PLANNING COMMITTEE 28 September 2004

PLANNING COMMITTEE th 28 September 2004

PLAN NUMBER: APPLICANT: DATE RECEIVED:

2004/0253 Mr & Mrs Mallinson 03/03/2004

WARD/PARISH: CASE OFFICER: 8 WEEK DATE:

Newbarns Charles Wilton 27/04/2004 Tel: 01229 894938 LOCATION:

3 Inglewood, Barrow-in-Furness

PROPOSAL:

Felling of two sycamore trees situated at the back of the group of three and subject of Tree Preservation Order 1972 No. 1

LOCAL PLAN:

No specific policies.

SUMMARY OF MAIN ISSUES:

There are three rather elongated sycamores situated within close proximity to each other. Removal of two will allow remaining tree to develop into a reasonable specimen.

NON MATERIAL CONSIDERATIONS:

REPRESENTATIONS:

The Occupiers, Inner Lodge Convent, Rating Lane, Our Lady’s Chetwynde School, 28, 26 Infield Gardens, 49, 53, 55, 57, 59, 61, 63, 65, 67, 69, 71, 73, 75, 77, 79, 81, 83 Croslands Park, 1- 8, 10 Croft Park Grove, 1, 2, 4, 6, 7, 8, 10 Inglewood, Barrow in Furness all informed.

The Occupier, 65 Croslands Park, Barrow-in-Furness

“Thanks you for your letter of 9th March, specifically directed to potential tree works at 10 Inglewood but identifying similar applications for 8 adjacent properties.

In total they concern a band of trees which are public amenity, lying between and predating both the Inglewood and Croslands estates. In 2001 similar and significant tree works were approved and carried out for several of the present applicants. In some cases, these new applications seem to seek further work on the same trees.

Page 1 of 77

PLANNING COMMITTEE th 28 September 2004 May I ask that, as then, the applications be considered in the light of their collective, overall effect, in order that whatever may be permitted is carried out in a similar fashion across the woodland, with regard to its overall future, safety, skyline and continuity.

I understand that you will obtain an independent expert opinion on the level of work that will best meet these objectives”

CONSULTATIONS:

OFFICERS REPORT:

There were four sycamore trees, which occupy the southern end of the rear garden. One of these sycamores contained a substantial area of rot. These findings were confirmed by the Council’s arboricultural consultant. The advice was that the tree was dangerous. In such situations the Council’s consent is not required. The tree was felled on this basis. This work has been carried out.

The applicant had proposed to reduce the crowns of the remaining sycamores by 35%. The sycamores are growing fairly close to one another. This will result in increasingly tall, spindly trees. Lopping the trees as originally proposed would achieve little other than disfiguring them.

Were only the better of the three sycamores retained it would allow the remaining tree to develop a better shaped canopy. The applicant has followed this advice and amended his application to propose the felling of two of the three remaining sycamores. This achieves the improvements to the natural lighting of the applicant’s house and garden which they desire while not harming the amenity value of this woodland belt and according with good arboricultural practice.

RECOMMENDATION:

I recommend that consent be GRANTED.

Page 2 of 77

PLANNING COMMITTEE th 28 September 2004

PLAN NUMBER: APPLICANT: DATE RECEIVED:

2004/0252 Mr & Mrs Williams 03/03/2004

WARD/PARISH: CASE OFFICER: 8 WEEK DATE:

Newbarns Charles Wilton 27/04/2004 Tel: 01229 894938 LOCATION:

5 Inglewood, Barrow-in-Furness

PROPOSAL:

Works to trees protected by Tree Preservation Order 1972 No. 1 – Felling of ash tree, and removal of large limb over hanging outbuilding, together with 3 lower branches to the horse chestnut tree closest to boundary with 7 Inglewood.

LOCAL PLAN:

No specific policies.

SUMMARY OF MAIN ISSUES:

Ash tree poor specimen cramping development of adjacent better trees, removal of lower branches of horse chestnut will reduce the weight and risk of fracture.

NON MATERIAL CONSIDERATIONS:

REPRESENTATIONS:

The Occupier, 65 Croslands Park, Barrow-in-Furness

“Thanks you for your letter of 9th March, specifically directed to potential tree works at 10 Inglewood but identifying similar applications for 8 adjacent properties.

In total they concern a band of trees, which are public amenity, lying between and predating both the Inglewood and Croslands estates. In 2001 similar and significant tree works were approved and carried out for several of the present applicants. In some cases, these new applications seem to seek further work on the same trees.

Page 3 of 77

I understand that you will obtain an independent expert opinion on the level of work that will best meet these objectives”

CONSULTATIONS:

OFFICERS REPORT:

There are five trees at the bottom end of the applicant’s rear garden. The finest of the trees are two horse chestnuts, which are located along the rear garden boundary. No work is required to one of those trees but the second has a heavy lower limb. This is growing out over out buildings to a property Croslands. The branch because of its length and weight would be vulnerable to breaking off. The advice is that this should be removed. Three low level branches are also proposed to be removed to balance the tree. These works are modest in nature.

Forward of these trees are two ashes and one sycamore. None of these trees are good specimens though removing one or both ash trees would help the sycamore develop a better shape.

RECOMMENDATION:

I recommend that consent be GRANTED subject to the following conditions:

Condition No. 1

The Planning Authority must be notified in writing at least seven days beforehand, of when the works to trees authorised by this permission are to commence.

Reason

To ensure that the work is carried out in an orderly and satisfactory manner.

Condition No. 2

The works hereby approved (with the exception of the approved felling) shall only be carried out during and between the months of October to March.

Reason

To minimise the risk of damage and disease.

Page 4 of 77

PLANNING COMMITTEE th 28 September 2004

PLAN NUMBER: APPLICANT: DATE RECEIVED:

2004/0251 Mr & Mrs Smith 03/03/2004

WARD/PARISH: CASE OFFICER: 8 WEEK DATE:

Newbarns Charles Wilton 27/04/2004 Tel: 01229 894938 LOCATION:

9 Inglewood, Barrow-in-Furness

PROPOSAL:

Works to trees protected by Tree Preservation Order 1972 No.1 - 20% thin of lowest limb, removal of 2nd and 4th lowest branches to horse chestnut, 20% reduction of crown on house side only to sycamore tree.

LOCAL PLAN:

No specific policies.

SUMMARY OF MAIN ISSUES:

Modified application will allow trees to develop a better shape and minimise danger of limbs breaking off in high winds due to undue weight.

NON MATERIAL CONSIDERATIONS:

REPRESENTATIONS:

The Occupier, 65 Croslands Park, Barrow-in-Furness

“Thanks you for your letter of 9th March, specifically directed to potential tree works at 10 Inglewood but identifying similar applications for 8 adjacent properties.

Page 5 of 77

PLANNING COMMITTEE th 28 September 2004

May I ask that, as then, the applications be considered in the light of their collective, overall effect, in order that whatever may be permitted is carried out in a similar fashion across the woodland, with regard to its overall future, safety, skyline and continuity.

I understand that you will obtain an independent expert opinion on the level of work that will best meet these objectives”

CONSULTATIONS:

OFFICERS REPORT:

There are two trees situated within the applicant’s rear garden, a sycamore and a horse chestnut. A 35% reduction was proposed to both trees.

The horse chestnut has a well shaped crown and reducing this would disfigure the tree. I explained to the applicant that I could not support such measures. The tree would however benefit from a 20% thin of its lower limb and the removal of its 2nd and 4th lowest branches. As well as reducing the risk of fracture it would provide space for an adjacent, smaller tree to develop.

The sycamore has grown a little one sided being drawn up unevenly by the horse chestnut. The proposed reduction of 35% was excessive. A modest 20% reduction to the tree on its house side will help bring the tree back to a balanced shape. The applicant has amended his proposal accordingly.

RECOMMENDATION:

I recommend that consent be GRANTED subject to the following condition:

Condition No. 1

The Planning Authority must be notified in writing at least seven days beforehand, of when the works to trees authorised by this permission are to commence.

Reason

To ensure that the development shall be carried out in an orderly and satisfactory manner.

Condition No. 2

The works hereby approved shall only be carried out during and between the months of October to March.

Reason

To minimise the risk of damage and disease.

Page 6 of 77

PLANNING COMMITTEE th 28 September 2004

PLAN NUMBER: APPLICANT: DATE RECEIVED:

2004/0250 Mr & Mrs Hudson 03/03/2004

WARD/PARISH: CASE OFFICER: 8 WEEK DATE:

Newbarns Charles Wilton 27/04/2004 Tel: 01229 894938 LOCATION:

11 Inglewood, Barrow-in-Furness

PROPOSAL:

Felling of Sycamore tree subject of Tree Preservation Order 1972 No. 1

LOCAL PLAN:

No specific policies.

SUMMARY OF MAIN ISSUES:

Sycamore contains significant rot which makes is vulnerable to collapse other elements of the application have now been withdrawn.

NON MATERIAL CONSIDERATIONS:

REPRESENTATIONS:

The Occupier, 65 Croslands Park, Barrow-in-Furness

“Thanks you for your letter of 9th March, specifically directed to potential tree works at 10 Inglewood but identifying similar applications for 8 adjacent properties.

PLANNING COMMITTEE th 28 September 2004

I understand that you will obtain an independent expert opinion on the level of work that will best meet these objectives”

CONSULTATIONS:

OFFICERS REPORT:

There are four trees within the applicant’s rear garden. They include a beech and a horse chestnut. The proposal was originally to lop these trees reducing their crowns by 35%. Such work would harm the shape of the trees and conflict with good arborical practice. Neither was there sufficient amenity grounds to justify that work. This element of the proposal has now been withdrawn at my request.

One of the two sycamores however includes a significant amount of rot, which will make it vulnerable to collapse in high winds. Its felling is justified on health and safety grounds. This assessment has been confirmed by the Council’s arborical consultant. There is little option for replanting.

RECOMMENDATION:

I recommend that consent be GRANTED.

Page 8 of 77

PLANNING COMMITTEE th 28 September 2004

PLAN NUMBER: APPLICANT: DATE RECEIVED:

2004/0245 Mr & Mrs Rogerson 03/03/2004

WARD/PARISH: CASE OFFICER: 8 WEEK DATE:

Newbarns Charles Wilton 27/04/2004 Tel: 01229 894938 LOCATION:

10 Inglewood, Barrow-in-Furness

PROPOSAL:

Works to tree covered by Tree Preservation Order 1972 No. 1 Aesculus (Horse Chestnut) - reduce crown by 30%.

LOCAL PLAN:

No specific policies.

SUMMARY OF MAIN ISSUES:

The tree’s crown is spoilt by upper straggly growth which has been drawn upwards by adjacent trees. Modified application for reduced lopping will allow tree to regain shape. Proposal to lop beech now omitted.

NON MATERIAL CONSIDERATIONS:

REPRESENTATIONS:

The Occupier, 65 Croslands Park, Barrow-in-Furness

“Thanks you for your letter of 9th March, specifically directed to potential tree works at 10 Inglewood but identifying similar applications for 8 adjacent properties.

Page 9 of 77

I understand that you will obtain an independent expert opinion on the level of work that will best meet these objectives”

CONSULTATIONS:

OFFICERS REPORT:

Approximately level with the Horse Chestnut at No. 10 stands a taller Horse Chestnut in the garden of No. 12. This tree is not as nicely shaped as its neighbour. While it has developed a reasonable crown, branches have then grown upwards for light in a rather straggly fashion. The proposal was to reduce the crown by 50%.

A 30% reduction would be adequate to remove the straggly growth and create a more balanced tree. The applicant has agreed to amend his application accordingly. Also proposed was a 30% reduction to a beech. This stands in the rear access path behind No. 10 and 12 Inglewood. Beech trees are slow to respond to tree surgery. The tree raises no amenity issues and there is no arborical reason for such work. This element of the proposal has been withdrawn.

RECOMMENDATION:

I recommend that consent be GRANTED subject to the following conditions:

Condition No. 1

The Planning Authority must be notified in writing at least seven days beforehand, of when the works to trees authorised by this permission are to commence.

Reason

To ensure that the development shall be carried out in an orderly and satisfactory manner

Conditon No. 2

The works hereby approved shall only be carried out during and between the months of October to March.

Reason

To minimise the risk of damage and disease.

Page 10 of 77

PLANNING COMMITTEE th 28 September 2004

PLAN NUMBER: APPLICANT: DATE RECEIVED:

2004/0246 Mr & Mrs Tickle 03/03/2004

WARD/PARISH: CASE OFFICER: 8 WEEK DATE:

Newbarns Charles Wilton 27/04/2004 Tel: 01229 894938 LOCATION:

12 Inglewood, Barrow-in-Furness

PROPOSAL:

Works to tree protected by Tree Preservation Order 1972 No. 1 - Aesculus (Horse Chestnut), removal of 4 lower branches to lift crown.

LOCAL PLAN:

No specific policies

SUMMARY OF MAIN ISSUES:

Application was modified at my request to remove lower, minor branches only.

NON MATERIAL CONSIDERATIONS:

REPRESENTATIONS:

The Occupier, 65 Croslands Park, Barrow-in-Furness

“Thanks you for your letter of 9th March, specifically directed to potential tree works at 10 Inglewood but identifying similar applications for 8 adjacent properties.

Page 11 of 77

PLANNING COMMITTEE th 28 September 2004

I understand that you will obtain an independent expert opinion on the level of work that will best meet these objectives”

CONSULTATIONS:

OFFICERS REPORT:

At a mid point, two thirds down the length of the rear garden stands a medium sized horse chestnut tree (13m tall). As this is the only tree in the applicant’s garden it has had space to develop a nicely shaped crown.

The applicant proposed to reduce the crown by 30% and remove lower branches. I could see no justification for lowering the crown, which would harm the tree’s natural shape. Cutting through thick sections of wood also creates potential entry points for rot and disease with horse chestnuts being particularly vulnerable. Neither were there any amenity issues to justify such actions.

In discussion with the applicant this element of the work has been withdrawn. Only the removal of four lower branches is now proposed. These branches are only 30mm or so thick and which hang down towards the ground. The removal will provide better clearance for garden maintenance while the effect on the shape of the tree would be minimal.

RECOMMENDATION:

I recommend that consent be GRANTED subject to the following condition:

Condition No. 2

The Planning Authority must be notified in writing at least seven days beforehand, of when the works to trees authorised by this permission are to commence.

Reason

To ensure that the work is carried out in an orderly and satisfactory manner.

Condition No. 3

The works hereby approved shall only be carried out during and between the months of October to March.

Reason

To minimise the risk of damage and disease.

Page 12 of 77

PLANNING COMMITTEE th 28 September 2004

PLAN NUMBER: APPLICANT: DATE RECEIVED:

2004/0247 Mr & Mrs Bradley 03/03/2004

WARD/PARISH: CASE OFFICER: 8 WEEK DATE:

Newbarns Charles Wilton 27/04/2004 Tel: 01229 894938 LOCATION:

14 Inglewood, Barrow-in-Furness

PROPOSAL:

Felling of Beech tree, and one Sycamore tree located adjacent to boundary with No.15 Inglewood.

LOCAL PLAN:

No specific policies

SUMMARY OF MAIN ISSUES:

The trees contain substantial rot, which makes them vulnerable to collapse.

NON MATERIAL CONSIDERATIONS:

REPRESENTATIONS:

The Occupier, 65 Croslands Park, Barrow-in-Furness

“Thank you for your letter of 9th March, specifically directed to potential tree works at 10 Inglewood but identifying similar applications for 8 adjacent properties.

PLANNING COMMITTEE th 28 September 2004

I understand that you will obtain an independent expert opinion on the level of work that will best meet these objectives”

CONSULTATIONS:

OFFICERS REPORT:

There are 3 trees in the applicant’s rear garden, 2 sycamore and 1 beech. The largest sycamore is located close to the boundary with No. 15 Inglewood. It is a large, tree of handsome proportions. Unfortunately the tree contains significant areas of rot both in the trunk and at its base. The findings of the applicant’s tree surgeon have been confirmed by the Council’s arborical consultant. The rot appears to have occurred over many years.

The rot will make the tree vulnerable to collapse. As the tree stands 20m tall and within 8m of two houses there appears no realistic option but to agree to its felling.

The beech at 25m is one of the taller members of this woodland belt. Unfortunately it too contains a substantial amount of rot in its trunk. This has occurred following the removal of a large bough some years ago at a height of approximately 7m. The rot has gone into the trunk from the lop point. The extent of the rot is such that the tree would be vulnerable to snapping at this point. Again on grounds of health and safety there would appear little option but to agree to its felling.

Finally towards the bottom of the garden stands a nicely shaped, medium sized sycamore. This has had space around it to develop its crown. Proposed was a reduction of 30%. There are no amenity grounds to justify such works. Neither would such work accord with good arborical practice. The applicant has agreed to withdraw this element from his application.

Replacement planting should be a condition of consent.

RECOMMENDATION:

I recommend that: A: Consent be granted subject to the following condition;

Condition No. 1

Replacement trees, the species and position of which must be agreed in writing with the Planning Authority, must be planted within an appropriate period to be agreed in writing with the Planning Authority prior to the commencement of the development.

Reason

In order to protect the visual amenities of the area due to the need to preserve the tree belt.

B: That a certificate to the effect that the trees are of special amenity value be issued.

Page 14 of 77

PLANNING COMMITTEE th 28 September 2004

PLAN NUMBER: APPLICANT: DATE RECEIVED:

2004/0248 Mr & Mrs Jones 03/03/2004

WARD/PARISH: CASE OFFICER: 8 WEEK DATE:

Newbarns Charles Wilton 27/04/2004 Tel: 01229 894938 LOCATION:

15 Inglewood, Barrow-in-Furness

PROPOSAL:

Felling of two sycamore and 30% reduction of canopy to a third sycamore, trees subject of Tree Preservation Order 1972 No. 1

LOCAL PLAN:

No specific policies

SUMMARY OF MAIN ISSUES:

Larger sycamore is rotten and felling justified on grounds of health and safety. Felling of smaller sycamore will provide more space for adjacent sycamore to develop.

NON MATERIAL CONSIDERATIONS:

REPRESENTATIONS:

The Occupier, 65 Croslands Park, Barrow-in-Furness

“Thanks you for your letter of 9th March, specifically directed to potential tree works at 10 Inglewood but identifying similar applications for 8 adjacent properties.

Page 15 of 77

I understand that you will obtain an independent expert opinion on the level of work that will best meet these objectives”

CONSULTATIONS:

OFFICERS REPORT:

There are 4 trees to rear of the applicant’s house. One is a large sycamore in the rear access path. Unfortunately this tree contains a significant amount of rot. This justifies felling on grounds of health and safety. This requirement has also been confirmed by the Council’s arboricultural consultant. Due to the presence of adjacent trees its loss will not have an undue impact on the woodland belt.

There are two smaller sycamores within close proximity to each other. The removal of one of these smaller trees will allow the remaining one to develop into a reasonable specimen. The applicant has agreed to my advice and amended his application accordingly.

Also proposed is the crown reduction by 30%of a third sycamore. I would not normally support this type of work as it has a negative affect on a tree. However, in this instance the sycamore is adversely impacting upon an adjacent oak. Were the sycamore to be cut back it should allow time and space for the oak to become more dominant and develop its canopy. As the oak is a superior species and could develop into a handsome tree, this is the best course of action. The applicant had also applied to reduce the oak. This element of the proposal has been withdrawn.

There is little scope for replanting in this case.

RECOMMENDATION:

I recommend that a consent be GRANTED

Page 16 of 77

PLANNING COMMITTEE th 28 September 2004

PLAN NUMBER: APPLICANT: DATE RECEIVED:

2004/0722 Ms G Downing 18/06/2004

WARD/PARISH: CASE OFFICER: 8 WEEK DATE:

Dalton North/ Lindal and Charles Wilton 12/08/2004 Marton Parish Council Tel: 01229 894938 LOCATION:

Land adjacent to 33 Marton, Nr Ulverston

PROPOSAL:

Erection of a detached house with integral garage

LOCAL PLAN:

POLICY B11

In the following villages, residential development and the conversion of existing buildings for residential purposes will be allowable within the residential cordon, especially if it contributes to the maintenance of that community, subject to conformity with the criteria of Policy B2:

Askam North Scale Rampside Lindal Roa Island Ireleth Biggar Village Newton Marton

POLICY B2

Applications for residential development on unallocated sites will be permitted where they satisfy the following criteria: i) The site is located within the built up area of existing settlements or the development cordons identified in Policy B11; and ii) The development will not result in loss of the best and most versatile agricultural land; and iii) The siting, layout and design (in the materials and form of the buildings) of the development is sensitive to the local environment and adequate parking provision is made; and iv) Adequate service and access arrangements can be provided, including servicing of the site by the public transport network and by cycle routes; and v) The development of the site will not result in the loss of open areas which are important to the character and appearance of housing areas or settlements, or that are used as amenity areas by the public; and

Page 17 of 77

PLANNING COMMITTEE th 28 September 2004 vi) The development is laid out in a way that maximises energy efficiency; and vii) The development will not result in the loss of land which has nature conservation interest; and viii) The development must not cause an undue increase in traffic passing through existing residential areas such as to be detrimental to residential amenity or highway safety.

SUMMARY OF MAIN ISSUES:

Larger house to that approved under reference 02/0026 but amendments to size, siting and design make it acceptable.

NON MATERIAL CONSIDERATIONS:

REPRESENTATIONS:

Development advertised in the local press

The Occupiers of 21-24, The Bungalow, Fair View, 25-27, 36, 38 Marton, Minstrel Hall, Silver Street, Low Fold, 41 Moor Road, Cartref, Tarn Flatt, Green View, Marton and Old West Quay, Maritime Avenue, Hartlepool all informed.

The Occupier, Holly Cottage, 38 Marton, Nr Ulverston

“Re our telephone conversation relating to planning no 2004/0722. I missed replying before the 21 day deadline, but would like to make one relevant comment if I may. That when the retaining wall is built, provision is made to collect / redirect top and ground water sources so as not diverting these onto our property (we are next door to Mrs Davies garden) and the garden is on a hill. I hope this can be added to the application and I apologise for it being late.”

The Occupier, 33 Marton

“I am the owner of 33 Marton which the proposed new building would be adjacent to. I have seen a copy of the plans and would like to put forward the following points:

There are existing windows (one bedroom on first floor and one at the rear of the lounge) on the side looking out on to the proposed building plot, I see that some provision is made for this, but the proposed conservatory will be looking directly into a bedroom window.

It is proposed to dig into the banking part way along the side of my property. Would this not be better to dig fully along to the back of my property so the two building are on the same level? This would mean not having to strengthen this banking wall.

Page 18 of 77

PLANNING COMMITTEE th 28 September 2004 There is currently a lot of water that runs from the banking that the building is to be sited on, are there plans for this drainage? I would be concerned if the new building is protected from this water causing it come my way.”

CONSULTATIONS:

Lindal & Marton Parish Council

“We do not wish to make any representation on the proposal.”

United Utilities

“I have no objection to the proposal. However, the applicant should be aware of me potential difficulties caused by trees and should consider this when carrying out planting near to the overhead line/underground cables. The applicant should be advised that great care should be taken at all times to . protect both the electrical apparatus and any personnel working in its vicinity. The applicant should also be referred to two relevant documents produced by the Health and Safety Executive, which are available from The Stationary Office Publications Centre and The Stationary Office Bookshops, and advised to follow the guidance given. The documents are as follows: -

HS (G) 47 - Avoiding danger from underground services. GS 6 - Avoidance of danger from overhead electrical lines.

The applicant should also be advised that, should there be requirement to divert the apparatus because of the proposed works, the cost of such a diversion would usually be borne by the developer. Please note that a copy of these comments has been forwarded to the agent”.

County Highways

“I refer to your consultation of 25th June 2004 and write to confirm that the proposal does not provide adequate turning facilities, which will result in vehicles having to reverse out into the highway causing unnecessary danger to road users. I would recommend that the application be deferred until the plans have been amended to show a turning head measuring 9 metres x 9 metres, refer to options shown on page enclosed. In order to achieve acceptable visibility I would also recommend that boundary walls, if any, on both land owned by the applicant and adjoining land/properties should be kept below a height of 0.9 metres, thus ensuring adequate visibility can be achieved. To ensure the development complies with the minimum car parking standard the garage should also be increased in size to 2.6 metres x 6.0 metres (internal measurements)”.

Page 19 of 77

PLANNING COMMITTEE th 28 September 2004

OFFICERS REPORT:

This application is for the erection of a house of revised design to that approved under reference 02/0026. The earlier approval involved the demolition of No. 33 Marton, its replacement with a new house in a slightly different position and the erection of a second house alongside it. Number 33 was sold and is now occupied. The applicant wishes to proceed with the ‘second’ dwelling only, but in a revised form.

The proposed house would have a floor area of 240m² which is larger than the previously approved unit (205 m²). Like the approved unit it would be 2 storey at the front, but due to the rising nature of the ground, single storey at the rear.

A major difference between the two is that the proposal was not set back as far as the approved dwelling. Measured alongside the boundary with 29 Marton the approved position was 18m back from the road. The façade of the new proposal was shown set back 11m. This has been increased to 13m in order to provide an acceptable relationship with the houses on both sides. The set back has been at the expense of the size of the dwelling. The house has a staggered front elevation to form a link between the adjacent properties which have differing set back distances from the highway.

There have been further changes at my request. The banking referred to by the occupier of 33 Marton is proposed to be removed entirely, as requested. The facing bedroom window has been re-located to the front elevation. The bathroom window remains, however privacy can be dealt with by other means. Reference is made to the conservatory. The boundary elevation is now shown to be solid apart from windows at high level. This is at 1st floor level compared to No. 33 Marton. I consider an acceptable relationship would now exist between the two properties. The house in the process of construction on the opposite side has no windows serving habitable rooms on the side boundary elevation (No. 29).

The design has been modified. Originally 1st floor patio doors were incorporated into the front elevation. These opened out onto a balcony, which projected 2m towards the highway. I felt these were too modern a feature for the traditional setting of Marton. These features have been replaced with a window. Other windows have been reduced in size, again to achieve a more traditional affect. The loss of the balcony has in effect created a total set back of 4m from the original submission. This has facilitated compliance with the highway requirements on turning. The proposed integral garage measures 5.5m x 3.2m set behind a drive 12.5m long. This amounts to a generous level of off street parking. Elevations are to be roughcast beneath a natural slate roof.

Finally I have attached a condition requiring the front garden to remain open. This area has historically been a grassed open area and was identified as important urban open space in the local plan. It is important to retain this openness in terms of protecting local character in this small village setting. Also a condition is attached requiring a scheme of land drainage. This requirement was imposed on consent 02/0026 and is an issue commented on by the occupier of 38 Marton.

RECOMMENDATION:

I recommend that planning permission be GRANTED subject to the Standard Duration Limit and the following conditions:

Page 20 of 77

PLANNING COMMITTEE th 28 September 2004

Condition No. 2

The integral garage must be used for purposes incidental to the enjoyment of the dwelling and no trade or business must be carried out in, or from the premises without the prior written express consent of the Local Planning Authority.

Reason

In order to protect the residential amenities of the area.

Condition No. 3

The integral garage an access thereto must be reserved for the garaging or parking of private motor vehicles and no permanent development, whether permitted by the Town and Country Planning (General Permitted Development) Order, 1995 (or any Order revoking and re-enacting that Order with our without modifications) or not, shall be carried out on that area of land or in such position as to preclude vehicular access to the development hereby permitted.

Reason

To ensure that proper access and parking provision are retained for the use of the development.

Condition No. 4

The development must be roofed in natural slate in accordance with details to be agreed in writing with the Planning Authority.

Reason

In order to protect the visual amenities of the area and to accord with policy D21 of the Barrow Borough Local Plan Review 1996-2006.

Condition No. 5

External elevations must be given a wet dash finish in accordance with details to be agreed in writing with the Planning Authority.

Reason

Marton is a traditional village with limited new development. It is therefore important that new development respects its traditional setting.

Condition No. 6

The access drive must remain un-gated and the drive left unobstructed so that vehicles may enter and leave the highway in a forward gear.

Reason

In the interests of highway safety.

Page 21 of 77

PLANNING COMMITTEE th 28 September 2004

Condition No. 7

The access drive shall be surfaced in bituminous or cement bound materials, or otherwise bound and shall be constructed and completed before the development is occupied.

Reason

To avoid mud or loose stone being deposited on the highway.

Condition No. 8

Measures to prevent surface water discharging onto the highway shall be submitted to the Planning Authority for approval prior to development being commenced. The approved works shall be implemented prior to the beneficial occupation of the dwelling and shall be maintained operational thereafter.

Reason

In the interests of highway safety.

Condition No. 9

Notwithstanding the provisions of the Town and Country Planning (General Permitted Development) Order, 1995 (or any Order revoking or re-enacting that Order with or without modifications) the front garden shall be left open and shall not be enclosed by walls or fences.

Reason

In order to protect the visual amenities of the area.

Condition No. 10

Notwithstanding the provisions of the Town and Country Planning (General Permitted Development) Order 1995 ( or any Order revoking or re-enacting that Order with or without modifications) no additional openings of any kind to those shown on the plans forming part of this consent shall be made in the side elevations of the dwelling without the written consent of the Planning Authority

Reason

To protect the privacy of neighbouring properties and to accord with Policy B15 of the Barrow Borough Local Plan Review 1996-2006.

Condition No. 11

Prior to commencement of any development a scheme of land drainage shall be agreed in writing with the Planning Authority and shall then be implemented prior to the beneficial occupation of the dwelling.

Page 22 of 77

PLANNING COMMITTEE th 28 September 2004

Reason

In order to avoid flooding of neighbouring land.

Condition No. 12

No development shall take place until there has been submitted to and approved in writing by the Planning Authority a scheme of landscaping, which shall include indications of all existing hedgerows on the land and details of any to be retained, together with measures for their protection in the course of development.

Reason

In order to protect the visual amenities of the area.

Condition No. 13

All planting, seeding or turfing comprised in the approved details of landscaping shall be carried out in the first planting and seeding seasons or in accordance with the phasing of the scheme as agreed in writing with the Planning Authority. And any trees or plants which within a period of five years from the completion of the development die, are removed or become seriously damaged or diseased shall be replaced in the next planting season with others of a similar size and species, unless the Planning Authority give written consent to any variation.

Reason

In order to protect the residential amenities of the area.

The reason(s) for the grant of planning permission are as follows:

The development, subject to conformity with the stated conditions, will not cause any material harm to an interest of acknowledged importance and will not conflict with Barrow Borough Local Plan Review 1996 - 2006.

Page 23 of 77

PLANNING COMMITTEE th 28 September 2004

PLAN NUMBER: APPLICANT: DATE RECEIVED:

2003/1280 Modlar 22/12/2003

WARD/PARISH: CASE OFFICER: 8 WEEK DATE:

Hindpool Jason Hipkiss 15/02/2004 Tel: 01229 894764 LOCATION:

Land off Holker Street, Holker Street, Barrow-in-Furness

PROPOSAL:

Erection of 54 dwellings

LOCAL PLAN:

POLICY B2

Page 24 of 77

PLANNING COMMITTEE th 28 September 2004 POLICY B3

For unallocated sites the Authority will expect a density of 30 dwellings per hectare though lower densities will be accepted where this is in the interest of the economic regeneration of the area. However, within the area covered by Central Barrow Inset and Dalton Conservation Area, fairly high overall net development densities (around 70 dwellings per hectare) will be favoured on residential sites, consistent with primarily two or three storey development and good standards of amenity.

POLICY E2

Highways proposed in housing developments must be designed and constructed to adoptable standards.

POLICY E5

Proposals for new developments at unallocated sites which are likely to generate significant volumes of road traffic, particularly involving the regular movement of heavy goods vehicles, will only be permitted where the development site has direct access to an appropriate standard of road and/or where the applicant agrees to a routing plan acceptable to the highways authority for traffic generated by the development or to finance the improvement of the highway network to accommodate that traffic, or to instigate measures to control the transport demand and/or provide for greater use of public transport. Proposals impacting on trunk roads will be subject to the Highways Agency’s development control policy.

POLICY G9

New housing development will be required to include, as a minimum, childrens’ play space in accordance with the standards set out below, which are hereby adopted by the Authority and based on the recommendations of the National Playing Field Association:

• Development sites over 15 units or 0.4 hectares in size should provide a play area of no less than 100 metres2, within 100 metres or 1 minutes safe walking distance of the new dwellings.

• Development sites over 50 units or 0.8 hectares in size should provide a play area of no less than 400 metres2, with at least five types of play equipment within 500 metres or 5 minutes safe walking distance of the new dwellings.

• Development sites over 100 units should also provide a kick-about space for older children of no less than 400 metres2

SUMMARY OF MAIN ISSUES:

Residential development of an urban brownfield site. The scheme requires highway improvements and the provision of a play area, which will require the applicant to enter into Section 106 Obligation with the relevant authorities.

NON MATERIAL CONSIDERATIONS:

Page 25 of 77

PLANNING COMMITTEE th 28 September 2004

REPRESENTATIONS:

The Occupiers of 28-32 Longmynd Avenue (evens), 16-20 Longmynd Avenue (evens), 25, 27, 33, 35, 41, 43 Cheviot Green, Barrow Associated Football Club, Holker Street Ground, Wilkie Road, Bluebird Club, Holker Street, Stollers Furniture World, Walney Road, 117-131 (odds), 132- 138 (evens) Holker Street, Barrow in Furness all informed.

Applicant’s Supporting Statement

“We confirm that we will enter into a Section 106 for road improvements and 106 for the play area, its equipping and commuted sum for maintenance with the Council”

CONSULTATIONS:

Scientific Officer – Environmental Health Department

“The area in question is in close proximity of railway lines and various historic features of the railway industry.

There is the possibility that this land could have been used for the storage or disposal of materials and/or chemicals. It is therefore necessary for a site investigation to be carried out to establish the degree and nature of contamination and its potential to pollute the environment or cause harm to human health. If remediation measures are necessary they will be implemented in accordance with the assessment and the satisfaction of the Local Planning Authority.

Also, would it be possible to see a copy of the proposed plans.”

Network Rail

“I write to inform you on behalf of our Manchester office that Network Rail have no objections to the application subject to the attached terms and conditions being adhered to.”

STANDARD CONDITIONS FOR DEVELOPMENT ADJACENT TO THE RAILWAY

I have no objection to the proposal provided the works are carried out strictly in accordance with, and in position shown on, the detailed drawings subject to :-

SUPPORT OF EXCAVATIONS

Details of shuttering of excavations for foundations etc., within 10 metres of Network Rail’s boundary to be submitted for my prior approval :-

I make the following comments for consideration by the Planning Authority and for the information and guidance of the Developer.

Page 26 of 77

PLANNING COMMITTEE th 28 September 2004

1. GENERAL FENCING

The developer to provide a suitable trespass-proof fence adjacent to Network Rail’s boundary and make provision for its future maintenance and renewal. Network Rail’s existing fencing must not be removed or damaged.

2. SPECIFIC FENCING REQUIRED DUE TO NATURE OF DEVELOPMENT

In view of the development ie residential/industrial*, immediately adjoining an operational line of railway, it is essential the developer provides and thereafter maintains a substantial fence e.g. concrete post and weldmesh, iron railings, steel palisade adjacent to Network Rail’s boundary to a minimum height of 1.8 metres.

3. DETAILED PLANS AND SECTIONS

Fully detailed plans of the development adjacent to Network Rail’s boundary, including cross-sections where alterations to the existing ground levels are proposed, should be forwarded to my office before development commences, to ensure the adjacent property and works will not be adversely affected during and after the carrying out of the development.

In this connection, when designing the layout of the development or constructing the works, the following must be taken into consideration :-

(a) SURFACE WATER

Storm/surface water must not be discharged on to Network Rail’s property nor into Network Rail’s culverts or drains except by agreement with Network Rail. Suitable drainage or other works must be provided and maintained by the developer to prevent surface flows or run-off on to Network Rail’s property. Proper provision must be made to accept and continue drainage discharging from Network Rail’s property. Full details to be submitted for approval. Suitable foul drainage must be provided separate from the existing railway drainage.

(b) SOAKAWAYS

Soakaways as a means of storm/surface water disposal must not be constructed near/within 15 metres of Network Rail’s boundary or at any point that could adversely affect the stability of Network Rail’s property.

There must be no surcharging of cutting slopes or retaining walls by buildings, structures, roads, sounds or other works both temporary and permanent.

Page 27 of 77

PLANNING COMMITTEE th 28 September 2004

(d) REMOVAL OF EXISTING GROUND SUPPORT TO RAILWAY

There must be no general lowering of present ground levels near Network Rail’s boundary, especially where the railway is on embankment or on the same level as the adjoining land. Further there must not be any excavation into or deep continuous unsupported excavations near, the toe of the embankment or retaining walls or bridge supporting slopes.

(e) PROTECTION OF RAILWAY FROM ROAD VEHICLES

Where new roads, turning spaces or parking areas are to be situated adjacent to a railway which is at or below the level of the development, suitable crash barriers or high kerbs should be provided to prevent vehicles accidentally driving/rolling on to the railway or damaging the lineside fencing.

(f) LIGHTING

Lighting schemes for the illumination of new roads, parking and garage areas, etc must be submitted to Network Rail for approval.

(g) LAYOUT DESIGN

Children’s play areas, open spaces, amenity areas, garage blocks etc. should not be sited adjacent to the railway unless the developer provides and maintains a substantial fence, e.g. concrete post and panel, iron railings, steel palisade, along the boundary to a minimum height of 2 metres.

(h) LANDSCAPING

Trees planted near the railway should be of a non-deciduous species, excluding pines, and should be located at a distance of not less than their mature height plus 3 m from the nearest railway track or structure. This is essential as cases of derailment and injury occur every year, where trees are blown down across the tracks.

(j) FUTURE MAINTENANCE

Consideration should be given to ensure that the construction and subsequent maintenance can be carried out to any proposed buildings or other structures without adversely affecting the safety of, or encroaching upon Network Rail’s adjacent land. Therefore all/any building must be situated at least 2 metres from Network Rail’s boundary. This will allow construction and future maintenance to be carried out from the applicant’s land, thus avoiding provision and costs of railway lookout men, necessary when working from or on Network Rail land.

Page 28 of 77

PLANNING COMMITTEE th 28 September 2004

(k) MECHANICAL PLANT

Cranes or jibbed machines used in connection with the works must be so positioned that the jib cannot swing over Network Rail’s property. However, where this is unavoidable, I must be consulted at least 6 weeks prior to the date of proposed works to ensure the safety of rail traffic.

Plant and materials should not be used or handled in such a manner that even in the event of mishandling or failure such plant and materials could move or fall foul of rail traffic i.e. within 3 metres or a vertical plane from the nearest rail on which traffic may run or within 3 metres of any overhead line equipment.

4. LEVEL CROSSINGS

Structures should not, when constructed adjacent to level crossing, cause any temporary or permanent obstruction to level crossing users’ view of approaching trains.

5. COMMENCEMENT OF WORK

Site works must not commence until all the above requirements have been considered and where necessary Network Rail’s approval gained.

The developer must inform Network Rail, in writing, 2 weeks prior to commencement of site works.

6. SUPERVISION OF WORKS

Full details and method statements must be submitted to and agreed by my local agent who shall supervise the works, and can be contacted at the following address:

GTRM Projects tel. Outside Party Section attn.

All damage caused by the works shall be made good at no cost to Network Rail.

Any costs incurred by Network Rail or its agents must be fully reimbursed by the applicant

7. PROTECTION OF THE RAILWAY

The Developer must make adequate provisions to ensure that during and after construction of the proposed development the adjoining railway is not subject to trespass or vandalism.

Page 29 of 77

PLANNING COMMITTEE th 28 September 2004

8. LAND OWNERSHIP

If the site, or any part, was previously in railway ownership, the Developer must therefore comply with the covenants contained in the original sales conveyance.

Cumbria Highways – dated 14th January 2004

“Please ask the developer to provide a Traffic Assessment.

They will all, undoubtedly impact on the present and future use, flow and turning manoeuvres along Holker Street and are expected to continue to do so as the size of existing establishments expand and additional ones are erected.

The County Council are keen to provide a solution for the whole of the community and from this stand point recommend that a mini roundabout with crossing points for pedestrians is constructed at the rear entrance to Asda/Stollers Furniture World sites.

The proposed access to the new development shown on Drawing No. 4775 – 1 does not comply with the standards set out in the Cumbria Design Guide for Local Distributor Roads as it is shown too close to the junction with Chatsworth Street. We therefore recommend that access to the new development is gained from a proposed mini roundabout on Holker Street adjacent to the access to Asda/Stollers World.

Radius Kerbs as shown on the Site Layout Drawing should also be increased to 10.5 metres.

Finally, I would request that the developer provides a commuted sum of £17,500.00 in order to contribute towards the cost of the proposed facilities for, pedestrians, carriageway realignment and improved drainage on Holker Street, and amends his design accordingly.”

Environment Agency

“The Agency has no objection to the proposed development provided that any approval includes the following planning conditions:

CONDITION

Before the development is commenced a detailed site investigation shall be carried out to establish if the site contains contaminants, to assess the degree and nature of the contaminants present, and to determine its potential for the pollution of the water environment. The method and extent of this investigation shall be agreed in writing with the Planning Authority prior to the commencement of the work. Details of appropriate measures to prevent pollution of groundwater and surface water, including provisions for monitoring, shall then be submitted to and approved in writing by the Planning Authority before the development commences. The development shall then proceed in strict accordance with the measures approved.

REASON

To prevent pollution of the water environment.

The site has been raised above its original level and flooding has occurred on the adjacent railway line in the past. A small drain crosses the site from Lower Ormsgill Reservoir to a pond at the

Page 30 of 77

PLANNING COMMITTEE th 28 September 2004 ASDA development. We have no details as to the line/construction of culvert therefore the developer will need to investigate the situation and evaluate possible floodwater movement within the site. The Agency advises against building over any new or existing culverted watercourses.

In view of the above the Agency would recommend the inclusion of the following condition on any planning permission.

CONDITION

No development approved by this permission shall be commenced until a flood risk/run-off assessment has been undertaken to assess the effects of the development on the hydraulic regime of the watercourse to the satisfaction of the Local Planning Authority. If the study identifies incapacity problems in the culvert then a scheme to address the incapacity shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The works shall be carried out in accordance with the details in the approved plan.

REASON

To reduce the risk of flooding on site and elsewhere.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATIVE

If the developer is importing or reusing waste on the site for levelling, construction or land raising /landscaping for example, hardcore, rubble, demolition waste excavated soil/sub-soil, this may require to be registered with the Agency as exempt from the need for a Waste Management Licence, under the Environment Protection Act 1990. Please advise the Agency of the proposed means of site preparation.

If waste is to be removed from the site for disposal, it must be taken to a suitably licensed facility.

Development Division

“I offer the following observations regarding the above planning application I offer the following observations in relation to the area marked open space / play area on the plan.

1. The size of the proposed area seems adequate for either a ‘casual’ recreation area or for an equipped children’s playground. Which is it? 2. It is not evident from the details on the plan whether the area is to be enclosed, the type of fencing, if so, and whether the area is to be dog proof. 3. The plan indicates some areas of planting but no detail of species, numbers etc. 4. A commuted sum relevant to its proposed development would I except be required for future maintenance. This amount would of course be dependant on whether it was equipped with play equipment and the overall level of maintenance required to the area etc.

Page 31 of 77

PLANNING COMMITTEE th 28 September 2004

If the area is to be equipped it would be necessary for all the play equipment / installation etc to meet all current safety standards and would need to be included in Zurich Municipal’s insurance engineering reports. I would also like to be included prior to the installation of any play equipment to ensure that the equipment is durable, low maintenance, good play value and that the method of installation reduces the future risks for repairs and vandalism.

If the area is not equipped as a playground the land would be classified as open space and I assume would become incorporated along with other council owned areas of land in the Grounds Maintenance schedules.

I trust these observations meet your requirements”.

County Highways – 24th March 2004

“The layout should show a carriageway width of 5.5 metres and a continuous footway of 1.8 metre width over the estate road lengths, with a minimum centreline radius of 15 metres. Visibility around bends should be a minimum of 33 metres.

Construction of the train access should be conditional on the applicant entering into a Section 278 Agreement with the Highway Authority. All cost associated with the design, supervision, construction and legal costs would be borne by the applicant.

The applicant would be responsible for co-ordinating works necessary on the land opposite the proposed site entrance of land i.e. Asda and Stollers World. Recent planning applications should have been conditional on each of these to providing commuted sums to cater for this type of enhancement.

A suitable condition could be worded and included in the planning approval to cater for the Section 278 Agreement and include liason and co-ordination with all affected landowners. Work associated with this agreement should be completed before the development is habitable.

The carriageways, footways and footpaths shall be designed, constructed , drained and lit to a standard suitable for adoption and in this respect further details including levels, longitudinal/cross sections, shall be submitted to the Local Planning Authority for approval before any work commences on site. No work shall be commenced until a full specification has been approved. These details shall be in accordance with the standards laid down in the current Cumbria Design Guide. Any works so approved shall be constructed before the development is completed.

Finally, the applicant would also be required to enter into a Section 38 Agreement in order to construct the estate roads”.

OFFICERS REPORT:

This application was previously reported to your meeting of 6th April and subsequently to the Panel on 19th April, which agreed the recommendation to approve the proposal subject to conditions and two section 106 obligations for the provision of play area and for highway improvements along Holker Street to accommodate anticipated vehicle flows.

Page 32 of 77

PLANNING COMMITTEE th 28 September 2004

Since that meeting, the County Council have reassessed their commitment to entering into 106 Obligations for highway works, and at your last meeting you reconsidered an application by Victoria Motors on Schneider Road, based upon the County’s revised stance. The County are now agreeable to a suitable ‘Grampian’ condition being attached to this approval to ensure the completion of the highway works rather than the formal section 106 process. My amended report and recommendation follows on:

The application refers to a linear shaped site on the east side of Holker Street that stands adjacent to the railway line. The southern boundary is shared with the residential curtilage of 138 Holker Street and with the northern part of a series of allotments that runs behind Holker Street. The northern tip of the site terminates adjacent to Devonshire Road, and on the opposite side of Holker Street is the Asda and Stollers retail developments.

The site was formerly a scrap yard. It has been subject to previous planning consents, now expired, for mixed residential and light industrial uses, and also to raise the land to its current level, following cessation of the scrap yard use in the early 1990’s. The site has no formal residential allocation in the local plan hence it must be considered against the policy criteria for windfall sites, under policy B2 which is reproduced above. For development purposes the site must also be considered as brownfield and with its urban location, the principal of development fits neatly into current government targets to utilise previously developed urban land.

The site layout indicates 54 units which, when the proposed play area is excluded, equates to a density level of nearly 50 dwellings per hectare, in excess of the governments target per hectare. It is also in keeping with local plan policy B3. Under this policy, the developer could have sought a density level of up to 70 units, which would have meant a total of 104 dwellings and resulted in the need for major infrastructure works particularly the road network. However, the application should be determined on its proposed density that meets current government targets.

The scheme indicates a mix of two and three storey houses arranged in pairs or short terraces of up to for units. Privacy between windows is protected by distance and orientation of the properties. External materials are shown as a mix of facing brick, natural stone and concrete roof tiles. The boundary treatment to Holker Street is a wall of 2 metres height, and consists of brickwork with pillars and decorative timber fencing set between. The rear gardens would be divided by a ‘hit and miss’ close boarded fence, varying in height between 1.2 and 1.8 metres. Perimeter fencing along the boundary with the railway will be in accordance with current rail authority standards and will be a trespass proof fencing to ensure the integrity of the railway land boundary.

The development is laid out around a single spine road that runs parallel to Holker Street and terminates in a turning head at each end. At the request of County Highways, the site access has been repositioned towards the centre of the site frontage opposite the entrance into Asda car park. This will enable a series of highway improvements to be implemented along Holker Street for which a suitable condition has been attached Within the site layout a traffic calming scheme is indicated which would be integrated into the road adoption process. A condition can be attached to ensure that a suitable standard of highway infrastructure is provided, within the development, in accordance with current design guidance.

Page 33 of 77

PLANNING COMMITTEE th 28 September 2004

In keeping with local plan policy, a play area is proposed for the development, and this would be positioned on the western side, between the boundary with Holker Street and the estate road. Agreement has been reached with the developer to fund the equipping and maintenance of this site, and a section 106 Obligation will be required to achieve this. Items such as the type and number of pieces of equipment, and the nature of the perimeter fencing can be agreed as part of that process.

Overall the development represents the reuse of a vacant brownfield site within the urban area of the town. Subject to the suggested Section 106 Obligations and conditions, the development is seen as according with current policies, and with government guidance. That seeks to maximise the use of land by utilising brown field urban sites.

RECOMMENDATION:

I recommend that:

A: - Subject to the developer entering into a Section 106 Obligation to ensure the provision and equipping of the children’s play area indicated on the layout plan, together with its transfer to the Local Authority and a commuted sum for future maintenance.

Then B: - That Planning Permission be GRANTED subject to the Standard Duration Limit and the following conditions:

Condition No. 2

No part of the development shall be beneficially occupied until highway works to provide the site access and associated junction improvements, including localised carriageway and footway alignment along the site boundary with Holker Street, have been completed in accordance with a scheme to be submitted to, and agreed in writing by, the Planning Authority.

Reason

To ensure a satisfactory means of access to the development and to ensure that the local highway infrastructure can accommodate the traffic levels associated with it.

Condition No. 3

The carriageway, footways and footpaths shall be designed, constructed, drained and lit to a standard suitable for adoption and in this respect further details, including longitudinal and cross sections, shall be submitted to the Planning Authority for approval before any work commences on site. No work shall be commenced until a full specification has been approved. These details shall be in accordance with the standards laid down in the current Cumbria Design Guide. Any works so approved shall be constructed before the development is completed.

Reason

To ensure a minimum standard of construction in the interest of highway safety.

Page 34 of 77

PLANNING COMMITTEE th 28 September 2004

Condition No. 4

No development shall take place until there has been submitted to and approved in writing by the Planning Authority a scheme of landscaping, which shall include indications of all existing trees and hedgerows on the land and details of any to be retained, together with measures for their protection in the course of development.

Reason

In order to protect the visual amenities of the area due to the need to provide landscaping within an area that otherwise lacks any significant planting.

Condition No. 5

Reason

In order to protect the visual amenities of the area due to the need to provide landscaping within an area that otherwise lacks any significant planting.

Condition No. 6

Drainage must be on the separate system.

Reason

In order to control water pollution.

Condition No. 7

The garages and accesses thereto must be reserved for the garaging or parking of private motor vehicles and no permanent development, whether permitted by the Town and Country Planning (General Permitted Development) Order, 1995 (or any Order revoking and re-enacting that Order with or without modifications) or not, shall be carried out on that area of land or in such position as to preclude vehicular access to the development hereby permitted.

Reason

To ensure that proper access and parking provision for use in relation to the development.

Page 35 of 77

PLANNING COMMITTEE th 28 September 2004

Condition No. 8

No development shall take place until samples of the materials to be used in construction of the external surfaces of the dwellings hereby permitted have been submitted to and approved in writing by the Planning Authority. The development shall be carried out in accordance with approved details.

Reason

In order to protect the visual amenities of the area due to the prominent position of the site within the urban landscape.

Condition No. 9

Reason

To prevent pollution of the water environment.

Condition No. 10

No development approved by this permission shall be commenced until a flood risk/ run off assessment has been undertaken to assess the effects of the development on the hydraulic regime of the watercourse to the satisfaction of the Planning Authority. If the study identifies incapacity problems in the culvert then a scheme to address the incapacity shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Planning Authority. The works shall be carried out in accordance with the details in the approved plans.

Reason

To reduce the risk of flooding on site and elsewhere.

Condition No. 11

Prior to beneficial occupation of any part of the development, the developer shall install a trespass proof fence, along the site boundary with the railway land, full details of the fence having been submitted to, and approved in writing by, the Planning Authority. The subsequently approved fence shall be permanently maintained unless the Planning Authority gives prior express consent to any variation.

Page 36 of 77

PLANNING COMMITTEE th 28 September 2004

Reason

In the interest of public safety.

The reason(s) for the grant of planning permission are as follows:

Page 37 of 77

PLANNING COMMITTEE th 28 September 2004

PLAN NUMBER: APPLICANT: DATE RECEIVED:

2004/0724 Mr T Martin 21/06/2004

WARD/PARISH: CASE OFFICER: 8 WEEK DATE:

Risedale Charles Wilton 15/08/2004 Tel: 01229 894938 LOCATION:

143 Salthouse Road, Barrow-in-Furness

PROPOSAL:

Listed Building Consent - Conversion of part existing barn to form 3 dwellings and partial demolition and rebuilding of highway boundary wall to provide improved visibility

LOCAL PLAN:

POLICY D17

Applications for the re-use of empty Listed Buildings or prominent buildings in Conservation Areas will be given favourable consideration provided the redevelopment will not result in the significant loss of the property’s special architectural details or its historic fabric.

POLICY D18

Alterations and additions to a Listed Building or those properties affected by the Article Four Direction will not be permitted if they adversely affect its character and setting or its architectural or historic features. In particular, the following alterations are likely to be unacceptable, particularly where they pose a conflict with the traditions of the building type or the area: a) The use of non-traditional roofing materials; b) The use of uPVC or aluminium or other non-traditional materials or styles for windows and doors; c) Pebble-dashing, or rendering of any type where this would result in the loss of features such as stone-work or ornamental brickwork; d) The removal of any special features such as ornamental ironwork, carved stonework or brickwork, etc; and e) The use of uPVC gutters and downspouts.

SUMMARY OF MAIN ISSUES:

Scheme inevitably results in compromises on the buildings special architectural or historic interest but decision rests upon the best course of action to achieve its preservation.

Page 38 of 77

PLANNING COMMITTEE th 28 September 2004

NON MATERIAL CONSIDERATIONS:

REPRESENTATIONS: Development advertised on site and in the local press

The Occupiers of 145, 147, 164 Salthouse Road, 13, 15, 17, 19, 21, 23, 25 27, 29, 31, 33, 35 St Lukes Avenue, Barrow in Furness all informed.

CONSULTATIONS:

Barrow Civic Society – No response received

Ancient Monuments Society

“We commented informally on proposals on 13 November last year. Our main concern then was that the proposal was rather intensive and the present proposals reduce the number of houses in the conversion to three. But this is done by leaving part of the barn unconverted rather than by increasing the size of the dwellings. Why is this? We believe that fewer more spacious dwellings may better reflect the existing character of the barn.

We should be pleased to receive notice of the decision on these applications”.

The Georgian Group– No response received

Society for the Protection of Ancient Buildings– No response received

United Utilities– No response received

County Highways– No response received

Council for British Archaeology– No response received

Heritage Trust for the North West– No response received

Victorian Society Northern Office– No response received

Environment Agency– No response received

Roosegate Residents Association– No response received

English Heritage

“We have considered the application and do not wish to make any representations on this occasion. We recommend that this case should be determined in accordance with government guidance, development plan policies and with the benefit of conservation advice locally.”

Page 39 of 77

PLANNING COMMITTEE th 28 September 2004

County Archaeologist

“The County Sites and Monuments Record indicates that the barn proposed for conversion is grade II listed and dates from the 18th century (SMR nos. 27094). It is therefore considered that the building is of historic and archaeological importance and that it would be altered by the proposed conversion. I therefore recommend that an archaeological building recording programme of the barn be undertaken in advance of the conversion. This recording should be in accordance with a Level 3 survey as described by The Royal Commission on the Historic Monuments of England, Recording Historic Buildings - A Descriptive Specification, 3`d edn., 1996. I advise that this be secured by attaching a negative condition to any planning consent you may otherwise be minded to grant. I suggest the following form of words based on the model given in PPG 16 (para. 30). "No development shall commence within the site until the applicant has secured the implementation of a programme of archaeological work in accordance with a written scheme of investigation which has been submitted by the applicant and approved by the local Planning Authority. " (Reasons: To afford reasonable opportunity for a record to be made of buildings of architectural and historic interest prior to their alteration as part of the proposed development.)

I would also suggest that you advise the applicant that such archaeological investigations are liable to involve some financial outlay. I trust this recommendation is acceptable. Please do not hesitate to contact me if you have any queries regarding the above”.

OFFICERS REPORT:

There are two applications relating to the conversion of this large sandstone barn into 3 dwellings. One is for planning permission, the other for Listed Building Consent. The applications relate to different legislation and the scope of consideration vary between the two. The building is grade II listed.

With respect to the Listed Building Consent, which this report addresses, only the affect on the buildings special architectural or historic interest may be considered. Issues to do with impact upon neighbours, parking standards etc. are the preserve of the planning application reported elsewhere.

While the listing of a building should not be seen as a bar to all future changes, the starting point for the exercise of listed building control is the statutory requirement on planning authorities to “have special regard to the desirability of preserving the building or its setting, or any features of special architectural or historic interest which it possesses.

The submitted plans show that the architects have exercised much care in the scheme’s preparation. The positioning of the 3 units makes use of existing internal walls on the ground floor which span from back to front. All existing openings are retained with many of these incorporating distinctive semi circular arched heads. Only one new window is proposed in the front elevation while two are proposed to the rear. As there are few openings the scheme relies heavily upon roof lights to light the first floor.

Page 40 of 77

PLANNING COMMITTEE th 28 September 2004

Advice from English Heritage in the publication ‘The Conversion of Historic Farm Buildings’ is discouraging of residential conversion of listed barns. It advises that the works of conversion are seldom compatible with listed barns and that residential conversion should generally be seen as a last resort.

While the submitted scheme represents a sensitive approach nonetheless there are inevitable compromises on the buildings special interest. Most obviously is the introduction of some 9 roof lights in the buildings roadside elevation (6 to rear). The roof pitch is a strong feature of the building and the roof lights will have a disruptive effect upon it. However this is far preferable to the disruption of the sandstone walls which would be necessitated by new window openings.

The internal space of the building will also be subdivided due to the erection of party walls at 1st floor level together with various other partition walls. A condition could however ensure that the roof beams remain exposed.

The scheme also involves the removal of the 1st floor and its repositioning at a higher level to provide adequate internal height to ground floor.

Of fundamental importance is the need to preserve the building. The decision therefore rests on what is the best course of action to achieve its preservation. The current uses are ideal in the sense that they have allowed the building to be used in its nigh original state (cattery ground floor, storage 1st floor). However the existing cattery use is limited to the ground floor. The first floor has no significant use and as a result the building is suffering from under investment.

The applicants could be required to advertise the building to see if offers are received for other uses. However the building does not appear ideally suited for many uses given, various factors including size of openings, and proximity to residential property. On balance I feel that while any scheme of residential conversion involves compromising on the building’s special architectural and historic interest, it nonetheless represents the most suitable option in this case.

Section 13 of the Planning (Listed Buildings ands Conservation Areas ) Act 1990 requires Planning Authorities to notify the Secretary of State where they are minded to grant Listed Building Consent in certain cases. This includes where Planning Authorities are minded to grant Listed Building Consent for “demolition of substantially all of the interior of a principal building”. As the scheme involves the removal of the building’s first floor it falls within this category. Any decision to approve should therefore be on a minded to approve basis.

It should also be noted that approximately ¼ of the barn is excluded from the application. This is because there is no opportunity to provide windows to serve that end of the barn. The situation arises as this end of the barn hard to its boundaries to rear and side. Its front elevation is also only a few inches away from the side wall of the house.

It is therefore important that this end of the barn is also renovated in the sense of replacement of its roof together with any other necessary repairs. This needs to be addressed by a suitably worded condition.

The use of this part of the barn would therefore appear to be linked with the listed farmhouse. However, a scheme which provided a clear use for the whole building would be preferable. If you accept my recommendation the Secretary of State will be informed. If the Secretary of State does not call in the application the Authority will be free to determine the application. I recommend that this determination be delegated to myself.

Page 41 of 77

PLANNING COMMITTEE th 28 September 2004

RECOMMENDATION:

I recommend that

A: This Authority is minded to GRANT Listed Building Consent. That the reason for the decision is that this would best ensure the preservation of the building.

B: - That under Section 13(1) of the Planning (Listed Building and Conservation Areas) Act 1990 that the Secretary of State be notified of this decision.

C:- That subject to no objection being received from the Secretary of State that the decision to grant Listed Building Consent be delegated to the Assistant Director (Regeneration) subject to the Standard Duration Limit and conditions addressing the following area as appropriate:

1) Method Statements 2) Appropriate Materials 3) Appropriate Recording 4) Further investigation 5) Appropriate Remedial work relating to the entire barn. 6) Appropriate windows/roof lights. 7) Retention of roof beams 8) Beams retained open to view.

Page 42 of 77

PLANNING COMMITTEE th 28 September 2004

PLAN NUMBER: APPLICANT: DATE RECEIVED:

2004/0726 Mr T Martin 21/06/2004

WARD/PARISH: CASE OFFICER: 8 WEEK DATE:

Risedale Charles Wilton 15/08/2004 Tel: 01229 894938 LOCATION:

143 Salthouse Road, Barrow-in-Furness

PROPOSAL:

Erection of a terrace of 3 houses (outline) but with siting and means of access not reserved for subsequent approval.

LOCAL PLAN:

POLICY B2

ix) The floor levels of all new development must be at least 7 metres above Ordnance Datum.

Page 43 of 77

PLANNING COMMITTEE th 28 September 2004

SUMMARY OF MAIN ISSUES:

Residential development on brown field site within the urban area located within curtilage of listed building. Statutory duty to have special regard to preserving the setting of listed building.

NON MATERIAL CONSIDERATIONS:

REPRESENTATIONS: Development advertised on site and in the local press

The Occupiers of 145, 147, 164 Salthouse Road, 13, 15, 17, 19, 21, 23, 25 27, 29, 31, 33, 35 St Lukes Avenue, Barrow in Furness all informed.

The Occupier, 23 St. Lukes Avenue, Barrow in Furness

“I'm the resident and owner of 23 St. Lukes Avenue and am shocked to hear that the owner of the grade 2 listed building directly on the back of my back garden was planning to build 3 houses out of it. I strongly object because 1. I bought my house knowing that a listed building was directly behind it and thought that nothing much could be done with it, let alone put in windows. This will effect my privacy for one and also there is no barrier wall to separate this building and my property which will also effect the noise level. 2. I have 2 children and I know that my garden is a safe place for them to play, but if this planning goes ahead who knows what kind of people will be able to look directly into my garden, kitchen, dining room, bathroom and mainly my children's bedroom. 3. This will seriously effect the value of my property if I come to sell which I would have to think about if this ludicrous plan goes ahead. I bought my house knowing that it is private and it isn't very appealing if there are 3 families living in what is my back wall of my garden. 4. I also bought my house knowing that it was very difficult for burglars to access my house from the back, but if this goes ahead apparently there will be a through road access for any tom dick and harry. How do I police whose coming and going. I will take this complaint as far as I can and will do everything I can to stop this planning application going ahead. All the above also goes for the 4 houses that he is proposing to build on the land just to the right of my house. Surely it is your responsibility to stop houses being built just anywhere. The barn is a listed building after all. This must mean that it shouldn't be spoilt with modern windows and fittings. I would be very grateful if you could keep me updated.”

The Occupier, 31 St Lukes Ave, Barrow

“Regarding planning application No 2004/0726 at 143 Salthouse Road, my husband and I have no objection to this as we have said so before, but would like to point out that we have a right of way over our back wall to the side gate opposite the Sandgate Public house, which we would like to keep as it is on our deeds.”

Page 44 of 77

PLANNING COMMITTEE th 28 September 2004

The Occupiers, 19 St. Lukes Avenue, Barrow in Furness

“Please note my objections, my objections being based upon the following points:

Loss of privacy to the rear of our property. Depreciation of value to our property. Issues regarding tenants parking to the rear of the applicant’s property and access for emergency services to all concerned. Increase of noise. Rise of intrusion to the rear of our property. Possibility of future developments once precedence has been set. Dangers of increased traffic via Salthouse Road, being situated on a sharp bend. Listed building status of applicants property.”

The Occupiers, 17 St Lukes Ave, Barrow in Furness

“With regard to planning applications no's 6 / 75 12004 / 0725 and 6 I 02 / 2004 / 0726 which is located at 143 Salthouse road, Barrow-In-Furness please note our objections - • Loss of privacy to the rear of our property. • Loss of value to our property. • Tenants parking at rear of applicant's property. • Access for emergency services to all concerned. • Risk of intrusion to rear of property. • Possibility of future development once it has been passed. • Increased noise. • Danger of increased traffic via Salthouse Road, being situated on a sharp bend. • Also that applicant's property is a listed building.

The Occupiers, 15 St Lukes Ave, Barrow in Furness

“We would like to bring to your notice our objections to the above planning applications. We have serious reservations concerning the proposed developments to the rear of our house. We have been in our property for only ten months now and our main reason for our buying here was the privacy and seclusion at the rear of the house. This would be seriously compromised by the development of the area for seven dwellings including parking and access.

The development of the barn to include windows directly at our rear would mean we would be overlooked by three dwellings from a height, affording a clear view into two of our bedrooms, our dining room and our kitchen. We also feel strongly that the proposed west facing access to the barn would open up access to the rear of our property giving rise to an increase in noise level and risk of intrusion to our garden and property.

These are genuine concerns about the immediate proposed plans for the development of the said area but we also have serious concerns regarding any further future developments. Finally, the proposed development would inevitably affect the value of our property detrimentally for a combination of the reasons above which are, to reiterate:

• Substantial loss of privacy

• Increased noise level from access and parking for seven occupied properties •:• Risk of intrusion into our property

• Risk of further development in the future”.

Page 45 of 77

PLANNING COMMITTEE th 28 September 2004

CONSULTATIONS:

United Utilities

“I have no objection to the proposal. A separate metered supply to each unit will be required at the applicant's expense and all internal pipework must comply with current water supply (water fittings) regulations 1999.

The development is shown to be adjacent to/include our electricity underground apparatus. The applicant should be aware of the potential difficulties caused by trees and should consider this when carrying out planting near to underground cables. The applicant should be advised that great care should be taken at all times to protect both the electrical apparatus and any personnel working in its vicinity.

The applicant should also be referred to two relevant documents produced by the Health and Safety Executive, which are available from The Stationary Office Publications Centre and The Stationary Office Bookshops, and advised to follow the guidance given. The documents are as follows:- HS(G) 47 - Avoiding danger from underground services GS 6 - Avoidance of danger from overhead electric lines

The applicant should also be advised that, should there be a requirement to divert the apparatus because of the proposed works, the cost of such a diversion would usually be borne by the developer.”

Ancient Mouments Society

“We note that in the planning application drawings for new houses the location plan suggests that there will be three houses whereas the other drawings show four. Again, this is quite an intensive use of a smallish site, but we accept that the area is now essentially residential in character and we have no strong views about numbers in this part of the proposals. We should be pleased to receive notice of the decision on these applications”.

OFFICERS REPORT:

A site visit has been arranged for members. The ancient hamlet of Salthouse was founded during the time of Henry III when the buildings stood only a few yards from the high tide mark. The listing description refers to the current buildings as re-built in 1800 with an eye witness account describing them as derelict in 1760 (James Kendall of Hallbeck) Reference ‘Our Barrow’, A. Leach 1981.

The application site comprises the curtilage of a farmhouse standing well back from the road with a large sandstone barn set behind it. Both buildings together with the adjacent ‘farms’ are listed as being of architectural or historic interest.

This application is for the erection of a terrace of 3 houses between the farmhouse and Salthouse Road. There are related applications for the residential conversion of the barn.

Page 46 of 77

PLANNING COMMITTEE th 28 September 2004

The Listed Building Act places a statutory duty on Planning Authorities to have special regard to the protection of the setting of listed buildings. Members will note the recent appeal decision with respect to the Victoria Park Hotel which recently upheld the Council’s decision. The issues in that case included the impact of the car park and flats on the setting of the hotel.

The impact of the terrace will principally be upon the setting of the farmhouse. This house can be viewed across the lawn from Salthouse Road with the open space contributing to the setting of the building as a farmhouse. Views are reduced by the overgrown boundary hedge.

While the development will reduce the spaciousness of the building’s setting there is some historical precedent for development. The layout of the adjacent ‘farms’ includes development extending towards the road to form a courtyard arrangement. These arguments lead to the granting of Planning Permission for 2 houses on the current application site in 1994 under reference 94/0170. That consent has now lapsed however the reasoning behind the decision still applies.

The application was originally for 4 houses in a straight row. I felt this was too intensive and extended too close to Salthouse Road. The siting of the block would have also reduced views of the listed building’s front elevation while the proposed curtilages would have added clutter to the setting.

The scheme has been reduced to 3, siting pulled back to protect the views of the farmhouse’s façade and the proposed curtilages reduced in extent. The original and amended layouts form appendix A and B respectively.

I feel that the arrangement now makes appropriate regard to the setting of the listed buildings. The scheme also retains a notable outbuilding which was previously shown to be demolished.

Representations have been received from residents in St Lukes Avenue. These houses stand some 27m or more to the west. The proposed houses could not be considered to impact unduly on the amenities of these houses. The farmhouse already faces the rear of the house in St Lukes Avenue.

The highway authority expresses concern at the level of car parking and comment that an adopted standard of access road is required. The ratio of parking, 5 spaces for 3 houses has improved with the loss of one of the houses. While falling short of the advised 2 spaces per house it should be noted that insisting on that level would conflict with government guidance (PPG3) which set 1.5 spaces per dwelling as the limit.

As regards an adopted standard of road it is unlikely that one could be provided in this instance. However the new build element is below the level required for an adoptable highway and this has not been a requirement of any previous barn conversion schemes. The scheme includes improvements to the site’s access onto Salthouse Road which include part demolition of existing roadside wall and re-building further back.

Page 47 of 77

PLANNING COMMITTEE th 28 September 2004

A further important point relates to the phasing of development. As mentioned above the adjacent barn is proposed for conversion. The basis for the recommendation is to ensure the barn has a use which can sustain it for the future. To reinforce this decision I feel a condition should be imposed on any consent for new build to the effect that development cannot proceed until the barn is either converted or that necessary repairs and alternative acceptable use have been agreed. It would not accord with the principle of having special regard to preserving the listed barn to allow new build while it continued to deteriorate. As regards the notable outbuilding this is situated 1.5m form the back corner of the nearest house. Similar considerations apply together with the need to protect the building during construction phase.

Given that that decision is to grant Listed Building Consent is notifiable to the Secretary of State then a decision on this application should await the decision on the conversion. Where the residential conversion not be approved then the matter would need to be re-appraised

RECOMMENDATION:

I recommend that A: - the Authority be minded to grant Planning Permission .

B: That the decision to grant planning permission under reference 04/0726 be delegated to the Assistant Director (Regeneration) subject to the satisfactory resolution of the listed building application 04/0724 and to conditions addressing the following issues:

1. Standard Duration Limit; 2. Improvements to the means of access; 3. Re-building of boundary walls in sandstone; 4. Appropriate restriction on permitted development; 5. Controls over materials; 6. Archaeological survey and recording; 7. Phasing of development; 8. Survey and protection during construction and necessary repair to external envelope of adjacent outbuilding; 9. Information on floor levels.

Page 48 of 77

PLANNING COMMITTEE th 28 September 2004

PLAN NUMBER: APPLICANT: DATE RECEIVED:

2004/0725 Mr T Martin 22/06/2004

WARD/PARISH: CASE OFFICER: 8 WEEK DATE:

Risedale Charles Wilton 16/08/2004 Tel: 01229 894938 LOCATION:

143 Salthouse Road, Barrow-in-Furness

PROPOSAL:

Conversion of part existing barn to form 3 dwellings and partial demolition and rebuilding of highway boundary wall to improve visibility onto Salthouse Road

LOCAL PLAN:

POLICY B12

Within the existing settlements of Barrow and Dalton and the residential cordons outlined in Policy B11 above, the conversion of buildings to residential accommodation will be permitted where the following criteria can be met: a) The building is structurally sound and capable of conversion without major rebuilding, extensions or modifications to the existing structure, as demonstrated by the submission of a satisfactory structural survey; b) The building is served by a satisfactory access; c) Services are readily available on site; and d) The scale of the conversion, both in terms of the number of units and their size and in terms of architectural detailing is appropriate to the buildings, their character and their location.

POLICY D17

POLICY F11

The floor levels of all new development must be at least 7 metres above Ordnance Datum.

Page 49 of 77

PLANNING COMMITTEE th 28 September 2004

SUMMARY OF MAIN ISSUES:

Urban brown field location. Development would not have significant impact upon residents. Issues regarding listed status need particular attention.

NON MATERIAL CONSIDERATIONS:

REPRESENTATIONS:

Development advertised on site and in the local press.

The Occupiers of 145, 147, 164 Salthouse Road, 13-35 (odds) St Lukes Avenue, Barrow in Furness all informed.

The Occupier, 23 St. Lukes Avenue, Barrow in Furness

The Occupiers, 19 St. Lukes Avenue, Barrow in Furness

“Please note my objections, my objections being based upon the following points:

Loss of privacy to the rear of our property. Depreciation of value to our property. Issues regarding tenants parking to the rear of the applicants property and access for emergency services to all concerned. Increase of noise. Rise of intrusion to the rear of our property. Possibility of future developments once precedence has been set. Dangers of increased traffic via Salthouse Road, being situated on a sharp bend. Listed building status of applicants property.”

Page 50 of 77

PLANNING COMMITTEE th 28 September 2004 I would like to attend the planning meeting regarding the application no’s 2004/0725 & 0726.

The Occupiers, 17 St Lukes Ave, Barrow in Furness

“With regard to planning applications no's 04/0725 and 04/0726 which is located at 143 Salthouse road, Barrow-In-Furness please note our objections –

• Loss of privacy to the rear of our property. • Loss of value to our property. • Tenants parking at rear of applicant's property. • Access for emergency services to all concerned. • Risk of intrusion to rear of property. • Possibility of future development once it has been passed. • Increased noise. • Danger of increased traffic via Salthouse road, being situated on a sharp bend. • Also that applicant's property is a listed building.

The Occupiers, 15 St Lukes Ave, Barrow in Furness

• Substantial loss of privacy • Increased noise level from access and parking for seven occupied properties •:• Risk of intrusion into our property • Risk of further development in the future”.

CONSULTATIONS:

United Utilities

“I have no objection to the proposal. A separate metered supply to each unit will be required at the applicant’s expense and all internal pipework must comply with current water supply (water fittings) regulations 1999.”

Page 51 of 77

PLANNING COMMITTEE th 28 September 2004

County Highways

“When considering the applications together it is clear that the combined total of existing and proposed dwellings exceeds the maximum number of 5 houses permitted on a private shared driveway, and as such it will be necessary to provide a shared surface road, designed, constructed, drained and lit in accordance with the Cumbria Design Guide. The applicant would need to enter into a Section 38 Agreement with the Highway Authority. It is also clear that both proposals offer parking below the standards laid down in the Cumbria Design Guide, and that the number of dwellings needs to be reduced in order to provide the 2 spaces per dwelling we recommend, and a turning head. The wall alterations shown on the plans for the southern end of the access seem acceptable, however, we would insist that an existing wall also be removed on the northern side of the access to secure visibility splays, and provide a footway link. The applicant should note that a 184 permit will be required for the construction of the access, which should also include dropped crossing points. In view of the above I would recommend that both applications be deferred until plans have been submitted which address the issues. Upon receipt of the plans I will advise of the conditions which we require you to impose on any permission”.

Ancient Mouments Society

Environment Agency – No response received.

OFFICERS REPORT:

Introduction

This report relates to the planning application for the conversion of part of this listed barn into 3 dwellings. The listed building report is included elsewhere in this blue booklet.

In dealing with the planning application the Council must have special regard to the desirability of preserving the listed building and its setting. However these aspects are in the main addressed as part of the listed building application and therefore this report does not reproduce issues covered elsewhere.

Planning Issues

The issues which this report addresses are

a) Principle of residential development. b) Impact upon the amenities of neighbouring property. c) The affect on the setting of the listed building d) The suitability of parking and means of access.

Page 52 of 77

PLANNING COMMITTEE th 28 September 2004

Principle of Residential Development

The site is an urban, brownfield site where PPG3 favours residential development. Local Plan Review Policy B12 sets down detailed criteria on residential conversions in urban areas. Policy D17 states that applications for reuse of empty listed buildings will be dealt with favourably. The policy introduces flexibility into the application of normal criteria. This reflects the statutory duty on the Authority of having special regard to preservation of a listed building.

The application is accompanied by a structural report. While remedial works are necessary it concludes that the building is structurally sound and capable of conversion.

The floor level of the building is set over 1m above road level which is at 6.3OD. However, even where it less other policy consideration would apply.

The site is located within a residential area and I can see no objection in land use terms to residential development. It should be noted that one of the 3 units would have no private amenity space as such due to the building itself forming the rear boundary of the plot. The location plan shows the angled relationship between the barn and the properties in St Lukes Avenue to the rear. The western half of the barn where the distance to the houses are less contains no windows in the rear elevation. In the eastern section there are 4 windows in the rear elevation. However, distances to the houses in St Lukes Ave is substantial. The nearest properties are 26m away measured to the end of their rear wings. Roof lights are also proposed which would be 23m away. While less this still exceeds the normal requirement. Roof lights are also at high level (4m above proposed 1st floor level). The development could therefore not be considered to have any appreciable impact upon the amenities of the properties to rear. The angle of view from the barn conversion to the existing farmhouse and neighbouring property in Salthouse Road avoids loss of privacy to those residents.

The use of roof lights to serve much of the 1st floor has resulted in change to the floor arrangement in order to comply with means of escape under the Building Regulations.

Setting of Listed Building

The barn faces onto a courtyard area which accommodates the parking for the farmhouse together with the needs of the cattery. Conversion to 3 dwellings will result in additional parking in front of the barn. While the size of the courtyard can not be increased there will be the additional clutter of parked cars. As the site is raised up above the level of Salthouse Road the vehicles will be more noticeable than otherwise. However some parking is associated with the existing uses the impact upon the setting of the listed building needs to be weighed against its preservation. Any use is likely to result in clutter of some kind.

Parking and Means of Access

The submitted plans show a parking space for the existing farmhouse, 3 other spaces and a visitor parking space. For the size of the units (100m²) this seems a little modest. However there is additional scope for parking in the courtyard. The parking arrangements are likely to be fairly restricted, however they appear sufficient to allow parking, and ensuring space exists for vehicles to enter and leave the site in a forward gear.

Page 53 of 77

PLANNING COMMITTEE th 28 September 2004

The highway authority make reference to the need for an adopted standard of access. This has not been a requirement of previous barn conversions. Indeed the conversion of barns at Parkhouse Farm was recently approved on a private access basis. That scheme was for a greater number of units than that proposed here.

I consider that provided the listed building issue can be resolved then planning permission should be granted.

RECOMMENDATION:

I recommend that:

A: The Authority be minded to grant planning permission

B:- The decision to grant planning permission under reference 04/0725 be delegated to the Assistant Director (Regeneration) subject to the granting of Listed Building Consent under reference 04/0726 and subject to conditions addressing the following issues:

1 Standard Duration Limit 2 Appropriate restriction on Permitted Development 3 Improvements to means of access 4 Rebuilding of boundary wall in sandstone 5 Controls over materials. 6 Provision of car parking.

Page 54 of 77

PLANNING COMMITTEE th 28 September 2004

PLAN NUMBER: APPLICANT: DATE RECEIVED:

2004/0727 T Kenny 05/07/2004

WARD/PARISH: CASE OFFICER: 8 WEEK DATE:

Hawcoat Ian Sim 29/08/2004 Tel: 01229 894284 LOCATION:

5 Dane Ghyll Barrow-in-Furness

PROPOSAL:

Works to trees protected by Tree Preservation Order No 93/1 - Pruning of trees, 8 in total

LOCAL PLAN:

No specific policies

SUMMARY OF MAIN ISSUES:

Sustaining the long term health of the woodland by providing a healthy environment for future balanced growth.

NON MATERIAL CONSIDERATIONS:

REPRESENTATIONS:

The occupiers of 22, 24, 26 Glenridding Drive, 3, 4, 6 and 7 Dane Ghyll.

The Occupiers, 6 Dane Ghyll, Barrow in Furness

“Dear members of the planning committee I would like to register my oppression to the proposed tree Felling and Pruning at.

5 Dane Ghyll Barrow in Furness Cumbria La144pz

This planning application exists because of a direct complaint to the borough planning office by myself. As a result this planning application was submitted after work had commenced (Work carried out in breach of the current TPO)

Page 55 of 77

PLANNING COMMITTEE th 28 September 2004

I wish to object to the proposals on the following grounds.

1. The work has begun without planning permission. (Work carried out in breach of the current TPO)

2. The work Part complete (Pruning) could Not be described as pruning one mature pine Tree has been cut in half and others completely destroyed cut to stumps. Work has begun on approx. 5 Trees or more with 2 visible stump's approx. .5m to the south of the land at no 5 Dane Ghyll. Close to tree marked as No 11, 6 and 5 on the crude plan (Work carried out in breach of the current TPO)

3. The work has not been contracted to a professional Tree Surgeon. The work completed to date could only be described as Amateur, Inappropriate, Unsympathetic, and Destructive. It is important a Professional Tree Surgeon Using the correct equipment and insurance carries out the work. Competence and experience of mature tree cutting is essential to ensure the survival of the trees that are cut.

4 Seasonal growth and bird nesting has not been considered and a Kestrel nest has been destroyed in tree marked number 2 along with Roosting habitat and nesting for wood pigeon, doves, black bird, and numerous breed of finch. Other wild life including Protected Species of Bat's and Squirrel also inhabit the trees in the Ghyll valley. No impact survey has been carried out to assess wild life use.

5. The proposed work is two intensive on living trees and the natural echo system.

6. The Trees are no higher than existing trees at No 7 No 6 No 4 No 3,2 and number 1. And in many cases are lower than existing trees in the valley and the road side.

7. The proposed cutting of Tree No1 Large beech is not necessary as this tree was subject to a strong pollard just a few years ago and has no extensive growth above the pollarding.

There were three beach trees in the front on No 5 there is only one remaining two were felled before the TPO was requested to save the last one.

8. Trees 2 through 7 have been extensively cut in recent years they are now at a height of approx. 50 feet having been reduced by approx. 20 to 25 prior to this application. The trees are no higher than most trees in Dane Ghyll. Tree No 7 has all ready been cut in half. Approx. 50 ft to 25 ft. (Work carried out in breach of the current TPO) as was the previous reduction of trees 2,3,4,5,6,7.

9 Hawthorn is a very important tree to wild life and is a very slow growing tree. There is no need to shape hawthorn it can cope very well leaning to one side take the hawthorn of Walney and Furness Abbey for example.

10 The Horse Chestnut tree was subject to a heavy pollard just a few years ago and poses no danger to property. It is smaller than most trees in the Ghyll valley.

11. There is no need to fell any of the Sycamore trees at the boundary to Glennriding drive which is to the west of the trees they pose no danger to property at this time.

12 Non of the Proposed Trees represent a danger to the public being on private land with no public access nor do they represent a danger to property at this time.

Page 56 of 77

PLANNING COMMITTEE th 28 September 2004

13. No recycling details are present in the proposals.

Residents of Dane Ghyll have also reported the Kenny family to the planning department for breaches of the Tree Preservation Order on a number of occasions in the past both verbally and in writing. The current order was implemented as a direct result of the Kenny's tree destruction after the loss of 8 mature trees in the front of 5 Dane Ghyll. The police were called just 6 months ago after a complaint from myself about Mr Kenny pruning one of my trees a willow with a Bushman Saw, contained within the TPO circle in front of No 6 Dane Ghyll. The incident is a matter of Police record.

Dane Ghyll contains one of the last pockets of woodland within the Barrow district Boundary it's Woodland Trees are a wild life oasis. Careful and sympathetic management are required Hacking it up with a Bush-mans saw it dose not need. No president should be set for the distraction of this important protected wildlife oasis. There appears to be no danger to property and the trees are not diseased or dying. This Proposal should be denied and an order made to rectify the damage done.

If I may I would suggest a sight visit by the planning committee to view the existing incomplete work and assess the standard and issues contained in this letter before a decision is reached.

I request permission to attend and speak at the planning meeting”

The Occupier, 6 Dane Ghyll, Barrow in Furness

“This planning application exists because of a direct complaint to the borough planning office by myself. As a result this planning application was submitted after work had commenced (Work carried out in breach of the current TPO)

I wish to object to the proposals on the following grounds. l. The work has begun without planning permission. (Work carried out in breach of the current TP4) 2. The work Part complete (Pruning) could not be described as pruning one mature pine Tree has been cut in half and others completely destroyed cut to stumps. Work has begun on approx. 5 Trees or more with 2 visible stump's approx. 5m to the south of the land at no 5 Dane Ghyll. Close to tree marked as No 11, 6 and 5 on the crude plan (Work carried out in breach of the current TPO)

Other wild life including Protected Species of Bat's and Squirrel also inhabit the trees in the Ghyll valley. No impact survey has been carried out to assess wild life use.

Page 57 of 77

PLANNING COMMITTEE th 28 September 2004 5. The proposed work is two intensive on living trees and the natural echo system. 6. The Trees are no higher than existing trees at No 7 No 6 No 4 No 3,2 and number 1. And in many cases are lower than existing trees in the valley and the road side. 7. The proposed cutting of Tree No l Large beech is not necessary as this tree was subject to a strong Pollard just a few years ago and has no extensive growth above the pollarding. There were three beach trees in the front on No 5 there is only one remaining two were felled before the TPO was requested to save the last one. 8. Trees 2 through 7 have been extensively cut in recent years they are now at a height of approx. 50 feet having been reduced by approx. 20 to 25 prior to this application. The trees are no higher than most trees in Dane Ghyll. Tree No 7 has all ready been cut in half. Approx. 50 ft to 25 ft. (Work carried out in breach of the current TPO) as was the previous reduction of trees 2,3,4,5,6,7. 9 Hawthorn is a very important tree to wild life and is a very slow growing tree. There is no need to shape hawthorn it can cope very well leaning to one side take the hawthorn of Walney and Furness abbey for example. 10 The Horse Chestnut tree was subject to a heavy pollard just a few years ago and poses no danger to property. It is smaller than most trees in the Ghyll valley. 11. There is no need to fell any of the Sycamore trees at the boundary to Glennriding drive which is to the west of the trees they pose no danger to property at this time. 12 Non of the Proposed Trees represent a danger to the public being on private land with no public access nor do they represent a danger to property at this time. 13. No recycling details are present in the proposals. Residents of Dane Ghyll have also reported the Kenny family to the planning department for breaches of the Tree Preservation Order on a number of occasions in the past both verbally and in writing. The current order was implemented as a direct result of the Kenny's tree destruction after the loss of 8 mature trees in the front of 5 Dane Ghyll. The police were called just 6 months ago after a complaint from myself about Mr Kenny pruning one of my trees a willow with a Bushman Saw, contained within the TPO circle in front of No 6 Dane Ghyll. The incident is a matter of Police record.

This Proposal should be denied and an order made to rectify the damage done. If I may I would suggest a sight visit by the planning committee to view the existing incomplete work and assess the standard and issues contained in this letter before a decision is reached. I request permission to attend and speak at the planning meeting”.

Page 58 of 77

PLANNING COMMITTEE th 28 September 2004

CONSULTATIONS:

A M Barker, Borough Arboricultural Consultant

“I have visited No 5 Dane Ghyll on two occasions and compiled a list of works that are required for the long term maintenance of trees on this site. The site is very diverse in tree species and contains 30 No mature and semi- mature trees. It may seem drastic to suggest felling ten trees, five of these are 50ft + Leylandi all growing in a 20ft line. They are vegetated on one side only and therefore unstable and constitute a danger to the adjoining bungalow. The three Sycamores are tight up to the retaining wall supporting the Bungalows on Glenridding Drive and the roots will no doubt be under the foundations and will soon be causing damage. Removal will not destroy the visual aspect as there is already several established trees only feet away and the Hawthorne hedge already planted behind the wall will benefit from the light. All the other works are to correct the shape and condition of the other trees which have been neglected over the years. It is not a frequent event that a land owner is eager to carry out long term maintenance on so many trees which provide a landscape feature, therefore I recommend that we should encourage the owner”.

OFFICERS REPORT:

The application site is a spacious plot with diverse tree species and has Dane Ghyll Beck running through the site.

The application came about as a result of a complaint. The owner was contacted and the work ceased pending your decision, (plans are on display). The Council’s arboricultural advisor has visited the site and discussed the proposal with the applicant and his conclusion is reproduced above. Taking the trees as identified, the works are as follows;

No 1. Beech, located in the front garden, to be shaped to maintain healthy growth .

No’s 2 – 5. Leylandii, would have formed part of a hedgerow, however, have grown over the years to be individual specimens. It is proposed to fell these to improve daylighting to other trees, with replanting of an alternative species and position.

No’s 6 and 7. Leylandii, to be replaced by an agreed species.

No’s 8 and 9. Leylandii, to be shaped to allow for future growth.

No 10 Ash, multi-stemmed (5) to be reduced to a single stem, to allow for growth.

No 11 Hawthorn, to be shaped to provide for future growth and balance.

No 12 Sycamore, to be reduced to allow for growth of nearby trees.

No 13 Horse chestnut, remove limb to help balance and stability, reduced in height and crown pruned.

No 14 Beech, crown reduction, to allow light to woodland floor and nearby trees.

No’s 15,16,17 Sycamores, to be felled, will allow for the growth of the younger trees and will enable the hawthorn hedge to grow and flourish.

Page 59 of 77

PLANNING COMMITTEE th 28 September 2004

In summary, the work overall will balance the woodland and allow for future growth of the younger trees and help to improve the existing trees and plants giving a more balanced growth and help to promote the future long term life of the woodland. This Authority has taken a consistent view that works to trees that will ensure their long-term future should be actively encouraged. The complainant makes allegation of previous unauthorised works being carried out, although the arboricultural consultant has not identified any works that could be considered to constitute wilful damage likely to endanger a tree. Consequently, no further action is warranted.

RECOMMENDATION:

I recommend that consent be GRANTED subject to the following conditions:

Condition No. 1

The Planning Authority must be notified in writing at least seven days beforehand, of when the works to trees authorised by this permission are to commence.

Reason

To ensure that the works can be adequately supervised and carried out in an orderly and satisfactory manner.

Condition No. 2

Reason

In order to protect the future well being of the woodland.

Page 60 of 77

PLANNING COMMITTEE th 28 September 2004

PLAN NUMBER: APPLICANT: DATE RECEIVED:

2004/0769 Addaction 06/07/2004

WARD/PARISH: CASE OFFICER: 8 WEEK DATE:

Hindpool Jason Hipkiss 30/08/2004 Tel: 01229 894764 LOCATION:

92-96 Duke Street, Barrow-in-Furness

PROPOSAL:

Change of use of ground floor from A2 Financial Services to advice and counselling centre, (D1) with retention of 1st and 2nd floors as offices.

LOCAL PLAN:

POLICY C7

Within the Mixed Areas around Barrow Town Centre the Authority will allow shopping or commercial uses where this does not adversely affect immediate residential neighbours and meets normal planning standards. The Authority will also allow conversions to residential schemes, particularly on upper floors, where this will assist the regeneration of the area and will bring back into use a vacant property, subject to the application of the criteria contained in Policy B6 and the site being capable of providing an acceptable residential environment for future occupiers.

SUMMARY OF MAIN ISSUES:

A Change of use to an advisory centre providing a counselling service for alcohol and drug related matters. The commercial nature of the area is considered sufficient to absorb the use into the general activity of the street scene.

NON MATERIAL CONSIDERATIONS:

The identity or status of persons using the service.

REPRESENTATIONS:

The Occupiers of 38 Clifford Street, 107, 95, 97, 91-93, 102, 99 Britanic Chambers, 101, 89, 100, 103, 105, 84, 88, 90, 109, 87, 86, 107a, 107b, 98 Duke Street, 1 Slater Street, Barrow in Furness all informed.

Page 61 of 77

PLANNING COMMITTEE th 28 September 2004

Supporting Statement

“As I explained to you it is proposed that the ground floor of the above mentioned premises shall be used as an advice and counselling centre for those who suffer substance misuse, principally drugs and alcohol. The service is funded by the local Drug Action Team and the service is provided through my clients, Addaction, in association with the NHS. These services are currently provided by my clients out of space at College House and by the NHS out of the former Fire Station House. I understand that you dealt with the planning application in respect of that property. These proposals represent a relocation of the service from these premises and it's expansion following the grant of a service contract to my clients, Addaction. I can confirm that the upper floors will remain as offices in support of the services being provided at ground floor and also in respect of those working with outreach teams.

My clients have considerable experience in running and managing such services. They currently have in excess of 100 programmes running throughout the country from some 70 different locations and I can assure you that they all operate without disturbance and annoyance to any adjoining owners and occupiers. The hours of opening are normally 09.00 to 17.00 Monday through to Friday but there is the possibility of the service being extended into the evenings, certainly not beyond 20.00, on a maximum of two evenings per week. No service is currently provided at weekends or over the Bank Holidays. Please let me know if there is any further information which you require and I look forward to hearing from you in due course”.

CONSULTATIONS:

Town Centre Residents

“We do not wish to make any representation on the proposal.”

OFFICERS REPORT:

The property is a substantial mid terraced three-storey building located on a principal town centre thoroughfare. The building has been vacant for some time as the previous occupier, Barclays has relocated to Dalton Road.

The area is commercial in nature, the neighbouring properties being licensed premises on one side and office accommodation on the other. On the opposite side of the road there is a large retail unit several offices and the Old Bank Public House. Slater Street runs along the rear, parallel to Duke Street.

In the Local Plan the area is zoned as a Mixed Area, an allocation that extends along Duke Street and Abbey Road up to the Rawlinson Street junction. Policy C7 states that shopping or commercial uses will be allowed where there is no adverse impact upon neighbouring residential amenities. In this particular case the main concentration of properties are the flats around Grange and Cartmel Crescent to the rear of the property and the terraced housing behind the main Duke Street façade. There are two flats on the opposite side of the road located above the Old Bank Public House.

Page 62 of 77

PLANNING COMMITTEE th 28 September 2004

The proposed use is to operate the premises as an advisory centre offering a counselling services for people suffering from substance abuse, primarily alcohol and drugs. For information a supporting statement is shown above. Members will note that this service is being relocted from nearby town centre premises. The advisory service would operate on the ground floor with the upper two floors used for associated administration purposes. Operating hours are generally normal office hours although there is a potential requirement for some occasional early evening appointments. The agent has indicated that clients attend on an appointment basis only and whilst medical counselling will be available, there is no dispensing of prescriptions or other medical services provided. The centre is purely an advisory service.

Taking account of the subject matter, applications such as this one can be highly emotive and initial concerns could be raised regarding the suitability of siting such a facility in close proximity to licensed premises. However, government advice contained within circular 11/95 states that the identity or status of occupiers or patrons of an establishment is not a land use concern. Such issues are matters for the management of the advisory centre.

As the locality is predominantly commercial and the operating hours are less than those of adjacent late night uses, I consider that the use can be accommodated within the area without detriment to residential amenities. I am not aware of any amenity problems associated with the existing facilities at the other location that could constitute a basis for concern. Accordingly, a conditional approval is warranted.

RECOMMENDATION:

I recommend that planning permission be GRANTED subject to the Standard Duration Limit and the following condition:

Condition No. 2

The approved use shall only operate between 0800-2000 hours Monday to Saturdays and not at all on Sundays or Bank Holidays.

Reason

To safeguard the amenities of town centre residents.

The reason(s) for the grant of planning permission are as follows:

Page 63 of 77

PLANNING COMMITTEE th 28 September 2004

PLAN NUMBER: APPLICANT: DATE RECEIVED:

2004/0645 Mrs Kegg 03/06/2004

WARD/PARISH: CASE OFFICER: 8 WEEK DATE:

Newbarns Ian Sim 28/07/2004 Tel: 01229 894284 LOCATION:

3 Middleton Avenue, Barrow-in-Furness

PROPOSAL:

Erection of two storey side extension forming lounge, disabled shower room on ground floor and two bedrooms on first floor

LOCAL PLAN:

POLICY B15

Two storey extensions to semi-detached and detached properties will not be permitted where they would result in a significant loss of sunlight to a neighbour, or where privacy would be unacceptably eroded or where extensions are particularly long, resulting in an excessive level of enclosure. Where privacy is to be protected through distance, a minimum of 21 metres will be required between the facing windows of habitable rooms of different homes.

POLICY B16

For side extensions, either single or two storey, that would, if repeated in a street, convert a row of properties into a terrace, the Authority will require the design to overcome this effect.

SUMMARY OF MAIN ISSUES:

No significant visual impact upon the street scene due to design with off-street parking being provided on a new driveway.

NON MATERIAL CONSIDERATIONS:

REPRESENTATIONS:

The Occupiers of 28 Rising Side, 2, 4, 6 Stackwood Avenue, 1, 2, 4, 5 Middleton Avenue, Barrow in Furness all informed.

Page 64 of 77

PLANNING COMMITTEE th 28 September 2004

2 Stackwood Avenue, Barrow in Furness

“I have no objections to the planning application on 3 Middleton Avenue as such which I would like to know is if they could sort out the wall at the bottom of the garden, as it is leaning dangerously and I fear it may fall into my garden injuring my family”. Supporting Statement

“I enclose revised drawings provision for 2 off road parking spaces in front of 3 Middleton Avenue, Barrow.

With regard to the off road parking proposed, while it cannot meet the criteria policy dictates it would however be a material improvement and benefit the difficult car parking situation that prevails in Middleton Avenue, it cannot be provided if the application fails. As pointed out in my letter to Ian Walker the primary reason for this extension is to provide care accommodation to Mrs Kegg, who lives with her daughter, who is also her carer she has degenerative disabling and is increasingly in need of the proposed facility. In conclusion this application should have been processed by 28th July 2004, Mrs Kegg finds the delay and uncertainty stressful and this is having a detrimental effect on her health. For this reason I have contacted Mr Pears the Newbarns Ward Councillor and informed him of the situation, he is concerned as I am that issue of parking could cause this application to fail. To assist he is willing to meet with you and I to discuss compromise and ensure a positive outcome. I trust you will use your best endeavours conclude this matter as soon as possible.”

CONSULTATIONS:

Cumbria Highways

“In the absence of any proposed off street parking, I am objecting to the application. Parking on Middleton Avenue is already at a premium and the applicant proposes to enlarge a 2 bedroom to a 4 bedroom property without any parking.

At least 2 off street parking spaces should be provided within the curtilage of the property”

Environment Agency

“I have recently received a letter from Mike Batty of Plans Drawn, 5th August, 2004,which draws our attention to the intended purpose of the above proposal. The letter also explains that the occupancy of the property will not increase and thus the assumption must be made that there will be no increase in drainage to the foul sewer at this location. As you are aware there are capacity problems within the United Utilities foul sewer at this location which are eventually to be resolved within their Asset Management Plan 3. It is not envisaged however, that the above proposal will exacerbate those existing problems”.

Estates Department

“I have no comments to make on the application”.

Page 65 of 77

PLANNING COMMITTEE th 28 September 2004

OFFICERS REPORT:

The proposal is for the erection of a two-storey side extension forming lounge, disabled shower room on ground floor and two bedrooms on the first floor. The application site is a semi- detached property set in a reasonable sized plot on the eastern side of Middleton Avenue.

The proposal has an indicated footprint of approximately 3.5 metres x 7 metres with the ridged roof design carried through, matching external material will compliment the design thereby no significant visual impact upon the street scene.

Privacy will be protect through distance to the rear whilst the properties to the front the distance (18.5 metres) remains unaltered, this approach has been accepted previously and the design includes the shower room on the front elevation on the ground floor. A blank gable is proposed providing additional protection in this respect to No. 5 Middleton Avenue the neighbouring property to the south.

The property is within the Roose Bridge Outfall area, however, as the Environment Agency comments no additional loading will be expected as there will be no increase in occupancy.

The application site is at a slightly lower level than the highway with off-street parking being at a premium. In this respect the applicant has indicated that in line with the recommendation from the Highway Authority she will provide two-off street parking spaces. In this respect the Council have normally resisted such provision located beyond the building line. However, the spaces are indicated in the front of the proposed extension, thereby, leaving some garden area, this will help to retain the visual aspect of the dwelling. In addition there are a limited number of properties in the near vicinity which provide off street parking in a similar fashion. The character of the area would remain unaltered and the provision of off-street parking in this location should be welcomed.

RECOMMENDATION:

I recommend that planning permission be GRANTED subject to the Standard Duration Limit and the following conditions:

Condition No. 2

Notwithstanding the provisions of the Town and Country Planning (General Permitted Development) Order, 1995 (or any Order revoking or re-enacting that Order with or without modifications) no opening of any kind shall be made in the southern facing wall of the permitted extension without the written consent of the Planning Authority.

Reason

In order to protect the residential amenities of the area due to the loss or perceived loss of privacy to the occupier(s) of No. 3 Middleton Avenue and nearby residents.

Condition No. 3

The parking provision as indicated on sheet No. 3 on the plans hereby approved shall be constructed and brought into use prior to the beneficial use of the development.

Page 66 of 77

PLANNING COMMITTEE th 28 September 2004 Reason

To ensure a minimum standard of off street parking provision is provided in the interests of highway safety.

Condition No. 4

The parking provision as indicated on condition No. 3 thereto must be reserved for the parking of private motor vehicles and no permanent development, whether permitted by Town and country Planning (General Permitted Development) Order, 1995 (or any Order revoking and re-enacting that Order with or without modifications) or not, shall be carried out on that area of land or in such a position as to preclude vehicular access to the parking area.

Reason

To ensure a minimum standard of off street parking provision is provided in the interest of highway safety.

The reason(s) for the grant of planning permission are as follows:

Page 67 of 77

PLANNING COMMITTEE th 28 September 2004

PLAN NUMBER: APPLICANT: DATE RECEIVED:

2004/0249 Mr & Mrs Taylor 03/03/2004

WARD/PARISH: CASE OFFICER: 8 WEEK DATE:

Newbarns Charles Wilton 27/04/2004 Tel: 01229 894938 LOCATION:

13 Inglewood, Barrow-in-Furness

PROPOSAL:

Crown reduce sycamore by 40%, crown reduce horse chestnut by 35%, trees subject of Tree Preservation Order 1972 No 1

LOCAL PLAN:

No specific policies

SUMMARY OF MAIN ISSUES:

Crown reduction works would drastically alter the appearance of the trees leaving them with little amenity value.

NON MATERIAL CONSIDERATIONS:

REPRESENTATIONS:

CONSULTATIONS:

The Occupier, 65 Croslands Park, Barrow-in-Furness

“Thanks you for your letter of 9th March, specifically directed to potential tree works at 10 Inglewood but identifying similar applications for 8 adjacent properties.

PLANNING COMMITTEE th 28 September 2004

I understand that you will obtain an independent expert opinion on the level of work that will best meet these objectives”

OFFICERS REPORT:

The proposal involves lowering the crown of a sycamore by 40% and a horse chestnut by 35%. There are three other trees in the applicants garden where no work is proposed.

The sycamore and horse chestnut are attractive trees with nicely shaped crowns. Cutting back the trees would drastically alter their appearance and leave them with little amenity value for several years. Regrowth would be of the dense multi stemmed type from the lop points which produces an effect far inferior to natural growth. Such works conflict with good arborical practice and will make the trees, particularly the horse chestnut, vulnerable to rot and disease.

A number of the other applications in Inglewood were of this type. In those cases it was possible to reach agreement with the respective occupiers on revised proposals, which also met their objectives. In this case I have been unable to offer any suggestions, which would deliver the more open aspect which the applicants desire. I therefore arranged a follow up visit by the Council’s arborical consultant, but again no reasonable resolution appears available.

The issue is therefore whether the trees have such an undue impact upon amenity to warrant work which would not normally be considered acceptable. The trees are 15m away from the house. Having viewed the relationship between the trees and the house I do not feel there are any over riding amenity issues to justify the work.

Rather than lopping the horse chestnut and sycamore, it would be preferable to fell the sycamore. The advice from both the applicant’s tree surgeon and the Council’s arborical consultant was that this would place too much windage on a beech in the neighbouring garden and that both would need to be felled. The felling of one, let alone two of the trees would have a significant affect on the woodland belt which is not justified on amenity grounds. A lesser option would be to fell a beech on the opposite side of the applicant’s garden. However again there appears no justification on amenity grounds.

RECOMMENDATION:

I recommend that

A: the application be refused for the following reason:

Reason No 1

The trees benefit from attractive, well-shaped crowns. The proposed works would unacceptably harm their appearance thereby reducing their contribution to the public amenities of the area.

Page 69 of 77

PLANNING COMMITTEE th 28 September 2004

That a certificate to the effect that the trees are of special amenity value to be issued.

Page 70 of 77

PLANNING COMMITTEE th 28 September 2004

PLAN NUMBER: APPLICANT: DATE RECEIVED:

2004/0232 Mr D Hughes 10/03/2004

WARD/PARISH: CASE OFFICER: 8 WEEK DATE:

Roosecote Ian Sim 04/05/2004 Tel: 01229 894284 LOCATION:

49 Riverside Gardens, Barrow-in-Furness

PROPOSAL:

Retrospective application for erection of boundary fence (2.4m high)

LOCAL PLAN:

POLICY D21

In determining all applications submitted to it the local planning authority will have regard to the General Design Code set out in paragraph 5.4.28 of this plan.

In towns and villages, proposals shall relate to the context provided by buildings, street and plot patterns, building frontages, topography, established public views, landmark buildings and other townscape elements. Proposals that do not respect the local context and street pattern or the scale, height, proportions and materials of surrounding buildings and development which constitutes over development of the site by virtue of scale, height or bulk will not be permitted, unless there is specific justification, such as interests of sustainability, energy efficiency or crime prevention.

Development proposals in the countryside shall respect the diversity and distinctiveness of local landscape character. New farm buildings will, in general, be required to be sited within or adjacent to an existing farm building complex or in other well screened locations and to be subject to a complementary design and use of materials, with, where necessary, a ‘planting’ scheme.

SUMMARY OF MAIN ISSUES:

Adverse visual impact of fencing/brick piers upon the street scene.

NON MATERIAL CONSIDERATIONS:

REPRESENTATIONS:

The Occupiers of 17 Red River Walk, 22, 47, 45, 43 Riverside Gardens, Barrow in Furness all informed.

Page 71 of 77

PLANNING COMMITTEE th 28 September 2004

The Occupier, 49 Riverside Gardens, Barrow in Furness – Dated 5th August 2004

“Having numerous discussions with my neighbours regarding my fence they and myself see no common sense in reducing the height of the fence by 400 mm or 15", so they can see into my conservatory and bedroom. So could anyone walking down the street, wagons making deliveries and dustbin men etc., could also look into my conservatory and bedroom.

I would also be able to look from my house into the bedrooms of the two bungalows opposite if the height of the fence is reduced.

I have in the last six months planted established trees and shrubs on the backside of the fence which at this moment in time are approximately the height of the fence. Our Landscape Gardener informs us that within 12 months the trees and shrubs will have grown to the necessary height and density to give all concerned the necessary screen required to keep all parties happy.

I have also visited every Resident on the Riverside Gardens Site to ask if any persons have any objections to the fence in question and not one of the 40 Residents has any objections”.

The Occupier, 49 Riverside Gardens, Barrow in Furness

“Further to my letter dated 5' August, after recent discussions with my Consulting Engineer we wish to inform you the reason for the difference in heights regarding the fence in question. To achieve the required fall and length of drainage required from my plot to the existing sewer in the main road the land levels of Riverside Court had to be raised as such.

Therefore on my property from damp-course level to fence height is the required 2 Meters, as was required in the original Planning Application.

The need for privacy is only because our property borders the Public Highway resulting in the fence being 2.4 Metres from footpath level. Lowering the fence to the requested

2 Metres would deny me the right to have a 6 Foot high fence in my back garden from patio level, resulting in me being the only property on Riverside Gardens without this luxury”.

CONSULTATIONS:

Cumbria Highways

“I can confirm that the wall does not fall within the visibility sightlines required for the junction of the private shared driveway and Riverside Gardens. As such, there are no objections on highway grounds to the applicants proposals.

As previously informed, the applicant will need to submit revised drawings of the estate, in order that a deed of variation can be drawn up for the Section 38 Agreement to cover the omission of the small length of footway adjacent to this plot which was shown on the previous plans of the estate. But which following the construction of the small cul-de-sac served no purpose.

This change has previously been agreed between us and the applicant. However, the applicant was advised by us that he may need to obtain Planning Approval”.

Page 72 of 77

PLANNING COMMITTEE th 28 September 2004 Estates Manager

“No comments.”

OFFICERS REPORT:

The proposal is retrospective for the retention of a 2.4 metres high boundary fence with accompanying brick piers.

The application site is a detached property at the north-western end of the Riverside Gardens estate. It occupies a prominent location on the bend of the highway opposite No’s 22 Riverside Gardens and 17 Red River Walk.

I am mindful of your recent decision at 6 Larch Rise. The issue before you today is the visual impact upon the street scene of a boundary fence and brick piers which have an overall height of 2.4m upon the character of the area.

The nearby properties have wooden fencing in close proximity to the highway and are clearly visible in the street scene. These are approximately 1.8 metres in height. The applicant has put forward the statement that the boundary fence is required to protect privacy in views into and out of the conservatory. The conservatory is at a higher level than the highway. However, privacy would be protected to a reasonable degree if the fencing was to be reduced in height to the level of the brick piers without undue visual harm to the street scene. This has been suggested to the applicant. He wishes to have the application placed before you in its current form.

The normal height for screen walls and fences is between 1.8m and 2.8m. Structures above 2m require Planning Permission or 1m where adjacent to the highway such as in this case. The fence does appear rather odd at its current height exacerbated by the nature of the panels extending above the brick piers. Careful consideration is required before garden walls and fences are approved at heights in excess of 2m.

RECOMMENDATION:

I recommend that planning permission be REFUSED for the following reason:

Reason No. 1

The proposal is contrary to Barrow Borough Local Plan Review 1996-2006 policy D21 by virtue of being visually detrimental to the street scene due to its size and prominent location.

Page 73 of 77

PLANNING COMMITTEE th 28 September 2004

PLAN NUMBER: APPLICANT: DATE RECEIVED:

2004/0355 Mrs R Johnson 26/03/2004

WARD/PARISH: CASE OFFICER: 8 WEEK DATE:

Dalton North/ Askam and Colin Phillips 20/05/2004 Ireleth Parish Council Tel: 01229 894938 LOCATION:

Stavely Bungalow, Sandy Lane, Askam-in-Furness

PROPOSAL:

Proposed wall and entrance gates to front boundary (retrospective)

LOCAL PLAN:

SUMMARY OF MAIN ISSUES:

Highway safety and visual amenity.

NON MATERIAL CONSIDERATIONS:

REPRESENTATIONS:

The Occupiers of Fairwinds, 30, 32, Askam Rugby League Club, Sandy Lane all informed.

CONSULTATIONS:

Askam & Ireleth Parish Council

“Does the height of wall comply with planning regulations? There is a concern about the safety of vehicles accessing/egressing the gateway due to impaired visibility.”

Cumbria Highways

“Please accept my apologies for the delay in responding.

Page 74 of 77

PLANNING COMMITTEE th 28 September 2004

The wall and entrance gates have been constructed to a height that does not allow good visibility for accessing Sandy Lane. Any boundary treatment should be a maximum height of 1 metre and this has clearly been exceeded. The Cumbria Design Guide stipulates that a 2.4 metre splay should be provided for private driveways which abut the footway. The requirements for direct access onto a carriageway are more onerous, where a visibility splay of 2 metres x 10 metres should normally be provided.

In this case, the Highway Authority would be happy to accept a 2.4 metre visibility splay onto Sandy Lane. This is in the interests of highways safety.”

OFFICERS REPORT:

The application site is a detached bungalow in a row of similar properties on the narrower section of Sandy Lane, at the seaward end, on the opposite side of which is Askam Rugby Ground.

The application is a retrospective one for a new wall and gates along the road frontage. The wall is 1.75m high and finished in roughest render with timber infill panels.

As you can see concerns have been raised by County Highways and the Parish Council over safety as a result of the poor visibility that the wall will cause at the access from the site onto Sandy Lane. The applicant’s agent was, therefore, written to requesting a reduction in height of the sections adjacent to the access in order to achieve the visibility splay recommended by the County Council.

At around the time of receipt of the application a similar application was received from the occupier of the adjacent property (No. 30) for a similar retrospective front wall. The same visibility requirement was put to the applicant’s and they agreed to carry out the work and reduce the wall. Their application has, therefore, since been approved.

The agent’s response to my request to reduce the wall was as follows:

“I refer to the above planning application, and write on behalf of my client in response to your letter dated l 10th May 2004, regarding an objection to the application received from the Highways Authority. As you are aware, this application was made retrospectively, to rectify the situation regarding the building of a replacement boundary wall by the applicant, without first having applied for planning permission, and was made in response to your letter dated 1 St March 2004.

The applicant was unaware that planning permission was required for the work, and neither was her building contractor who undertook the work on her behalf. Regardless of this fact, the boundary wall which was constructed, was a replacement for a previous-wall and hedge, which extended to some 2 metres in height.

In addition, the continuation of Sandy Lane past Staveley Bungalow affords access to just three further properties and is a cul-de-sac situation, and the applicant has for the past thirty years, driven her car into her driveway in a forward direction, and then reversed out into Sandy Lane, and has never met with accident.

Page 75 of 77

PLANNING COMMITTEE th 28 September 2004 Whilst the issue of highway safety is important, the applicant feels that the situation should be considered in an appropriate context. The replacement wall results in a no worse situation than that which previously existed, and to reconstruct the wall for a second time, would result in considerable expense to the applicant.

The cul-de-sac situation of the property and the very low levels of passing ,traffic, suggest that the likelihood of an accident occurring; are indeed very low:

On this basis, the applicant urges you to support the application as it currently stands, taking into account points raised within this letter”.

This was referred back to County Highways, who again wrote as follows:

“My previous comments still apply with regard to this application. I agree with some of the points raised in Mr Hargreaves letter particularly with regard to low vehicle speeds and flows along Sandy Lane. This is not, however sufficient reason to reject design standards for visibility, and the potential for vehicular / pedestrian conflict still remains. I note Mr Hargraves assertion that the new wall and gates are no higher than those that existed previously. Part of the planning process however, must be to ensure that all safety considerations have been taken into account. A strict interpretation of Design Bulletin 32 would require that boundary treatments abutting the highway should be no more than 600mm high, though of course in reality, this seldom occurs. I still feel that the applicant should provide a splay onto Sandy Lane which will improve visibility and will reduce the likelihood for accidents, irrespective of the probable number of pedestrians. I trust that this re-iterates my earlier comments on this matter and will help your deliberations as you consider the application”.

The agent’s response was:

“I have referred the matter back to my client, who advises me that whilst she appreciates the importance of design standards and Highways requirements, she could not afford to have the work done from a financial point of view.

My client has suggested however, that as a compromise to the situation, and subject to agreement with the relevant owners, that a visibility mirror might be located on the boundary opposite the entrance to her property, to afford improved visibility when exiting her property.

Your comments regarding this proposal would be appreciated, however if you still intend to report to the Planning Committee with a recommendation for refusal, could I kindly request that both this letter and my letter ref. 247/SJH2 dated 15t' May 2004 be included in full within your report to the committee, and also suggest that a site visit by the committee would be appropriate before a formal decision on this application is determined.”

County Highways were not in favour, writing as follows:

“My previous comments still apply to this application and I am unsure as to how effective a mirror would be in this situation. In addition, it will depend on the consent of landowners which is clearly not in control of the applicant. Finally, I have concerns that by supporting this measure may well open the floodgates for similar retrospective applications which have erected boundary treatments that are too high. I do not want to set a precedent for approving this type of proposal which may well result in a proliferation of mirrors across the borough”. Page 76 of 77

PLANNING COMMITTEE th 28 September 2004

I therefore wrote to the agent as follows:

“I regret that I do not feel that it would be appropriate to accept your suggestion of a mirror. Your client’s neighbours at No 30 have also recently applied for a similar retrospective front wall and they have agreed to reduce it around the entrance to a height of 1 metre. I feel this also has a visual benefit in helping to soften the harsh appearance of a continuous high wall. They have now carried this out and I would ask you and your clients to have a look at what they have done and consider doing likewise.

I look forward to your response.”

The agent’s response was:

“I refer to your letter of 2"d July 2004 regarding the above matter, and write to advise that I have now had chance to consult with my client.

You make reference in your letter, to the fact that it would be inappropriate to accept the suggestion of a visibility mirror, however you have not given a reason for this.

My client is aware that her neighbours at No. 30 applied retrospectively for a similar front wall, but also understands that they agreed to modify their wall to prevent problems from a legal point of view, as they were currently in the process of selling their property, and perhaps otherwise would not have done so.

You also make reference to the harsh appearance of a continuous high wall, however as mentioned previously, this wall replaces an existing wall and hedge which was very similar in appearance. Furthermore, the boundary to the rugby field on the opposite side of the road, presents a greater degree of harshness, than the wall forming the subject of the application”

A site visit has been arranged so that you can visualise the issues yourselves.

There is no doubt that this end of Sandy Lane is a relatively quiet road with a pedestrian- dominated feel to it, with there being a path through to the beach at its western end. However, it is straight and has no speed bumps so there is some potential for speed. High walls adjacent to vehicular access cause an obvious lack of visibility for cars exiting them and for pedestrians passing them. It has been a regular requirement of this Authority for them to be reduced in the interest of safety. This has been considered to be an issue here by both County Highways and the Parish Council. It was a requirement recently agreed to by the neighbour and I consider that it would be unfair and inconsistent to not require it here.

RECOMMENDATION:

I recommend that planning permission be REFUSED for the following reason:

Reason 1

The height of the wall in the vicinity of the entrance is detrimental to highway safety and to the visual amenities of the area.

Page 77 of 77