects provide a valuable contribution to cutting greenhouse gas emissions. The development would contribute to the generation of renewable energy which would assist in meeting national targets that seek to reduce carbon emissions in order to tackle climate change. It would also make a contribution to supporting rural enterprise and economic activity.

Planning balance

27. The benefits arising from the generation of renewable energy, reduction in carbon emissions and the economic benefits to the rural enterprise lend substantial weight in favour of the proposal. Nevertheless, although time limited to a period of 20 years, the proposal would result in less than substantial harm to the significance of a heritage asset as a development within its setting, moderate landscape character and visual impact harm when

www.planningportal.gov.uk/planninginspectorate 5 Pack No 15 Appeal Decision APP/H0928/A/14/2223447

seen from nearby vantage points and minor landscape character and visual impact harm over longer range views.

28. Consequently, giving great weight to the conservation of the heritage asset, I consider that the benefits accruing, both public and private, would not outweigh the totality of the harm and the proposal would be contrary to CS Policies CS17, CS18 and CS20 and NPPF paragraphs 132 and 134.

Conclusion

29. I have had regard to the changes to policy arising from the Written Ministerial Statement entitled Local Planning, dated 18 June 2015, which in the light of the facts of this case, do not alter my conclusion that for the reasons given above, the appeal should be dismissed.

Richard McCoy

INSPECTOR

www.planningportal.gov.uk/planninginspectorate 6 Pack No 16 Agenda Item 6

Report No CD60/15 FRONT ITEM Eden District Council Planning Committee 20 August 2015

Hay Close Wind Farm

Reporting Officer: Head of Planning Responsible Portfolio: Communities 1 Purpose of Report 1.1 The Report is to inform Members of the Planning Committee: (1) to seek Members’ approval that as a significant new material planning consideration relating to onshore wind has been introduced by the Government an additional reason for refusal should be promoted as part of the Council’s case at the appeal inquiry; and (2) to seek Members’ approval that Reason for Refusal (3) be conditionally withdrawn; and (3) to seek Members’ approval that Reason for Refusal (4) be conditionally withdrawn; and (4) to update Members of the progress of the appeal. 2 Recommendations:

It is recommended that the following additional reason for refusal be agreed by Members of the Planning Committee and form part of the Council’s Statement of Case to be lodged with the Planning Inspectorate by 24th August 2015: ‘The proposal has failed to address the planning impacts identified by affected local communities and fails to have their backing contrary to the Written Statement made by the Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government (Greg Clark) on 18 June 2015’ It is further recommended that the Council withdraws its current reason for Refusal (3): ‘The proposed turbines would result in an unacceptable adverse impact on the nearby VLF transmitter of national strategic importance at Skelton, with no mitigation available at this time, contrary to Core Strategy policy CS20 and national planning policy’ subject to the imposition of the planning condition requested by DIO in its letter dated 04 August 2015 in Annex A. It is also recommended that the Council withdraws its current Reason for Refusal (4):

1 Pack No 17 ‘The applicant has been unable to demonstrate that the turbines would not create a hazard to aviation (and telecommunication infrastructure) with specific reference to the current and future operations of Carlisle Airport, NATS safeguarding criteria (and a UK critical national infrastructure link) contrary to CS20 and national planning policy’ subject to the imposition of the planning conditions requested by NATS in its letter dated 09 July 2015.

3 Report Details 3.1 A planning application for a wind farm consisting of 4 No. 130m turbines at Hay Close Farm, Calthwaite, was submitted to the Council on 18 July 2014. 3.2 The application was considered by officers, recommended for refusal and subsequently refused by Members of the Planning Committee on 16 October 2014. The four reasons for refusal are set out below: “1. The proposed turbines, by virtue of their scale and siting on a prominent location in attractive open countryside, would have a significant adverse and unacceptable level of harm on the landscape in which they are sited contrary to Core Strategy policies CS18 and CS20 and national planning policy. 2. The proposed turbines, by virtue of their scale and siting on a prominent location in attractive and popular countryside, would result in a substantial and unacceptable level of harm to the visual amenity of the area including nearby small settlements and residential properties and their use and enjoyment for recreational purposes contrary to Core Strategy policies CS18 and CS20 and national planning policy. 3. The proposed turbines would result in an unacceptable adverse impact on the nearby VLF transmitter of national strategic importance at Skelton, with no mitigation available at this time, contrary to Core Strategy policy CS20 and national planning policy. 4. The applicant has been unable to demonstrate that the turbines would not create a hazard to aviation (and telecommunication infrastructure) with specific reference to the current and future operations of Carlisle Airport, NATS safeguarding criteria (and a UK critical national infrastructure link) contrary to CS20 and national planning policy.” A copy of the October Committee Report is included with this Report as appendix A. 3.3 Following the refusal of the application, the Council was notified that the applicant had submitted an appeal on 14 April 2015 (just within six months following a decision in which an appeal can be lodged). 3.4 On 27 April 2015 Historic England notified the Council that in a Report dated 15 April part of Hay Close Farm (namely the south west farmstead and associated section of leat) had been listed Grade II as a building of special architectural or historic interest. 3.5 Since part of Hay Close Farm was listed after the start of the appeal, the Council’s witnesses will address the implications in their evidence.

2 Pack No 18 3.6 Although notified of the appeal in April the appeal process did not actually start until 29 June 2015 when the Council received the ‘first letter’ from the appeal case officer at the Planning Inspectorate, which handles appeal administration on behalf of the Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government (SSCLG) setting out the appeal timetable. This requires the Council’s Statement of Case and the (draft) Statement of Common Ground to be submitted by 24 August 2015. At present, no date has been fixed by the Planning Inspectorate (PINS) for the public inquiry although the date of Tuesday 5th April 2016 has been recently proposed by PINS with a suggested duration of 6 days. 3.7 On 30 June 2015 the Council received a letter from PINS inviting comments on how the Written Ministerial Statement (‘the Ministerial Statement’) on Local Planning made by the current SSCLG, the Rt. Hon. Greg Clarke MP, on 18 June 2015 and the Department for Communities and Local Government’s amended online guidance on renewable and low carbon energy affects the Hay Close Wind Farm appeal. A copy of the Statement is included as appendix B to this report. 3.8 The Ministerial Statement is highly relevant to the appeal and includes the following significant text: “Where a valid planning application for a wind energy development has already been submitted to a local planning authority and the development plan does not identify suitable sites, the following transitional provision applies. In such instances, local planning authorities can find the proposal acceptable if, following consultation, they are satisfied it has addressed the planning impacts identified by affected local communities and therefore has their backing.” 3.9 When taking the above transitional arrangements into account, officers are of the opinion that the appeal proposal does not address the planning impacts identified by local community and therefore fails to have their backing. This is evidenced by the high number of objection letters and the parish council’s objection to the proposal. 3.10 Following review of the Ministerial Statement, and, advice from counsel, officers now recommend that a revision is made to the Council’s current appeal case to add this new significant material consideration. Officers consider that if the Council was still the determining authority at this time, rather than the SSCLG, they would have recommended inclusion of the following additional reason for refusal: ‘The proposal has failed to address the planning impacts identified by affected local communities and fails to have their backing contrary to the Written Statement made by the Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government (Greg Clark) on 18 June 2015’ 3.11 Officers have responded to the Planning Inspectorate’s letter dated 30 June 2015. The response to the letter is included as appendix C to this Report. Part of this response highlights that officers intend to prepare a report for the consideration of Members as an opportunity to review the Council’s approach to the appeal and hence this Report.

3 Pack No 19 3.12 Notwithstanding the advice of officers Members may consider that the Ministerial Statement should not affect the appeal and that the Council should progress the appeal on the basis of the original reasons for refusal. 3.13 In this last respect, it will be recalled that in respect of Reason for Refusal (4) officers advised in the previous Report (appendix A) as follows: 8.7.1 An assessment of the impact of the proposal on telecommunications and aviation interests has been undertaken within the ES as part of the EIA. The assessment identified that the NATS operations may experience interference as a result of the development. In response to the application Carlisle Airport has objected on the basis that the impacts of the proposal have not been adequately assessed to ensure that air safety is in no way compromised. NATS has objected to the application on the basis that it conflicts with its safeguarding criteria and 9.2.3 Consideration has also been given to the technical objections from the Ministry of Defence, Carlisle Airport, NATS and JRC and with no proposed mitigation or a response to these objections these must also form reasons for refusal on the basis that they are contrary unacceptable effects not outweighed by the benefits (CS20 and the NPPF). 3.14 By a letter dated 09 July 2015 (appendix D) NATS Safeguarding has now written to PINS including the following: ‘Further to the objection, NATS had confirmed the potential for a mitigation solution. This solution, commonly known as ‘radar blanking’ while allowing to address the impact of the proposal has an impact on the radar’s operation and as such is a compromise for the users of the radar. Due to this, NATS required time to carry out further assessments prior to being able to confirm its position.

In respect of the Appeal for Hay Close Farm however, I am now satisfied that the proposed solution is acceptable to all affected stakeholders.

While the implementation of the mitigation solution is dependent on the applicant entering into a contractual agreement, NATS is now confident that the technical solution is a tangible and realistic one which can be delivered at this location within the lifetime of the planning consent (3 years). Accordingly, NATS is content that should the Planning Inspectorate be minded to grant the Appeal, it would now be appropriate to impose the standard aviation conditions on the consent as detailed below.’ 3.15 Given that the promotion of Reason for Refusal (4) was dependent upon the continuing involvement of NATS, and, they have now written in these terms officers are of the view that this refusal reason no longer needs to form part of the Council’s substantive case at appeal. The suggested conditions will be drawn to the attention of the appointed Inspector who will be reporting to the SSCLG. 3.16 Members are also reminded that in respect of Reason for Refusal (3) officers advised in the previous Report as follows: 8.7.2 The application has been objected to by the Ministry of Defence on the basis that the turbines may affect the operation of a nearby long range very low frequency (VLF) transmitter providing VLF radio services used to communicate with Royal Navy vessels globally. No response to this objection

4 Pack No 20 has been received from the applicant and it appears at this time that this objection is insurmountable. and 9.2.3 [as set out above in paragraph 3.13]. 3.17 By a letter dated 04 August 2015 (appendix E) the Ministry of Defence (MoD) has also now written to PINS in the following terms: The MOD submitted a response dated 12th September 2014 to Eden District Council raising an objection to the proposal on the basis that the turbines would fall within the vicinity of a long range Very Low Frequency (VLF) transmitter which provides VLF radio services used to communicate with Royal navy vessels globally. As stated in that response, VLF radio is a very specialised area of electronics, and the effects of wind turbines have been subject to only limited study. It is for this reason that the MOD has proactively sought to research the effects of wind turbines on the VLF asset and a recent technical and operational study specifically in relation to Hay Close Farm wind turbine proposal has produced new information. Taking into consideration a number of factors relating to this specific wind turbine proposal and its location to the VLF transmitter, I can confirm that the conclusion of the study is that the proposal would not adversely affect the operation capability of the VLF Received Signal Service. As such, the MOD is content to remove its objection to the proposal but we request a condition is applied to ensure that suitable aviation lighting is installed should consent be granted. A condition is attached at Annex A for the Inspector’s consideration. 3.18 Given that the promotion of Reason for Refusal (3) was dependent upon the continuing involvement of the objector (MoD), as it has now written in these terms officers are of the view that this refusal reason also no longer needs to form part of the Council’s substantive case at appeal. The requested notification by MoD of further detailed information will be discussed further and, if still required, form part of the Council’s proposed list of conditions for discussion with the appointed Inspector at that stage of the Inquiry. 4 Policy Framework 4.1 The Council has four corporate priorities which are:  Decent Homes for All  Strong Economy, Rich Environment  Thriving Communities  Quality Council 4.2 This report has taken into account the Council’s priorities as outlined above. 5 Implications 5.1 Legal 5.1.1 Counsel's advice has been sought upon the implications of the Written Ministerial Statement dated 18th June and has been included within the body of the report.

5 Pack No 21 5.2 Financial 5.2.1 Any decision to reduce or increase resources must be made within the context of the Council’s stated priorities, as set out in its Council Plan 2015- 19 as agreed at Council on 16 April 2015. There are no proposals in this report that would reduce or increase resources as the public inquiry will progress regardless. The report seeks to update and strengthen the Council’s position in defending the appeal. 5.3 Equality and Diversity 5.3.1 The Council has to have regard to the elimination of unlawful discrimination and harassment and the promotion of equality under the Equality Act 2010 and related statutes. 5.3.2 The report should refer to any equality and diversity implications which have relevance to the subject matter and the Council’s responsibilities. Any rurality implications should be included in this section. 5.4 Environmental 5.4.1 The Council has to have due regard to conserving bio-diversity under the Natural Environment and Rural Communities Act 2006. 5.5 Crime and Disorder 5.5.1 Under the Crime and Disorder Act 1998 the Council has to have regard to the need to reduce crime and disorder in exercising any of its functions. 5.6 Children 5.6.1 Under the Children Act 2004 the Council has to have regard to the need to safeguard and promote the welfare of children in the exercise of any of its functions. 5.7 Risk Management 5.7.1 In normal appeal circumstances introducing new material during the appeal stage has the potential to lead to an award of costs if the introduction of the material could be considered to be unreasonable. Given that the Statement was published on 18 June 2015, it is considered to be a new material consideration not available at the time of the application. Furthermore it is the Planning Inspectorate who has specifically requested a response to the Statement and therefore the risk of being considered to have acted unreasonably is low. 5.7.2 There is a risk associated with not adopting the officer recommendation of this Report in that the Council could be considered to have failed to robustly defend the appeal to the best of its ability in line with legal advice. 6 Reasons for decision/recommendation 6.1 It is considered that the Ministerial Statement is a new and significant material consideration that (should the Council still be the determining authority) would have attracted significant weight in the planning balance, and would have resulted in an additional reason for refusal. The recommendation that the Council pursues an amended case at appeal to include the Ministerial Statement will strengthen the Council’s position in defending its reasons for refusal.

6 Pack No 22 6.2 It is also considered that there are sound reasons for the Council no longer pursuing Reasons for Refusal (3) and (4) subject to the imposition of the requested planning conditions (or similar).

Gwyn Clark Head of Planning Services

Governance Checks: Checked by or on behalf of the Chief Finance Officer ✓

Checked by or on behalf of the Monitoring Officer ✓

Background papers: Planning File 14/0637 Contact Officer: Daniel Addis, Senior Planning Officer Telephone Number: 01768 212317

Appendix A: Committee Report 16 October 2014 Appendix B: Written Ministerial Statement Appendix C: Response to Planning Inspectorate’s letter dated 30 June 2015 Appendix D: NATS letter dated 09 July 2015 Appendix E: DIO (MOD) letter dated 04 August 2015.

7 Pack No 23 Appendix A Agenda Item 6 REPORTS FOR DEBATE Item 1 Date of Committee: 16 October 2014

Planning Application No: 14/0637 Date Received: 18 July 2014

OS Grid Ref: 344847 541651 Expiry Date: 7 November 2014

Parish: Hesket Ward: Hesket

Proposal: Erection of four wind turbines with a maximum height to blade tip of 130m (above ground level) with associated ancillary infrastructure, control building, internal access tracks, crane pads and temporary site compound/storage area.

Location: Hay Close Farm, Calthwaite

Applicant: REG Windpower Ltd

Agent: REG Windpower Ltd

Case Officer: Daniel Addis

Reason for Referral: Significant level of public objection

Pack No 24 Agenda Item 6 REPORTS FOR DEBATE 1. Recommendation

It is recommended that planning permission is refused for the following reasons: 1. The proposed turbines, by virtue of their scale and siting on a prominent location in attractive open countryside, would have a significant adverse and unacceptable level of harm on the landscape in which they are sited contrary to Core Strategy policies CS18 and CS20 and national planning policy. 2. The proposed turbines, by virtue of their scale and siting on a prominent location in attractive and popular countryside, would result in a substantial and unacceptable level of harm to the visual amenity of the area including nearby small settlements and residential properties and their use and enjoyment for recreational purposes contrary to Core Strategy policies CS18 and CS20 and national planning policy. 3. The proposed turbines would result in an unacceptable adverse impact on the nearby VLF transmitter of national strategic importance at Skelton, with no mitigation available at this time, contrary to Core Strategy policy CS20 and national planning policy. 4. The applicant has been unable to demonstrate that the turbines would not create a hazard to aviation (and telecommunication infrastructure) with specific reference to the current and future operations of Carlisle Airport, NATS safeguarding criteria (and a UK critical national infrastructure link) contrary to CS20 and national planning policy.

2. Proposal and Site Description 2.1 Proposal 2.1.1 Full planning permission is sought for the erection of four wind turbines measuring up to 80m to the hub with a maximum blade tip height of 130m. The wind turbines proposed are three bladed machines on a cylindrical tower with a generating capacity of 2.6MW per turbine. The application includes an allowance for the micro-siting of the turbines should it be necessary. 2.1.2 The proposal would require permanent infrastructure including; an upgraded junction, an access track, control buildings, construction compound and crane pads. 2.1.3 The electricity generated from the turbines would be exported to the National Grid offsite. The connection to the National Grid would be undertaken by the District Network Operator (DNO) under its permitted development rights and the connection route is therefore not considered as part of this application. 2.1.4 The application is supported by a full Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) which assessed the effects of the proposal through an Environmental Statement (ES) under the following chapter headings:- aviation and telecommunications, cultural heritage, ecology and nature conservation, geology, hydrogeology, hydrology and flood risk, landscape and visual impacts, noise, shadow flicker, socio-economics and transport and access. The application also included a statement of community engagement, a carbon balance assessment, a design and access statement and a planning statement. 2.1.5 The applicant, REG Windpower, is a British company that develops owns and operates wind farms throughout the UK. With regards to benefits - the wind farm would contribute 10.4MW of renewable energy generation which is a significant

Pack No 25 Agenda Item 6 REPORTS FOR DEBATE contribution to the national targets and an 8% uplift in the currently installed or consented capacity within Cumbria. The carbon savings are estimated to be in the region of 22,193 tonnes of CO2e per year. The proposal would also result in the creation of jobs during the construction stage and also during the operation stage. A community benefit fund of £5,000 per installed MW per year (£52,000/year) is also proposed. 2.1.6 In accordance with national requirements, the applicant has entered into the pre- application consultation process. The applicant’s consultation included a stakeholder preview consultation followed by two days of public consultations, a community newsletter, a consultation website, a twitter feed, the production of information packs, and presentations to Hesket and Skelton Parish Councils. 2.2 Site Description 2.2.1 The site is located between the villages of Low Braithwaite to the north west and Calthwaite to the south east. The site is elevated (approximately 180m-190m above ordnance datum (AOD)) with long ranging views particularly to the east and west where the land slopes away. The M6 motorway is located to the east of the site. The application site extends to approximately 11.21 hectares and includes a number of agricultural fields associated with Hay Close Farm. Although the site is isolated, there are a number of residential properties close to the site with the closest properties following the ‘loop’ of public roads to the north, east, south and west of the site. 2.2.2 Access to the site will be taken using an upgraded existing access point from the public road to the south of the site. The upgraded access would continue onto a new access track which would service the proposed turbines and associated infrastructure. 2.2.3 No footpaths cross the site although there are a number of footpaths nearby. The closest footpath (reference 328023) is located to the south of the site and traverses east to west, part of it continuing along the access track to Hay Close Farm and then heading south towards Hill Houses and beyond. At its closest point the footpath is 450m from the upgraded access and approximately 800m from the closest turbine. 2.2.4 The closest residential properties to the turbine are located at Hay Close Farm, although because these properties are financially involved, they are subject to a reduced level of amenity. The closest properties that are not financially involved are Sceugh Hill Farm (680m to nearest turbine), Bents Cottage (683m to nearest turbine), Haystones (681m to nearest turbine), The Elephant and The Elephant Cottage (694m to nearest turbine). The next closest properties are located further than 1km from the turbines at the nearest point. 3. Statutory Consultees

Consultee Response Cumbria County Council Object due to adverse landscape, visual and cumulative effects which are not outweighed by the benefits. Highways Authority No objection.

Pack No 26 Agenda Item 6 REPORTS FOR DEBATE

Consultee Response Ministry of Defence Object - adverse effect on nearby long range VLF transmitter used to communicate with Royal Navy vessels globally. JRC Object - adverse effect on local UK critical national infrastructure telecommunication link. Carlisle Airport Object - a full aviation assessment which meets the airport’s required standards (including being produced by a CAA approved organisation) and which demonstrates that there will be no safety conflict with aviation activities has not been completed. Environment Agency No comment. Highways Agency No objection. Natural England No objection. English Heritage No objection. Conservation Officer Concludes that the proposal would have a very adverse impact on the nearby Grade II listed property The Elephant and decreasing impacts (slight - moderate) on other nearby listed buildings. Concerned that the benefits of the scheme are not focused on the historic environment. County Archaeologist No objection subject to archaeological condition. Carlisle City Council No objection. Environmental Health No objection subject to conditions. Lake District National Park No response at time of report. NATS Objection.

CAA No response at time of the report.

3.1 In addition to the statutory consultees listed above several interest groups have objected to the application including Friends of the Lake District, The Westnewton Action Group, Friends of Rural Cumbria’s Environment, Ivegill Footpath Group and the Penrith Ramblers Group for the following reasons:  Impact on landscape character.  Oppressive, overbearing and dominating effects at closest properties.  Driver distraction.  Cumulative impact.  There is no need for additional renewable energy generation.  Unacceptable impacts on tourism.  Unacceptable impacts on residential amenity.

Pack No 27 Agenda Item 6 REPORTS FOR DEBATE  Unacceptable impacts on heritage assets.  Close up, middle and long range significant impacts on users of footpaths.  Noise experienced by users of the nearby footpath. 4. Parish Council/Meeting Response

Please Tick as Appropriate Parish Council Object Support No Response No View Expressed Hesket Parish √ Council 4.1 Hesket Parish Council has provided the following comments on the application: “Hesket Parish Council strongly objects to the above planning application. Please find below the reasons for the objection: 1. The proposed turbine will have a huge visual impact on the area and will dominate the landscape. 2. The proposed turbine is thought to be too close to residential properties, residents could suffer from noise causing sleeping issues and stress. 3. The siting of such a wind turbine will have a negative effect on value of surrounding property prices. 4. The Calthwaite - Carlisle road has various dips in which local drivers are aware of, distraction from a turbine could cause accidents 5. Cyclist groups regularly use this road as a training route; distraction from a wind turbine could result in an accident. 6. The wildlife nature habitat will be disturbed. 7. Councillors were also concerned about further wind turbines. 8. The majority of local residents are opposed to this application and feel that this application has no benefit to this area.” 4.2 In addition to the Hesket Parish Council objection above, the neighbouring parish councils of Lazonby and Castle Sowerby have also objected to the application. 5. Representations 5.1 Letters of consultation were sent to near neighbours and a site notice was posted on 31 July 2014.

No of Neighbours Consulted 81 No of letters of support 2 No of Representations 430 No of neutral representations 5 Received No of objection letters 423

Pack No 28 Agenda Item 6 REPORTS FOR DEBATE 5.2 Letters of objection raised the following concerns which are material considerations to the application:  Adverse impact on cultural heritage  Overshadowing  Residential Amenity - overbearing, shadow flicker, vibration  Adverse impact of noise  Landscape character - AONB, LDNP, dominating, out of character  Adverse impact on amenity of the area - recreation interests  Adverse effect on tourism  Cumulative impact - other vertical man-made infrastructure  Adverse impact on wildlife - bats, birds and horses  Disturbance during construction and operation  Adverse impact on the health of nearby property owners  Highway Safety 5.3 Letters of objection raised the following concerns which are non-material considerations:  Precedent  Unnecessary  Adverse impact on property prices  Inefficiency of machines  Allerdale Borough Council has implemented a 800m separation from dwellings for all turbines 5.4 Letters of support were received which provided the following comments:  The turbines will not spoil views  The turbines will not make a lot of noise  The turbines can be recycled  There is no tourism in the area 5.5 Letters of observation were received which provided the following comments:  The turbines are out of scale and character with the surrounding landscape  The turbines will spoil the landscape  The turbines should be on industrial land  Wrong place for turbines 6. Relevant Planning History

Application No Description Outcome 14/0541 Erection of a temporary anemometry Approved at mast (15.95 metres in height), supporting committee on guy sets and drive-in ground anchors. 18/09/14

Pack No 29 Agenda Item 6 REPORTS FOR DEBATE

7. Policy Context 7.1 Development Plan Core Strategy CS1: Sustainable Development Principles CS16: Principles for the Natural Environment CS17: Principles for the Built (Historic) Environment CS18: Design of New Development CS20: Renewable Energy 7.2 Material Considerations National Planning Policy Framework (the NPPF) Planning Practice Guidance (the PPG) Cumbria Wind Energy Supplementary Planning Document (the SPD) The policies detailed above are the most relevant policies relating to this application. 8. Assessment 8.1 Key/Main Planning Issues  Landscape impact  Visual impact  Historic environment  Natural environment  Transport and access  Telecommunications and aviation  Noise and shadow flicker 8.2 Landscape Impacts 8.2.1 The turbines would be sited on an elevated position at approximately 180-190m AOD with long ranging views to the site in all directions including particularly east towards the Eden Valley and the North Pennines AONB and west towards the Lake District National Park. The site lies within an attractive rolling agricultural landscape with blocks of tree planting, minor hedge-lined country roads connecting scattered dwellings, farm buildings and small villages. The landscape already features elements of significant infrastructure including the M6 motorway located approximately 700m to the east of the site and the communication masts at Skelton - located approximately 3km south west of the site. 8.2.2 The Wind Energy SPD identifies the site within Landscape Character Type 6 ‘Intermediate Land’ which has a Moderate Landscape Capacity Subtype. The Wind Energy SPD identifies that within this subtype there is a moderately strong historical interest attributable to the presence of conservation areas, medieval villages and field patterns. The SPD confirms that Intermediate land has a moderate capacity to accommodate small to large turbine gaps.

Pack No 30 Agenda Item 6 REPORTS FOR DEBATE 8.2.3 The landscape and visual impact assessment (LVIA) submitted with the application concluded that the proposal would become the dominant characteristic of the landscape within an area of up to 1.1km of the proposed turbines and would have localised significant effects on the landscape character of the Intermediate Farmland LCT within this distance range. The LVIA provides that beyond 3km the proposal would have a low to negligible magnitude which would not be significant. 8.2.4 Based on the zone of theoretical visibility (ZTV) maps submitted with the application the turbines will be highly visible within 5km of the site with decreasing levels of visibility out to 15km. Large areas of land where the turbines would not be visible existing to the southeast and the southwest whilst high levels of visibility would be experienced to the north, south-south east, and north west. As shown on the ZTV the turbines will be visible out to 25km though the impact of the turbines at this range would be negligible. 8.2.5 The LVIA is supported by a number of visualisations based on photographs captured at nearby sensitive receptors/viewpoints (VPs). Visualisations based at the closest viewpoints (VPs 1, 2, 3, 4, 7, and 20) show that the turbines occupy an elevated position and dominate the views. Visualisations based at the viewpoints further afield but within 5km of the site (VPs 5, 6 and 19) show that the turbines remain prominent with no screening or backcloth - this is particularly relevant from VPs 5 and 6 which look west towards the LDNP from the A66. The impact of the turbines on the landscape begins to reduce between 5km-15km including from VPs 8, 9, 11 and 18. The turbines appear largely indiscernible at ranges exceeding this as demonstrated by VPs 10, 12, 14, 15 and 17. 8.2.6 Drawing the above together: the landscape in which the turbines are proposed is an attractive rural landscape backclothed by landscapes of national importance - the AONB to the east and the LDNP to the west. The proposed turbines are large scale at 130m and occupy an elevated and prominent position particularly when viewed from the east and west. Whilst there are no nearby turbines that would likely result in an objectionable level of cumulative impact, the turbines would be seen in the context of the Skelton masts and will add more noticeable clutter (due to the girth of the towers and their continual movement) to the landscape. Overall the proposal would result in a significant adverse effect on the character of the landscape both locally and further afield. 8.3 Visual Impacts 8.3.1 There are a high number of sensitive visual receptors in the locality including small settlements, residential properties, businesses and recreational users. 8.3.2 The key visual receptors in the area are the high number of residential properties out to 1.5km from the site, some of which are financially involved and others which are not. Consideration has been given to the effects of the proposal at the closest properties based on their orientation, their amenity space and the availability of screening. From most properties at this range the turbines would appear as prominent, visually intrusive and out of scale with the immediate surroundings. 8.3.3 This is also the case when the turbines are considered at nearby villages including Calthwaite, Hutton End and further afield at High Hesket. There is very little tree cover overall and due to the size of the turbines and their rotating nature, this would only go some way to providing a meaningful level of screening and/or relief from views.

Pack No 31 Agenda Item 6 REPORTS FOR DEBATE 8.3.4 It is clear from the high level of objection to the application that the area is a popular resource for recreational activities including, walking, cycling and horse-riding. Many objections have raised concerns that the amenity of the area currently enjoyed by users will be lost including, specifically, the use of the nearest footpath located to the southwest of the site. Due to the direction of the footpath views of the wind farm would be experienced by users approaching the site from Calthwaite to the south and Scales Farm to the west. Users of the footpath would experience significant and adverse effects similar to VP1 and as demonstrated by VP20 which would detract from the otherwise simple and attractive amenity of the area. 8.3.5 Having regard to the scale of the proposed turbines, the number of dwellings with near views of it and the proximity of the public footpath to the site, it is considered that the proposal would result in a considerable adverse effect on the visual amenity of the area within 1.5km of the site and an adverse effect out to 5km. 8.4 Historic Environment 8.4.1 There is a relatively high level of cultural heritage assets within 5km of the site including four schedule monuments, two Grade I listed buildings, five Grade II* listed buildings, four Grade II listed buildings and one registered park and garden. 8.4.2 With regards to archaeological assets and in accordance with both English Heritage and the County Archaeologist responses to the application, it is agreed that the proposed watching brief during construction stages would mitigate any impact on buried archaeological features. 8.4.3 With regards to listed buildings the commentary provided by the conservation officer provides that the impact to the most sensitive listed buildings nearby - The Elephant (Grade II), Scale Hall (Grade I), Scale Hall Gatehouse (Grade I) Streethead (Grade II) and Petterill Bank (Grade II) would on balance be less than substantial. Of note is that Hay Close Farm is currently subject of a listing request to English Heritage (EH ref 1421937) although no weight could be attributed to protecting the asset until the listing was confirmed or otherwise. 8.4.4 With regards to the registered park and garden at Hutton in the Forest, based on the ZTV and a site visit it appears that the turbines would not be visible from much of the house, gardens or parkland and therefore there would only be a negligible impact on the registered park and garden. 8.5 Natural Environment 8.5.1 No international, national or county and locally designated sites will be adversely affected by the proposal. There will be a localised effect on an area of improved grassland, a small area of newly planted woodland and 30 m of a hedgerow. All of these habitats have a relatively low ecological sensitivity and the control of pollution, particularly to local watercourses and the nearby pond could be controlled by a pollution prevention plan required by condition. With regards to protected species the ES identified that ground nesting birds and bats may be affected by the proposal indirectly although the level of harm would be low. No other protected species were identified on or nearby the site that would affect the implementation of the proposal. The relatively low level of harm that may result from the application could be offset by a habitat management plan which the applicant is willing to enter into and which could be secured by planning condition.

Pack No 32 Agenda Item 6 REPORTS FOR DEBATE 8.6 Transport and Access 8.6.1 The impact of the proposal on the local highway infrastructure has been assessed through the ES and found to have a negligible effect during the construction stage and no adverse effect during the operational stage. Neither the highways agency nor the highways authority has raised concerns with the application. 8.7 Telecommunications and Aviation 8.7.1 An assessment of the impact of the proposal on telecommunications and aviation interests has been undertaken within the ES as part of the EIA. The assessment identified that the NATS operations may experience interference as a result of the development. In response to the application Carlisle Airport has objected on the basis that the impacts of the proposal have not been adequately assessed to ensure that air safety is in no way compromised. NATS has objected to the application on the basis that it conflicts with its safeguarding criteria. 8.7.2 The application has been objected to by the Ministry of Defence on the basis that the turbines may affect the operation of a nearby long range very low frequency (VLF) transmitter providing VLF radio services used to communicate with Royal Navy vessels globally. No response to this objection has been received from the applicant and it appears at this time that this objection is insurmountable. 8.7.3 A telecommunications assessment has been undertaken through the ES which found that the proposal would not significantly effects are likely and no mitigation was proposed. Notwithstanding this assessment, JRC has objected to the application both on its own behalf and on behalf of the Electricity Northwest, on the basis that the proposal would adversely affect a UK critical national infrastructure link. 8.8 Noise and Shadow Flicker 8.8.1 Following the review of the ES and the Environmental Health department’s response to the application, it is considered that the noise assessment submitted with the application demonstrates that the turbines can operate without adversely affecting the amenity of the closest dwellings. The ES includes a section on shadow flicker which predicts that nine properties within 1km of the turbines (based on a study area of 10x blade diameter) have the potential to be affected by flicker. Of the nine properties six have the potential to experience more than 30 hours of flicker in a year which equates to a significant level of harm. In response to this the applicant has agreed to provide mitigation which would shut down the turbines where the conditions were such that the effects of shadow flicker could be experienced. This could be secured by planning condition. 9. Planning Policy Assessment 9.1 Principle 9.1.1 The principle of renewable energy development is supported by Core Strategy Objective 11 which seeks to encourage the harnessing of renewable energy sources wherever they have the prospects of being economically viable and environmentally and socially acceptable. The principle of the proposal is further supported by Core Strategy policy CS1 which requires development to contribute to reducing the causes of climate change and Core Strategy policy CS20 which supports renewable energy

Pack No 33 Agenda Item 6 REPORTS FOR DEBATE proposals subject to acceptable effects unless they are outweighed by the need for renewable energy development or other benefits. 9.1.2 There is strong policy support at the national level of renewable energy development including through the NPPF which reflects the imperative to cut carbon emissions and advises that an application for renewable energy should normally be approved if its impacts are (or can be made) acceptable. Planning Practice Guidance (PPG) balances this policy position by making it clear that the need for renewable energy does not automatically override environmental protections or the planning concerns of local communities. Other material considerations include EN-1 (2011) and EN-3 (2011) and a wealth of other government statements and plans as set out in Appendix 1 of the planning statement submitted with the application. 9.2 Planning Balance 9.2.1 There is strong policy support for renewable energy developments particularly where the benefits of the scheme outweigh any adverse impacts (CS20 and the NPPF). In considering this balance considerable weight is given to the benefits of the scheme as set out earlier in this report though this is set against the adverse impacts which in this case are often significant (landscape and visual amenity) and in the case of technical objections (the MOD, Carlisle Airport, NATS and JRC) apparently insurmountable. 9.2.2 Whilst the development plan supports the principle of renewable energy development through CS1 and CS20, the proposal conflicts with CS18 which requires, amongst other criteria, that new development should - complement and enhance an existing area, protect (and where possible) enhance the rural landscape, protect the amenity of existing residents and provide an acceptable amenity for future occupiers. Due to the scale of the turbines, their elevated positions, their high level of visibility and the sensitivity of the landscape it is considered that they would appear visually intrusive in an otherwise attractive and remote rural location. The landscape would be harmed. The visual harm out to 1.5 km would be significant and adverse and the closest residential properties including the listed property The Elephant and its associated cottage. Their amenity would not be protected. CS17 requires that proposals conserve and enhance listed buildings and their settings whilst the NPPF requires, where there is less than substantial harm, the harm should be weighed against the benefits. 9.2.3 Consideration has also been given to the technical objections from the Ministry of Defence, Carlisle Airport, NATS and JRC and with no proposed mitigation or a response to these objections these must also form reasons for refusal on the basis that they are contrary unacceptable effects not outweighed by the benefits (CS20 and the NPPF). 9.2.4 In light of the above assessment it is considered that the proposal is not supported by the development plan or material considerations as the harm is not considered to be outweighed by the benefits. 10. Implications 10.1 Legal Implications 10.1.1 There are no legal implications resulting from this application, other than the need to ensure adequate evidence of all the reasons for refusal would be available to the Council in the event of an appeal against refusal.

Pack No 34 Agenda Item 6 REPORTS FOR DEBATE 10.1.2 Consideration has also been given to the following issues:  Equality  Natural Environment and Rural Communities  Crime and Disorder  Children 10.1.3 There are no implications arising from this report. 11. Conclusion 11.1 It is considered that the proposal does not accord to the Development Plan for the following reasons which are not outweighed by material considerations:  The proposal would have a significant adverse and unacceptable level of harm on the landscape which are not outweighed by the benefits of the scheme.  The proposal would result in significant adverse effect on the visual amenity of the area out to 1.5km including the amenity of nearby small settlements, residential properties and the use and enjoyment of the area for recreational purposes.  The proposal would result in unacceptable interference with a local VLF radio transmitter of national strategic importance with no mitigation available at this time.  It has not been demonstrated that the proposal would not create a hazard to aviation and telecommunication infrastructure with specific reference to the current and future operations of Carlisle Airport, NATS safeguarding criteria and a UK critical national infrastructure link.

Gwyn Clark Head of Planning Services

Checked by or on behalf of the Monitoring Officer 

Background Papers: Planning File 14/0637, including the EIA.

Pack No 35 Appendix B

House of Commons: Written Statement (HCWS42) Department for Communities and Local Government Written Statement made by: Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government (Greg Clark) on 18 Jun 2015.

Local planning

I am today setting out new considerations to be applied to proposed wind energy development so that local people have the final say on wind farm applications, fulfilling the commitment made in the Conservative election manifesto.

Subject to the transitional provision set out below, these considerations will take effect from 18 June and should be taken into account in planning decisions. I am also making a limited number of consequential changes to planning guidance.

When determining planning applications for wind energy development involving one or more wind turbines, local planning authorities should only grant planning permission if:

· the development site is in an area identified as suitable for wind energy development in a Local or Neighbourhood Plan; and

· following consultation, it can be demonstrated that the planning impacts identified by affected local communities have been fully addressed and therefore the proposal has their backing.

In applying these new considerations, suitable areas for wind energy development will need to have been allocated clearly in a Local or Neighbourhood Plan. Maps showing the wind resource as favourable to wind turbines, or similar, will not be sufficient. Whether a proposal has the backing of the affected local community is a planning judgement for the local planning authority.

Where a valid planning application for a wind energy development has already been submitted to a local planning authority and the development plan does not identify suitable sites, the following transitional provision applies. In such instances, local planning authorities can find the proposal acceptable if, following consultation, they are satisfied it has addressed the planning impacts identified by affected local communities and therefore has their backing.

Pack No 36 Appendix C

Pack No 37 Pack No 38 Appendix D

Robert Cook NATS Safeguarding Planning Inspector Corporate & Technical Centre Planning Inspectorate 4000 Parkway Temple Quay House Whiteley Bristol BS1 6PN Fareham PO15 7FL

: 01489 444687 : [email protected] : www.nats.co.uk/windfarms 9th July 2015 

: Sent via email: [email protected] CC: [email protected] 0 1 4 NATS/PINS REF: SG19904 - APP/H0928/W/15/3017315 8 9

Dear Mr Cook, 4 4 Erection of 4 wind turbines with a maximum height to blade tip of 130m (above 4 ground level) with associated ancillary infrastructure, control building, internal access 6 track, crane pads and temporary site compound/storage. 8 I refer to the application referenced above for 4 wind turbines at Hay Close Farm, Calthwaite, 7 CA11 9PX which I understand has appealed against refusal of planning permission.  NATS objected to the application due to the anticipated impact on the Great Dun Fell radar and : the Air Traffic management operations carried out by the NATS centre at Prestwick.

Further to the objection, NATS had confirmed the potential for a mitigation solution. This n mitigation solution, commonly known as ‘radar blanking’ while allowing to address the impact of a the proposal has an impact on the radar’s operation and as such is a compromise for the users t of the radar. Due to this, NATS required time to carry out further assessments prior to being able to confirm its position. s s While the details of the further work is not a material consideration for the appeal, as background information I would also like to explain that while a technical solution was a considered to be tangible early on, prior to being in a position to offer this formally to the f applicant, or making representations in this respect, NATS had to further engage with the e affected stakeholders and seek their approval. Until such point NATS cannot consider mitigation g to be a certainty. u This extra work involves operational air traffic controllers who work shifts and have a range of a duties, to further assess the mitigation solution. It should also be noted that NATS operates in r excess of 20 radars and is investigating multiple instances of mitigation at any one time. d In respect of the Appeal for Hay Close Farm however, I am now satisfied that the proposed i solution is acceptable to all affected stakeholders. n While the implementation of the mitigation solution is dependent on the applicant entering into g a contractual agreement, NATS is now confident that the technical solution is a tangible and @ realistic one which can be delivered at this location within the lifetime of the planning consent (3 years). n a t

s NATS Ltd, Registered in England 3155567 Registered Office: 4000 Parkway, Whiteley, Fareham, Hants. PO15 7FL Pack No 39 . c o

Accordingly, NATS is content that should the Planning Inspectorate be minded to grant the Appeal, it would now be appropriate to impose the standard aviation conditions on the consent as detailed below.

Conditions 1. No part of any turbine shall be erected above ground until a Primary Radar Mitigation Scheme agreed with the Operator has been submitted to and approved in writing by the Planning Inspectorate in order to avoid the impact of the development on the Primary Radar of the Operator located at Great Dun Fell and associated air traffic management operations. 2. No blades shall be fitted to any turbine unless and until the approved Primary Radar Mitigation Scheme has been implemented and the development shall thereafter be operated fully in accordance with such approved Scheme. Reason: In the interests of aviation safety

For the purpose of conditions 1 and 2 above;

"Operator" means NATS (En Route) plc, incorporated under the Companies Act (4129273) whose registered office is 4000 Parkway, Whiteley, Fareham, Hants PO15 7FL or such other organisation licensed from time to time under sections 5 and 6 of the Transport Act 2000 to provide air traffic services to the relevant managed area (within the meaning of section 40 of that Act).

"Primary Radar Mitigation Scheme" or "Scheme" means a detailed scheme agreed with the Operator which sets out the measures to be taken to avoid at all times the impact of the development on the Great Dun Fell primary radar and air traffic management operations of the Operator.

I trust this clarifies our position but should you have any further queries, do not hesitate to contact me.

Yours faithfully

Sacha Rossi (Mr) NATS Safeguarding Office

NATS Ltd, Registered in England 3155567 Registered Office: 4000 Parkway, Whiteley, Fareham, Hants. PO15 7FL Pack No 40 Appendix E

Ministry of Defence Safeguarding Kingston Road Sutton Coldfield West Midlands B75 7RL United Kingdom

Telephone [MOD]: +44 (0)121 311 3781 Your Ref. APP/H0928/W/15/3017315 DIO Ref. DE/C/SUT/43/10/1/20878 Facsimile [MOD]: +44 (0)121 311 2218 E-mail: [email protected]

The Planning Inspectorate Room 3/26 Temple Quay House 2 The Square Temple Quay 4 August 2015 Bristol, BS1 6PN

Dear Sirs,

Location: Hay Close Farm, Calthwaite, Penrith Proposal: Erection of four wind turbines with a maximum height to blade tip of 130m (above ground level) with associated ancillary infrastructure, control building, internal access tracks, crane pads, and temporary site compound/storage area. Appeal Reference: APP/H0928/W/15/3017315

The Ministry of Defence (MOD) has received notification from Eden District Council that the above planning application was refused and is now the subject of an appeal.

The MOD submitted a response dated 12th September 2014 to Eden District Council raising an objection to the proposal on the basis that the turbines would fall within the vicinity of a long range Very Low Frequency (VLF) transmitter which provides VLF radio services used to communicate with Royal Navy vessels globally. As stated in that response, VLF radio is a very specialised area of electronics, and the effects of wind turbines have been subject to only limited study. It is for this reason that the MOD has proactively sought to research the effects of wind turbines on the VLF asset and a recent technical and operational study specifically in relation to the Hay Close Farm wind turbine proposal has produced new information.

Taking into consideration a number of factors relating to this specific wind turbine proposal and its location to the VLF transmitter, I can confirm that the conclusion of the study is that the proposal would not adversely affect the operational capability of the VLF Received Signal Service.

As such, the MOD is content to remove its objection to the proposal but we request that a condition is applied to ensure that suitable aviation lighting is installed should consent be granted. A condition is attached at Annex A for the Inspectors consideration.

Pack No 41 Please note that this study has only been carried out in relation to Hay Close Farm and should not set a precedent for future wind turbine proposals in this area. The MOD will continue to assess every wind turbine application on a case by case basis and on its own merits.

If consent is granted, the MOD would also like to be advised of the following information;

• The date construction starts and ends; • The maximum height of construction equipment; • The latitude and longitude of the turbines erected

I trust that the above will be taken into account during the appeal consideration. Should you require any additional information, please do not hesitate to contact me.

Yours faithfully

Miss M Neenan Senior Safeguarding Officer

Annex A – Lighting Condition

Pack No 42 Annex A

Aviation Lighting

The Company shall install MOD-accredited 25 candela omni-directional red lighting or infrared lighting with an optimised flash pattern of 60 flashes per minute of 200ms to 500ms duration at the highest practicable point. The turbines will be erected with this lighting installed and the lighting will remain operational throughout the duration of this consent.

Pack No 43 This page is intentionally left blank PLANNING COMMITTEE Agenda Item No. APPLICATIONS DETERMINED UNDER OFFICER DELEGATED POWERS FOR THE MONTH OF JULY 2015

App No App Type Parish Description Location Applicant Decision

14/0042 Full Application Warcop Conversion to affordable dwelling. THE BLACK BULL, THE SQUARE, Mrs B McAllister APPROVED SANDFORD, APPLEBY-IN- WESTMORLAND

14/0528 Outline Dacre Outline planning permission for residential LAND AT STAYNEGARTH, Atric Ltd. APPROVED Application development with 30% affordable. STAINTON, PENRITH

14/0619 Full Application Ravenstonedale Conversion of part of barn into a rural exception STENNERSKEUGH, Mrs C Cottam APPROVED dwelling (with septic tank, soakaway, garden and RAVENSTONEDALE, KIRKBY parking for 3 vehicles) STEPHEN

14/0641 Full Application Stainmore Erection of dwelling including the creation of a new HEAVENS VIEW, BARRAS, Ms Janet Walton APPROVED access. STAINMORE

15/0093 Full Application Greystoke Installation of 2 no. 225kW wind turbines with a LAND TO THE NORTH OF BERRIER Mr J Dent REFUSED maximum tip height of 45.07m. ROAD, PENRITH

15/0106 Full Application Crosby Change of use from antique showroom and three JENNYWELL HALL, CROSBY Mr & Mrs A Darroch APPROVED Ravensworth self-catering units to form part of the existing RAVENSWORTH, PENRITH dwelling, involving external and internal alterations. Replacement and relocation of timber outbuilding and relocation of existing oil tank.

15/0107 Listed Building Crosby Internal and external alterations to antique JENNYWELL HALL, CROSBY Mr & Mrs A Darroch APPROVED Ravensworth showroom. Replacement and relocation of timber RAVENSWORTH, PENRITH outbuildings and relocation of existing oil tank.

15/0116 Full Application Brougham Installation of a 248kWp Solar Photovoltaic Static ASH HILL FARM, TEMPLE Mr Trustees of REFUSED System, a Ground Source Heat Pump (GSHP), the SOWERBY Winderwath Settled layout of internal access road, demolition of Estates redundant agricultural buildings, change of use of remaining agricultural barn to two residential units and landscaping of the site. Agenda Item 7

15/0155 Reserved by Penrith Discharge of condition no. 8 (historic building survey) FORMER MINERS ARMS, Paul Cook APPROVED Cond and condition no. 9 (construction and demolition SOUTHEND ROAD, PENRITH Developments Ltd environmental management plan) attached to planning approval 14/0536.

15/0242 Listed Building Penrith Listed building consent for a hanging sign and a wall WISHING WELL, BISHOP YARDS, Mrs J McLean APPROVED sign. PENRITH Pack No 45 No Pack

15/0254 Advertisement Penrith Advertisement consent for the proposed erection of a LAND TO THE NORTH OF Persimmon Homes APPROVED stack sign and two flags. CARLETON MEADOWS, PENRITH Lancashire - Mr Gowlett

07 August 2015 Page 1 of 8 Pack No 46 No Pack App No App Type Parish Description Location Applicant Decision

15/0272 Listed Building Morland Listed building consent for a two storey lean to rear WINGROVE COTTAGE, WATER Mr J Wheelhouse APPROVED extension. STREET, MORLAND, PENRITH

15/0338 Full Application Yanwath & Change of use for operations in association with the SOUTHWAITE GREEN MILL, Mr J Heath APPROVED Eamont Bridge extension to existing caravan site adjoining the site. EAMONT BRIDGE, PENRITH

15/0339 Full Application Yanwath & Variation of condition no.2 (plans compliance) SOUTHWAITE GREEN MILL, Mr J Heath APPROVED Eamont Bridge attached to planning approval 06/0094 comprising of EAMONT BRIDGE, PENRITH alternative layout, incorporating additional caravan pitches from 20 to 43.

15/0394 Full Application Dacre Proposed agricultural workers dwelling associated LAND TO NW RHEGED, REAR OF Eden View Farming APPROVED with the chicken rearing unit. BELLMOUNT FARM, STAINTON, PENRITH

15/0396 Full Application Hesket Installation of a 31.5kWp PV array on the south HOWFIELD FARM, SOUTHWAITE, Messrs Wilson - Mr A APPROVED facing roof of the barn to the South East of the farm. CARLISLE Wilson

15/0399 Full Application Penrith Change of use of existing building to include A1 use UNIT 34 GILWILLY ROAD, GILWILLY Ace Fixings (Cumbria) APPROVED for retail of non food products. INDUSTRIAL ESTATE, PENRITH Ltd - Mr J A Sowerby

15/0400 Full Application Brough Sowerby Conversion of attached former barn to create one SOUTH GREEN, BROUGH Mrs H Chew APPROVED bedroom granny annexe. SOWERBY, KIRKBY STEPHEN

15/0402 Full Application Penrith Proposed residential development of 3 dwellings LAND AT ELM BANK, ELM Late D Richardson Will APPROVED TERRACE, PENRITH, Trust

15/0403 Full Application Appleby Erection of single storey garage building to the rear KINGS BARN, CRACKENTHORPE, J Terry APPROVED of the dwelling house and associated extension of APPLEBY domestic curtilage.

15/0404 Listed Building Appleby Listed building consent for the subdivision of an 6 BONGATE, APPLEBY-IN- Mrs S Renshaw APPROVED existing bathroom to form two shower rooms. WESTMORLAND

15/0406 Full Application Catterlen Variation of condition no.2 (plans compliance) UNIVERSITY OF CUMBRIA, G Metcalfe APPROVED attached to planning approval 14/0982 comprising of NEWTON RIGG CAMPUS, NEWTON amendments to proposals to omit extension for RIGG, PENRITH judges box to north western elevation, change of roof pitch to north eastern extension, minor addition and relocation of doors and windows (retrospective).

15/0407 Listed Building Warcop Listed building consent comprising of re-set stone WARCOP HOUSE, WARCOP, Mrs A Orr APPROVED entrance gate piers and gate, install new iron estate APPLEBY-IN-WESTMORLAND fencing to north west boundary and form new gravelled parking and turning area.

15/0409 Full Application Kaber Alterations of existing farmhouse and adjoining STOWGILL FARM, KABER, KIRKBY Trustees of the John APPROVED buildings to provide further living accommodation STEPHEN Brazil Trust and staff facilities.

07 August 2015 Page 2 of 8 App No App Type Parish Description Location Applicant Decision

15/0411 Full Application Kirkoswald Proposed garage conversion with extension above 10A ROODS DRIVE, KIRKOSWALD, Mr D Noble APPROVED and single story side extension. PENRITH

15/0413 Full Application Alston Change of use of agricultural land to an equestrian PRY HOUSE, NENTHEAD, ALSTON Mr J Swan APPROVED arena.

15/0416 Advertisement Penrith Advertisement consent for ground mounted entrance BOX HOUSE, GREENBANK ROAD, Ast Signs Ltd - Mr M APPROVED sign. EDEN BUSINESS PARK, PENRITH Aston

15/0418 Reserved by Clifton Discharge of condition no. 4 (odour management) CLIFTON HALL FARM, CLIFTON, Mr Holliday APPROVED Cond attached to planning approval 14/0895. PENRITH

15/0419 Reserved by Clifton Discharge of conditions no. 3 (soft & hard CLIFTON HALL FARM, CLIFTON, Mr Holliday APPROVED Cond landscaping) no. 5 (external materials samples) no. 6 PENRITH (odour management & maintenance) and no. 7 (background noise level) attached to planning approval 14/0484.

15/0423 Full Application Warcop Proposed resources area extension, new entrance WARCOP C OF E SCHOOL, Warcop Church of APPROVED canopy and replacement of existing storage shed. WARCOP, APPLEBY England School - S Linsley

15/0430 Notice of Intention Langwathby Installation of a base station and alterations to LAND AT HOME FARM, EDENHALL, Cornerstone APPROVED existing mast. PENRITH Telecommunications Infrastructure Ltd (CTIL)

15/0433 Change of Use Tebay Change of use of agricultural building to a dwelling EAST BARN AT EDGE FARM, Miss E Atkinson & Mr G APPROVED PD/PN house with no associated operational development. TEBAY, PENRITH Atkinson

15/0434 Full Application Penrith Single storey rear extension. 10 ALDER ROAD, PENRITH Mr & Mrs Mutch APPROVED

15/0436 Full Application Hesket Proposed porch. 6 DIXON COURT, CALTHWAITE, Mr & Mrs Parker APPROVED PENRITH

15/0437 Listed Building Hesket Listed building consent for proposed porch. 6 DIXON COURT, CALTHWAITE, Mr & Mrs Parker APPROVED PENRITH

15/0440 Full Application Penrith Single storey front extension to provide additional RAYWOOD, FELL LANE, PENRITH Mr N Braithwaite REFUSED living accommodation.

15/0441 Reserved by Appleby Discharge of condition no. 3 (construction vehicle 15 CHAPEL STREET, APPLEBY-IN- Mr G Lightburn APPROVED Cond parking) attached to planning approval 15/0165 (as WESTMORLAND amended).

15/0442 Full Application Penrith Demolition of existing garage and erection of single 1 BEACON SQUARE, PENRITH Mr & Mrs P and C APPROVED

Pack No 47 No Pack storey extension. Mortimer

15/0443 Advertisement Penrith Advertisement consent for 1no. Internal illuminated 8 MIDDLEGATE, PENRITH Bestway Group APPROVED projecting sign.

07 August 2015 Page 3 of 8 Pack No 48 No Pack App No App Type Parish Description Location Applicant Decision

15/0444 Full Application Alston Change of use of Nenthead House and Cottage NENTHEAD HOUSE, NENTHEAD Westminster School - APPROVED (Class C3) to a residential institution (Class C2). Mr C Silcock

15/0446 Full Application Murton Change of use of garage and barn to a brewery, ELLERHOLME, LANGTON, Mr & Mrs Alistair Maltby APPROVED storage and office. APPLEBY-IN-WESTMORLAND

15/0447 Full Application Orton Proposed extension to south gable. GILL FARM, SCOUT GREEN, SHAP, Mr & Mrs D Winchester REFUSED PENRITH

15/0449 Householder Crosby Garrett Proposed side extension to barn conversion. STALLION BARN, CROSBY Spencer Taylor REFUSED PD/PN GARRETT, KIRKBY STEPHEN

15/0450 Change of Use Tebay Change of use of agricultural building to a dwelling NORTH BARN AT EDGE FARM, Miss E Atkinson & Mr G APPROVED PD/PN house with no associated operational development. TEBAY, PENRITH Atkinson

15/0454 Full Application Ousby Erection of timber stables and hard standing area. AGRICULTURAL FIELD, TO EAST Mrs B Horn APPROVED OF MELMERBY TO GAMBLESBY RD, PENRITH

15/0455 Full Application Brough Proposed first floor extension to the rear elevation. 6 HELBECK ROAD, BROUGH, Mr N Simpson REFUSED KIRKBY STEPHEN

15/0456 Full Application Morland Proposed ground floor extension. 3 CHURCH LANE, MORLAND, Mrs L Lines APPROVED PENRITH

15/0458 Listed Building Penrith Listed building consent for the attachment of 1 non 8 MIDDLEGATE, PENRITH Bestway Group APPROVED illuminated fascia sign and 1 no. internal illuminated projecting sign.

15/0462 Full Application Newby Change of use of redundant barn into a single DAIRY COTTAGE BARN, NEWBY, Miss R Brown REFUSED dwelling. PENRITH

15/0463 Full Application Penrith Remove existing lean to conservatory and erection of 60 WORDSWORTH STREET, Mr & Mrs Buckman APPROVED hipped roof conservatory. PENRITH

15/0465 Full Application Penrith Proposed alterations and extensions. 2 HOLLY CLOSE, PENRITH Mr & Mrs Allen APPROVED

15/0467 Full Application Morland Variation of condition no. 2 (plans compliance) CROWN INN FIELDS, MORLAND, Nielsons Ltd- Mrs E APPROVED attached to planning approval 14/0905 comprising PENRITH Nielsen revised design & layout of plots 2/3.

15/0468 Reserved Matters Alston Approval of all reserved matters associated with HILL FARM, GARRIGILL, ALSTON Mr & Mrs J and L Green APPROVED planning approval 15/0062, agricultural workers dwelling.

15/0469 Reserved by Brougham Discharge of condition no.3 (method of CENTER PARCS HOLIDAY Center Parcs APPROVED Cond implementation of site clearance/construction VILLAGE, WHINFELL FORSET, (Operating Co.) Ltd. - mitigation) attached to planning approval 14/0410. PENRITH Mr P Kent

07 August 2015 Page 4 of 8 App No App Type Parish Description Location Applicant Decision

15/0470 Full Application Ravenstonedale Proposed extension into existing workshop and FERN COTTAGE, Mr & Mrs G & HR APPROVED extension of existing outbuilding. RAVENSTONEDALE, KIRKBY Shields STEPHEN

15/0472 Full Application Alston Proposed general purpose agricultural building. SHEEP RIGGS FARM, ALSTON Mr A Richardson APPROVED

15/0473 Full Application Winton Retrospective planning application to use Manor THE MANOR HOUSE, WINTON, Mr M Lynch APPROVED House as a dwelling and a holiday let. KIRKBY STEPHEN

15/0475 Full Application Tebay Proposed two storey side extension. 8 CHURCH RISE, TEBAY, PENRITH Mr & Mrs Howe APPROVED

15/0476 Outline Hunsonby Outline planning permission for the demolition and WEST GARTH, WINSKILL, PENRITH Mrs B Winslow APPROVED Application reconstruction of existing dwelling and a residential development with approval sought for access.

15/0477 Full Application Penrith Proposed demolition of existing open canopy/wash SOLWAY DAF (PENRITH), UNIT 42 Mr P Fullelove - Solway APPROVED down area & tacograph centre. Proposed erection of GILWILLY ROAD, GILWILLY DAF 2 no inspection buildings & wash bay area. INDUSTRIAL ESTATE, PENRITH

15/0480 Tree Works (CA) Ravenstonedale T1, T2, T3 (Yew): Fell trees; T4 (Beech): Fell tree; COLDBECK HOUSE, Mr Chris Kelly APPROVED Group 5 (Yew): Reduce to height and shape of RAVENSTONEDALE, KIRKBY existing arch; T6 (Elder): Crown raise to clear wall by STEPHEN 1.5m and balance the shape of the remaining crown; T7 (Yew): Coppice at 1.5m to leave framework for regrowth; Ravenstonedale Conservation Area.

15/0483 Full Application Brougham 5 Exclusive Lodges (on former Tree House site). CENTER PARCS, WHINFELL Center Parcs Operating APPROVED FOREST, WHINFELL, PENRITH Company Ltd - P Kent

15/0484 Full Application Kirkby Thore Erection of single detached dwelling. THORNEYCROFT, CROSS END, Mr & Mrs N Bousefield APPROVED KIRKBY THORE, PENRITH

15/0485 Listed Building Kirkby Thore Listed Building consent for the alteration to front THORNEYCROFT, KIRKBY THORE, Mr & Mrs N Bousefield APPROVED curtilage boundary wall. PENRITH

15/0489 Full Application Tebay Removal of existing garage to accommodate a single ROSEBANK, ORTON ROAD, TEBAY, Mr G Capstick APPROVED storey extension. Proposed erection of a new garage. PENRITH

15/0490 Listed Building Ravenstonedale Listed building consent for the conversion of internal THE MANOR HOUSE, Mr D & Mrs C Morris APPROVED garage space to form ground floor bedroom and RAVENSTONEDALE, KIRKBY bathroom. STEPHEN

15/0491 Full Application Ravenstonedale Proposed lowered paving area. THE MANOR HOUSE, Mr D & Mrs C Morris APPROVED RAVENSTONEDALE, KIRKBY STEPHEN Pack No 49 No Pack 15/0492 Full Application Sockbridge & Proposed front and side single storey elevation. 31 THORPEFIELD, SOCKBRIDGE, Mr J Williams APPROVED Tirril PENRITH

07 August 2015 Page 5 of 8 Pack No 50 No Pack App No App Type Parish Description Location Applicant Decision

15/0493 Full Application Nateby Erection of two detached dwellings. THE GARTH, NATEBY, KIRKBY Mr & Mrs Jackson APPROVED STEPHEN

15/0494 Reserved by Penrith Discharge of conditions 3 (drainage), 6 (noise 1 COMMON GARDEN SQUARE, Whitbread PLC APPROVED Cond management), 7 (dust management), 9 (roof PENRITH NEW SQUARES, PENRITH materials), 10 (external materials) & 11 (windows & doors plan) of approved application 14/1050.

15/0496 Advertisement Penrith Advertisement consent for 1 no. built-up acrylic 25 CORNMARKET, PENRITH DP Realty Limited APPROVED letters & tile logo and 1 no. PPC aluminium with vinyl/acrylic text & logo.

15/0497 Full Application Appleby Proposed division of existing house to create 2 no. 17 DOOMGATE, APPLEBY-IN- Mr & Mrs S Gaughan APPROVED separate two bed dwellings. WESTMORLAND

15/0498 Full Application Appleby Proposed ground floor office/entrance extension. TETHRA VETERINARY SERVICE M Wynne APPROVED LTD, CROSS CROFT INDUSTRIAL ESTATE, APPLEBY

15/0500 Listed Building Appleby Listed building consent for the proposed division of 17 DOOMGATE, APPLEBY-IN- Mr & Mrs S.M. APPROVED the existing dwelling house to create two separate WESTMORLAND Gaugham dwellings

15/0501 Reserved by Nateby Discharge of condition No 3 (fence details) attached LOCKTHWAITE, NATEBY, KIRKBY A Davis APPROVED Cond to planning approval 15/0154. STEPHEN

15/0504 Listed Building Tebay Listed Building consent for proposed rear single ROUNDTHWAITE FARM, Mr K Pickering APPROVED storey extension. ROUNDTHWAITE, PENRITH

15/0507 Full Application Skelton Proposed farm shed. ARNOLD HOUSE, IVEGILL, Mr S Wood APPROVED CARLISLE

15/0508 Full Application Tebay Retrospective variation of condition 1 (plans LAND ADJOINING CHURCH RISE, Mr A Cox APPROVED compliance) attached to planning approval 10/0851 TEBAY, PENRITH comprising of a revised scheme.

15/0511 Change of Use Kings Meaburn Proposed change of use of agricultural building to a WHITBER BARN, NR KINGS Heatherville Ltd. APPROVED PD/PN dwelling house with associated works. MEABURN, PENRITH

15/0512 Full Application Hesket Proposed extension. HOLME VIEW, PLUMPTON, Mr Harrington APPROVED PENRITH

15/0513 Non-Material Dacre Non material amendment to planning approval LAND ADJ TO BRAITHWAITES Mr & Mrs M Braithwaite APPROVED Amend 14/0654 comprising of modifications to external finish GARAGE, NEWBIGGIN, STAINTON, materials, installation of solar PV panels, omission of PENRITH flue & addition of oil storage tank.

07 August 2015 Page 6 of 8 App No App Type Parish Description Location Applicant Decision

15/0516 Non-Material Appleby Non material amendment to planning approval 3 CHAPEL STREET, APPLEBY-IN- A Wells APPROVED Amend 15/0198 comprising of change to sandstone colour WESTMORLAND facing brickwork to all elevations. .

15/0518 Full Application Penrith Development of two dwellings and associated MONNINGTON WAY, PENRITH Atkinson Homes Ltd - APPROVED engineering works (re submission). Mr S Atkinson

15/0530 Non-Material Penrith Non material amendment attached to planning FRENCHFIELD PARK, Mr B Williams APPROVED Amend approval 15/0092 comprising of a change in design FRENCHFIELD, PENRITH from a pitched roof to a flat roof.

15/0536 Notice of Intention Hesket Proposed upgrade to existing equipment. GRANADA SERVICES, EE (UK) Ltd and APPROVED SOUTHWAITE SERVICES STATION, Hutchinson 3G UK Ltd M6 SOUTHWAITE, CARLISLE

15/0537 Full Application Great Strickland Proposed replacement of windows from softwood to OAK BARN, GREAT STRICKLAND, Mr R Skinner APPROVED brown PVC. PENRITH

15/0540 Non-Material Asby Non material amendment to planning approval FELLSIDE COTTAGE, LITTLE ASBY, Mrs C Foster APPROVED Amend 15/0188 comprising of change to the style of one APPLEBY-IN-WESTMORLAND window.

15/0542 Listed Building Penrith Listed building consent for externally illuminated 25 CORNMARKET, PENRITH D P Realty Ltd APPROVED fascia sign and projecting sign.

15/0545 Outline Clifton Outline planning permission for residential LAND ADJ TO APPLE DENE, Mr G Muirhead REFUSED Application development with all matters reserved. WETHERIGGS, CLIFTON DYKES, PENRITH

15/0546 Full Application Bandleyside Proposed rear porch/utility extension, removal of KANGAROO HOUSE, COLBY, Mr J.S. Davison APPROVED glazed roof and replacement of matching natural APPLEBY slates/ridge and garage alterations.

15/0551 Tree Works (CA) Asby 1. Remove 20m of Leylandii hedge. 2. Remove THE WILLOWS, GREAT ASBY, Piers Palmer APPROVED small Cherry. APPLEBY-IN-WESTMORLAND

15/0552 Householder Greystoke Prior approval for a conservatory to the rear of the 8 PARK ROAD, GREYSTOKE, Mr S Threlkeld APPROVED PD/PN dwelling. PENRITH

15/0554 Full Application Kirkby Stephen Single-storey rear kitchen extension. 56 SOUTH ROAD, KIRKBY STEPHEN Mr & Mrs W Lockhart APPROVED

15/0566 Reserved by Appleby Discharge of condition no 3 (external materials) 15 CHAPEL STREET, APPLEBY-IN- Mr G Lightburn APPROVED Cond attached to planning approval 15/0164. WESTMORLAND

Pack No 51 No Pack 15/0572 Notice of Intention Mungrisdale Lean to extension to existing timber framed barn. LAND ADJ. NOBLES FARM, Mr Cartmel APPROVED BERRIER, PENRITH

07 August 2015 Page 7 of 8 Pack No 52 No Pack App No App Type Parish Description Location Applicant Decision

In relation to each application it was considered whether the proposal was appropriate having regard to the Development Plan, the representations which were received including those from consultees and all other material considerations. In cases where the application was approved the proposal was considered to be acceptable in planning terms having regard to the material considerations. In cases where the application was refused the proposal was not considered to be acceptable having regard to the material and relevant considerations. In all cases it was considered whether the application should be approved or refused and what conditions, if any, should be imposed to secure an acceptable form of development.

07 August 2015 Page 8 of 8 Notice of Decision

Carriage Return

To: R Mason Designs Ltd Mansion House, Penrith, Cumbria CA11 7YG Grove Barn Tel: 01768 817817 Hartsop Fax: 01768 212320 Penrith CA11 0NZ

Town and Country Planning Act 1990 Town and Country Planning (Development Management Procedure) Order 2010

Application No: 15/0462 On Behalf Of: Miss R Brown

In pursuance of their powers under the above Act and Order, Eden District Council, as local planning authority, hereby REFUSE full planning permission for the development described in your application and on the plans and drawings attached thereto, viz:

Application Type: Full Application Proposal: Change of use of redundant barn into a single dwelling. Location: DAIRY COTTAGE BARN NEWBY PENRITH CA10 3EX

The reason(s) for this decision are:

1) The application would lead to the creation of a dwelling in an unsustainable location not associated with a local service centre. No exceptional need has been demonstrated for the dwelling in an isolated location nor does the proposal meet the criteria of a rural exception site. The application is therefore contrary to the NPPF (Para 55), Eden Core Strategy CS1, CS2, CS3 and CS9.

2) The use of dormer windows and numerous roof lights on the south elevation are considered to create a barn conversion that would have overly domesticated design features and therefore would harm the original character of the barn. The designs therefore conflict with part 7 of the NPPF, policy CS18 of the core strategy and appendix G of the housing SPD.

Where necessary the local planning authority has worked with the applicant in a positive and proactive manner seeking solutions to problems arising in relation to dealing with the planning application and to implement the requirements of the NPPF and the adopted development plan.

Date of Decision: 6 July 2015

Signed:

G Clark BSc (Hons), DipTP, MRTPI, ACMI www.eden.gov.uk Head of Planning Services Pack No 53

(Authorised Officer) G Clark BSc (Hons), DipTP, MRTPI

Attention is drawn to the attached notes.

www.eden.gov.uk 2 Pack No 54 Notice of Decision

Carriage Return

To: H&H Land and Property - Miss K Jones Mansion House, Penrith, Cumbria CA11 7YG Borderway Tel: 01768 817817 Rosehill Industrial Estate Fax: 01768 212320 Montgomery Way Calrlisle Cumbria CA1 2RS

Town and Country Planning Act 1990 Town and Country Planning (Development Management Procedure) Order 2010

Application No: 15/0116 On Behalf Of: Mr Trustees of Winderwath Settled Estates

In pursuance of their powers under the above Act and Order, Eden District Council, as local planning authority, hereby REFUSE full planning permission for the development described in your application and on the plans and drawings attached thereto, viz:

Application Type: Full Application Proposal: Installation of a 248kWp Solar Photovoltaic Static System, a Ground Source Heat Pump (GSHP), the layout of internal access road, demolition of redundant agricultural buildings, change of use of remaining agricultural barn to two residential units and landscaping of the site. Location: ASH HILL FARM TEMPLE SOWERBY CA10 2AG

The reason(s) for this decision are:

1. The proposed development would introduce residential accommodation, including ancillary storage, in an unsustainable location remote from local services and facilities. The proposed development would be an isolated development in the open countryside and would therefore be contrary to the requirements of the NPPF (Para 55) and CS2 of the Core Strategy.

2. The proposed barn conversion is considered to be of a poor quality of design with domestic and inappropriate alterations to the built form that do not reflect the traditional character of the building or the rural nature of the surrounding area. As such the proposal is not considered to meet this requirement of the NPPF (para 64) or Core Strategy Policy CS18.

3. The application has been submitted with insufficient evidence of the visual impact of the solar array to allow the Council to form an appropriate opinion of the impact on the landscape. In particular there is only a basic landscape assessment and no assessment of glint or glare or any consideration of the varying impact of the array due to the movement of the panels. The proposed solar array has therefore not been established through the G Clark BSc (Hons), DipTP, MRTPI, ACMI www.eden.gov.uk Head of Planning Services Pack No 55 application as having an acceptable visual impact on the surrounding area and as such does not meet the requirements of the NPPF or CS18 of the Core Strategy.

1. For the avoidance of doubt, alterations to the Units 1-3 (as defined on the submitted plans) including any amendments to the curtilage do not form part of this consideration. The conversion of these barns was submitted to the Council for consideration under the PD/PN application reference 14/0777 and, in accordance with this procedure, the curtilages to the barns must be the same or less than the footprint of the barns. Should a larger curtilage be attached to the barns at this stage the Council consider that the barns could not be converted under the prior notification process and would need to be the subject of an application for full planning permission.

Where necessary the local planning authority has worked with the applicant in a positive and proactive manner seeking solutions to problems arising in relation to dealing with the planning application and to implement the requirements of the NPPF and the adopted development plan.

Date of Decision: 7 July 2015

Signed:

(Authorised Officer) G Clark BSc (Hons), DipTP, MRTPI

Attention is drawn to the attached notes.

www.eden.gov.uk 2 Pack No 56 Notice of Decision

Carriage Return

To: Ian Carrick (Designs) Mansion House, Penrith, Cumbria CA11 7YG Barn Cottage Tel: 01768 817817 3 Howgate Fax: 01768 212320 Newbiggin Penrith CA11 0HT

Town and Country Planning Act 1990 Town and Country Planning (Development Management Procedure) Order 2010

Application No: 15/0440 On Behalf Of: Mr N Braithwaite

In pursuance of their powers under the above Act and Order, Eden District Council, as local planning authority, hereby REFUSE full planning permission for the development described in your application and on the plans and drawings attached thereto, viz:

Application Type: Full Application Proposal: Single storey front extension to provide additional living accommodation. Location: RAYWOOD FELL LANE PENRITH CA11 8AP

The reason(s) for this decision are:

1) The proposals would result in an inappropriate form of development in a highly visible location which would comprise of a poorly designed front extension which disrupts the existing building line and interferes with the bold symmetrical arrangement of the principle elevation, which together fail to demonstrate a clear understanding of the form and character of the built environment contrary to Core Strategy policy CS18 and paragraphs 56 and 64 of the NPPF which seeks to secure good design and to refuse poor quality design.

Where necessary the local planning authority has worked with the applicant in a positive and proactive manner seeking solutions to problems arising in relation to dealing with the planning application and to implement the requirements of the NPPF and the adopted development plan.

Date of Decision: 7 July 2015

Signed:

(Authorised Officer) G Clark BSc (Hons), DipTP, MRTPI G Clark BSc (Hons), DipTP, MRTPI, ACMI www.eden.gov.uk Head of Planning Services Pack No 57

Attention is drawn to the attached notes.

www.eden.gov.uk 2 Pack No 58 Notice of Decision

Carriage Return

To: IPS Architects Mansion House, Penrith, Cumbria CA11 7YG The Studio Tel: 01768 817817 Outhgill Fax: 01768 212320 Kirkby Stephen Cumbria CA17 4JU

Town and Country Planning Act 1990 Town and Country Planning (Development Management Procedure) Order 2010

Application No: 15/0447 On Behalf Of: Mr & Mrs D Winchester

In pursuance of their powers under the above Act and Order, Eden District Council, as local planning authority, hereby REFUSE full planning permission for the development described in your application and on the plans and drawings attached thereto, viz:

Application Type: Full Application Proposal: Proposed extension to south gable. Location: GILL FARM SCOUT GREEN SHAP PENRITH CA10 3QZ

The reason(s) for this decision are:

1) The proposed extension by reason of its excessive use of glazing over two storeys set against a traditional building fails to show a clear understanding of the form and character of the existing built environment and would result in an adverse impact on the character and appearance of the existing building and surrounding area. The proposals therefore conflict with paragraph 64 of the NPPF and policies CS18 of the core strategy.

Where necessary the local planning authority has worked with the applicant in a positive and proactive manner seeking solutions to problems arising in relation to dealing with the planning application and to implement the requirements of the NPPF and the adopted development plan.

Date of Decision: 7 July 2015

Signed:

(Authorised Officer) G Clark BSc (Hons), DipTP, MRTPI

Attention is drawn to the attached notes.

G Clark BSc (Hons), DipTP, MRTPI, ACMI www.eden.gov.uk Head of Planning Services Pack No 59 Notice of Decision

Carriage Return

To: Entrust Planning Consultants - Mr M KoszyczarekMansion House, Penrith, Cumbria CA11 7YG Daresbury Innovation Centre Tel: 01768 817817 Daresbury Fax: 01768 212320 Keckwick Lane Halton WA4 4FS

Town and Country Planning Act 1990 Town and Country Planning (Development Management Procedure) Order 2010

Application No: 15/0093 On Behalf Of: Mr J Dent

In pursuance of their powers under the above Act and Order, Eden District Council, as local planning authority, hereby REFUSE full planning permission for the development described in your application and on the plans and drawings attached thereto, viz:

Application Type: Full Application Proposal: Installation of 2 no. 225kW wind turbines with a maximum tip height of 45.07m. Location: LAND TO THE NORTH OF BERRIER ROAD PENRITH

The reason(s) for this decision are:

1) The proposed turbines, by virtue of their scale and siting in attractive open countryside, would have a significant adverse and unacceptable level of harm on the character of the landscape and the visual amenity of the area contrary to Core Strategy policies CS18 and CS20 and national planning policy.

2) The proposal has failed to address the planning impacts identified by affected local communities and fails to have their backing contrary to the Written Statement made by the Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government (Greg Clark) on 18 Jun 2015 and also National Planning Practice Guidance.

Where necessary the local planning authority has worked with the applicant in a positive and proactive manner seeking solutions to problems arising in relation to dealing with the planning application and to implement the requirements of the NPPF and the adopted development plan.

Date of Decision: 9 July 2015

Signed:

G Clark BSc (Hons), DipTP, MRTPI, ACMI www.eden.gov.uk Head of Planning Services Pack No 60

(Authorised Officer) G Clark BSc (Hons), DipTP, MRTPI

Attention is drawn to the attached notes.

www.eden.gov.uk 2 Pack No 61 Notice of Decision

Carriage Return

To: Spencer Taylor Mansion House, Penrith, Cumbria CA11 7YG The Old Stone Barn Tel: 01768 817817 Garth Row Fax: 01768 212320 Kendal Cumbria LA8 9AU

Town and Country Planning Act 1990 Town and Country Planning (General Permitted Development) Order 1995 Town and Country Planning (Development Management Procedure) Order 2010 Decision of the Local Planning Authority as to whether the prior approval of the authority is required for the development as detailed below.

Application No.: 15/0449 On Behalf Of: Spencer Taylor Proposal: Proposed side extension to barn conversion. Location: STALLION BARN CROSBY GARRETT KIRKBY STEPHEN CA17 4PR

Under the provisions of Schedule 2, Part 1, Class A of the Town and Country Planning (General Permitted Development) Order 1995 (as amended), I hereby confirm that this Authority has made the following decision:

THAT THE LOCAL PLANNING AUTHORITY HEREBY REFUSE PRIOR APPROVAL OF THE DETAILS AS SUBMITTED FOR THE FOLLOWING REASON(S):

1) The proposed extension, by virtue of its design, form and materials and also its attachment to a simple and traditional barn conversion at a prominent location at the entrance to Crosby Garrett and within the Conservation Area, is not of a sufficient high quality design and as a result fails to show a clear understanding of the built environment and fails to conserve or enhance the area contrary to CS17, CS18 and national planning policy.

Date of Decision: 14 July 2015

Signed:

(Authorised Officer) G Clark BSc (Hons), DipTP, MRTPI

Attention is drawn to the attached notes. G Clark BSc (Hons), DipTP, MRTPI, ACMI www.eden.gov.uk Head of Planning Services Pack No 62

G Clark BSc (Hons), DipTP, MRTPI, ACMI www.eden.gov.uk Head of Planning Services Pack No 63 Notice of Decision

Carriage Return

To: Alastair Davis Mansion House, Penrith, Cumbria CA11 7YG Old Hall Farmhouse Tel: 01768 817817 Bongate Fax: 01768 212320 Appleby Cumbria CA16 6HW

Town and Country Planning Act 1990 Town and Country Planning (Development Management Procedure) Order 2010

Application No: 15/0455 On Behalf Of: Mr N Simpson

In pursuance of their powers under the above Act and Order, Eden District Council, as local planning authority, hereby REFUSE full planning permission for the development described in your application and on the plans and drawings attached thereto, viz:

Application Type: Full Application Proposal: Proposed first floor extension to the rear elevation. Location: 6 HELBECK ROAD BROUGH KIRKBY STEPHEN CA17 4BH

The reason(s) for this decision are:

1) The resulting two storey extension, by reason of its position, scale, depth and massing would have an unduly overbearing appearance to the occupiers of neighbouring property No 5 Helbeck Road and would result in an unacceptable loss of light, overshadowing and visual intrusion contrary to CS18 and Appendix H of the Housing Supplementary Planning Document.

Where necessary the local planning authority has worked with the applicant in a positive and proactive manner seeking solutions to problems arising in relation to dealing with the planning application and to implement the requirements of the NPPF and the adopted development plan.

Date of Decision: 15 July 2015

Signed:

(Authorised Officer) G Clark BSc (Hons), DipTP, MRTPI

Attention is drawn to the attached notes.

G Clark BSc (Hons), DipTP, MRTPI, ACMI www.eden.gov.uk Head of Planning Services Pack No 64 Notice of Decision

Carriage Return

To: Telford Planning Associates - Mr E Telford Mansion House, Penrith, Cumbria CA11 7YG 1 Whinbarrow Close Tel: 01768 817817 Aspatria Fax: 01768 212320 Wigton Cumbria CA7 3HE

Town and Country Planning Act 1990 Town and Country Planning (Development Management Procedure) Order 2010

Application No: 15/0545 On Behalf Of: Mr G Muirhead

In pursuance of their powers under the above Act and Order, Eden District Council, as local planning authority, hereby REFUSE outline planning permission for the development described in your application and on the plans and drawings attached thereto, viz:

Application Type: Outline Application Proposal: Outline planning permission for residential development with all matters reserved. Location: LAND ADJ TO APPLE DENE WETHERIGGS CLIFTON DYKES PENRITH CA10 2DH

The reasons for this decision are:

1) The application would lead to the creation of dwellings in an unsustainable and isolated location. No exceptional need has been demonstrated for the dwellings in the isolated location nor does the proposal meet the criteria of a rural exception site. The application is therefore contrary to the NPPF (Para 55), Eden Core Strategy CS1, CS2, CS3 and CS9.

Where necessary the local planning authority has worked with the applicant in a positive and proactive manner seeking solutions to problems arising in relation to dealing with the planning application and to implement the requirements of the NPPF and the adopted development plan.

Date of Decision: 29 July 2015

Signed:

(Authorised Officer)

G Clark BSc (Hons), DipTP, MRTPI, ACMI www.eden.gov.uk Head of Planning Services Pack No 65 G Clark BSc (Hons), DipTP, MRTPI

Attention is drawn to the attached notes.

www.eden.gov.uk 2 Pack No 66 Agenda Item 8 Agenda Item REPORTS FOR DEBATE

Eden District Council Planning Committee Agenda Committee Date: 20 August 2015 INDEX

Item Officer Page Application Details No Recommendation Number

1 Planning Application No: 15/0315 Recommended to: 3 Residential development (comprising 5 dwellings) APPROVE with approval sought for access and scale Subject to Conditions Land at Levens House Farm, Mellbecks, Kirkby Stephen Mr Davis

2 Planning Application No: 15/0466 Recommended to: 19 Siting of playground equipment (part retrospective) APPROVE Lazonby Church of England School, Lazonby Subject to Conditions Mrs Yvonne Standing (Head Teacher)

3 Planning Application No: 15/0486 Recommended to: 24 Erection of detached dwelling APPROVE Land at Orchard Cottage, Little Salkeld, Penrith Subject to Conditions Mr and Mrs D Addis

1 Pack No 67 Agenda Item REPORTS FOR DEBATE

Pack No 68 2 Agenda Item REPORTS FOR DEBATE Item 1 Date of Committee: 20 August 2015

Planning Application No: 15/0315 Date Received: 8 April 2015

OS Grid Ref: 377677 508540 Expiry Date: 3 June 2015

Parish: Kirkby Stephen Ward: Kirkby Stephen

Application Type: Outline

Proposal: Residential development (comprising 5 dwellings) with approval sought for access and scale

Location: Land at Levens House Farm, Mellbecks, Kirkby Stephen

Applicant: Mr Davis

Agent: Mr B Armstrong-Payne

Case Officer: Mr J Sykes

Reason for Referral: An objector has requested to be heard at planning committee and the recommendation of approval is contrary to the view of the Town Council

3 Pack No 69 Agenda Item REPORTS FOR DEBATE 1. Recommendation

It is recommended that delegated power be given to the Head of Planning Services to grant planning permission subject to a Section106 Agreement being entered into to the absolute satisfaction of the Director of Corporate and Legal Services and the Head of Planning Services requiring the provision of 1 affordable dwelling house and the Council’s reasonable costs being paid in relation to that Section 106 Agreement and subject to the following conditions: 1. No development shall commence until approval of the details of the layout and appearance of the building(s) and the landscaping/boundary treatments (hereinafter called “the reserved matters”) has been obtained from the local planning authority in writing. An application for the approval of the reserved matters shall be made to the local planning authority before the expiration of 3 years from the date of this permission. The development hereby permitted shall be begun either before the expiration of 3 years from the date of this permission, or before the expiration of 2 years from the date of approval of the last of the reserved matters to be approved, whichever is the later. Reason: To comply with the requirements of Section 92 of the Town & Country Planning Act 1990. 2. The approved plans comprise the Location Plan received on the 7th July 2015 and drawings ps960.21 revA and ps960.22 revA received by the Local Planning Authority on the 1st April 2015. The development shall be completed in accordance with the approved plans except where conditions attached to this planning permission indicate otherwise or where alternative details have been subsequently approved following an application for a non material amendment. Reason: To specify the permission and for the avoidance of doubt 3. The carriageways and footways, shall be designed, constructed, drained and lit to a standard suitable for adoption and in this respect further details, including longitudinal/cross sections, shall be submitted for approval before work commences on site. No work shall be commenced until a further specification has been approved. These details shall be in accordance with the standards laid down in the current Cumbria Design Guide. Any works so approved shall be constructed before any property, hereby approved is occupied. Reason: To ensure a minimum standard of construction in the interests of highway safety and to support Local Transport Plan Policies LD5, LD7 and LD8 4. Prior to the commencement of development updated tree and ecological surveys shall be submitted and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. These updates should reassess the site and consider appropriate mitigation measures to limit the impacts on trees and biodiversity. The development shall then be carried out wholly in accordance with the approved mitigation schemes.

Pack No 70 4 Agenda Item REPORTS FOR DEBATE Reason: To ensure the proposed development does not have an adverse impact on biodiversity within the area. Informatives: The application has been approved subject to the signing of a S106 agreement requiring the provision of affordable housing. The illustrative site layout plan that has been submitted as part of the application does not form any part of the approval hereby granted. With any reserved matters application the applicant should submit full details of how the foul and surface water will be drained on a separate system. Details should also be submitted as to how the scheme for surface water and foulwater drainage would be maintained and managed. Should these details not be provided they may be subject to a condition on any reserved matters approval. Due to the raised topography of the site within any application for reserved matters the applicant should include full details of the levels of the proposed dwellings and associated development. The Council consider that any landscaping should include strong boundary detailing to the north of the site to provide a visual end to the development and to help screen the dwellings from viewpoints to the north. Should it be necessary to discharge to the culvert consent may be required from the Environment Agency as well as a discharge license. The applicant should contact the EA for further details as to what would be required to be provided.

2. Proposal and Site Description 2.1 Proposal 2.1.1 The application seeks outline planning permission for residential development of 5 units on a green field site at Levens House Farm, Nateby Road, Kirkby Stephen. The site is approximately 0.28 hectares and is in close proximity to the town centre and Conservation Area of Kirkby Stephen. 2.1.2 The application is in outline and seeks the acceptance of the principle of housing in this location, scale and access to the development. The site is accessed through an existing site that has consent for development and has been commenced. 2.2 Site Description 2.2.1 The site is greenfield and adjacent to the settlement of Kirkby Stephen. It is well related in terms of walking distance and accessibility to the town centre. The land forms part of a larger agricultural field. Residential development bound the site to the south and west. 2.2.2 The site is a continuation of an existing site at Leven’s House Farm which is currently under construction and which takes access from Mellbecks. The overall development is located on the east side of Mellbecks a narrow, primarily residential street, running parallel with Market Street the main street running north-south in Kirkby Stephen and linking through on to Nateby Road. Mellbecks is a relatively narrow street with

5 Pack No 71 Agenda Item REPORTS FOR DEBATE properties depending to a large extent on street parking. The current proposal is for a development of 5 dwellings of which 1 would be an affordable unit. 2.2.3 Development surrounding the site is generally traditional in appearance. Materials include stone and render generally with slate roofs. There is a mixture of property types from terraced to detached and it is considered that the proposal generally reflects that which has gone before in the Leven’s House Farm development. 3. Statutory Consultees

Consultee Response Cumbria County Council The County drainage and surface water Officer advises that if planning consent is granted appropriate conditions should be attached to any consent regarding the sustainable drainage of the site. Environment Agency The EA does not consider that they should have been consulted on the proposed development. Highways Agency The Highways Authority has no objection to the proposed development subject to the application of a planning condition regarding the access. The Highways Authority also advise that the turning head would need to be designed and constructed to accommodate a Pantechnicon and it is also recommended that the turning head is extended to allow visitor parking so that the turning facility is not compromised. Natural England NE have noted that the site is within close proximity to a European designated site and has the potential to affect its interest features. NE have suggested that additional information is sought regarding the drainage to enable a habitat regulations assessment to be undertaken. Officer’s Note: a habitat regulation assessment was undertaken for application 12/0984. United Utilities UU records show that there is no sewer flooding at local properties. The site is not far from the river Eden and under no circumstances should water be discharged into the network system and there suggested conditions remain the same as per the previous application. Tree Officer The tree officer has made the following comments:-  The submitted tree report is dated October 2012 and should be updated as it does nto appear to relate to the proposed layout.  Trees 1-7 should be considered a group feature and not individually.  Some of the information in the report is considered to be inaccurate such as the level of

Pack No 72 6 Agenda Item REPORTS FOR DEBATE overhang by the trees.  There are a number of single mature hawthorn trees that should have been recorded.  Trees 1-7 would be relatively unaffected by the development but it is likely that some lower branches would need to be removed.  Some mature hawthorns may be affected by the construction of Plot 3 but it is unlikely that these would impact on the landscape significantly.  Should the development be approved a condition should be attached requiring details of tree protection measures for trees 1 to 7 prior to the commencement of development.

4. Town Council Response

Please Tick as Appropriate Town Council No View Object Support No Response Expressed Kirkby Stephen X Town Council 4.1 Kirkby Stephen Town Council have made the following comments:

At its meeting of 5 May, the Council considered the application 15/0315, outline application for residential development (comprising 5 dwellings) with approval sought for access and scale and made the following response: The Town Council objects to this application on the following grounds: The site of the proposed development forms part of the site which was turned down for development under application 12/0984. The applicant appealed the decision to the Planning Inspectorate; however, the appeal was dismissed. While the number of dwellings proposed at this application is fewer than application number 12/0984, the material considerations raised during consideration of 12/0984 remain a concern. It is this Council’s opinion that the site is unsuitable for further development. Access Of greatest concern to the Town Council is that there are no pedestrian footways along Mellbecks and the exit to Nateby Road is narrow and with poor visibility. The development would infringe Eden District Core Strategy CS5 in that it would aggravate already significant traffic problems. NPPF paragraph 32 requires that "safe and suitable access to the site can be achieved for all people" and Eden CS 18 (9) requires "safe access to the site by a choice of means of transport" and "all users particularly pedestrians, cyclists, disabled people and the elderly" and neither condition is met in Mellbecks. Although the District Council did not oppose the previous application 12/0984 on the grounds of access, the Planning Inspector was sufficiently concerned enough to give thorough consideration to the current access arrangements in his report. Please refer to paragraphs 13 – 22 Vehicular and Other Access of the Inspectors Report which is appendix to this letter. The applicant has made no reference to the issues raised in the Planning Inspectorates report in

7 Pack No 73 Agenda Item REPORTS FOR DEBATE

regards to access nor has any effort been made to improve access arrangements to the six houses already built. The current access road to the site from Mellbecks is of poor quality, having not had any surface dressing. The result of this is that when there is any rainfall the loose surface washes into Mellbecks and into the surface run off drains. In addition to the six dwellings already built, the applicant has received permission to build a further nine dwellings in this location, work to these has not yet commenced. Until these additional properties are built and lived in it is difficult to know what impact the additional traffic will have on Mellbecks and Nateby Road. The Town Council would encourage the applicant to construct the road surface from Mellbecks to the existing site to a better standard and proceed with the building of the properties he has received permission for. Other considerations In addition to the concern regarding access are concerns about the impact the dwellings will have on the skyline due to the elevated nature of the site, the impact on the neighbouring properties, particularly of concern is the harm to the setting of Manor House, a Grade II Listed Building, which is referred to in paragraph 25 of the Inspectors Report, an further area of concern is the additional pressure which will be put onto the sewers. The Council is advised by residents of Mellbecks that the problems with the sewers in Mellbecks are such that United Utilities visit at least every ten days to keep things moving. It is noted that the application is listed to be dealt with under delegated powers. It is requested that this matter is considered by the Planning Committee and that the Town Council is given the opportunity to attend the meeting when this application is considered. 5. Representations 5.1 Letters of consultation were sent to nearby neighbours and a site notice was posted on the 21 April 2015.

No of Neighbours Consulted 9 No of letters of support 0 No of Representations 13 1 No of neutral representations Received No of objection letters 12 5.2 Letters of objection raised the following concerns which are material considerations to the application:  Considered to be a piecemeal approach that will go on until the original 26 dwellings are approved.  The town does not need these extra houses with no infrastructure to support the development, no public transport and no jobs.  The access from Mellbecks onto Nateby road is dangerous with no footpaths or lighting and traffic forced into the middle of the road.  Parking is an issue along Mellbecks with the new development only adding to this concern.  Concern about adequate drainage of the site with run off not to the detriment of neighbouring properties.  Proposal would be backland development out of keeping with the local pattern of development.  Development would result in the loss of privacy and amenity to neighbouring residents. As a result of overlooking, noise nuisance and general disturbance.

Pack No 74 8 Agenda Item REPORTS FOR DEBATE  Proposal would be for market housing in a rural location where development should be limited to meeting an identified need.  Development would because of its siting forward of the principal elevations of neighbouring properties and non-traditional form and design would be prominent and obtrusive features in the street scene that would detract from character and appearance of the street frontage.  Proposal would lead to a cramped development that is overbearing on neighbouring properties.  Development would adversely affect the local wildlife.  The site has not been put forward for residential development under the emerging local plan.  The recent development has taken a long time and caused an impact on neighbouring amenities through its construction.  The land subject to this application is much lower and away from the controversial ridge that was considered to have an unacceptable impact however only the bottom of the site is hidden by gardens and garth trees.  The buildings would have a considerable impact on existing houses and their light.  The development is close to the listed Manor House and with no design or materials submitted it is considered hard to imagine that the development would seamlessly merge in to the Conservation Area.  Some of the documentation supplied with the application is dated October 2012 and is considered to be out of date. 5.3 Letters of objection raised the following concerns which are non-material considerations:  Developer should finish the buildings on site before starting others. 6. Relevant Planning History

Application No Description Outcome 12/0984 Outline application for residential Refused and upheld development comprising 24 units with on appeal approval sought for access and scale refused by the committee for the following reason: That the proposal would involve a residential development on a prominent and elevated site, with high visual amenity overlooking the River Eden Special Area of Conservation Area and the nationally recognised Coast to Coast footpath and associated historic bridging point to Kirkby Stephen and would result in a significant and demonstrable harm to the visual amenity of the distinctive landscape of the area contrary to National Planning Policy Framework 10: Conserving and enhancing the natural environment and Core Strategy policies

9 Pack No 75 Agenda Item REPORTS FOR DEBATE CS16: Principles for the Natural Environment and CS18: Design of New Development.

This decision was upheld on appeal by the inspector who made the following comments:- I turn, then to the final planning balance. My overall findings are these on the main issues: The proposed development would result in significant and demonstrable harm to the character and appearance of the locality, and conflict with the development plan; It has not been demonstrated that adequate vehicular and other access could be provided, and in my judgement this would lead to unacceptable harm to highway safety; There would be less that substantial harm to the setting of 2 listed buildings, but harm to the Conservation Area could be avoided; The lack of a 5 year supply of available housing land is a matter in favour of the proposal, as is the proposal to provide affordable housing. I do not find that the scheme should be refused because of any impact on the emerging Local Plan; Other matters, as set out above, are not determinative in this case. I have also given consideration to all the other points raised in written representations but none is of sufficient weight to alter my findings on the appeal. The harm to character and appearance, highway safety, and heritage assets means that the scheme cannot be regarded as sustainable when assessed in terms of the NPPF as a whole. The harm I have identified is significant and demonstrable, and clearly outweighs the fact that the scheme would provide benefits in the provision of housing. For that reason the presumption in favour of development set out in paragraph 14 of the NPPF does not apply and the appeal

Pack No 76 10 Agenda Item REPORTS FOR DEBATE must fail.

Outline consent refused for 3 no market led bungalows with 09/1070 detached garages and parking Refused

Permission granted for construction 09/0231 of six market led dwellings and Approved three affordable dwellings together with parking and amenity space

Application approved for 09/0003 amendment to 3/05/1073 to Approved provide six market led dwellings

Permission granted for construction 05/1073 of 3 no affordable dwellings for rent Approved and 3 no market led dwellings with local occupancy clause, together with parking and amenity space.

Application refused for construction of 1 no detached two storey 04/0691 Refused dwelling together with parking and garden land

7. Policy Context 7.1 Development Plan Core Strategy DPD Policy: CS1 Sustainable Development Principles CS2 Locational Strategy CS5 Transport and Accessibility CS6 Developer Contributions CS7 Principles for Housing CS8 Making Efficient Use of Land CS10 Affordable Housing CS16 Principles for the Natural Environment CS17 Principles for the Built (Historic) Environment

11 Pack No 77 Agenda Item REPORTS FOR DEBATE CS18 Design of New Development Supplementary Planning Documents Housing (2010) Management of Conservation Areas (2011) 7.2 Other Material Considerations National Planning Policy Framework:  Delivering a wide choice of high quality homes  Requiring good design  Conserving and enhancing the natural environment  Conserving and enhancing the historic environment National Planning Practice Guidance 8. Planning Assessment 8.2 Principle 8.2.1 The NPPF states that housing applications should be considered in the context of the presumption in favour of sustainable development with relevant policies for the supply of housing not considered up-to-date if the LPA cannot demonstrate a five year land supply. 8.2.2 Core Strategy policy CS2 Locational Strategy identifies that within key service centres, such as Kirkby Stephen, moderate development appropriate to the scale of the town, including new housing, may be acceptable. CS2 Locational Strategy is a housing policy and given that the council cannot demonstrate an up-to-date 5 year supply of housing land this policy is not considered to be up to date and consistent with the NPPF. This policy however concerns the general location for development and is not restricted to housing developments. As such it is considered to be a policy that would not be wholly out of date as the Council does not have a five year land supply and can be given some weight in this determination. 8.2.3 As referred to previously this application site forms part of a larger site that was refused by the Council’s Planning Committee with this decision upheld on appeal. However in both these decisions development on this site was not considered to be unacceptable in principle. 8.2.4 The inspector considered, in his decision issued on the 29 January 2015, a range of factors in terms of the principle. He noted that the site was not, at this stage, proposed for housing in the emerging plan and gave weight to local preferences for the site to not be used for housing. He also noted the existing shortfall in housing in the area and that refusal on the grounds of prematurity should only be exercised in cases where proposals are substantial and would undermine the local plan. The scheme of 24 was not considered to cause this substantial harm and as such the proposed development of 5 units is similarly not considered to cause harm in terms of prematurity to the emerging local plan. 8.2.5 During the course of the application the Council has agreed with the agent, in an email dated 18 May 2015, that 1 of the proposed 5 dwellings should be affordable. This is in accordance with the Council’s requirement within CS10 for a provision of 30%

Pack No 78 12 Agenda Item REPORTS FOR DEBATE affordable housing on larger schemes. Although a development of 5 dwellings would not normally require such a provision it is considered that given the site is part of a wider development that is largely uncommenced it is reasonable to require a suitable affordable housing contribution. 8.2.6 The inspector summarised that he did not consider that the earlier application should be refused based on any conflict with the preferred options of the Local Plan and it is considered that it would be unreasonable for the Council to consider the smaller site proposed under this application would cause substantial conflict with the emerging plan. 8.2.7 The application site is considered to be well related to the town centre and the facilities it affords and the proposed development is considered to be acceptable in principle in itself and also in accordance with previous decisions on the site. The Development would therefore be acceptable in principle under the requirements of the NPPF and Core Strategy Policy CS2. 8.3 Landscape and Visual Impacts 8.3.1 The National Planning Policy Framework states that LPAs should always seek to secure high quality design and ensure developments are “visually attractive as a result of good architecture and appropriate landscaping”. Permission should be “refused for development of poor design that fails to take the opportunities available for improving the character and quality of an area and the way it functions.” CS18 also requires that new development should complement and enhance the existing area. 8.3.2 The application site is located in rising land to the east of Kirkby Stephen. The site is well related to permitted developments to the south with built development at a similar level to dwellings permitted to the south. 8.3.3 The present application is in outline with approval only sought for scale and access. As such limited details are under consideration and the submitted plan is indicative. Scale would involve the Council considering the height, width and length of proposed buildings. In terms of the buildings dimensions these are considered to be reflective of the dwellings approved to the south and would fit within the character of the area established by the earlier approvals. Although approval of layout is not sought it is considered that the single storey development should be located to the west of the site (as shown on the indicative plans). 8.3.4 Although landscaping is not sought approval of it is considered that any reserved matters application should enhance the boundary to the north of the site to help the built form assimilate into the landscape. 8.3.5 The inspector did not differentiate between parts of the site when considering the appeal under application 12/0984. However the proposed 5 dwellings subject to this application are not considered to have a significant detrimental impact on the character or appearance of the landscape. The dwellings have been indicated as having a lower overall height and avoid the visually prominent area of land to the north. Views from the public rights of way to the north and east would be limited by landform and through appropriate planting could be assimilated into the landscape. Officers consider that the current proposal avoids the “harsh skyline views” and “erosion of the pastoral setting” that the inspector had concerns about with the larger application.

13 Pack No 79 Agenda Item REPORTS FOR DEBATE 8.3.6 It is therefore considered that the proposed development would have an acceptable visual impact on the character and appearance of the surrounding area and as such would meet this requirement of the NPPF and CS18 in this respect. 8.4 Residential Amenity 8.4.1 The National Planning Policy Framework states that LPAs should seek to achieve a good standard of amenity for all existing and future occupants of land and buildings. Similarly CS18 requires that all new development should demonstrate that it protects the amenity of existing residents and provides an acceptable amenity for future occupiers. 8.4.2 Outline approval is sought for the access and scale of the development and details such as the appearance and design of the site have not been submitted for approval. It is noted that some responses have raised concerns regarding the possible impact on the amenities of neighbouring residences. However it is considered that the proposed development could be designed, at reserved matters stage, to have a limited impact on neighbouring amenities. There are no close dwellings to be overshadowed and the site is large enough and sufficiently separated from other units to avoid overlooking. The western elevations of the western units appear to be close to the neighbouring properties amenity space and as such care should be taken to ensure at the final design stage that there is no significant detrimental impact on neighbouring amenity. 8.4.3 It is also noted that the previously refused development included dwellings in a similar location but neither the Council nor the Inspector considered the development would have an unacceptable impact on neighbouring amenities. 8.4.4 It is therefore considered that the proposed scheme would be acceptable in terms of its impact on neighbouring amenities and as such would meet this requirement of the NPPF and CS18. 8.5 Infrastructure 8.5.1 The previous application for the larger site (12/0984) was refused by the Inspector partially due to concerns with the access onto the site. The Inspector in his decision noted that: “it has not been demonstrated that adequate vehicular and other access could be provided, and in my judgement this would lead to unacceptable harm to highway safety”. 8.5.2 This application is for 5 additional dwellings on top of the 15 already approved to access from Mellbecks. Consideration therefore needs to be given as to whether the additional 5 units would be to the detriment of highway safety within the vicinity. 8.5.3 The application has not been submitted with a detailed access specification for the junction onto Mellbecks however the Highways Authority are satisfied that a junction could be constructed of an appropriate design within the space available to not be to the detriment of highway safety. As such the Highways Authority have recommended that full details are conditioned and should be implemented prior to the occupation of any dwelling. 8.5.4 It is noted that the applicant is partially in breach of the planning conditions attached to approvals 09/0003 for 6 dwellings and 09/0231 for a further 9 dwellings in that details have not been submitted prior to commencement of the highways specification.

Pack No 80 14 Agenda Item REPORTS FOR DEBATE However this condition (attached to both consents) did not require the works to be carried out until the developments were completed. Neither of the consents have been completed and as such the works to the highway do not need to have actually been carried out at this stage. As such the Council do not consider that this partial breach could be enforced against presently. Notwithstanding this the Highways Authority consider that an appropriate access could be constructed to support all the dwellings. 8.5.5 It is therefore considered that, subject to an appropriate condition, the proposed development would not result in any unacceptable detrimental impact on highway safety within the vicinity. The property would therefore meet this requirement of Core Strategy Policy CS5. 8.5.6 Concerns have been raised regarding the drainage of the site however no concerns have been raised by statutory consultees in this respect. In particular United Utilities have identified that there is no sewer flooding at the local properties. Although conditions have been suggested it is considered that details of the drainage should not be required at this stage but should be provided with any reserved matters application or required by condition on any such application. As approval is not sought for the layout it is considered to be premature to condition full details of the layout at this stage. 8.6 Natural Environment 8.6.1 The application has been submitted with a tree survey report and Habitat and Scoping Survey that were submitted with the previous application on the site. It is noted that these are now over 2 years old and should ideally be from the most recent survey season however given that the final (inspectorate) decision was issued in January 2015 it is not considered necessary to require new surveys be carried out. However should the development be approved additional or updated ecological surveys could be conditioned to be provided to check the mitigation proposed is still appropriate for development. 8.6.2 No concerns were raised in respect of protected species for the previous application on the larger site (12/0984) by either the Council or the Planning Inspectorate. Given the relatively short period of time between the Inspector’s decision and this submission it is not considered that the impact on species or habitats will have substantially changed. 8.6.3 It is therefore considered that the proposed development would not have an unacceptable impact on the natural environment in accordance with the requirements of the NPPF and CS16 Principles of the Natural Environment. 8.7 Built Environment 8.7.1 The National Planning Policy Framework states that in determining planning applications affecting heritage assets LPAs should take account of:  “The desirability of sustaining and enhancing the significance of heritage assets and putting them to viable uses consistent with their conservation;  The positive contribution that conservation of heritage assets can make to sustainable communities including their economic viability; and  The desirability of new development making a positive contribution to local character and distinctiveness.”

15 Pack No 81 Agenda Item REPORTS FOR DEBATE 8.7.2 Similarly CS17 requires that development conserves and enhances buildings, landscapes and areas of cultural, historic or archaeological interest. This should include conservation areas and the setting of listed buildings. 8.7.3 In terms of listed buildings the nearest designated dwellings are The Manor House and Orchard House located a short distance to the west of the site. Kirkby Stephen Conservation Area is located a short distance to the west of the site and also abuts part of the site to the north. 8.7.4 In consideration of the larger application (12/0984) the Inspector noted that the proposal would have a “less than substantial level” of impact on nearby listed buildings. In accordance with the NPPF (Para 134): “Where a development proposal will lead to less than substantial harm to the significance of a designated heritage asset, this harm should be weighed against the public benefits of the proposal, including securing its optimum viable use.” 8.7.5 In accordance with the Listed Buildings Act LPAs should give considerable importance and weight to the desirability of preserving the settings of listed buildings. 8.7.6 The listed building in the proximity of the site is now two dwellings with Manor House to the north and Orchard House to the south. Due to the strong boundary vegetation and the separation of the proposed development from Manor House it is not considered that the development would affect the setting of Manor House. Orchard House has a more open rear amenity space and, with the proposed 5 dwellings to the rear of this property, would be viewed with the new dwellings. It is therefore considered, in accordance with the inspector’s considerations, that the development would have a less than substantial impact on the setting of this property. 8.7.7 As noted the NPPF requires that where less than substantial harm is caused to the setting of a listed building any harm should be weighed against the public benefits of the development. Whilst final detailing of the development is not under consideration as part of this outline application the dwellings would be likely to be viewed in the context of the listed building. Orchard House has a sizeable curtilage and as such there would be some maintenance of distance between the new development and the listed structure. Orchard House is a later addition to the Manor House and has been significantly altered through the addition of a 2 storey lean to extension and subdivision of the grounds. Whilst the development causes less than substantial harm it is officer opinion that given the corporate priority of the provision of housing, the provision of an affordable housing unit and the level of harm caused by the development that the public benefits of the proposal would outweigh any harm. 8.7.8 The inspector considered that although the wider site was adjacent to the conservation area development could be designed to preserve the setting of this designated area. 8.7.9 The proposed development is therefore considered to have an acceptable impact on Listed Buildings and the Conservation Area meeting this requirement of the NPPF and CS17 of the Core Strategy. 9. New Homes Bonus 9.1 The prospect of receiving a Bonus is, in principle, capable of being taken into account as a ‘material consideration’ in determining a planning application. Whether potential Bonus payments are in fact a material consideration in relation to a particular application will depend on whether those payments would be used in a way which is

Pack No 82 16 Agenda Item REPORTS FOR DEBATE connected to the application and to the use and development of land. For example, potential Bonus payments could be a material consideration if they were to be used to mitigate impacts resulting from development. But if the use to which the payments are to be put is unclear or is for purposes unrelated to the development concerned a decision maker would not be entitled to take them into account when making a decision on a planning application. In this particular case, there are no plans to use the New Homes Bonus arising from this application in connection with this development. 10. Implications 10.1 Legal Implications 10.1.1 The following matters have been considered but no issues are judged to arise. 10.2 Equality and Diversity 10.2.1 The Council must have regard to the elimination of unlawful discrimination and harassment, and the promotion of equality under the Equality Act 2010. 10.3 Environment 10.3.1 The Council must have due regard to conserving bio-diversity under the Natural Environment and Rural Communities Act 2006. 10.4 Crime and Disorder 10.4.1 Under the Crime and Disorder Act 1998, the Council must have regard to the need to reduce crime and disorder in exercising any of its functions. 10.5 Children 10.5.1 Under the Children Act 2004, the Council has a duty to safeguard and promote the welfare of children in the exercise of any of its functions. 10.6 Human Rights 10.6.1 In determining applications, the Council must ensure that all parties get a fair hearing in compliance with the provisions of Article 6 under the European Convention on Human Rights, as now embodied in UK law in the Human Rights Act 1998. 11. Conclusion 11.1 It is considered that the proposal accords with the Development Plan for the following reasons which are not outweighed by material considerations: The proposed development is considered to be acceptable in principle, be of an appropriate scale and capable of providing an appropriate highways access. The proposal is also considered to have an acceptable impact on the built environment and the character and appearance of the surrounding area. The proposed development is therefore considered to accord with the guidance within the NPPF and Core Strategy Policies CS2, CS16, CS17 and CS18.

Gwyn Clark Head of Planning Services

17 Pack No 83 Agenda Item REPORTS FOR DEBATE

Checked by or on behalf of the Monitoring Officer 

Background Papers: Planning File

Pack No 84 18 Agenda Item REPORTS FOR DEBATE Item 2 Date of Committee: 20 August 2015

Planning Application No: 15/0466 Date Received: 26 May 2015

OS Grid Ref: 355103 539828 Expiry Date: 06 August 2015

Parish: Lazonby Ward: Lazonby

Application Type: Full

Proposal: Siting of playground equipment (part retrospective)

Location: Lazonby Church of England School, Lazonby

Applicant: Mrs Yvonne Standing (Head Teacher)

Agent: None

Case Officer: Mr Daniel Addis

Reason for Referral: The officer recommendation to approve is contrary to the view of Lazonby Parish Council

19 Pack No 85 Agenda Item REPORTS FOR DEBATE 1. Recommendation

It is recommended that planning permission be granted subject to the following conditions: 1. The development shall be carried out in accordance with the plans received on 26 May 2015.

Reason: To ensure a satisfactory development and to avoid any ambiguity as to what constitutes the permission.

2. Proposal and Site Description 2.1 Proposal 2.1.1 The proposal is for the siting of playground equipment within the grounds of Lazonby primary school. Some of the equipment has already been sited and hence the application is part retrospective. 2.1.2 The equipment already sited includes a ‘target wall’, a ‘three way shooter’ and a ‘climbing wall’. The target wall measures 3m in width and 2m in height. The purpose of the target wall is to kick or throw a ball against it whilst aiming for the targets. The three way shooter measures 2.7m in height and includes a 60cm by 60cm box set on top of a metal pole. The purpose of the three way shooter is for children to throw a ball into the box with the ball then being released from one of three holes and then caught by the child beneath that hole. The climbing wall measures 2m in width and 2.1m in height. The purpose of the climbing wall is to encourage children to move along the wall whilst elevated off the ground. 2.1.3 The equipment that is proposed to be sited is a scramble net log climber which will replace a climbing frame which is no longer in use. The scramble net measures 2m in length and 2m in height. The purpose of the scramble net is to encourage children to interact and encourage physical exercise including coordination. 2.2 Site Description 2.2.1 The application site relates to the playground area associated with Lazonby Primary School, to the front of the building. 2.2.2 Lazonby primary school is a Grade II listed building. 3. Statutory Consultees

Consultee Response Highways Authority No objection Environmental Health No objection 4. Parish Council/Meeting Response

Please Tick as Appropriate Parish Object Support No Response No View Council/Meeting Expressed

Pack No 86 20 Agenda Item REPORTS FOR DEBATE

Lazonby √ 4.1 Lazonby Parish Council’s response is set out fully below: “I am writing to advise that Lazonby parish Council, having considered the above- mentioned planning application, wishes to OBJECT to the large size of the target wall, the visual intrusion it causes, and the excessive noise that is brought about from its use.” 5. Representations 5.1 Letters of consultation were sent to near neighbours and a site notice was posted on 25 June 2015.

No of Neighbours Consulted No of letters of support 10 No of Representations 6 No of neutral representations 1 Received No of objection letters 0 5.1.1 Letters of support were also received which provided the following comments:  The equipment enhances the experience of children at school  The colours are suitable for the school playground  The equipment is the perfect size for children  Access to the school field is restricted – this provides an alternative resource  The importance of outdoor play – including exercise 6. Relevant Planning History There is no relevant planning history 7. Policy Context 7.1 Development Plan Policy No – Description  CS17 Principles for the Built (Historic) Environment  CS18 Design of New Development  CS21 Principles for Services, Facilities, Sport and Informal Recreation 7.2 Other Material Considerations National Planning Policy Framework –  Promoting healthy communities  Conserving and enhancing the historic environment The policies detailed above are the most relevant policies relating to this application.

21 Pack No 87 Agenda Item REPORTS FOR DEBATE

8. Planning Assessment 8.1 Key/Main Planning Issues  Principle  Visual impact  Impact on the setting of the listed building  Residential amenity 8.2 Principle 8.2.1 The principle of the proposal ie to improve the facilities at an established primary school is supported by the development plan through CS21. 8.3 Visual Impact 8.3.1 The existing and proposed playground equipment is appropriate in both scale and design when seen in the context of the school in accordance with CS18. 8.4 Impact on the setting of the listed building 8.3.2 Given the small scale nature of the proposal and the existing use of the school and its grounds, it is considered that the character of the listed building including its setting will be preserved in accordance with CS17. 8.4 Residential Amenity 8.4.1 The equipment will form part of the existing school function, being used at play times during normal school hours. The Council’s environmental health department has been consulted on the application and has raised no objection on the basis that the equipment will only be used during school break times. It is considered that the proposal accords with CS18 which seeks to protect the amenity of existing residents. 9. Implications 9.1 Legal Implications 9.1.1 The following matters have been considered but no issues are judged to arise. 9.2 Equality and Diversity 9.2.1 The Council must have regard to the elimination of unlawful discrimination and harassment, and the promotion of equality under the Equality Act 2010. 9.3 Environment 9.3.1 The Council must have due regard to conserving bio-diversity under the Natural Environment and Rural Communities Act 2006. 9.4 Crime and Disorder 9.4.1 Under the Crime and Disorder Act 1998, the Council must have regard to the need to reduce crime and disorder in exercising any of its functions.

Pack No 88 22 Agenda Item REPORTS FOR DEBATE 9.5 Children 9.5.1 Under the Children Act 2004, the Council has a duty to safeguard and promote the welfare of children in the exercise of any of its functions. 9.6 Human Rights 9.6.1 In determining applications, the Council must ensure that all parties get a fair hearing in compliance with the provisions of Article 6 under the European Convention on Human Rights, as now embodied in UK law in the Human Rights Act 1998. 11. Conclusion 11.1 It is considered that the proposal accords with the Development Plan for the following reasons which are not outweighed by material considerations:  The application proposes modest sized playground equipment which will improve the facilities at the school with limited impact on the amenity of the area.  The visual impact of the proposal will be negligible with the equipment seen in the context of the playground and the school.  The proposal does not affect the setting of the listed building.

Gwyn Clark Head of Planning Services

Checked by or on behalf of the Monitoring Officer 

Background Papers: Planning File

23 Pack No 89 Agenda Item REPORTS FOR DEBATE Item 3 Date of Committee: 20 August 2016

Planning Application No: 15/0486 Date Received: 02 June 2015

OS Grid Ref: 356603 Expiry Date: 28 July 2015 536095

Parish: Hunsonby Ward: Langwathby

Application Type: Full

Proposal: Erection of detached dwelling

Location: Land at Orchard Cottage, Little Salkeld, Penrith

Applicant: Mr and Mrs D Addis

Agent:

Case Officer: Kevin Hutchinson

Reason for Referral: The Applicant is an employee of Development Management

Pack No 90 24 Agenda Item REPORTS FOR DEBATE 1. Recommendation

It is recommended that subject to the applicant first providing a Unilateral Planning Obligation to secure a financial contribution of 3% towards affordable housing, planning permission be granted subject to the following conditions: 1. The development permitted shall be begun either before the expiration of three years from the date of this permission. Reason: In order to comply with the provisions of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990. 2. The development hereby granted shall be carried out strictly in accordance with the details and plans hereby approved (drawing no 1505/102, 112A, 113A received 2 June 2015 and plan Nos 1505/110C and 111 received on 18 June 2015,) and shall not be varied other than by prior agreement in writing by the Local Planning Authority. Reason: To ensure a satisfactory development and to avoid any ambiguity as to what constitutes the permission. 3. Prior to the carrying out of any demolition works in respect of the former cart shed, the existing building affected by the proposed development shall be recorded in accordance with a Level 1 Survey as described by English Heritage’s document Understanding Historic Buildings A Guide to Good Recording Practice, 2006. Within 2 months of the commencement of construction works 3 copies of the resultant Level 1 Survey report shall be furnished to the Local Planning Authority. Reason: To ensure that a permanent record is made of the heritage asset of architectural and historic interest prior to its demolition as part of the proposed development. 4. Samples of the materials to be used for the external surfaces of the development shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority before any of those respective elements are commenced, and this condition shall apply notwithstanding any indications as to these matters which have been given in this application. Development shall be carried out in accordance with the approved details. Reason: To ensure that the materials harmonise with the surroundings. 5. The dwelling herby approved shall not be occupied until there has been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority a plan indicating the positions, design, height, materials and type of all boundary treatments to be erected. The development shall be carried out in accordance with the approved details prior to the occupation of the dwelling house. Reason: To protect the visual appearance of the area and the living conditions of neighbouring occupiers.

6. That prior to the commencement of excavation works on site, the existing boundary wall between the new vehicular access and the existing pedestrian gate to the East shall be reduced to a height not exceeding 1.0m above the carriageway level of the adjacent highway in accordance with details submitted to

25 Pack No 91 Agenda Item REPORTS FOR DEBATE the Local Planning Authority and which have subsequently been approved (before development commences) and shall not be raised to a height exceeding 1.0m thereafter. Reason: In the interests of highway safety and to support Local Transport Plan Policies: LD7, LD8

2. Proposal and Site Description 2.1 Proposal 2.1.1 The proposal relates to part of an extensive garden/orchard area to the front of Orchard Cottage within the village of Little Salkeld. A rectangular front garden to Orchard Cottage is maintained as its front and only garden area, with a portion of the remaining orchard subdivided to provide for the application site (760 sqm.) and the remaining area of Orchard (3015 sqm.). The full planning application is supported by a supporting statement, a Tree Report and a bat survey. 2.1.2 The proposal shows a spacious single, two storey dwelling, 14m wide by 7.7m deep with an eaves height of 4.9m and a ridge height of 7.8m. The design follows a formal and traditional approach with the front elevation in four bays around a central front door, with chimneys to the roof. The front and rear elevations are to be in stone, with smooth ‘off white’ render to either gable, articulated with quoin stone detailing to the corners and stone window and door surrounds. The roof is in slate with an exposed eaves detail and a skew stone and corbel detail to the verge, with the chimney material unspecified. The fenestration detailing is to be timber, of a sliding sash type appearance. 2.1.3 The dwelling house is orientated north south on the plot, with the front and north elevation set back some 8m from the road edge. Vehicular access is taken from the existing orchard access position. The access position has been amended and the front wall lowered to improved visibility onto the narrow village Road, taking access to a parking and turning area to the front and side of the house. Boundary walls and general ground finishes are unspecified. 2.1.4 The layout has been amended to include details of the foul and surface water drainage system, with foul water to the public mains and surface water going to a soakaway within the rear garden area. 2.2 Site Description 2.2.1 Orchard Cottage forms an end of terrace building on a row of farm buildings. The farm buildings face west into the farm yard, with Orchard Cottage conversely facing east into the orchard area to the rear of the farm yard. Orchard Cottage is retaining the immediate rectangular front garden area for its own domestic use. The application site extends into the adjoining orchard and includes a former cart shed abutting the northern boundary wall which is to be demolished. 2.2.2 The application site is on relatively level ground, rising to the southern and eastern boundaries, extending to the north western corner of the adjoining orchard. The orchard overall is on slightly undulating ground rising generally to the north east, located between a single track road to the north and is set within its junction to the village road from Langwathby, which runs north-south along the eastern boundary. The

Pack No 92 26 Agenda Item REPORTS FOR DEBATE orchard boundary to the north and east is formed by a substantial boundary wall between 1.5m and 2m in height. The village road to the east is at its highest point at the junction with the single track road, dropping towards Orchard Cottage to the west, and also dropping southwards towards the southern entrance to the village at the crossing point of a small river some 90m to the south. 2.2.3 The consequence of the respective change in levels over the orchard is that the southern part of the overall garden is located well above the village road level with the boundary wall forming a retaining structure in its south eastern portion. The change in level within the overall orchard also has the consequence in that the neighbouring dwelling ‘Orchard Bungalow’ to the south is set in a correspondingly low cut terrace, some 3m below. The currently proposed dwelling is located some 45 metres from ‘Orchard Bungalow’. 2.2.4 The application site is located within the established limits of Little Salkeld, which is identified as a Local Service Centre within the Eden Core Strategy which identifies such settlements as capable of accommodating ‘small scale development to sustain local services, support rural business and meet local needs, including housing , provision of employment and improvements to accessibility’. 3. Statutory Consultees

Consultee Response CCC Highways No objection subject to a condition requiring the lowering of boundary wall and for it to be retained at its lowered height, to provide for the necessary visibility at the access position. Environmental Health No objections. CCC Historic Environment No objection subject to condition requiring the Officer recording of the former cart shed located within the site and requiring demolition. Tree Officer No Objection: The retention value of the trees do not warrant a TPO. As site is tucked away in a corner of the larger orchard site, it has less public viewing and a landscaping condition is not required. United Utilities No objection subject to conditions. 4. Parish Council/Meeting Response

Please Tick as Appropriate Parish Object Support No Response No Council/Meeting Objections Hunsonby x 4.1 The Council have no objections to this application. 5. Representations 5.1 Letters of consultation were sent to near neighbours and a site notice was posted on 16 June 2015.

27 Pack No 93 Agenda Item REPORTS FOR DEBATE

No of Neighbours Consulted 6 No of letters of support 0 No of Representations 2 No of neutral representations 0 Received No of objection letters 2 5.2 Letters of objection raised the following concerns which are material considerations to the application:  Proposal relates to the erection of a third dwelling house within the orchard area, which in combination to another Development for two houses at garth House would involve an overall increase of 9%.  The scale, form and design of which will set a precedent for the development of the two sites to the eastern side of the remaining Orchard. This would in turn have an overwhelming impact on the amenity of Croft House and Orchard Bungalow, particularly in respect of the use of four gable windows and the scale of the first property.  There is no in fill site and the proposal would result in ‘cramming’ an additional house within the Orchard and result in an adverse affect on the amenity of the area.  The proposed eaves height at 5m and ridge height of 8m is higher than surrounding properties.  Parking provision is inadequate for the scale of the property proposed and with no allowance for visitor parking.  Although a Local service Centre, there is inadequate facilities within the village and no public transport is available.  Foul and surface water drainage is not adequately specified. 5.3 Letters of objection raised the following concerns which are non-material considerations:  Proposal is simply to make money. 6. Relevant Planning History

Application No Description Outcome 91/0597 Residential Development (Outline) Refused 17 October 1991 1. The development of the site would result in a significant intrusion into the visually important area of open space in the centre of Little Salkeld resulting in a serious detriment into the visual amenity of the area and the character of the village. 2. The development of the site could lead to subsequent pressure to develop the remainder of the field which would result in a further

Pack No 94 28 Agenda Item REPORTS FOR DEBATE erosion of the character of the settlement. 3. The proposed development would have an adverse affect upon the amenity and occupation of nearby dwellings.

14/0765 Outline planning application for the Approved subject to erection of two houses with approval conditions sought for access 16 February 2015 7. Policy Context 7.1 Development Plan CS1 Sustainable Development Principles CS2 Locational Strategy CS6 Developer Contributions CS7 Principles for Housing CS10 Affordable Housing CS16 Principles for the Natural Environment CS18 Design of New Development Housing SPD: Residential Development Guidelines Other Material Considerations National Planning Policy Framework - Introduction: Achieving Sustainable Development 7: Requiring Good Design The policies detailed above are the most relevant policies relating to this application. 8. Planning Assessment 8.1 Key/Main Planning Issues  Principle  Landscape and visual impact  Infrastructure  Residential amenity  Form and design  Impact on natural Environment  Affordable Housing Contribution

29 Pack No 95 Agenda Item REPORTS FOR DEBATE 8.2 Principle 8.2.1 The site history is a material consideration, however since the refusal of outline planning permission 91/0597 in October 1991 there has been a material change in circumstances in the adoption of the Eden Core Strategy in 2010 and the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) in March 2012. 8.2.2 In addition the principle of a residential development within the bulk of the orchard area adjoining Orchard Cottage was confirmed by the approval of the outline planning permission for two dwellings (including access) granted under 14/0765 on 16 February 2015. 8.2.3 The NPPF published in March 2012 states that housing applications should be considered in the context of the presumption in favour of sustainable development with relevant policies for the supply of housing not considered up-to-date if the LPA cannot demonstrate a five year land supply. The Council cannot currently demonstrate to 5 year housing land supply and therefore in terms of decision-making, the NPPF states in paragraph 14 that: ‘For decision-taking this means:  Approving development proposals that accord with the development plan without delay; and  Where the development plan is absent, silent or relative policies are out-of-date, granting 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.’ 8.2.4 Eden Core Strategy CS2: Locational Strategy identifies Little Salkeld as a Local Service Centre, where development would be limited to “small scale development to sustain local services, support rural businesses and meet local needs including housing, provision of employment, improvements to accessibility”. The principle of the proposal is considered to accord with this policy. 8.2.5 The current site marginally overlaps onto the previously approved site 14/0765 and extends over onto its boundary by some 2.25m. However, the current site has a road frontage of some 22.6m, which extends further westwards up to within 9m of the frontage of Orchard Cottage. This effectively extends the previously approved western site boundary by 18m further westwards towards Orchard Cottage. The overall impact would be to reduce the retained garden of Orchard Cottage from some 672sqm to 136sqm. This does not impact on the principle of development but is a matter for detailed consideration in respect of the inter-relationship of the two dwellings. 8.2.6 The overlapping nature of the current proposal (should it be approved) with the previous outline planning permission 14/0765, can be addressed, within the detail of any forthcoming Reserved Matters application in respect of the two houses.

Pack No 96 30 Agenda Item REPORTS FOR DEBATE 8.3 Landscape and Visual Impacts 8.3.1 The orchard site is well related to the central part of the village and is similar in many respects to many other infill development sites coming forward throughout the District. The development of the north western corner of the orchard, extending further towards Orchard Cottage sees the new site contained within the large orchard area, with a limited visual or landscape impact for the village, with only localised impact, viewed primarily along a short length of the single track village road. 8.3.2 In reviewing this issue, the site is within a semi mature orchard area to the front of Orchard Cottage, containing a wide variety of semi mature fruit and other trees. The trees are not the subject of a TPO and the site is not within a protected landscape designation, or within the grounds of a Listed Building or within a Conservation Area. Although like the previous proposal, the current site would involve the clearing of a number of further trees within the orchard to enable the erection of a dwelling, the Council Tree Officer confirms that they are localised and limited amenity value in the area and has no objection to specified removal. Otherwise the site is well contained in a corner of the orchard and is centrally located within the village, which in turn is set within an undulating landscape which contains view to a very localised impact. 8.3.3 The NPPF is very clear in advising approval ‘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.’ In this instance it is considered that the loss of more of the garden/orchard area to enable this development does not ‘significantly and demonstrably outweigh the benefits,’ such as to warrant a recommendation of refusal on this ground. 8.4 Infrastructure 8.4.1 There are no objections in respect of the site access, and the proposed foul and surface water drainage arrangement. Orchard Cottage takes advantage of on street parking, which is unaffected by the current proposal. 8.5 Residential Amenity 8.5.1 The main change to the earlier outline approval is the extension of the residential development up to within 9m of the frontage of Orchard Cottage and sees the front and only garden to Orchard Cottage reduced from some 672sqm to 136sqm. This reduction of the front and only garden of Orchard Cottage is not considered unacceptable and can be seen as commensurate with the size of the cottage and is similar to many other small cottages layouts in villages elsewhere in the district. The situation is further assisted by the respective orientation between Orchard Cottage and the proposal which is set well back some 8m from the edge of the public road and offset and to the side of the principle outlook from Orchard Cottage. 8.5.2 The two adjacent properties most affected by the earlier outline application 14/0765, Orchard bungalow to the south within a low terrace area and Croft House on the opposite side of the road junction to the north east of the site, will be unaffected by the current proposal. 8.6 Form and Design 8.6.1 The proposal follows a formal and traditional approach, faced in sandstone to the front and rear elevations under a slated roof, with detailing to reflect much of the form and

31 Pack No 97 Agenda Item REPORTS FOR DEBATE character of other older and larger buildings within the village. The detailing of the door and window openings together with the articulation of the roof further reflect a traditional vernacular approach, all of which is appropriate to this central location in Little Salkeld. 8.6.2 The site layout is simply formed to the rear of the retained and lowered front wall with the benefit of external parking only. The only concern revolves around the final form and appearance of the proposed external materials, but this can be adequately addressed by the use of an appropriate condition. 8.6.3 The concern that the proposal will set a precedent for the development of the two adjoining sites approved under 114/0765, is not a significant issue at this time, as the scale form and design of those properties will be considered on their merits as part of the subsequent Reserved Matters application. Clearly any Reserved matters application on the adjacent site will need to take account the potential impact on the amenity of the adjoining existing properties of Croft House and Orchard Bungalow as well as their relationship to the current proposal. 8.7 Impact on the Natural Environment 8.7.1 The orchard garden provides an attractive private garden area within the village, but is not the subject of any specific protective designation or TPO, which was a central feature in the consideration of the previous outline planning application 14/0765. The potential for the loss of some of the trees to enable the development was not considered unacceptable in respect of the adjoining application (14/0765) within this village location, as some of the existing trees on site can be retained to form the basis of a landscaping scheme which would be considered within any subsequent Reserved Matters application. However, the use of a condition preventing felling does not protect trees in the period running up to the implementation of the proposal. If the trees are of sufficient concern then the only mechanism to ensure the protection is by their use of a TPO. The tree officer confirms that they are not of sufficient importance to warrant protection of a TPO. 8.7.2 In respect of the current proposal it is noted in the observations from the Tree Officer, that he has no objection, observing again that the retention value of the trees do not warrant a TPO. Further he was of the view that as site is tucked away in a corner of the larger orchard site, it has less public viewing and a landscaping condition is not required. 8.8 Affordable Housing Contribution 8.8.1 In respect of the adjoining outline application for two dwellings (14/0765) no financial contribution was required, due to DCLG advice within Planning Policy Guidance issued on 28 November 2015. This confirmed that there is no affordable housing contribution requirement in respect of small development schemes between one and five houses in the rural area and planning permission was accordingly granted on 16 February 2015. 8.8.2 However, following a significant outcome of the case West Berkshire District Council Reading Borough Council v Department for Communities and Local Government [2015] EWHC 2222 (Admin) (31 July 2015); the Secretary of State amended the guidance within paragraphs 012-023 of the NPPG relating to planning obligations on 3 August 2015. Eden District Council has considered the legal implications of this judgement and has decided that we will now we revert back to the pre-November 2014

Pack No 98 32 Agenda Item REPORTS FOR DEBATE position by applying development plan policy which seeks contributions or affordable housing provision on all new applications, and that this includes those current and yet to be determined. 8.8.3 The pre-November 2014 position requires a financial contribution of 3% of market value for developments or 1-3 properties secured by a Unilateral Planning Obligation and for developments of 4 or more properties affordable housing shall be provided on the basis of a ratio of 30% (rounded down) as part of the scheme and secured by a Section 106 Agreement. In the light of this very recent change of circumstance the applicant has agreed to provide for the required 3% financial contribution in respect of this single dwelling, to be secured by a Unilateral Planning Obligation. 9. New Homes Bonus 9.1 The prospect of receiving a Bonus is, in principle, capable of being taken into account as a ‘material consideration’ in determining a planning application. Whether potential Bonus payments are in fact a material consideration in relation to a particular application will depend on whether those payments would be used in a way which is connected to the application and to the use and development of land. For example, potential Bonus payments could be a material consideration if they were to be used to mitigate impacts resulting from development. But if the use to which the payments are to be put is unclear or is for purposes unrelated to the development concerned a decision maker would not be entitled to take them into account when making a decision on a planning application. In this particular case, there are no plans to use the New Homes Bonus arising from this application in connection with this development. 10. Implications 10.1 Legal Implications 10.1.1 The following matters have been considered but no issues are judged to arise. 10.2 Equality and Diversity 10.2.1 The Council must have regard to the elimination of unlawful discrimination and harassment, and the promotion of equality under the Equality Act 2010. 10.3 Environment 10.3.1 The Council must have due regard to conserving bio-diversity under the Natural Environment and Rural Communities Act 2006. 10.4 Crime and Disorder 10.4.1 Under the Crime and Disorder Act 1998, the Council must have regard to the need to reduce crime and disorder in exercising any of its functions. 10.5 Children 10.5.1 Under the Children Act 2004, the Council has a duty to safeguard and promote the welfare of children in the exercise of any of its functions.

33 Pack No 99 Agenda Item REPORTS FOR DEBATE 10.6 Human Rights 10.6.1 In determining applications, the Council must ensure that all parties get a fair hearing in compliance with the provisions of Article 6 under the European Convention on Human Rights, as now embodied in UK law in the Human Rights Act 1998. 11. Conclusion 11.1 It is considered that the proposal accords to the Development Plan for the following reasons: The proposal provides for a single residential development, within a designated Local Service Centre without any significant or demonstrable, material adverse impact on the character or amenity of the area and is therefore considered to accord with policies CS1, CS2, CS6, CS10 and CS18 of the Eden Core Strategy.

Gwyn Clark Head of Planning Services

Checked by or on behalf of the Monitoring Officer 

Background Papers: Planning File

Pack No 100 34