Public Document Pack
SOUTH LAKELAND DISTRICT COUNCIL South Lakeland House Kendal, Cumbria LA9 4UQ www.southlakeland.gov.uk
You are requested to attend a meeting of the Planning Committee on Thursday, 25 October 2012, at 10.00 am in the Assembly Room - Kendal Town Hall
Committee Membership
Councillors
Brian Cooper Joss Curwen Philip Dixon Sheila Eccles (Vice-Chairman) Sylvia Emmott David Fletcher Clive Graham Brenda Gray John Holmes Janette Jenkinson Sonia Lawson Ian McPherson (Chairman) Mary Orr Bharath Rajan David Ryder Sue Sanderson David Williams Mary Wilson
Tuesday, 16 October 2012
Debbie Storr, Director of Policy and Resources (Monitoring Officer)
For all enquiries, please contact:- Committee Administrator: Janine Jenkinson Telephone: 01539 717493 e-mail: [email protected] AGENDA
Page Nos. PART I
1 APOLOGIES To receive apologies for absence, if any. 2 MINUTES 1 - 8 To authorise the Chairman to sign, as a correct record, the minutes of the meeting of the Committee held on 26 September 2012 (copy attached). 3 DECLARATIONS OF INTEREST To receive declarations by Members and/or co-optees of interests in respect of items on this Agenda.
Members are reminded that, in accordance with the revised Code of Conduct, they are required to declare any disclosable pecuniary interests or other registrable interests which have not already been declared in the Council’s Register of Interests. (It is a criminal offence not to declare a disclosable pecuniary interest either in the Register or at the meeting.)
Members may, however, also decide, in the interests of clarity and transparency, to declare at this point in the meeting, any such disclosable pecuniary interests which they have already declared in the Register, as well as any other registrable or other interests.
If a Member requires advice on any item involving a possible declaration of interest which could affect his/her ability to speak and/or vote, he/she is advised to contact the Monitoring Officer at least 24 hours in advance of the meeting. 4 LOCAL GOVERNMENT ACT 1972 - EXCLUDED ITEMS To consider whether the items, if any, in Part II of the Agenda should be considered in the presence of the press and public. 5 PUBLIC PARTICIPA TION Any member of the public who wishes to ask a question, make representations or present a deputation or petition at this meeting should apply to do so before the commencement of the meeting. Information on how to make the application can be obtained by viewing the Council’s Website www.southlakeland.gov.uk or by contacting the Democratic and Electoral Services Manager on 01539 717440.
(1) Planning Applications
Planning applications for which requests to speak have been made.
(2) Deputations and Petitions
Agenda items for which requests to speak have been made. 6 REPORT OF THE DIRECTOR PEOPLE AND PLACES 9 - 120 To determine planning applications received. 7 CHANGE OF PROVISIONS OF SECTION 106 AGREEMENT FOR 121 - 124 HOUSING DEVELOPMENT AT NORTH EAST SANDYLANDS, KENDAL To consider the changing of the wording of the approved Section 106 Agreement for the housing development at North East Sandylands, which will allow an application for a variation of the surface water drainage arrangements previously approved by the Planning Committee to be issued. 8 REQUEST TO WITHDRAW EXEMPTION CERTIFICATES FOR 125 - 130 CAMPING AND CARAVANNING EVENTS AT CARTMEL RACECOURSE To consider whether or not the Council should pursue a course of action, allowed under The Caravan Sites and Control of Development Act 1960, to remove the rights of camping and caravanning groups to camp at Cartmel Racecourse using Exemption Certificates issued by Natural England. 9 A REPORT ON THE SUBMISSION OF A LOCAL IMPACT REPORT TO 131 - 152 THE NATIONAL INFRASTRUCTURE DIVISION REGARDING ROOSECOTE BIOMASS POWER STATION AT BARROW IN FURNESS To inform Members about the draft Local Impact Report to be submitted to the National Infrastructure Division of the Planning Inspectorate (NID). 10 A REPORT ON ENFORCEMENT ACTIVITY FROM 1 - 31 AUGUST 153 - 158 2012 To inform Members about enforcement activity. 11 QUARTERLY REPORT - RESIDENTIAL MONITORING FOR THE 159 - 166 PERIOD 1 APRIL 2012 TO 31 MARCH 2013 To present the situation at 30 September 2012 with regards to residential permissions and completions within the monitoring period 1/4/12 – 31/3/13, in comparison with the adopted Core Strategy housing requirement.
12 APPEALS UPDATE 167 - 176 To provide Members with information about the receipt and determination of planning appeals. PART II
Private Section (exempt reasons under Schedule 12A of the Local Government Act 1972, as amended by the Local Government (Access to Information) (Variation) Order 2006, specified by way of paragraph number) There are no items in this part of the Agenda. This page is intentionally left blank Item No.2 41 26.09.2012 Planning Committee
PLANNING COMMITTEE
Minutes of the proceedings at a meeting of the Planning Committee held in the District Council Chamber, South Lakeland House, Kendal, on Wednesday, 26 September 2012, at 10.00 am.
Present
Councillors
Ian McPherson (Chairman) Sheila Eccles (Vice-Chairman)
Brian Cooper Brenda Gray Sue Sanderson Joss Curwen John Holmes David Williams Philip Dixon Janette Jenkinson Mary Wilson Sylvia Emmott Mary Orr David Fletcher David Ryder
Apologies for absence were received from Councillors Clive Graham, Sonia Lawson and Bharath Rajan.
Officers
Zaheer Bashir Solicitor Barry Jackson Development Management Team Leader Janine Jenkinson Assistant Democratic Services Officer Kate Lawson Planning Officer Mark Shipman Development Management Group Manager
P/47 MINUTES
In relation to Minute P/42, Planning Application No. SL/2012/0461, Councillor David Williams pointed out that the note before the item should be amended to read ‘Councillor David Williams declared a personal explanation of possible bias in the following item of business. He left the Council Chamber during the discussion and voting thereon’.
RESOLVED – That, subject to the above amendment being made, the Chairman be authorised to sign, as a correct record, the minutes of the meeting held on 30 August 2012.
P/48 DECLARATIONS OF INTEREST
RESOLVED – That it be noted that the following declarations of interest were made :-
(1) Councillor Brian Cooper – Minute P/51 (Planning Application No. SL/2012/0661);and
Page 1 42 26.09.2012 Planning Committee
(2) Councillor Ian McPherson – Minute P/52 (Planning Application No.SL/2012/0594).
P/49 LOCAL GOVERNMENT ACT 1972 - EXCLUDED ITEMS
RESOLVED – That it be noted that there were no items in Part ll of the Agenda.
P/50 PLANNING APPLICATIONS
The Development Management Group Manager submitted a Schedule of Planning Applications and his recommendations thereon.
RESOLVED – That
(1) the applications be determined as indicated below (the numbers denote the Schedule numbers of the application);
(2) except where stated below, the applications be subject to the relevant conditions and advice notes, as outlined in the Schedule; and
(3) except where stated below, the reasons for refusal be those as outlined in the Schedule.
P/51 PUBLIC PARTICIPATION
2.SL/2012/0069 NEW HUTTON: Hutton Park Barn, New Hutton, Kendal, LA8 0AY. Conversion of field barn into agricultural workers dwelling and siting of pre – fabricated residential caravan. (Mrs Hazel Hodgson)
Dr L A Robinson, Clerk to New Hutton Parish Council spoke in support of the application. He stated that the conclusion of the Agricultural Report that there was a functional need for only 1.5 workers had not been calculated realistically and was too low for the holding. He stated that granting permission for the application would satisfy the need for affordable housing and bring a family back into the parish. A full copy of his representation has been placed on the Democratic Services file.
Anthea Jones, the applicant’s agent responded to the points raised. She stated that the Agricultural Report prepared on behalf of the Council had concluded there was a labour requirement for 1.5 full time workers, however the calculation had not included the time taken to carry out stewardship tasks, such as hedge maintenance and paperwork. She reported that the applicant had instructed the Planning Branch Ltd to undertake an agricultural appraisal on her behalf. The appraisal had calculated that the holding had labour requirements of 1.9 units, that there was an unreasonable distance to travel between the two holdings and that accommodation close to the livestock building for the welfare of the livestock and to reduce travel was required.
Page 2 43 26.09.2012 Planning Committee
The Development Management Group Manager advised the Committee that the key assessment for consideration was whether the principle of the conversion and temporary residential caravan was acceptable. Members were advised the Appraisal undertaken on behalf of the Council had concluded that the holding was financially viable and likely to remain so. The Consultant recognised the difficulty of travelling to the Hutton Park plot and suggested that a temporary dwelling be considered for three years whilst the case for an additional dwelling was proved.
A lengthy discussion ensued. Notwithstanding the Officer’s assessment, Members felt that sufficient justification for the dwelling had been made and the proposal would allow the re-use of a redundant building and enhance the site location.
GRANT – subject to an Agricultural Occupancy Condition and other appropriate Conditions and a temporary three year Planning Permission for the siting of a pre- fabricated residential caravan.
5.SL/2012/0524 KIRKBY LONSDALE: Field to the East of Kirkby Lonsdale Business Park, adjoining the A65. General purpose agricultural building. (Mr Kevin Haworth)
Kevin Lancaster spoke in support of the application. He thanked Members for undertaking a site visit. He stressed the importance of the application to provide a secure, modern and safe building to store equipment for his business. He asserted that the facility was vital to the applicant’s business and urged the Committee to support the application.
Neither the applicant nor the agent were in attendance to make a representation.
Some discussion took place relating to the proposed design and materials. It was felt the proposal was acceptable in principle, but that walling materials more sympathetic to the locality should be used.
DEFER – to allow further negotiations in relation to the proposed materials of construction.
Note – Although not a disclosable pecuniary or other registerable interest, Councillor Brian Cooper declared an interest in the following item of business, by virtue of being a friend of the applicant. He left the Council Chamber during the discussion and voting thereon.
9. SL/2012/0661 NEW HUTTON: Land between the Ashes and Portree, New Hutton LA8 0AS. Residential Development. (Mr Brian Cox)
Dr L. A. Robinson, Clerk to New Hutton Parish Council spoke in objection to the application. He stated that the application was contrary to the Council’s Core Strategy policy and approval would open the possibility of widespread development in settlements throughout the area. A full copy of his representation has been placed on the Democratic Services file.
Page 3 44 26.09.2012 Planning Committee
Mrs K Twist on behalf of a group of New Hutton residents, spoke in objection to the application. She stated that the development would not be infill or rounding off, would be unsustainable and detrimental to the character of New Hutton. She urged the Committee to refuse the application. A full copy of her representation has been placed on the Democratic Services file.
Chris Garner spoke on behalf of the applicant. He stated that the scheme was in- line with the Council’s Core Strategy that required significant residential development in small villages and hamlets and which specifically identified New Hutton as one of those settlements. He asserted that the site was the most suitable location to accommodate such development in the village and requested that permission be granted. A full copy of his representation has been placed on the Democratic Services file.
Two late submissions had been received from the Clerk to New Hutton Parish Council and Garner Planning Associates both of which reflected the comments that had been made during the public participation and were therefore not reiterated to the Committee.
A Committee site visit had been undertaken and Members had now had the opportunity to view and assess the proposed location and consider whether the development could constitute infilling or rounding–off or whether it lay outside the settlement and therefore contrary to the terms of the adopted South Lakeland Core Strategy.
Member felt strongly that the development was not infill or rounding off within the settlement at Raw Green but rather an extension of a significant and prominent ribbon of development into the countryside, which would be detrimental to the character of the local landscape.
The Committee elected to unanimously refuse the application.
REFUSE
P/52 REPORT OF THE DIRECTOR OF PEOPLE AND PLACES
3. SL/2012/0123 PRESTON PATRICK: Low Audland, Gatebeck, Kendal, LA8 0UH. Erection of agricultural worker’s dwelling (outline). (Mr Gibson)
The application had been withdrawn from the Agenda prior to the Committee meeting.
4.SL/2012/0504 PRESTON PATRICK: Land at Millness Lane, Preston Patrick, Crooklands LA7 7NT. Dwelling. (Mr C M Atkinson)
Members were advised that the main issues raised by this application were whether the development would be harmful to the rural character of Millness and whether the proposed dwelling would detract from the living conditions of the occupiers of Hillview.
Page 4 45 26.09.2012 Planning Committee
A discussion took place. Some Members felt that the application was unneighbourly and unacceptable in this location. Some Members felt the development was appropriate, represented infill and the design of the proposal was sympathetic to the nearby dwelling.
Notwithstanding the Officer recommendation, following consideration of all the matters before them, Members deemed the application acceptable.
GRANT – subject to the attachment of suitable Conditions.
6.SL/2012/0551 KIRKBY IRELETH: Land at Kirkby Moor Windfarm, Kirkby Moor, Kirkby in Furness. Erection of two temporary anemometer masts for meteorological monitoring and associated works.
An additional letter of objection had been received from a resident of Broughton Beck raising concerns similar to those reported in schedule.
A letter of support had been received from The Duddon and Furness Mountain Rescue Team. They had advised that having their aerials positioned at elevation high on Kirkby Moor attached to the proposed metrological mast would enable them to communicate from their base in Broughton to search teams located on the Ulverston side of the Moor all the way round to search teams in the Upper Esk. In addition they advised that the aerial would prove beneficial to neighbouring Mountain Rescue Teams in Wasdale, Kendal and Coniston, as well as teams operating on the far shore of Morecambe Bay. The proposal would significantly improve their ability to communicate and their efficiency on searches and rescues.
Members were advised that they would not be expressing a view as to the suitability or otherwise of this locality to accommodate any replacement or additional turbines in the future.
The Committee felt that the temporary anemometer masts were acceptable and would not result in unacceptable harm to the local landscape. It was considered that the applicant should be able to collect 12 months’ wind data within an 18- month period and planning permission should be granted on this basis.
GRANT – subject to the mitigation measures recommended by Natural England, for a temporary 18 month period.
10. SL/2012/0712 BEETHAM: Elmsfield Park, Holme, Carnforth LA6 1RJ. Variation of Condition No 2 (hours of operation) attached to Planning Permission SL/2012/0348. (Lanbro Developments Ltd)
Two additional letters of objection had been received. A letter from Tim Farron M.P. on behalf of a local resident, Mr Wilson was reported to the Committee. The letter expressed no view on the application, but requested that that the Committee undertook a site visit to view and assess the proximity to the nearby Elmsfield House Residential Home.
Page 5 46 26.09.2012 Planning Committee
The Committee considered the application acceptable.
GRANT
1.SL/2011/0370 KENDAL: Former Stokers Garage, Kirkland LA9 4AP. Variation of Condition 3 on Planning Application SL/2009/0592 (Material Amendment) (Mr Steven Wharton)
The amended plans which were the subject of the application were deemed acceptable in relation to impact on the Conservation Area.
GRANT
7. SL/2012/0568 ULVERSTON: Atkinson Body Repairs Ltd, Alexander Road, Ulverston LA12 0DE. Demolition of existing buildings and erection of three dwelling houses and six flats. (Mr G and Mrs L Atkinson)
The Planning Officer updated the Committee on consultee responses received. Four additional letters had been received from local residents, raising concerns in relation to highway improvements. Ulverston Town Council now recommended approval subject to the application of suitable conditions in relation to access for vehicles and safety.
An informal email response received from Cumbria Highways was reported. They had acknowledged that on-street car parking space was at a premium, but advised that they would prefer that two spaces per unit were included in the scheme.
The Director of People and Places be authorised to GRANT - subject to the conditions detailed in the Schedule and the completion of a Section 106 Agreement.
Note – Although not a disclosbale pecuniary or other registerable interest, Councillor Ian McPherson wished for it to be noted on record that he was a member of the Yorkshire Dales National Park Authority.
8. SL/2012/0594 CASTERTON: Casterton Golf Course, LA6 2LA. Single Storey Practice Range Building with associated landscaping works. (Casterton Golf Course Ltd)
Members felt that in order to fully appreciate the issues raised by the application a site visit should be undertaken.
DEFER – to allow a site visit.
P/53 A REPORT ON MONTHLY ENFORCEMENT ACTIVITY BETWEEN 1 JULY TO 31 JULY 2012, INCORPORATING QUARTERLY REPORT
Page 6 47 26.09.2012 Planning Committee
Members were presented with a report on enforcement activity between 1 July and 31 July. Forty-nine outstanding cases from the caseload had been resolved. Twenty new complaints had been recorded and were presently being investigated.
The Committee was provided with an update on the progress on the A-board action in Kendal.
The draft protocol produced by traders in conjunction with the Kendal branch of the Cumbria Chamber of Commerce had been presented to County Council’s Highways and Transport Working Group. The feedback from the County Council’s Group supported the proposals in the protocols code of conduct.
The protocol had been presented to the Council’s Communities Overview and Scrutiny Committee on 4 September 2012. The Committee had raised concerns in relation to the effectiveness of the protocol and requested that a 12 month trial period be undertaken and a progress report be presented back to the Committee.
RESOLVED – That the report be noted.
P/54 APPEALS UPDATE AT 13 SEPTEMBER 2012
Members were presented with information about the receipt and determination of planning appeals from the start of the financial year in April 2012.
RESOLVED – That the report be noted.
P/55 APPLICATION FOR WORK TO TREES SUBJECT TO TREE PROTECTION ORDERS
Consideration was given to an application to carry out works to trees protected by South Lakeland District Council Tree Preservation Order No.136 1997. The works proposed were to fell one Beech tree numbered T4 on the TPO plan and remove a broken branch and tidy the branch stub on T12.
The application also requested consent to raise the crowns of all trees along the driveway leading to Wainwrights House, Fowl Ing Lane, Kendal to provide a clearance of 4m over the driveway. The application had been presented to the Planning Committee because the applicant was a councillor of the Council.
RESOLVED – That the application be approved, subject to a condition to require a replacement broadleaved tree to be planted within five metres of the location of the removed tree.
The meeting ended at 1.21 am
Page 7 This page is intentionally left blank
Page 8 Item No.6
SOUTH LAKELAND DISTRICT COUNCIL
From: Director (People and Places) To: Planning Committee – 25 October 2012
REPORT OF DIRECTOR (PEOPLE and PLACES)
PLANNING APPLICATIONS FOR DECISION Page No
Index
Schedule A - Complex planning applications 13-120
Schedule B - Planning applications where the Director (People and None Places) is seeking authority to determine
Schedule C - Applications relating to Listed Buildings None
Schedule D - Advertisements None
Schedule E - Development by South Lakeland District Council and None Cumbria County Council
Schedule F - Straightforward planning applications None
Schedule G - All other submissions None
Background papers relating to the subject matter of the report For all items the background papers are contained in the files listed in the second column of the schedule index.
Note: The background papers may be inspected at the offices of the Director (People and Places), Lowther Street, Kendal, Cumbria
Page 9 This page is intentionally left blank
Page 10 SOUTH LAKELAND DISTRICT COUNCIL PLANNING COMMITTEE – 25 October 2012
SCHEDULE REFERENCE SECTION SITE ADDRESS NUMBER NUMBER
ALDINGHAM 6 SL/2012/0505 A(77-82) Land adjacent to Beech Mount, Goadsbarrow
CASTERTON 11 SL/2012/0594 A(101-104) Casterton Golf Course
KENDAL 1 SL/2010/0756 A(13-14) Kendal Bowman, 155 Highgate (FPA) & SL/2010/0757 (CAC) 14 SL/2012/0802 A(115-120) Kendal Bowman, 155 Highgate (FPA) & SL/2012/0803 (CAC)
KIRKBY LONSDALE 8 SL/2012/0524 A(87-90) Field to east of Kirkby Lonsdale Business Park, adjoining the A65
LOWER ALLITHWAITE 4 SL/2012/0240 A(63-70) Wells House Farm, Cartmel & SL/2012/0248
LOWER HOLKER 5 SL/2012/0395 A(71-76) Barns at Low Bankside Farm, Cartmel
MANSERGH 13 SL/2012/0646 A(109-114) Land at Gill Foot
NEW HUTTON 7 SL/2012/0514 A(83-86) Hill Top Lodges, Beehive Lane 9 SL/2012/0529 A(91-94) Birks Farm
PENNINGTON 2 SL/2011/0685 A(15-56) Standish Cote and Mean Moor, Marton and Harlock Hill
1 Page 11
PRESTON PATRICK 3 SL/2012/0123 A(57-62) Low Audlands Farm, Old Hutton
ULVERSTON 10 SL/2012/0576 A(95-100) Marl International Ltd, Morecambe Road 12 SL/2012/0633 A(105-108) 36 – 38 Market Street
2 Page 12 SCHEDULE A
Complex Planning Applications
SCHEDULE No: 1 SL/2010/0756 (FPA) and 0757 (CAC)
KENDAL: KENDAL BOWMAN, 155 HIGHGATE, LA9 4EN
PROPOSAL: PARTIAL DEMOLITION OF PUBLIC HOUSE WITH CONVERSION OF REMAINDER TO FORM TWO GROUND FLOOR RETAIL UNITS AND FOUR APARTMENTS, AND ERECTION OF EIGHT APARTMENTS TO REAR
ALL POINTS NORTH PLC E351510 N492299.7 25/10/2012
SUMMARY: In 2010 authority was given by Committee to grant permission subject to the signing of a Section 106 Agreement to achieve the affordable housing element. While an agreement was negotiated repeated attempts to get it signed have failed and without the agreement the proposal is contrary to policy.
KENDAL TOWN COUNCIL: Approve.
DESCRIPTION AND PROPOSAL: The scheme proposed in 2010 incorporated two lock-up shops on the ground floor of the three-storey frontage building with four apartments above them. The existing rear wings were to be demolished and a new four-storey building erected to provide eight new apartments.
POLICY ISSUES: The site is in Kendal Conservation Area where the Council has a duty to preserve and enhance the special architectural and historic character. Saved Policy C16 of the South Lakeland Local Plan, Policy CS8.6 of the adopted South Lakeland Core Strategy and the National Planning Policy Framework all reflect and support this statutory duty. The Historic Environment Practice Guide offers detailed advice on conservation issues. Saved Policy H4 of the South Lakeland Local Plan and Policies CS1.1 and CS1.2 of the adopted South Lakeland Core Strategy support the principle of residential
Page 13 development within Kendal. Policy CS6.3 of that Core Strategy requires that in Kendal on schemes of 9 or more dwellings no less than 35% are for affordable occupation. The National Planning Policy Framework states that where it has been identified that affordable housing is needed policies be set for meeting this need on site or by other approved means.
HUMAN RIGHTS ACT: This application has been determined to accord with the rights and limitations of the Act in relation to Article 6 (Right to a fair and public hearing), Article 8 (Right to respect for private and family life, home and correspondence), Article 14 (Prohibition of discrimination) and Article 1 of Protocol 1 (Right to peaceful enjoyment of possessions and protection of property).
ASSESSMENT: Following a Committee site visit to assess the detailed impact of the development on the surrounding area authority was given to the Corporate Director (Communities) to grant planning permission and conservation area consent for the development subject to a Section 106 Agreement being signed to ensure the provision of affordable housing as required by Policy CS6.3. A fully detailed Agreement was negotiated but despite repeated attempts and a final deadline of 30 September 2012 being given for it to be signed the Agreement remains unsigned. Without an Agreement to ensure the provision of an appropriate level of affordable housing the development is contrary to policy. Conservation Area Consent should not be granted in the absence of an approved means of treating the site after demolition.
RECOMMENDATIONS: REFUSE Planning Permission for SL/2010/0756 for the reason below: In the absence of a mechanism to ensure the provision and permanent retention of affordable housing as part of the scheme the development would be contrary to the provisions of Policy CS6.3 of the adopted South Lakeland Local Plan that policy being consistent with the advice of the National Planning Policy Framework.
REFUSE Conservation Area Consent for SL/2010/0757 for the reason below: In the absence of either a scheme granted planning permission for the re- development of the site or a scheme for making sound and weather proof the remaining part of the building range and treating the demolition site, the demolition of the rear of this existing building would be detrimental to the special architectural and historic character of this part of the Kendal Conservation Area and contrary to Saved Policy C16 of the South Lakeland Local Plan, Policy CS8.6 of the adopted South Lakeland Core Strategy, the Historic Environment Planning Practice Guide and the National Planning Policy Framework.
Page 14 SCHEDULE A
Complex Planning Applications
SCHEDULE No: 2 SL/2011/0685
PENNINGTON: STANDISH COTE and MEAN MOOR, MARTON and HARLOCK HILL
PROPOSAL: FIVE 99.5M HIGH (2.3Mw) WIND TURBINES, INCORPORATING THE REMOVAL OF FIVE EXISTING TURBINES ON HARLOCK HILL, FORMATION OF ON-SITE ACCESS TRACKS, INFRASTRUCTURE AND CARRIAGEWAY WIDENING E325395 N479542 25/10/2012 WORKS
MR MATT RUSSELL
SUMMARY: Although the proposal will make a tangible contribution to targets for renewable energy generation, this does not outweigh the adverse visual impacts of the proposal, the harm to living conditions of local residents and the significant impacts on users of the adjacent public footpaths taken together.
PENNINGTON PARISH COUNCIL: Object as believe it is not a suitable development for the area. It is unnecessary because the current Harlock Hill wind farm was due to be refurbished regardless of this development. Wind farms are increasingly being installed locally offshore which are more desirable as they do not affect residents’ lives and the Furness Peninsula is already sufficiently populated by wind farms. The Parish Council is not opposed to wind power as a form of meeting the country’s energy needs. Recently the council did not object to two wind turbines being installed on a farm as they were positioned with due consideration to the surrounding area and did not affect local residents and the applicant was the nearest resident to the development. This is not the case with the Furness Wind Farm as those proposing the development will not be affected by it in any way, unlike Pennington Parish residents. There are issues of noise and flicker with their associated guidelines which are open to interpretation and dispute. Reports of illnesses amongst residents close to wind farms, due to the affect of the wind farms, are increasing and gaining credibility. Previously, a proliferation of electricity pylons were erected close to residential areas
Page 15 until it was eventually proved that they could have an adverse affect on health and well-being. It cannot be guaranteed that the health of residents will not be affected. The Furness Peninsula has long been a jewel of the English countryside with spectacular views over Morecambe Bay and the Lakeland Hills but was unknown to many tourists. Pennington Parish Council has applauded Ulverston Town Council’s initiative in installing the Laurel and Hardy Statue recognising the success of the Eric Morecambe statue. This has noticeably increased tourism to the area which also boasts the South Lakes Wildlife Park. As Pennington Parish is on the periphery of these attractions, residents have also responded by investing in accommodation for the increasing number of tourists. This is bringing both much needed income to the area and creating much needed jobs for the area. The Parish Council believes the erection of wind turbines of this height will dominate the landscape for miles around, would affect the ambiance and affect the tourist footfall. The issue of government policy is also of significance. The erection of wind farms has been encouraged however this may change as has happened with solar panels with the financial incentives being cut. In conclusion, Pennington Parish Council vehemently supports the objections of Pennington Parish residents to the Furness Wind Farm development and would implore the council to reject the application.
ASKAM AND IRELETH PARISH COUNCIL: Askam and Ireleth Parish Council cannot support this application for the following reasons: It will impact on nearby homes as a result of shadow flicker. The proposal overlooks the village and there will be loss of privacy during construction and on-going maintenance phases. The Statement gives a Landscape and Visual impact assessment which concludes that the effects are minimal, this is a subjective statement not qualified or agreed. The Furness peninsula is of insufficient size to accommodate structures of this size, and they are too close to the adjacent National Park. The stated aims regarding reversing the impact on decommissioning are flawed, i.e. the concrete rafts would still be left according to their methodology for the existing site and Grid connections would not be removed. The application states that the components will be delivered by road and are described as abnormal loads. The proposed route is via A590, Marton Road, Horrace Road and onto Ulverston Road to the site. This route is totally unfit for purpose. There are currently problems with some blades from Far Old Park wind farm (relatively small in size compared with those proposed). Replacement of these blades necessitating removal and return to and from the Far Old Park Farm site is proving a problem because of the blade size. Such problems for the proposed wind farm will be of a different magnitude again and will cause repeated traffic and neighbour disruption over the years as and when blades will require offsite attention. Given the recent concerns over the access road for the Animal Park and the dangers thereon, major works would be required in altering the A590 and subsequent country ‘B’ roads with enormous damage to the hedgerows, disruption to local communities and impact on the environment. There will be a large increase in traffic during the construction phases, not only with abnormal loads but with general construction
Page 16 traffic. Working hours are disproportionate Monday to Saturday 0700 to 1800 causing unacceptable levels of noise and disturbance. The impact of the construction site buildings and any other temporary buildings, sewage and water impact on the area do not seem to be addressed properly in the Environmental Impact Statement. The size and number of turbines on these 2 adjacent developments severely impacts on local views for people in the surrounding area, and visitors to the southern Lake District National Park, given that they will be visible for 10’s of miles around all points of the compass. The proposal brings the development closer to both Kirkby Moor and Far Old Park Farm wind farms thus creating ribbon development along the spine of the beautiful Furness peninsular. As a consequence, believe that there should be 2 applications and not one blanket one. Landscaping and hedgerows in the area will be severely impacted along with wildlife. On site, in addition to the turbines and new buildings, there will be inter-site tracks which will impact on wild life and flora and fauna, for generations to come. The Ecology Statement directly contradicts the views and opinions of acknowledged experts and authorities in respect of the impact on wildlife. There is proposed access via Harlock Hill with minor realignments; these would need to be looked at as this road is definitely not suitable for abnormal loads, site traffic or construction traffic. The access route at Mean Moor is a new development on a road that is unsuitable for abnormal loads. This will mean that quiet country lanes will become heavy construction roadways. Policy states that the Borough’s countryside will be safeguarded for its own sake and non-renewable and natural resources afforded protection. Development will be permitted in the countryside only where there is demonstrable need that it cannot be met elsewhere. This application falls short in this regard. There is already a need being met on these sites for the Cumbrian renewable energy targets, and there is an on going proliferation of wind turbines off the coast of Barrow and more yet planned for the Duddon Estuary. This proposal with 300 foot structures will certainly change the distinctive character of this area contrary to policy. Concerns regarding damage and disturbance to the peat blanket are a primary consideration and the serious issues raised previously by United Utilities. They do not seem to have been answered in Infinergy’s Environmental Impact Statement. The application states that 2 Turbines will be owned and operated by Baywind Energy Co-operative and will be marketed locally to maximise the benefits locally. The makeup of this company is such that the local shareholders are very much in a minority and as such the economic benefit to residents of the Furness area is limited. The submission says there is a commitment to utilise local contractors, however past experience would suggest otherwise. No commitment is made as to what the possible job impact would be either in the construction phases or in the ongoing operational environment. More transparency would be welcomed in respect of the Bay Wind Community benefit fund. It is suggested that the only ones who will benefit are shareholders and developers. Baywind already have alternative plans should the development not be approved, which will involve re-powering. This would seem to indicate that the existing site could have improved turbines without the need to repower the Harlock site and in addition construct a new wind farm.
Page 17 The Environmental Statement lists the project benefits; however in this list of 7 benefits the only tangible benefit is that this wind farm will contribute 4.7% towards the Cumbria onshore wind target for 2020. However this seems to be taken in isolation as a figure based on a calculation of percentage 245MW and does not take into account how many other developments are contributing to the overall figure. The Parish Council is of the opinion that should permission be granted for these developments, a dangerous precedent would be established. The way would be open for repowering of Far Old Park Farm and Kirkby wind farms, and the construction of multiple single turbine developments currently pending. It would be difficult if not impossible to reject such proposals, and that if approved would lead to ribbon development across the entire Furness peninsula, and consequent industrialisation of a beautiful countryside that we are trying to protect.
EGTON WITH NEWLAND, MANSRIGGS AND OSMOTHERLEY PARISH COUNCIL: The Parish Council wish to express their objections to the proposal for the following reasons: 1) The site proposed would be highly visible from the borders of this Parish and be of great detriment to the landscape and for the residents overlooking the site. 2) The main vehicular access for the Furness peninsula (A590) would be impacted by the sight of the turbines and would be detrimental for those driving along this section of the A590. 3) The noise and flicker impact on the health of those overlooking the turbines is of great concern. There is already a noise impact with the current turbines.
KIRKBY IRELETH PARISH COUNCIL: The Parish Council has severe reservations relating to this application. The magnitude of the application is such that the various aspects are not easily understood by lay persons, and thus many questions are raised, questions which can perhaps be more easily answered by a Public Inquiry. Of particular concern are the many thousands of tons of hard core and other building materials which will be needed for the turbine bases and road works. The application does not state where these are to be sourced, or what route they are to take to the site. At an earlier liaison meeting the Developer was unable to answer the question. This Parish Council believes they will be sourced from the many quarries to the north of the site, and will be routed via the A595 and other minor roads within this parish, and others close by. The A595 between Grizebeck and Askam with its single vehicle areas is totally unsuited to this level of traffic, as are other minor roads in neighbouring parishes.
URSWICK PARISH COUNCIL: Would like to object to the proposed development. The size of the wind turbines means that their visibility will be increased from a greater distance compared to the
Page 18 existing turbines. Noise pollution is also a potential nuisance factor for those living in the vicinity. The Council would therefore recommend refusal of the application.
ULVERSTON TOWN COUNCIL: Refused this application on the grounds of the environmental / visual impact with the new turbines at 326 feet high and potential noise concerns in the locality.
LAKE DISTRICT NATIONAL PARK AUTHORITY: No objection to the proposed repositioning and the new heights of the existing wind turbines at the site. Whilst it is recognised that the turbines will be slightly more visible from views within the National Park it is not thought to be significant enough to warrant an objection as any views of the proposed development are seen within the context of other turbines in the landscape and the undulating nature of the terrain in the vicinity ensures that undue prominence is not given to the proposed turbines.
CUMBRIA COUNTY COUNCIL: National planning policy promotes targets for renewable energy and looks to local authorities to support proposals for renewable energy developments which do not have unacceptable impacts. Saved Policy R44 of the Joint Structure Plan relates to renewable energy schemes outside national landscape designations and supports favourable consideration if there are no significant adverse effects on landscape character, built heritage, local amenity, highways and a range of other issues. Saved Policy E37 refers to landscape character and E35 refers to nature conservation interests. It is considered that the application is in line with the identified saved Joint Structure Plan policies. The proposed development site is not sited in an area with any designations, and the evidence provided by the applicant has shown that the impacts to any existing habitats and wildlife will be minimal. There is an existing wind farm on part of the site, and it is considered that the increase in turbine height will have a localised impact in relation to its visual amenity and the cumulative landscape effect. The County Council raise no objection to this development, subject to various conditions and contributions being incorporated into any planning permission which may be granted. Before consent for the proposal can be granted the developer must agree to apply to divert any public rights of way that would be affected by the development. Such an application would be made to and processed by the relevant planning authority under Section 257 of the Town and Country Planning Act. Any temporary closures will also need the consent of the County Council; this may include a request for an alternative route / diversion whilst the temporary closure is in place. At the Development Control and Regulation Committee on the 15th February 2012 Members requested that, should it be considered appropriate, Barrow Borough Council encourage the applicant to work with broadband providers to improve rural broadband access in the vicinity of the development. This would involve using the proposed cabling trenches for the wind turbines to lay the necessary broadband infrastructure.
Page 19 Highways The proposed development is considered broadly acceptable by Cumbria Highways, subject to a number of conditions being attached to any permission which may be granted by the Local Planning Authorities. The proposed accesses must be improved and surfaced with a bound material for the use upon completion of the works and any extraordinary damage to the highway resulting from the development should be made good by the applicant. The applicant must prepare a Traffic Management Plan and this must be approved prior to any construction works commencing on site. The accommodation works within the highway will need separate consent from the Highways Authority, as will the treatment and restoration of verge and boundaries. These works will need to be carried out by an approved contractor.
HIGHWAYS AGENCY: No objections on the basis that there are no alterations to the existing access / egress arrangements, as stated in the application and therefore will have no impact on the strategic road network.
CUMBRIA COUNTY COUNCIL HISTORIC ENVIRONMENT OFFICER: The environmental statement indicates that the site lies in an area of some archaeological potential. There are various known earthwork remains in the vicinity including post medieval quarries, ridge and furrow, and a possible ringwork of unknown date. The occasional prehistoric stray find has also been recovered nearby. The location of the development infrastructure has been designed to avoid the known archaeological remains on the site but agree with the environmental statement that there is some potential for the ground works to disturb currently unknown buried archaeological remains. Therefore agree with the recommended mitigation outlined in the environmental statement that an archaeological evaluation and, where necessary, a scheme of archaeological recording of the site be undertaken in advance of development. Advise that this programme of work should be commissioned and undertaken at the expense of the developer and can be secured through the inclusion of a condition in any planning consent. This written scheme will include the following components: i) An archaeological evaluation to be undertaken in accordance with the agreed written scheme of investigation; ii) An archaeological recording programme the scope of which will be dependant upon the results of the evaluation and will be in accordance with the agreed written scheme of investigation; iii) where appropriate, a post-excavation assessment and analysis, preparation of a site archive ready for deposition at a store approved by the Planning Authority, completion of an archive report, and publication of the results in a suitable journal.
Page 20 ENGLISH HERITAGE: The demolition and construction works involved have the potential to impact directly on elements of the historic environment, including designated structures and buried archaeological remains both within the development site and on routes into it. To mitigate and manage the risk of damage to the historic environment, a range of measures is proposed in paragraphs 11.89-11.92 of the Environmental Statement. English Heritage has no objection to the granting of planning permission for the proposed development, providing that the range of measures outlined in paragraphs 11.89-11.92 of the Environmental Statement are adopted. Recommend that any grant of planning permission be conditioned to ensure the adoption of the proposed mitigation and management measures.
SLDC ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION OFFICER: Satisfied with the scope and undertaking of the acoustic assessment which the applicant has submitted to form part of this application. The following conditions have been agreed with the applicant. Condition 1 (condensed version) The rating level of noise emissions from the combined effects of the wind turbines (including the application of any tonal penalty), shall not exceed the values for the relevant wind speed set out in Tables 1 and 2.
! "#" $ %& " " # ! ' ( ) *
Harlock Farm 37 37 37 38 39 41 43 43 44 47 49 51 Horrace Farm 35 37 38 40 42 43 43 43 44 46 49 52 Ewe Dale 36 36 37 38 40 41 43 43 43 44 46 48 Standish Cote 37 37 38 38 39 41 42 43 43 43 45 47
! "#" $ %& " " # ! ' ( ) *
:`CQH@ :`I Q``:HV :`I 1V:CV :JR1.Q V
Page 21 Within 21 days from receipt of a written request from the Local Planning Authority, following a complaint to it alleging noise disturbance at a residential property, the wind farm operator shall, at its expense, employ an independent consultant approved by the Local Planning Authority to assess the level of noise emissions from the wind farm at the complainant’s property. Where there is more than one property at a location specified in the Tables, the noise limits shall apply to all residential properties at that location. Where a residential property to which a complaint is related is not identified by name or location in the Tables, the wind farm operator shall submit to the Local Planning Authority for written approval proposed noise limits selected from those listed in the Tables to be adopted at the complainant’s residential property for compliance checking purposes. Prior to the submission of the independent consultant’s assessment of the rating level of noise emissions, the wind farm operator shall submit to the Local Planning Authority for written approval the range of meteorological and operational conditions to determine the assessment of rating level of noise emissions. The wind farm operator shall provide to the Local Planning Authority the independent consultant’s assessment of the rating level of noise emissions undertaken in accordance with the Guidance Notes within 2 months of the date of the written request of the Local Planning Authority. The assessment shall include all data collected for the purposes of undertaking the compliance measurements. Where a further assessment of the rating level of noise emissions from the wind farm is required, the wind farm operator shall submit a copy of the further assessment within 21 days of submission of the independent consultant’s assessment unless the time limit has been extended in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The wind farm operator shall continuously log nacelle wind speed, nacelle orientation, power generation and nacelle wind direction for each turbine. The data from each wind turbine shall be retained for a period of not less than 12 months. Condition 2 Within 21 days of a written notification by the Local Planning Authority to the wind farm operator that a complaint has been made to it about noise emissions from the wind turbines and that the Local Planning Authority considers that Excess Amplitude Modulation (EAM) is present in said noise emissions and a reason for the complaint, the wind farm operator shall appoint an independent consultant from the approved list. If EAM is determined and notified to the wind farm operator by the Local Planning Authority to be present, the wind farm operator shall within 21 days of said notification submit a scheme, for the written approval of the Local Planning Authority, providing for the investigation and control of EAM. The Scheme shall be implemented as approved and completed in a time period agreed by the Local Planning Authority. Condition 3 Prior to the commencement of development, final details of the wind turbines to be installed and their exact position(s) within the site shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. Where the turbines are not 2.3MW Enercon E-70 wind turbines, a full update of the noise assessment, as contained within the Environmental Statement, shall be submitted.
Page 22 ENVIRONMENT AGENCY: The proposed development will only be acceptable if a planning condition is imposed requiring a working method statement to cover all ground works. Without such a condition our position would be to object to the proposed development on the grounds of the adverse impact on water pollution. Ask to be consulted on the details of this scheme when it is submitted for approval to the Local Planning Authority. Detailed method statements will need to include all aspects outlined in the Environmental Statement to ensure protection to the environment. It is not clear which watercourse crossing method is to be used. This detail should be provided as part of the Flood Defence Consent application along with detailed method statements for this part of the construction. -The applicant must ensure protection of the surface water hydrology and the springs on site. Works should be undertaken in a way to prevent any silty water run-off entering the nearby watercourses. The method statement should include details of the mitigation measures to be put in place to contain and attenuate any silty water from the working areas, including the access tracks and any bridging of watercourses. Surface water run-off to receiving watercourses should be limited to pre-development run-off rates by the use of filter strips, permeable surfaces, soakaways or other Sustainable Drainage Systems in order to reduce flood risk and control surface water as close to the source as practicable.
NATURAL ENGLAND: Response dated 8/11/11 Designated Sites (including ornithology) The proposed turbines are located between the Duddon Estuary SPA/Ramsar site/SSSI and Morcambe Bay SPA/Ramsar site/SSSI, at distances of 2.3km and 6.5km respectively. Of the species for which these sites are designated, Curlew, Lesser Black-backed Gull, Lapwing and Wigeon were recorded on the site with flight activity occurring within the collision-risk window of the proposed turbines. While the ES includes the total number of seconds that each species was recorded flying through the site, no collision risk modelling has been undertaken on the basis that no target species (Annex 1 and Schedule 1 species) were recorded. Furthermore, the ES concludes that any impacts to such species (and therefore the SPAs) would be negligible because significant numbers (surpassing international or national thresholds) were not recorded during the surveys. Natural England considers that any species associated with the surrounding SPAs should be considered as target species. In addition, do not agree that the impacts can currently be assessed as negligible on the basis that the survey area did not support SPA species in numbers of international or national importance. Impacts on a very small percentage (even 1%) of the population of a given SPA species, either alone or in-combination, could result in a significant effect. Without collision risk modelling there is insufficient information available to conclude that the proposed scheme is unlikely to have a significant effect on the surrounding SPAs. Consequently, the LPA is advised to request further information from the applicant, in the form of collision risk modelling for the relevant SPA species.
Page 23 The proposals are also located directly adjacent to Kirkby Moor SSSI. Provided a 50m buffer is provided and that a Construction Environment Management Plan is developed and implemented as suggested (paragraphs 9.109 and 9.171), then Natural England is satisfied that the proposals will have no significant impact on the special interest features for which the SSSI is designated. Para 9.181 suggests that because no habitats within the SSSI will be affected by the proposals, then it is not necessary to include the extension of the SSSI heathland within the proposed Habitat Management Plan for the site. While Natural England accepts that this would not be required as mitigation, the Local authority is encouraged to explore such opportunities as a biodiversity enhancement. Habitats Paragraphs 8.168-172 identify that during construction small areas of marshy and acidic grassland will be lost to the development, resulting in a minor adverse impact. Mitigation measures subsequently described for these habitats during construction (paras 8.222-225) and operation (para 8.235) relate to the safeguarding of retained habitats not directly impacted. However, following implementation of these measures, the ES concludes that the residual impacts of the development will be negligible (para 8.245). Natural England disagrees with this conclusion. The mitigation measures have no bearing on the minor adverse effects of habitat loss identified, so it is not clear how the residual impacts can be reduced. It is therefore suggested that the unmitigated loss of minor areas of ecologically valuable habitat reinforce the requirement to ensure that ecological enhancements and a Habitat Management Plan are secured for the site. Bats The ES identifies that bat activity surveys following set transect routes have been undertaken during 2007, 2008 and 2010. The ES suggests that these were undertaken in accordance with the BCT Bat Survey Good Practice Guidelines. However, while dusk surveys should commence from sunset and last for 2-3 hrs afterwards, it is noted that many of the surveys commenced after sunset (for example on 21 Sept 2010 sunset was at 19:07 yet the survey didn’t commence until 19:51), and lasted for less than an hour. There is therefore a risk that the levels of bat activity recorded at the site are an underestimation and that early-emerging species such as noctule could have been missed. Given the habitats present across the site, the low level of activity recorded during the surveys that were undertaken and the existing presence of turbines on the Harlock Hill part of the site, Natural England accept that the risks to bats resulting from the new turbine scheme remain low. However, given the apparent survey limitations and the fact that some turbines will be sited within 50m of suitable bat features (contrary to current best practice guidance), the local authority is encouraged to secure a programme of post-construction monitoring at the site, both to validate the predictions of the ES and help inform the understanding of the impacts from wind turbines on bats in the UK. Other species Provided the suggested species buffer distances for badger and otter are implemented (see para 8.162), then have no further comment on other protected / BAP species.
Page 24 Landscape The proposed turbines fall within the setting of the Lake District National Park, and Natural England welcomes consideration of views from within the National Park (viewpoints 8, 10, 12, 14, 16 and 18) as part of the Visual Impact Assessment undertaken in support of the application. The wireframes and photomontages produced for these viewpoints show that the proposals will introduce new limited views of turbines from within the National Park which do not occur as a result of the existing Harlock Hill scheme and which would add to the visual impact of other existing turbines in the area (e.g. from viewpoints 8 and 10). As a result of the distances and topography involved, the ES suggests that such impacts would be at most moderate in nature, and therefore not significant. Based on the wireframes and photomontages provided, Natural England is satisfied with this assessment. Natural England is satisfied with the conclusion that the proposals will not have a significant effect on views from within the more distant Arnside and Silverdale Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty. The ES does acknowledge major / moderate (i.e. significant) landscape and visual impacts will occur at the more local level. Such impacts are a material consideration and should be given due consideration by the local authority as part of the determination process. Enhancements The Local Authority should consider opportunities for securing measures to enhance the biodiversity of the site, if it is minded to grant permission for this application. Currently the application provides no indication that enhancements will be delivered as part of the proposals, except for brief references to a Habitat Management Plan that would be developed post-consent. While the detailed content of such a plan could be agreed post-consent, Natural England suggest that as part of the planning application it would be reasonable to expect a broad outline of the scope of the plan to be provided, particularly given the remaining residual impacts to habitats described above.
Response dated 22.12.11 In the original comments on this application, Natural England indicated that, in relation to otters, they were satisfied with the mitigation measures incorporated into the proposals (disturbance buffer zones around potential holts and watercourses, avoidance of construction activities at night) based on the survey information provided by the applicant. However, the additional Confidential Otter Report now provided indicates that otter activity across the Mean and Dalton Moors area north of Harlock Reservoir is greater than indicated by the applicant, and that the proposals, as submitted, will potentially result in disturbance to otters and the destruction of their places of rest or shelter as defined under the Conservation of Habitats and Species Regulations 2010 and the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981 (as amended). In particular, it would appear that the construction of Turbine C will result in the loss of gorse and bramble thickets which have been used as lay up where a family of otters has been raised, as well as impacting on an area of suggested importance for foraging activity.
Page 25 The current scheme design and mitigation measures proposed are not sufficient to ensure the favourable conservation status of otter is maintained and that offences under the above legislation are avoided. Therefore recommend that this new survey report is provided to the applicant and their ecologist, and that the scheme and any avoidance, mitigation and compensation measures are reviewed in light of this information. The scheme should seek to retain all habitat which provides suitable opportunities for otters to rest and shelter and provide sufficient construction buffer distances around known holts and lay up features. Suggest that this would most easily be achieved by the removal of Turbine C, or its re-location to another more suitable area within the site (dependent on ecological and other constraints). Unless these issues are addressed, Natural England's view is that granting permission for this proposal is likely to contravene Article 12(1) of the Habitats Directive, and therefore planning permission should not be granted.
Response dated 13.2.12 The updated survey report suggests that the majority of scrub habitat (that could provide cover for resting otters) has been removed from site as part of standard management of the site, that foraging opportunities are limited, and that no evidence of otters was observed. Meanwhile, potential impacts on features which could be used as otter holts remain as described in the original EIA for site. Given the current lack of suitable habitat or evidence to suggest otter presence, Natural England accepts that the outline mitigation strategy proposed in section 5.2 of the updated report should be sufficient to avoid offences being committed under the Conservation of Habitats and Species Regulations 2010 and the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981 (as amended). However to ensure the development of a detailed mitigation strategy, recommend that a suitably worded planning condition is attached to any permission granted. Current management practices would appear to be a factor limiting the use of the site by otters, and in addition to measures proposed as part of the mitigation strategy (e.g. construction of artificial holts), suggest that the enhancement and maintenance of suitable otter habitat on site (e.g. providing continual gorse / scrub cover) should form a specific component of a Habitat Management Plan, which should also be secured as part of the proposals.
Responses dated 23.03.12 Ornithology The applicant has now provided Natural England with bird collision risk modelling data for the above proposed development. The modelling indicates that at a 98% avoidance rate (which Natural England would accept as being appropriate for the species concerned) the predicted annual collision risks are: Wigeon = 0.04, Lapwing = 0.35, Curlew = 0.02 and Lesser Black-backed Gull = 0.46. These figures provide more robust support for the conclusions in the original ES (that the turbines would have negligible impact on SPA bird species), and Natural England now advises that the proposal, if undertaken in strict accordance with the details submitted, is not likely to have a significant effect on the interest features for which the Duddon Estuary SPA / Ramsar site and Morecambe Bay SPA / Ramsar sites have been classified.
Page 26 Otters There are evidently conflicting views on the level of otter activity on site as described by Peak Ecology and Mr McMinn (supported by additional work undertaken by Envirotech), and Natural England is unable to comment further over disputes regarding the verification of field signs or the competencies of the surveyors involved. With regards to the potential indirect effects of disturbance (including the potential natal holt near turbine C at SD248798) and impacts to foraging habitat, Natural England remains satisfied that the measures proposed by the applicant are sufficient to enable the conservation status of the species to be maintained. Any concerns regarding the destruction of otter resting places that occurred a year and a half ago should have been reported to the police at that time. Natural England would not seek to take any further action over this issue as part of the current planning application, although are keen to ensure that future management practices for the site are secured which are favourable for otters. There remains an issue over the current status of suitable habitat on the site. Peak Ecology make a general statement about gorse scrub being largely absent from the site following management works. If these works did occur during 2010, between mid April-Oct (as suggested by Mr McMinn), then the layup site shown beneath gorse during the winter of 2010/11 (at the turbine C location) is presumably still present. Natural England advises that the information submitted to date still leaves uncertainties regarding the suitability of habitats at the Turbine C location to provide places of rest or shelter for otters. The Local Authority needs to be satisfied that such habitats are currently either (a) absent or (b) if present are being retained, before concluding that the otter current mitigation package (outlined in the most recent Peak Ecology report) is acceptable. Bats Comments from a local resident highlight the deficiencies in survey effort undertaken at the site when compared with current best practice publications. These were recognised as part of the original response of 8th November 2012, and therefore consider that the advice provided in that response is still appropriate. Habitat Management Plan Whilst Natural England is broadly satisfied with the submitted Habitat Management Plan as an outline document, this does not appear to take any account of recent discussions regarding the need to incorporate positive habitat management for otters, and in particular the need to provide and maintain areas of gorse scrub for cover. Infinergy Ltd have stated that they are “happy to commit to including otter habitat enhancement measures and monitoring as part of the Habitat Management Plan for the proposed Furness Wind Farm”, and the outline document should be revised accordingly.
CUMBRIA WILDLIFE TRUST Response dated 7.7.11 Cumbria Wildlife Trust is disappointed that the application has not been accompanied by habitat creation and restoration measures which are required by national, regional and local planning policy. These were requested in the response to the scoping opinion in August 2008. The Trust therefore objects to the application.
Page 27 This management for biodiversity could include enhancement of the site for the population of common lizards referred to in the text, heathland recreation using the adjoining Kirkby Moor as a donor site for seed, and enhancement of species rich or marshy grassland. Heathland recreation would be especially welcome as it would add to the network of heathland in the area and would enhance habitat connectivity and habitat expansion meeting the Network of Natural Habitats goal. Biodiversity enhancement of the site for habitats, and species other than birds (as addressed in Chapter 9) does not appear to have been considered in the application, despite the proximity to Kirkby Moor SSSI making the site potentially suitable for heathland creation and expansion. It is disappointing that the opportunity for habitat (re)creation for habitats and species other than birds has not been explored by the applicant as it is often only through large-scale applications such as this that benefits for nature conservation interests can be provided. On page 9 of Chapter 8, the applicants state that “all comments [from Cumbria Wildlife Trust] have been addressed and incorporated”. This is not actually the case, as biodiversity enhancement of the site is not considered in Chapter 8. Policy EM1 (B) of the RSS which is quoted on page 5 of Chapter 8 also states that projects should be securing “a ‘step change’ increase in the region’s biodiversity resources by contributing to the delivery of national, regional and local biodiversity objectives and targets for maintaining extent, achieving condition, restoring and expanding habitats and species populations.” The Cumbria and Lake District Joint Structure Plan also indicates that protection and enhancement of the existing natural environment should be ensured. The applicant’s comments on Page 39 of Chapter 9 that: The habitat loss will be of common habitat types and the heathland habitat on the adjacent Kirkby Moors SSSI will not be impacted on in any way. Therefore, it is not considered necessary for the HMP to include the extension of the Kirkby Moors SSSI (see Table 9.2, Cumbria Wildlife Trust comment). Cumbria Wildlife Trust is aware that the Kirkby Moor habitats will not be directly impacted, however, policy drivers indicate that applications should be aiming to add to overall biodiversity, and that a net gain should be aimed for within developments. The application as submitted does not appear to recognise this. The Habitat Management Plan (HMP) is not mentioned in Chapter 8 (Ecology) of the EIA. Therefore there is no protection and enhancement of habitats for non-bird species ensured. It is recommended that the applicants incorporate habitat creation into the HMP for the site and make it clear that the Plan is applicable for the other protected species found on the site as well as for bird species.
Response dated 8/2/12 The Trust is satisfied that the otter report addresses the concerns and withdraws its previous objection subject to the preparation of an HMP as part of a condition.
RSPB: No objections, would like to be consulted on the Habitat Management Plan.
Page 28 FRIENDS OF THE LAKE DISTRICT (CPRE): The site lies within Landscape Sub-Type 9d ‘Ridges’, as defined by the recently updated Cumbria Landscape Character Assessment. The LCA notes that: These are generally open, large scale landscapes…The open and distinct ridges and heather moorland and wide and expansive uninterrupted views to sea and the Lakeland Fells provide a sense of wildness that are sensitive to changes in land management and significant infrastructure development. The Cumbria Wind Energy SPD incorporates 9d into the wider type 9i ‘Intermediate Moorland’, which is judged to have a moderate / high capacity to accommodate turbine development. The ‘striking views in Furness’ are recognised as a key consideration in the appropriate siting of turbines. In regard to the above guidance, FLD have concerns that the turbines would have a net adverse impact upon views out to sea, as viewed from the elevated open access land to the north of the site. It is key to note that Landscape sub-type 9d covers a relatively small area. Given the nature of the development proposed, FLD would also highlight the importance of considering the potential impact upon other key viewpoints and landscape types. The applicant’s zone of visual influence diagram indicates that the turbines will be visible across a wide area. The area within a 15km radius of the site contains some areas of very high quality landscape, including a significant area of the Lake District National Park, and a number of areas which are recognised locally as being particularly high in quality (denoted by the County Landscape designation). FLD highlight the impact upon the key viewpoints identified within the National Park – Hampsfell, Black Combe and Bigland Tarn. Additional areas of importance are Thwaites Fell, to the north east of Black Combe, and Bethecar Moor, to the south of Coniston Water. All of these areas have a high recreational value, due to the existence of established rights of way, trails such as the Cumbria Coastal Way, large areas of open access land, and recognised viewpoints. The relevant landscape guidelines for these individual areas, given by the Lake District National Park Landscape Character Assessment and Guidelines, all highlight the key contribution which long distance views make towards the character of each, and recommend that these are conserved. FLD are concerned over the net impact the turbines will have upon the long distance views in question. The proposed Furness wind farm will be more widely visible in the National Park than the existing Harlock Hill development. Have particular concerns in regard to the cumulative impact upon Bethecar Moor, highlighted above, from where the Kirkby Moor and proposed Furness developments would both be clearly visible. FLD would highlight CWESPD guidance in this regard (p.66), which states in regard to 9i that: Particular sensitivities in relation to the setting of international and national designations include views from the Furness Fells and trunk road skirting the edge of the Lake District NP (9d). Locally important areas such as Walney Island and Birkrigg Common will also be clearly affected, as will the recognised viewpoint at the Hoad in Ulverston. Whilst the Harlock Hill scheme is already visible from a number of these areas, the proposed increase in turbine height will result in the development becoming much more of a prominent, skyline feature than it is currently.
Page 29 In FLD’s view, the proposed development conflicts with the aforementioned national and local guidance, and should therefore be refused.
NATIONAL TRUST: The National Trust’s Energy Policy strongly supports a major increase in renewable energy generation nationally for electricity, heat and power appropriate to the site, and a significant expansion in micro-generation. However, the Trust also believe that the location and design of all energy generation and distribution schemes should take account of the full range of environmental considerations. From the Trust’s perspective the main aspects that it has considered are the implications in terms of landscape / visual impacts in the context of its particular responsibility to care for Sandscale Haws, and Dalton Castle. Sandscale Haws It is not only a National Nature Reserve, but also part of the Duddon Estuary Ramsar site, Special Protection Area and Special Area of Conservation, and also a Site of Special Scientific Interest. A key aspect of the importance of Sandscale Haws is its cumulative value as an eco-system – some parts of which are very fragile. There are key inter-dependencies with the Duddon Estuary such as the supply of sand, sediments and nutrients which are essential to initiate dune building processes. There are also many species that rely on different habitats within the wider ecosystem such as wading birds which utilise different areas for feeding, nesting and roosting. The reserve is also a popular place for recreation, both on the beach and in the quieter areas of the dunes, with the views to the central Fells of the Lake District being a key, and much valued, characteristic of the property. It is estimated that there are 70 - 80,000 visits there each year. The assessment information indicates that from Sandscale Haws, wind farms at Far Old Park, Kirby Moor, Haverigg, Ormonde off-shore, Barrow offshore, West of Duddon Sands and Olney offshore would all be visible in addition to the current proposal. The proposed Standish Cote turbines would be about 6.4km from Sandscale Haws. Whilst the information shows four turbines being visible from that particular location it is noted that all five turbines are likely to be visible from the majority of the Trust’s land. The Trust believes that the Magnitude of Change would be greater than suggested in the submitted documents. The new turbines will impact on a relatively large section of the view that does not currently have any wind farms or individual turbines upon it and is devoid of other infrastructure with the exception of a tall (but thin) mast / aerial. The proposed turbines would change the landscape character from this viewpoint as it would significantly reduce the horizon on which no wind turbines are visible. There is the resulting potential for the proposed wind farm to dominate the view rather than being a part of the view as they are now. Accordingly a key characteristic of the landscape, in terms of the interruptions to the landform, it experiences at least a partial change. Given the high landscape sensitivity of Sandscale Haws this is a significant effect of a major / moderate scale. Accordingly the overall effect is considered to be “significant”. It is considered that there is a similar under-playing of the Visual Effects, i.e. the Magnitude of Change would be moderate as the proposals would be readily apparent and in substantial measure provide an important new element in the view.
Page 30 Accordingly this equates to major / moderate significance in visual terms, i.e. it is significant. Although these significant landscape and visual effects are reversible they will nonetheless be permanent for the life of the proposed development. In this context it is also notable that the current proposal means that the effects of the existing wind farm development will not be reversed at the end of their working life but rather that the desire is to extend and magnify those effects through this application to replace the existing development. The discussion of the impacts upon “Recreation and Visitor Destinations” (paras 7.107 – 7.116) considers various recreational routes, including the Cumbria Coastal Way, but fails to recognise that Sandscale Haws is a visitor destination in its own right. Dalton Castle The Castle is a 14th Century tower built to assert the authority of the Abbot of Furness Abbey. Situated within a Conservation Area in Dalton town centre the Castle overlooks the town, its approaches and the countryside beyond, being a reminder of the glory days of this small market town. The assessment information indicates that from ground level at Dalton Castle the wind farm at Far Old Park would also be visible in addition to the current proposal. For the other wind farms covered by the cumulative assessment these are more marginal in terms of their visibility, but it would appear that most, if not all, of these would be visible from elevated positions within the Castle. The proposed Standish Cote turbines would be about 6.5km from Dalton Castle. The ZTV information suggests that all five proposed turbines would be visible from ground level at the Castle and consequently the impact upon views would be more noticeable from higher points within the Castle. No separate Viewpoint analysis has been undertaken from Dalton Castle although Viewpoint 6 (“View North from Dalton- in-Furness”) is of some value in gauging the impacts as experienced from the Castle. In this respect the additional height available from within the Castle will increase the extent of visibility and arguably the scale of the impacts. However, it is concluded that, in the context of the definitions and methodology used in the landscape and visual analysis that the effects would not be ‘significant’. Conclusions It is considered that there would be some impacts upon National Trust interests at Dalton Castle but not to a significant extent; however, it is considered that the visual and landscape impacts are under recorded in respect of Sandscale Haws where the Trust considers that they would be both significant and adverse. The proposed development would result in detrimental impacts and these would adversely affect the enjoyment of the many visitors to Sandscale Haws each year, along with that of those using the footpaths across the property. In the context of relevant national and local planning policy it is not considered that the identified adverse impacts at Sandscale Haws, or the more modest impacts at Dalton Castle, are of themselves such as to indicate that in this instance the benefits of the renewable energy that would be produced would be outweighed by those impacts alone. However, they should be taken into account as part of the overall cumulative assessment of the positive and adverse impacts of the proposed development in reaching a decision. In that respect it is noted that the Trust considers that the applicant has given insufficient weight to the adverse impacts at Sandscale Haws.
Page 31 NATIONAL GRID: No objection on the understanding that all conditions highlighted in the letter from the applicant on 25/01/12 are adhered to.
UNITED UTILITIES: No objection. United Utilities reservoirs are operational and will remain so for the foreseeable future. No peat has been identified at the locations and other mitigation will be in place during construction.
ELECTRICITY NORTH WEST: The proposal has no impact on Electricity Distribution System infrastructure or other ENW assets.
MINISTRY OF DEFENCE: No objection. In the interests of air safety, the MOD requests that the turbines are fitted with aviation lighting. All turbines should be fitted with omni-directional red lighting or infrared lighting with an optimised flash pattern of 60 flashes per minute at the highest practicable point.
NATS: The proposed development has been examined from a technical safeguarding aspect and does not conflict with safeguarding criteria. Accordingly, NATS has no safeguarding objection to the proposal.
CIVIL AVIATION AUTHORITY: There is currently a high demand for CAA comment on wind turbine applications which exceeds the capacity of the available resource to respond to requests within the timescales required by Local Planning Authorities. The CAA has no responsibilities for safeguarding sites other than its own property, and a consultation by a Council is taken as a request for clarification of procedural matters. There is an international civil aviation requirement for all structures of 300 feet (91.4 metres) or more to be charted on aeronautical charts. Any structure of 150 metres or more must be lit and should be appropriately marked.
WALNEY AERODROME: No objection.
CABLE & WIRELESS No objection.
Page 32 BRITISH TELECOM The proposal should not cause interference to BT’s current and presently planned radio networks.
JOINT RADIO COMPANY LTD (JRC): JRC analyses proposals for wind farms on behalf of the UK Fuel and Power Industry and does not foresee any potential problems based on known interference scenarios and the data provided.
ARQIVA (TELEVISION TRANSMISSION): Arqiva is responsible for providing the BBC and ITV’s transmission network and is responsible for ensuring the integrity of Re-Broadcast Links, and protecting its own microwave networks. No objection.
ERICSSON: There are no microwave links within 200m and no mast within 500m of the proposal and therefore have no objections.
ORANGE: Have identified 1 Orange m/w link which may be affected by this application. Although the response sent to Barrow Borough council stated that there are no Orange m/w links affected.
OTHER: The correspondence that has been sent to Barrow Borough Council, with regards to the scheme, has also been summarised in this section given the cross-boundary nature of the proposal. 51 letters of objection have been received which raise the following concerns: • Landscape and Visual Impact - The landscape is of an extremely high quality - the wide upland views are a prime feature. It is of County Importance and the landscape character type is described as unusual within the County. The large, moving, wind turbines will seriously depreciate the character of the area and will further erode the natural skyline which is important to the Cumbrian identity. Due to their prominent setting, the turbines will be visible from large distances including many of the Lake District Fells. The landscape cannot absorb 5 larger turbines, buildings and extra roads, however well designed. With a total height of 100m the turbines will be extremely conspicuous, overwhelming, will dominate the landscape to an unacceptable degree and will appear as alien structures. Government targets threaten much of the finest landscape, including this location. The turbines would spoil the appearance of the Pennington area. They would be nearly double the size of the existing turbines and moved further up the hill increasing their visual impact over a much wider area. The considerable width of the development, west to east,
Page 33 will maximise the adverse impacts on the visual amenities of the area. The harm caused by the proposal should not be judged as incremental harm to the existing turbines because that is time limited. • Cumulative impact - There are now enormous wind farms visible across the seascape all around Furness. The threshold for wind energy in this area has become unacceptable. There will be significant cumulative impacts with other operational schemes in the area. • Impact on Tourism - The turbines will discourage visitors from staying in the area, including at the holiday cottages located adjacent to the site at Ewedale Farm. This will lose vital income to the already crumbling economy. People who come to Pennington do so for its outstanding natural beauty, its peacefulness and its ease of travel to other destinations and nearby local amenities. The development would have a significant adverse effect on the use and enjoyment of these natural heritage locations. The proposal will adversely affect efforts to encourage the tourist industry of the area as this is largely based upon the quiet appreciation of the countryside and its views by walkers and others. • Impacts on birds - Birds can be killed by turbines and their habitats destroyed. There are important species that breed close to the site e.g. Buzzards, Kestrel, Skylark, Reed, Bunting and Ravens, which would be at risk of hitting the turbines, or driven off by the fuss and noise. Large turbines are known to have a negative impact on wildlife, especially birds of prey and several species in the area may well be affected including owls and both resident and migrating species. Other large birds such as herons and swans are prone to collision with the turbines. The bird survey submitted is too old and Red Kites are now present in the area. Collision risk is an issue for all species and it is standard practice to undertake collision risk modelling for many species found at the site. The information provided on breeding waders is out of date and misleading. Other birds observed on Mean Moor and Dalton Moor include – Peregrine Falcon, Barn Owl, Tawny Owl, Little Owl, Osprey, Hen Harrier, Red legged Partridge, Snipe, Merlin, Hobby, Sand martins, Swifts and House martins. • Impacts on bats – Bats can be killed by the blades and are susceptible to the pressure differentials caused by wind turbines. The proximity of the proposed site to Harlock reservoir means that bats which use the reservoir for hunting are likely to be affected. There are extensive numbers of bats in the nearby area. Concerned that a thorough independent bat survey hasn’t been conducted in the surrounding area and that the surveys carried out by the applicant were not sufficient to make a full assessment of the impacts. The surveys do not appear to follow interim guidance set out by Natural England. • Impacts on otters - Otters are a protected species and it is a criminal offence to disturb or destroy their habitat. There is evidence of resident female otters using the site and otters spend long periods on the fells foraging for frogs / toads. Turbine C is situated in the middle of prime otter habitat with its gorse bushes, marsh / peat bog, holt, raised dry mounds and tall grasses. The 17 metre base of the turbines and access route will completely destroy this ecosystem. The otters that move between Harlock Reservoir and Rathmoss Beck avoid the Harlock wind farm. The obvious route is through the wind farm but they travel around showing that otters are affected by the noise of the
Page 34 turbines. A report was also submitted by an ecologist on behalf of one of the neighbouring residents. This raises concerns that the ES significantly underestimates the use of the site by this species and that there are potential long term impacts on the favourable conservation status of the species based on the current proposals. It concludes that unless it can be proven that there would be no net negative effect on the species, installation of the turbines would be in breach of the Habitat Regulations 2004. • General ecology – The scale of the development will affect insects, frogs and potentially invertebrates and aquatic species although this has not been assessed. The surveys for amphibians are poor and there is not enough information to assess the impacts on protected species. There is no mention of other mammals which have been observed on Mean Moor and Dalton Moor – Roe deer, hares, stoat and weasel. • Noise - Wind turbines produce penetrating low-frequency noise pollution, day and night, which makes some physically ill. The turbines will bring noise levels close to the edge of maximum permitted levels which will adversely affect the living conditions of local residents to an unacceptable extent. The owners of Horrace Farm have complained to the Council about the level of noise created by the current development on several occasions and are concerned that the level of noise will increase if the larger turbines are erected. When all five turbines are working and there is a prevailing westerly wind the noise is great. The pitch produced becomes increasingly intrusive and unpleasant to be exposed to for a sustained period. Despite the assurances in the ES, experience of noise problems at other wind farms suggests that nearby dwellings may experience problems including discomfort due to aerodynamic and thumping noises that have a greater ability to penetrate the conciseness than steady background noise. When ETSU-R-97 was set up, turbines were smaller and the effect of wind shear on noise was small. The wind shear impacts on higher turbines can be significant. The valley where the turbines are to be located is very quiet and noise is amplified in different ways depending on the wind and water levels of Harlock Reservoir. There would be added noise pollution from HGV’s during construction. • Shadow Flicker – This would increase considerably and is extremely disturbing for residents and passing motorists and walkers. The flickering currently experienced by Horrace Farm and Harlock Farm would exacerbated by larger structures. 25.4 hours of shadow flicker are predicted at Harlock Farm, dependent on time of year and weather conditions. • Living conditions – The development, by reason of its scale, design, close proximity and visual impact, would exert a significant harmful influence on the living conditions currently enjoyed by neighbouring residents contrary to policy. There are 6 dwellings within 800 metres of a turbine and no specific detailed residential amenity survey has been undertaken. The submission states that none of the turbines are closer to the surrounding properties than the existing ones, which is incorrect for Standish Cote Farm and Swallow Cottage. The turbines on Mean Moor will increase the field of view for these properties from approx. 25 degrees to almost 90 degrees. There will be a significant change in scale due to the increase in size. There will be a significant loss of residential amenity at Swallow Cottage. The turbines would be clearly visible from Horace Farm, would dominate the view from the
Page 35 property, significantly affecting the amenity and enjoyment of the home and place of work. At Harlock Farm the five large turbines will be within 650-700 metres, over an arc of 92 degrees compared to the existing situation where they cover an arc of 30 degrees, most at great distances. • Effect of private water supplies – The service road to Mean Moor will be constructed close to a spring providing the only water supply to Harlock Farm and are concerned about the disruption the work will cause. • Light pollution - The substation would need security lighting, causing light pollution. • Safety - Broken blades, and ice blocks flung in winter, are hazardous to locals, visitors, and wildlife and are potentially fatal. • Impact on watercourses - The construction of the wind farm will involve the laying of roadways and large concrete bases over open moorland, which will affect the ecology and watercourses over a huge area, with possible pollution of watercourses which run into the several public water supply reservoirs on and adjacent to the site. Aquatic benthic invertebrate surveys are required to assess siltation under baseline, during construction and post construction regimes. Turbine C is too close to water courses – with 17 metres diameter foundations, the hard standing and 50 metre micro siting allowance, the turbine is too constrained by the watercourse. There will be damage as a result of the excavation proposed. Risks such as decreased run-off attenuation and increased flooding downstream, increased erosion and deposition of fine sediments, creation of barriers to aquatic species, dewatering of mire communities need to be assessed and mitigation defined as part of the planning application. • Impact on Road Infrastructure – The current approach roads to the site are small and rural and prone to bad conditions. Additional traffic and its heavy nature could cause congestion and damage to the road surfaces as well as disruption to local residents. • Public Rights of Way – The turbines would be close to bridleways contrary to British Horse Society recommendations. They will have a damaging effect on the use of the area as a natural recreational resource as people will be deterred from using the footpaths and bridleways in the area. • Lack of benefits - There will be little work for local people. After construction there will be only maintenance jobs, and in view of the likely disproportionate damage to the tourist industry, there will be a net loss of jobs in the area. • Precedent - It will set a precedent for a multitude of similar wind farms and other potential harmful developments throughout the Lake District with other local wind farm sites increasing the size of turbines. • Public consultation – Concerned about the misleading or inaccurate information that has been given to the public. No contact with those closest to the site was made until after the plans for the wind measuring mast were submitted. False promises were made to individual local residents about benefits that would be available. Local residents have not been invited to liaison group meetings for a couple of years leaving them with a feeling of mistrust.
Page 36 • Efficiency / Economics of turbines – Wind turbines are one of the most expensive ways to generate electricity and they are inefficient. The saving in CO2 must be weighed against the energy used in making, transporting and erecting the turbines as well as site preparation. Many experts now question the suitability of wind farms to provide efficient energy.
309 letters of support have been received which raise the following points: • The replacement turbines will give a greater energy output, with less CO2 emissions than fossil fuel generation. It is a clean, renewable energy using a local resource that there is a lot of and presents no dangers short or long term. It will be a very important contributor to renewable and on shore wind targets, with a capacity of up to 11.5 MW, a contribution of 4.9% towards the Cumbria onshore wind target for 2020. • The existing turbines have become an integral part of the scenery in the area and are well accepted. As there will be no increase in the number of turbines there will be very little, if any, change to the landscape character of visual amenity of the area. The site layout achieves good visual balance from key views around the surrounding area. The appearance of the proposed development would be strong, positive and balanced and changes to the surrounding landscape character and visual amenity would not be unacceptably widespread or adverse. • There are no significant ecological impacts arising from the proposals. It has satisfied the requirements of an environmental assessment, all necessary planning guidelines and noise levels are acceptable. • The Cooperative is a tried and tested means of producing local electricity with opportunities for local people to have a voice in decision making. It has been in operation since 1997 and has demonstrated that the cooperative model is effective and draws in the support from individuals. Individuals in the community will have the chance to invest quite cheaply in the project and get a good return. • The existing Trust will administer the community fund with an annual budget of around £35,000 per year, set up to develop and benefit local projects and other community developments. A letter has also been received from The Co-operative who would like to support the application. Through its support of community-scale renewables it has engaged previously with Baywind Energy Co-operative and Energy4All. The project is co- operatively structured which enables democratic ownership by the local community, it will help to connect people with the wider energy and climate change agenda, it will make a meaningful contribution to the region’s 2020 renewable energy capacity target, and the existing Baywind project has been successful and should be recognised through the encouragement of development that maximises its potential.
DESCRIPTION AND PROPOSAL: There are currently five wind turbines located on Harlock Hill near Pennington within South Lakeland District. They have a height of 53 metres and were granted consent in 1995. This application seeks permission for their removal and replacement with
Page 37 five turbines, which would have a maximum height of 99.5 metres to blade tip. Two of the turbines would be located in South Lakeland and three would be within Barrow Borough. The application site is approximately 10km northeast of Barrow-in-Furness and 4km northwest of Ulverston. It straddles the administrative boundaries of Barrow Borough Council and South Lakeland District Council. Planning applications detailing the full scheme have been submitted to both authorities. The larger part of the site is located at Mean Moor (Barrow) and the smaller at Harlock Hill (South Lakeland). The two sections are separated by Poaka Beck and the northern part of Harlock Reservoir. The land rises at either side of the beck, and is steeper and higher on Mean Moor, rising up to a height of 311 metres on Bank House Moor immediately to the northwest. The site is farmland and is used for grazing purposes. It is comprised predominantly of semi-improved grassland, improved grassland, marshy grassland and acid grassland. Other habitats include scattered scrub, species poor hedgerows, springs and flushes. Kirkby Moor Site of Special Scientific Interest (SSSI) is adjacent to the site to the northwest. Two bridleways and a series of footpaths pass within and adjacent to the part of the site within Barrow Borough. The proposed turbines would have three blades with a maximum height to blade tip of 99.5m, a maximum hub height of 64 metres and a capacity of up to 2.3MW. The two turbines on Harlock Hill, within South Lakeland, would be located reasonably close to the locations of the two most northerly existing turbines, and would be separated by approximately 280 metres. The three on Mean Moor, in Barrow Borough, would follow a line northwest from the most southerly of the proposed turbines on Harlock Hill and would have a similar spacing. Access to the Harlock Hill section of the application site would utilise the entrance for the existing wind farm, off the C5018. A new access would be created to serve the Mean Moor section of the application site. This will be taken off the C5016 Ulverston Road, approximately 250 metres northwest of Harlock Farm. The turbines would have circular foundations with a diameter of approximately 7 metres at the surface and 17 metres below the surface. The hard standings at the base of the turbines would be approximately 50 x 22 metres during construction, to allow for crane and component delivery vehicles, and 30 x 22 metres post construction to allow for maintenance. The scheme also includes the construction of two temporary construction compounds; two on-site switch rooms; partial re-routing of one bridleway and one footpath (both within Barrow Borough); and installation of underground on-site electrical and communication cabling. The submission states that the final precise positioning of the turbines would be the subject of a detailed design process following consent which would involve further investigations. As such, the applicant is seeking a micro-siting allowance of 50 metres for all elements of the scheme. The on-site construction would take approximately seven months. The turbines would be operational for 25 years after which the development would be decommissioned, with all major equipment and above ground structures being removed from the site with the concrete foundations remaining. Any plans for repowering would be subject to a new planning application.
Page 38 The turbines on Harlock Hill are currently owned and operated by the Baywind Energy Cooperative Ltd. The two proposed turbines on this part of the site would be retained by this co-operative and the three turbines within Barrow Borough would be owned and operated by the applicant, Infinergy. The two sections of the proposal have been submitted as one scheme due to viability and they must be considered as such. The proposal would provide a total maximum “installed capacity” of up to 11.5 MW, compared to the current wind farm which has an installed capacity of 2.5 MW. The submission states that the wind farm could meet the electricity needs of around 6,000 households each year and is expected to offset between 11,000 and 26,000 tonnes of carbon dioxide per year.
Renewables background The 2007 European Union Common Energy Policy includes a binding target of 20% of overall energy to be produced from renewables by 2020 with a reduction in greenhouse gases by up to 30%. The Climate Change Act 2008 set a legally binding target to reduce greenhouse gas emissions by at least 80% by 2050 with reductions in CO² emissions of some 26% by 2020 against a 1990 base. In 2009, EU Directive 2009/28/EC set out a requirement of 20% of overall energy and 35% of electricity is to be produced from renewables. This directive sets out the contribution from each member state with the UK set to produce 15% of all energy from renewable sources by 2020. The 2009 Renewable Energy Strategy (RES) highlighted a need to radically increase the use of renewable electricity and noted that the 15% binding target required a 7-fold increase in the share of renewables in less than a decade.
POLICY ISSUES: National Planning Policy Framework The National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) was published in March, and replaced the PPS and older PPG documents with a broader policy approach. The key message is that sustainable development should be supported unless other material considerations dictate otherwise. Section 10 Meeting the challenge of climate change, flooding and coastal change , states that planning plays a key role in supporting the delivery of renewable and low carbon energy and associated infrastructure. Planning authorities should adopt proactive strategies to mitigate and adapt to climate change in accordance with the Climate Change Act. When determining applications, LPAs should approve the application if its impacts are (or can be made) acceptable. It should also be recognised that even small-scale projects provide a valuable contribution to cutting greenhouse gas emissions and applicants should not be required to demonstrate the overall need for renewable or low carbon energy. The NPPF states that the approach set out in National Policy Statement for Renewable Energy Infrastructure (EN-3) should be followed when determining planning applications in addition to relevant sections of the Overarching National Policy Statement for Energy Infrastructure (EN-1). These seek to speed up the transition of the UK to a low carbon economy in order to help realise the UK’s global
Page 39 commitments and to improve the security of supply, by reducing reliance upon international energy sources. There should be a diverse mix of technologies, supply chains, and fuel sources, in order to avoid reliance on one sector. The government is committed to “dramatically” increasing electricity generation from renewable resources. In the short term this will mainly be onshore / offshore wind, with future input from biomass, wave and tidal sources. The process is considered to be urgent as aged fossil fuelled power stations need to be closed due to their excessive carbon generation in breach of government targets. As part of this transitional process, the NPSs recognise that significant negative impacts associated with new energy projects should be generally capable of being successfully mitigated. In terms of onshore wind, the turbines can be sited to reduce any potential for noise nuisance, shadow flicker, or ecological impacts, but other impacts upon landscape and visual amenity will be harder to mitigate. However, there is considerable weight given to the overriding public interests of diversifying the UK energy production base and reducing the effects of climate change. Accordingly, the general policy inference is that unless there are recognised issues of significant importance, such as residential amenities or environmental assets that cannot be mitigated, then renewable energy schemes should be supported. Section 11 of the NPPF, Conserving and enhancing the natural environment , states that the planning system should seek to protect and enhance valued landscapes and to minimise impacts upon biodiversity.
Regional Policy Policy DP7 promotes the protection and enhancement of environmental quality, including green infrastructure, but at the same time respecting the character and distinctiveness of landscapes and the maintenance and enhancement of the tranquillity of the open countryside. Policy EMI(A) states that priority should be given to conserving and enhancing areas, sites, features and species of international, national, regional and local landscape, natural environment and historic environment importance. Policy EM17 specifically promotes renewable energy sources and states that significant weight should be given to the wider environmental, community and economic benefits of renewable energy schemes. It lists wide-ranging criteria which should be taken into account when assessing renewable energy proposals, including the effects on local amenity, visual impact and nature conservation. The visual impact of such schemes is a matter to be taken into account but should not be used to rule out or place constraints on the development of all, or specific types of, renewable energy technologies.
Structure Plan Policy Saved Structure Plan Policy R44 states that outside the Lake District National Park and the AONB proposals for renewable energy will be favourably considered if: (1) there is no significant adverse effect on the landscape character, biodiversity and the natural and built heritage of the area either individually or cumulatively through their relationship with other utility infrastructure; (2) there is no significant adverse effect on local amenity, the local economy, highways or telecommunications; and
Page 40 (3) the proposal takes all practicable measures to reduce any adverse impact on the landscape, environment, nature conservation, historical and local community interests. In considering applications for planning permission in relation to the above criteria, and other policies in the Structure Plan, the environmental, economic and energy benefits of renewable energy proposals should be given significant weight. Saved Structure Plan Policy E37 requires development to be compatible with the distinctive characteristics and features of Cumbria’s landscape types Policy E37 requires proposals to be assessed in relation to: (1) locally distinctive natural or built features; (2) visual intrusion or impact; (3) scale in relation to the landscape features; (4) the character of the built environment; (5) public access and community value of the landscape; (6) historic patterns and attributes; (7) biodiversity features, ecological networks and semi-natural habitats; and (8) openness, remoteness and tranquillity.
South Lakeland Core Strategy Policy CS7.7 supports in principle appropriately located renewable energy schemes. It is acknowledged that there are some energy sources which need to be remote from residential areas and other sensitive land uses, and projects should avoid any harmful impact upon the historic environment. Policy CS8.2 states that development proposals should be informed by and be sympathetic to the distinctive character landscapes identified in the Cumbria Landscape Character Guidance and Toolkit. Proposals should demonstrate that their location, scale, design and materials will protect and conserve the special qualities and local distinctiveness of the area. Policy CS8.4 relates to biodiversity and geodiversity and states that all development proposals should protect, enhance and restore the biodiversity and geodiversity value of land and buildings. It also states that development proposals that would have a direct or indirect adverse effect on nationally, sub-regional, regional and local designated sites will not be permitted unless they cannot be located on alternative sites that would cause less or no harm; the benefits of the development clearly outweigh the impacts on the features of the site and the wider network of rural habitats; and prevention, mitigation and compensation measures are provided.
Local Plan Policy Saved Policy L10 states that existing and proposed rights of way will be maintained and protected from any development that would affect their character. Development which results in the loss of, or disruption to, existing rights of way will only be permitted where a satisfactory diversion can be provided and secured in advance of planning consent.
Page 41 Saved Policy C26 covers wind energy proposals and states that their acceptability will be judged according to whether a number of defined criteria can be satisfied. One of the criteria is that the proposal’s energy contribution and other benefits outweigh any significant adverse impact on the character and appearance of the landscape, the amenity of residential properties, nature conservation, archaeological or geographical interests.
OTHER POLICY CONSIDERATIONS: The Cumbria Wind Energy Supplementary Planning Document This was adopted in 2007 and provides guidance for the consideration of wind energy developments. Part 2 of the guidelines provides specific guidance on landscape and visual issues and identifies the potential capacity of various landscape types throughout the county to accommodate different scales of wind farms. The landscape type for this location is intermediate moorland and is judged to have an overall sensitivity of low / moderate with a moderate / high capacity to accommodate turbine development. The capacity statement sets out that small to large groups of turbines responding to the shape and scale of individual hills would be appropriate in Furness. The most notable limiting factor is the potential for turbines to erode a sense of remoteness and wildness and cause visual clutter and confusion with existing turbines and masts. It also states that there is potential for turbines on the open edges of the high plateaus or ridge to be overbearing or intrusive in relation to settlements, visitor routes and prospects from neighbouring landscapes of high sensitivity.
Cumbria Landscape Character Guidance and Toolkit This document was prepared by Cumbria County Council in conjunction with the district authorities in March 2011. The application site lies within character sub-type 9d, Ridges, within the broader landscape character type of Intermediate Moorland and Plateau. The key characteristics of this landscape sub-type are distinct ridges; extensive areas of true heathland moorland; improved pasture with distinctive stone walls; and woodland and small belts of trees forming prominent features. The guidance sets out that the open and distinct ridges, heather moorland and wide and expansive uninterrupted views to sea and the Lakeland Fells provide a sense of wildness that are sensitive to changes in land management and significant infrastructure development. It recommends that the impact of development is minimised by careful siting and design and environmental gains sought such as heather and moorland restoration. It also states that the siting of large scale wind energy should be avoided where it could degrade the open and expansive character.
Companion Guide to PPS22: Planning for Renewable Energy The NPPF replaced all the previous PPG and PPS documents. However, this companion guide is not contained within the list of replaced documents and is therefore still a material planning consideration. It states that there is no statutory separation between a wind turbine and a public right of way, however fall over distance is often considered an acceptable separation, and the minimum distance is often taken to be that the turbine blades should not be
Page 42 permitted to oversail a public right of way. Fall over distance is the height of the turbine to the blade tip and 10% is often added to this as a safe separation distance from occupied buildings. In relation to shadow flicker, the guide makes the following statements: • shadow flicker only occurs inside buildings where the flicker appears through a narrow window opening; • only properties within 130 degrees either side of north of the turbines can be affected at UK latitudes; • shadow flicker has been proven to occur only within ten rotor diameters of a turbine position; • less than 5% of photo-sensitive epileptics are sensitive to the lowest frequencies of 2.5-3 Hz; the remainder being sensitive to higher frequencies; and • a fast-moving three-bladed wind turbine will give rise to the highest levels of flicker frequency of well below 2 Hz. The new generation of wind turbines is known to operate at levels below 1 Hz.
HUMAN RIGHTS ACT: This application has been determined to accord with the rights and limitations of the Act in relation to Article 6 (Right to a fair and public hearing), Article 8 (Right to respect for private and family life, home and correspondence), Article 14 (Prohibition of discrimination) and Article 1 of Protocol 1 (Right to peaceful enjoyment of possessions and protection of property).
ASSESSMENT: The main issues raised by this proposal relate to impacts on landscape and visual amenity, users of the nearby public footpaths, residential amenity, ecology, tourism, highways, the historic environment, aviation and telecommunications.
Landscape and Visual Impacts Barrow Borough Council commissioned Galpin Landscape to independently review the applicant’s landscape submission and undertake an independent landscape and visual impact assessment of the proposal. This has been used to aid both Local Authorities in assessing these issues. Landscape Assessment The sensitivity of landscapes can be defined as the degree to which a particular landscape can accommodate change arising from the development, without detrimental effects on its character. This varies with the pattern and scale of the landscape, visual enclosure / openness of views, and distribution of visual receptors, the scope for mitigation and the value placed on the landscape. The site lies within character sub-type 9d – Ridges as identified in the Cumbria Landscape Character Guidance and Toolkit 2011. It is situated within an extensive area of farmland of an upland character, mainly consisting of improved pasture used for sheep and cattle. On Harlock Hill, fields are bounded by both dry stone walls and
Page 43 hedges. On Mean Moor, the enclosures are bounded by poorly maintained walls or fences, it remains open in character without any vertical features other than the TV mast to the south. A number of sykes flow down the valley side from springs close to the proposed turbine locations on Mean Moor. There are open views of part of the site from the south and east, however the local topography partially screens the site from the north and west. This area has been assessed in the Cumbria Wind Energy Supplementary Planning Document as having low / moderate sensitivity with a landscape capacity of moderate / high to accommodate “up to a large group” which is 6 – 9 turbines and exceptionally up to a medium wind farm (16 to 25 turbines). It states that small to large groups of turbines responding to the shape and scale of individual hills would be appropriate in Furness. However, it is set out in the document that the SPD is intended to provide an indication of the relative capacity of different landscapes and should not be used to determine the acceptability of a proposal. The following table summarises the findings (paras 4.17-4.24) in Galpin Landscape’s report. Landscape characteristic Magnitude of impact Scale and Enclosure Low Complexity and Order Low Manmade Influence Low Skyline Low / moderate Connections with adjacent Low / moderate landscapes Remoteness and Tranquillity The area is very remote and tranquil. The sensitivity is high. In this case the magnitude of impact is moderate / high due to the effect on the remote sense of place.
The landscape character assessment, produced by Galpin Landscape, states that the existing wind turbines, on the site and in the general area, have established this landscape character as a landscape with wind turbines and the additional vertical structures would not have a significant effect on the landscape character type. The report concludes that the impact significance medium to low / medium which is not significant.
Visual Assessment The sensitivity of visual receptors (people) can be affected by the location and context of the viewpoint, the type of landscape, the type of receptor, the activity of the receptors and the importance or popularity of the view and typical numbers of viewers. As part of the application a map showing the Zone of Theoretical Visibility was submitted and identified important viewpoints. Wirelines and photomontages were undertaken from these viewpoints and illustrate the impact of change. The independent assessment has highlighted that there are a lack of viewpoints in the immediate vicinity of the development, the only one of which is viewpoint 1, from the minor road south of Harlock Hill.
Page 44 Galpin Landscape finds the magnitude of impact on Viewpoint 1 to be substantial, therefore resulting in a significant visual impact. The report goes on to state that, “viewpoint 1 is in the vicinity of the proposal and other viewpoints (if they had been included) would have a similar significance of impact” (para 5.16). The other important public viewpoints in the vicinity are the footpaths that cut through the site on Mean Moor. The impact on users of these footpaths is considered separately. However, in relation to visual impact, paragraph 5.18 of Galpin Landscape report states: “There were no viewpoints for public rights of way in the immediate vicinity of the proposal included in the applicant’s submission. Our independent assessment has identified through site study and digital terrain modelling verification, that visual receptors using the public footpath leading to Shooting House Hill (SD 25965 81740) would have a high magnitude of impact. As this is a recreational route the sensitivity of visual receptor would be high resulting in a high significance of impact which is significant.” The applicant’s submission and the Galpin Landscape report state that the other significant impacts would be at Swarthmoor, the Hoad Monument, Birkrigg Common and Askam-in-Furness. In particular, Galpin Landscape report states at paragraph 5.17: “These viewpoints have high visual receptor sensitivities, such as Birkrigg Common and the Hoad Monument as they are important recreational routes and viewpoints - the views are important at these locations. The difference to the viewpoints nearer to the proposal is the separation distances from the proposal to the visual receptor locations. The views will be changed at these locations with the introduction of these wind turbines as can be seen in the photomontages”. The independent report outlines that the proposal would result in further turbines to the west of the existing ones on Harlock Hill forming a wider grouping. In particular the three on Mean Moor would appear prominent in views from the south in comparison to the existing turbines. The report sets out that the overall magnitude of impact to views for visual receptors would be moderate. It goes on to state that: “the visual receptor sensitivities would be moderate to moderate / high in places due to the close proximity to local recreational routes, dwellings and local recreational viewpoints at the Hoad and on Birkrigg Common. Therefore the inclusion of these wind turbines into the landscape would have an adverse visual impact of medium to medium / high significance” (paragraph 5.25 – 5.26). Also of note is the topography of the land where the turbines will be sited. Taken from an Ordnance Survey plan, the turbines on Harlock Hill (D and E) and the closest on Mean Moor (C) would be sited at a similar elevation (approximately 210 metres). The turbines on Mean Moor follow the slope of the land upwards, with turbine B sited at a level approximately 50 metres higher than turbine C, and turbine A, a further 30 metres above B. The existing turbines on Harlock Hill have a height to blade tip of 53 metres and, as such, the base of turbine B would be almost above these, with the base of turbine A in line with the blades of the turbines C, D and E. The existing turbines at Harlock Hill are relatively well contained within the landscape. The proposal does not just relate to the increase in height of these but also to the spread of turbines to the northwest on significantly higher land, although there will be the same number of turbines. The elevation of the land on Mean Moor in particular will result in the turbines appearing prominent at much further distances. The character of
Page 45 the existing wind farm will change from a well contained group to a linear form across a greater distance onto higher land. The Galpin Landscape report concludes that the overall visual impact is significant according to current guidelines, and from key view points where significant impacts would be experienced by visual receptors, such as the Hoad Monument and Birkrigg Common, there would be a change in perception of the wind turbines. The report recommends that the application is approved as the visual impact identified is outweighed by the benefits arising from the proposal. However, this is something for the Local Authority to determine and there are other issues that need to be balanced against the benefits of the scheme.
Impact on public rights of way Saved Policy L10 of the South Lakeland Local Plan states that existing and proposed rights of way will be maintained and protected from any development that would affect their character. Although the part of the site which has the potential to impact on public footpaths is within Barrow Borough, the scheme must be considered as a whole. The Local plan for Barrow Borough contains a similar policy. A number of signposted and waymarked footpaths cross the site in close proximity to turbines C, D and E. Two bridleways originate from the A595, cross on Bank Moor, and connect to Standish Cote and Harlock. Additional footpaths and bridleways that connect Standish Cote and Kirkby Moor cut through the site. The footpath and bridleways on Kirkby Moor connect through to several routes to the north and to the village of Kirkby. The footpaths, looking south provide views over Barrow, Morecambe Bay and towards Lancashire. In views looking north from the footpaths to the south (north of Standish Coat and Bank House Moor) there is a feeling of wilderness and isolation with some views towards the Lake District fells. The footpaths appear to be well used. The character of the landscape is already influenced by wind turbines. The current turbines in a cluster form, while present in the landscape in eastern views from the footpaths, do not have a dominating or imposing impact on these footpaths. In most views they appear to respect the surroundings due to their appropriate size and layout. Some users of the rights of way might feel neutral or find the turbines to be a feature of interest. Nevertheless, they are likely to have a significant impact on the views over Barrow Borough, Morecambe Bay and Lancashire from footpaths on Mean Moor and further afield at Shooting House Hill. They will also have a major impact on the isolated and wilderness character of the footpaths. The layout of the turbines results in the whole east to west panorama being dominated by them. Despite the buffer zones and footpath diversions, the turbines will have a dominating, intimidating and imposing impact on users of the footpaths on Mean Moor such that their wilderness and isolated character and appeal would be completely lost. The scale and movement of the turbines would be particularly disturbing due to the proximity of the footpaths and their varied elevation compared to the turbines.
Impacts on nearby residential properties There are several residential properties, forming an arc around the site, which are in close proximity to the proposed turbines. The ones most likely to be affected are Harlock Farm and Rathmoss to the north, Horrace Farm to the north east, properties at Ewedale Farm to the south, and properties at Standish Cote to the south west. The impacts on other properties further from the site will also be discussed where
Page 46 appropriate. There are three main issues in relation to the proposal that have the potential to impact on the amenities of nearby residential properties; namely the visual impact or dominance of the turbines, noise and shadow flicker.
Visual Impact For the purpose of this assessment the affect on the nearest individual properties will be considered in detail. Harlock Farm This property is located approximately 700 metres north of the nearest proposed turbine. The front elevation faces south east and there is a large garden area in this direction which extends around the south east side of the dwelling to the rear. The north east section of the building at this property consists of an attached annex, which appears to be currently unoccupied. The ground floor windows at the front of the dwelling relate to a sitting room and study with a window serving a kitchen / dining room at the rear. There are also bedroom windows at first floor in the front and side elevations. The existing turbines are seen as a contained group in most views from the garden and habitable rooms at the front of the property. The current occupiers have planted trees that go some way to obscuring the existing development in the spring and summer months, but the three turbines on Mean Moor will increase the arc of vision across which the turbines will be visible from this property. There will be very few places within the dwelling, at both ground and first floor, where the turbines will not be visible. Due to their height, elevation, size and linear spacing they will have a dominating and imposing impact on the property that greatly exceeds the existing situation. As a result, it is likely that Harlock Farm would become a significantly less attractive place to live as a consequence of the development. Rathmoss This is a detached property approximately 750m north of the nearest turbine. The outlook from living room and bedroom windows are to the south and overlook the existing turbines on Harlock Hill. The replacement turbines on Harlock Hill will be more prevalent in views due to their height and size and it is possible that turbine C will also be visible above Harlock Farm. Rathvale This is a detached farmhouse approximately 1.3km north of the nearest turbine. Its main outlook from habitable rooms and the main garden is south towards the development. The existing 5 turbines can be seen above the topography. There is little screening provided by trees of the Harlock Hill site, however there are limited views towards Mean Moor. Two of the turbines on the Mean Moor site are likely to be obscured from views. While the visible turbines will be larger and prominent in the landscape the change is unlikely to have a direct impact leading to serious harm to living conditions. Horrace Farm This property is located to the northeast of the existing turbines at Harlock Hill and is approximately 600 metres from the nearest proposed turbine. The rear of the dwelling faces south and there is a small garden at this side of the property. Immediately to the west and south west of the dwelling are a collection of farm buildings. In the south west elevation of the dwelling there are two windows at ground floor, which serve a kitchen
Page 47 and a bathroom, and several windows at first floor which serve bedrooms, a landing / corridor and a sitting room which forms part of an annexe used by an elderly relative. From the garden, the turbines are mainly screened by mature trees. At present, two of the turbines are visible through the canopy. However, these are deciduous trees and as such in winter the visual presence of the turbines will be greater. From the kitchen window the turbines are mainly screened by the trees and the agricultural buildings, however this is less so in winter as with the garden area. Although the turbines on Harlock Hill will be reduced from five to two, given their increased height they will have a much more dominant impact on this dwelling. The trees and farm buildings will provide less screening of the larger turbines and the movement of the blades will be much more obvious at this property. However, the farm buildings and orientation of the dwelling mean that the proposed turbines at Mean Moor are unlikely to be visible from the living areas of this property. The window serving the upstairs living area is in the rear wall close to the west elevation. The blades of one of the turbines is clearly visible above the trees. As with the garden and kitchen window, although there will be only two rather than five turbines, their increase in height and blade length will increase the appearance and dominance of the turbines. Given the increase in height of the turbines on Harlock Hill and their proximity to this property, and habitable room windows, the proposal will result in an overbearing impact which will be detrimental to the living conditions of the occupiers of this property. Ewedale Farm To the south west of Harlock Hill is a group of properties, some of which are let as holiday accommodation, collectively known as Ewedale Farm. These are approximately 700 metres from the nearest proposed turbine and are located almost immediately to the south of Harlock Reservoir, below the banking which forms its edge. To the west and south west of these is a large area of trees. The increase in height of the turbines at Harlock Hill is likely to make parts of them more visible. However, given where the buildings are situated within the landscape and their relationship to each other, it is unlikely that the turbines will be detrimental to the living conditions at these properties. It is likely that they will be most visible from external areas rather than habitable rooms. Some screening will be provided to the turbines at Mean Moor by the trees and the reservoir banking. Given this and the orientation of the windows, it is unlikely that the turbines will be overly dominant on these properties although they will be visible to a certain extent. Standish Cote Farm and Swallow Cottage The properties at Standish Cote are the closest dwellings within Barrow Borough to the proposal, approximately 800 metres from the nearest turbine. These consist of two semi-detached properties which are located to the south of Mean Moor and the south west of Harlock Hill. Immediately to the north of these is a collection of farm buildings and to the south is a detached dwelling, Standish Cote House, which is under the same ownership as the site of the turbines on Mean Moor. The rear elevations of both Standish Cote Farm and Swallow Cottage face north, with the side wall of Swallow Cottage facing east. Of these two properties, Swallow Cottage is more likely to be affected by the proposal. There are views of the existing turbines from a dining room at ground floor, the rear and side wall of which mainly comprises glazing. There is also a kitchen window in the rear wall of the dwelling which faces towards Mean Moor. On the first floor there is a second sitting room which has a glazed
Page 48 door and another window in the east elevation. The door opens onto a large decking area from which, all the existing turbines are clearly visible. The site of the turbines on Mean Moor will also become more prominent from this location as the change in levels of the land provides less screening from this position than at ground floor. There is also a patio area and garden at the rear which continues around the side of the house to the front. The proposed turbines will occupy a greater arc of vision than at present. The agricultural buildings to the rear will provide some level of screening, mainly when viewed from the rear garden area. However, the land where the turbines are to be sited on Mean Moor is higher than the ground floor level of the dwelling and as such at least some of the turbines are likely to dominate views and outlook north from the dining room and kitchen. The decking area at first floor is likely to be the most severely affected part of this property with clear views of all the turbines. The combined impacts on the various living spaces at this property are likely to result in a significant loss in amenity at this property. This is particularly likely due to the proximity, scale, and elevated position of the turbines at Mean Moor, combined with the increased arc of vision that the turbines will occupy. The main outlook of the adjoining property, Standish Cote Farm, is towards the south. As such it is unlikely that the turbines would impact on the living conditions of the dwelling. The property has garden areas at the front and rear. From the rear garden / patio, the turbines at Harlock Hill are partly visible and this will increase with the larger turbines. This area is at a higher level than the garden at Swallow Cottage, and as such the impacts of the proposal on this garden area are likely to be similar to those described for the first floor decking area at Swallow Cottage, particularly in relation to the turbines on Mean Moor. Stewner Park Farm and Quarry Bank Farm These properties are located on the same road as those at Standish Cote, and are approximately 1.4 kilometres to the south west of the nearest turbine. The main outlook from these properties is away from the application site. Given this orientation, and the distance from the site, the proposal is unlikely to be seriously detrimental to the residential amenity of these properties. Shearbanks and Toad Cottage These properties are located to the south of Pennington Reservoir, approximately 1 kilometre to the south east of nearest proposed turbine. The present Harlock Hill wind farm extends closer to these properties than the proposed scheme. Given this, and the orientation of the properties, it is unlikely that the turbines would adversely affect the living conditions of the occupiers to a significant extent.
Conclusion of visual impact on residential amenity In considering the visual impact of turbines, several factors need to be taken into consideration: the number of turbines, the distance-to-height ratio, the angle of view that they occupy, the orientation of habitable rooms and gardens and screening effects of buildings and trees. Although the number of turbines will remain the same as at present, they will be higher and will extend over a much greater area and therefore occupy a larger view. In particular, the turbines will occupy a much greater arc of vision for the residents at Harlock Farm and Standish Cote. Collectively the impact on the living conditions at Harlock Farm, Standish Cote Farm, Swallow Cottage, Horrace Farm and Rathmoss, will be significant. The 50 metre micro-siting of the turbines, requested
Page 49 by the applicant, could result in their siting closer to residential properties which would be likely to increase their impact.
Noise The applicant’s assessment has been carried out according to the recommendations of ETSU-R-97, The Assessment and Rating of Noise from Wind Farms. Baseline noise levels were measured at four locations representative of the nearest residential properties to the site. Predictions of the typical downwind noise levels from the proposed wind farm, and the contribution from Askam Wind Farm, were carried out. These were based on the proposed site layout and using noise data in relation to the Enercon E-70 E4 2.3MW wind turbine. There are potential for noise impacts during construction, operation and decommissioning of the wind farm. During construction the likely cause of noise is as a result of the construction of access tracks and crane hardstanding; excavation of cable trenches and turbine foundations; concreting turbine bases; turbine assembly; and construction traffic. The decommissioning phase will have similar impacts as a result of the dismantling and removal of the turbines and associated vehicle movements. This is also relevant to the decommissioning of the existing Harlock Hill wind farm. During the operation of the turbines, there is the potential for aerodynamic and mechanically generated noise. Conditions relating to the noise generated from the turbines have been agreed with the applicant. They include limits on daytime and night time noise levels at each of the nearest properties at different wind speeds; a duty for the operator to investigate any noise complaints within 21 days with regards to amplitude modulation; and full details of the turbines and their exact positions and if not the same model a full update of the noise assessment.
Shadow Flicker Shadow flicker is the effect of the sun shining behind the rotating turbine blades and creating an intermittent shadow. It only occurs inside buildings where there is a narrow window opening and where certain meteorological, seasonal and geographical conditions prevail. The sun must be low in the sky and the wind turbine and property must be in line with the sun. The resultant effect is that moving shadows are cast through a window opening which appear to flick on and off as the blades rotate and can be detrimental to the amenity of residents. It has been shown to only occur within a distance equivalent to ten rotor diameters of a turbine, in this case, 710 metres, and the distance between the turbine and a residential property affects the intensity of the shadows cast by the blades. There are no guidelines within the UK in respect of the level of shadow flicker that is acceptable. The applicant has based the conclusions of the assessment on legislation and guidelines from the Netherlands and Germany. Harlock Farm and Horrace Farm have the most potential for shadow flicker. Mitigation is proposed within the ES and paragraph 16.46 states: “If, during the operational life of the wind farm, it is established that shadow flicker is experienced beyond acceptable levels, Baywind and Infinergy will close down the wind turbines responsible for causing the effects at times when the turbines have been predicted to cause shadow flicker effects”.
Page 50 The difficulty with the mitigation proposed is how it will be determined that the shadow flicker experienced is beyond acceptable levels. The amount of shadow flicker also has the potential to increase if the micro-siting brings the turbines closer to Harlock Farm and Horrace Farm. However it can be mitigated against by installing automatic turbine shut-down timers if necessary. It may be appropriate to require detailed mitigation measures to ensure that nuisance from shadow flicker is avoided. If a system is put in place to stop the turbines when they cause an impact, very little production time should be lost if the effects are minimal as outlined in the report.
Ecology Designated sites (including ornithology) The site is located approximately 2.3 km from the Duddon Estuary and 6.5 km from Morecambe Bay, both of which are designated as Sites of Special Scientific Interest (SSSI), Special Protection Areas (SPA), and Ramsar Sites. The Duddon Estuary also forms part of the Morecambe Bay Special Area of Conservation (SAC). The proposal has the potential to affect the SPA interest of the European sites. The typical effects of a wind turbine development on birds include collision risk, displacement to feeding / foraging / roosting birds or both. Curlew, Lesser Black-backed Gull, Lapwing and Wigeon were recorded on the site with flight activity occurring within the collision-risk window of the proposed turbines. Natural England did not consider that there was sufficient information to conclude that the scheme was unlikely to have a significant impact on the surrounding SPAs and requested that bird collision risk modelling was undertaken. Following the submission of this, Natural England confirm that the figures provide more robust support for the conclusions reached in the ES which stated that the turbines would have a negligible impact on SPA bird species. They also advise that that the proposal is not likely to have a significant effect on the interest features for which the Duddon Estuary SPA / Ramsar site and Morecambe Bay SPA / Ramsar sites have been classified. Kirkby Moor SSSI is located adjacent to the site. Natural England is satisfied that the proposals will not have a significant impact on the special interest features of the SSSI provided that a 50 metre buffer is provided and that a construction environment management plan is developed and implemented.
Bats Bat activity surveys following set transect routes were undertaken during 2007, 2008 and 2010. Having studied the methodology of the surveys, Natural England noted that there is a risk that the levels of bat activity recorded at the site are an underestimation and that the early emerging species such as noctule could have been missed. However they conclude that, given the habitats present across the site, the low level of activity recorded during the surveys, and the existing presence of the turbines on Harlock Hill, that the risk to bats resulting from the proposed scheme remains low.
Otters and Badgers The initial response from Natural England stated that they had no concerns with regards to the impact on other protected species provided that the suggested buffer distances for badger and otter were implemented. However, concerns were raised by a local resident who submitted a report regarding the impacts on otters in the locality, and a
Page 51 survey was also carried out by an ecologist on behalf of another neighbour. Natural England then raised concerns regarding the potential direct impacts of turbine C on suitable otter resting and foraging habitat. Following the submission of an updated report by Peak Ecology, on behalf of the applicant, Natural England advised that there were still uncertainties regarding the suitability of habitats at turbine C and that the Local Authority needed to be satisfied that such habitats were either absent or if present were being retained. RSK Environment was commissioned by Barrow Borough Council to undertake an independent assessment of any potential impacts on otters in relation to the siting of turbine C. The report states that there is evidence of otters using Harlock Reservoir, however there is no evidence of them using the site and in particular the proposed location of turbine C. This was probably due to the poor quality of habitats in terms of providing shelter to otters. The report goes on to say that the fact that otters are present close to the site justifies the need for the mitigation measures detailed in the Environmental Statement. However, there is no evidence to suggest that the construction of turbine C, in particular, would directly affect the local otter population and there would be no loss of resting sites or places which could support breeding. The report by RSK concludes that there is no reason for the otters, which use the reservoir, to be resting in the location of turbine C at the time of construction and therefore the chances of otters being killed or injured during the works are negligible. Given the results of this independent survey and report, the Local Planning Authority is satisfied that the proposal will not have a detrimental impact on the local otter population.
Enhancements A Habitat Management Plan (HMP) is referenced in the applicant’s submission, however Natural England suggested that as part of the planning application it would be reasonable to expect a broad outline of the scope of the plan to be provided; as such, a brief HMP submitted. Natural England confirmed that they were broadly satisfied with this as an outline document, however it did not appear to incorporate positive habitat management for otters, and in particular the need to provide and maintain areas of gorse scrub for cover. The applicant has confirmed that they will commit to including otter habitat enhancement measures and monitoring as part of the HMP.
Tourism Although the proposal will have significant visual impacts on footpaths close to the site and more distance viewpoints, there is no evidence to suggest that this would significantly impact on tourism in general to the area. The impact on the properties to the south, at Ewedale Farm has been considered in this report and it is noted that some of the properties are let as holiday accommodation and planning permission has recently been granted for the siting of three holiday lodges.
Access and Highways The proposed turbine delivery route from the Port of Barrow uses the A590 trunk road to Lindal-in-Furness, then the Marton and Horrace Roads to access the Harlock Hill part of the site, then onto the Ulverston Road to access the Mean Moor part of the site. Access to the Harlock Hill section of the application site will utilise the entrance for the existing wind farm, off minor road C5018. The access will be widened, with off highway
Page 52 modifications proposed on the onsite tracks. A new access will be created to serve the Mean Moor section of the application site. This will be taken off the C5016 Ulverston Road, approximately 250m northwest of Harlock Farm. No objections have been raised by Cumbria Highways subject to inclusion of conditions which require a Traffic Management Plan to be submitted, access and parking requirements to be substantially met before works commence and a scheme to prevent surface water draining onto the highway.
Archaeology and Heritage Impacts Archaeology The environmental statement indicates that the site lies in an area of some archaeological potential. There are various known earthwork remains in the vicinity including post medieval quarries, ridge and furrow, and a possible ringwork of unknown date. The proposal has been designed to avoid the known archaeological remains on the site, however there is some potential for the ground works to disturb currently unknown buried archaeological remains. The Historic Environment Officer at the County Council agreed with the recommended mitigation outlined in the ES that an archaeological evaluation and, where necessary, a scheme of archaeological recording of the site be undertaken in advance of development. This can be secured through the inclusion of a condition on any planning consent.
Devils Bridge Devil’s Bridge is a Scheduled Ancient Monument and Listed Building within South Lakeland District. It is located next to the C5018 which will be the route taken by vehicles to the Mean Moor part of the site. Given its proximity to the road, there is the potential for permanent and / or irreversible damage from vibrations caused by lorries transporting the turbines and construction materials to the site. English Heritage have been consulted and have raised no objection subject to a range of measures outlined in the applicants Environmental Statement (Paras 11.90 -11.92) being adopted which can be conditioned as part of any planning consent. In the vicinity of Devils Bridge, the bank would need to be cut back and trees removed. This is a particularly sensitive and tranquil area and any works should be limited to the minimum required. Conditions can be used requiring the area to be recorded prior to commencement of the scheme and fully reinstated on completion.
Aviation and Telecommunications No concerns or objections have been raised with regards to any potential impact on aviation as a result of the proposal. However, the MOD has requested that the turbines are fitted with aviation lighting. No objections have been raised by the telecommunications operators consulted. Orange has stated that there is a microwave link in close proximity to the site. From the map supplied, it appears to be at least 400 metres from the nearest proposed turbine which is further than the distance from the present turbines. As such, it is unlikely that the link will be affected by the proposal.
Page 53 Other issues Existing and Proposed foundations and infrastructure Whilst the applicant has said that they will “make good” the land affected by the development, the Environmental Statement (Chapter 12, page 26) states that it is not intended to remove the turbine foundations. This would result in 10 concrete foundation blocks and other infrastructure remaining permanently in the ground. Policy R44 of the Cumbria and Lake District Joint Structure Plan states that “measures should be included to secure the satisfactory removal of structures / related infrastructure and remediation of land following cessation of operation of the installation.” Community benefit Baywind is a co-operative and presently owns the five wind turbines on Harlock Hill and will own 2 of the 5 proposed turbines. Currently there are 1,280 members each investing between £300 and £20,000. Nearly 300 members live in the LA postcode area. A new share offer is proposed to be launched. An existing community benefit fund receives £2500 which has been used to distribute low energy light bulbs in the local area, promote the installation of solar hot water systems, provide advice on energy efficiency measures in the home and approve grants to local organisations and community buildings to help towards the costs of refurbishment such as double glazing and low energy lighting. The fund is proposed to be increased to approximately £35000 annually and will continue to be administered by an independent Board. It will generally support energy conservation and climate change related projects in the area.
Conclusions The development plan comprises the Regional Spatial Strategy, the Cumbria and Lake District Joint Structure Plan and the South Lakeland Local Plan. Some of the relevant policies are essentially “protecting” policies and others are “balancing” policies in which the importance of protecting existing assets must be expressly weighed against the benefits that would result from the proposal. In addition, material considerations that might lead to a decision other than in accordance with the development plan must be assessed. Policies DP7 and EM1(A) of the RSS, Policy E37 of the Structure Plan and Policy CS8.2 of the South Lakeland Core Strategy are concerned with safeguarding landscape character and protecting the countryside from inappropriate development. Although the independent report that was commissioned by Barrow Borough Council concluded that there would not be a significant impact on landscape character, it did conclude that there would be a significant visual impact as a result of this proposal. This was not just within the immediately vicinity of the proposal but also from more distance important viewpoints. As a result of the significance that the turbines would have in terms of visual impact, the proposal would conflict with the above policies. Saved Policy L10 of the Local Plan seeks to protect public rights of way from development that would adversely affect their character. As a result of the impacts outlined above, the proposal would be contrary to the aims and objectives of this policy. The harm to the living conditions of local residents through the turbines dominating the outlook from nearby properties is also a compelling objection to the proposal. Given the severity of harm to individual properties, the fact that relatively few properties are affected is not significant.
Page 54 Policy EM 17 of the RSS, saved Policy R44 of the Structure Plan, and saved Policy C26 of the Local Plan require the benefits of the proposal to be balanced against potentially adverse impacts. The general emphasis of these policies is that the environmental, economic and energy benefits of renewable energy proposals should be given significant weight. The NPPF also states that Local Planning Authorities should grant planning permission if its impacts are, or can be made, acceptable. The proposal will make a tangible contribution to targets for renewable energy generation. However, the contribution to achieving regional and national targets for renewable energy generation does not outweigh the adverse visual impacts of the proposal, the harm to living conditions of local residents and the significant impacts on users of the adjacent public footpaths taken together.
RECOMMENDATION: REFUSE for the reasons below: - 1. As a consequence of the size, siting and layout of the development, the proposed turbines will have a significant visual impact from viewpoints in close proximity to the site in addition to more distant viewpoints at Swarthmoor, the Hoad Monument, Birkrigg Common and Askam-in- Furness. Birkrigg Common and the Hoad Monument would have high visual receptor sensitivities as they are important recreational routes and viewpoints. The perception of the turbines would be significantly altered as a result of their continuation to the west, the linear pattern that would result and the significant change in the topography across the site. The development is therefore in conflict with the objectives of Policies DP7 and EM1(A) of the Regional Spatial Strategy for North West England; saved Policies R44 and E37 of the Cumbria and Lake District Joint Structure Plan; Policy CS8.2 of the adopted South Lakeland Core Strategy; and saved Policy C26 of the South Lakeland Local Plan. 2. The development would exert a harmful influence on the living conditions currently enjoyed by neighbouring residents by reason of the scale, proximity and visual impact of the turbines. As a consequence, the proposal is not compatible with the objectives of saved Policy R44 of the Cumbria and Lake District Joint Structure Plan and saved Policy C26 of the South Lakeland Local Plan. 3. The proposed turbines will have a dominating, intimidating and imposing impact on users of the footpaths on Mean Moor such that their wilderness and isolated character and appeal would be completely lost. The scale and movement of the turbines would be particularly disturbing due to the proximity of the footpaths and their varied elevation compared to the turbines. The development is therefore incompatible with the objectives of saved Policy R44 of the Cumbria and Lake District Joint Structure Plan and saved Policy L10 of the South Lakeland Local Plan.
Page 55 This page is intentionally left blank
Page 56 SCHEDULE A
Complex Planning Applications
SCHEDULE No: 3 SL/2012/0123
PRESTON PATRICK: LOW AUDLANDS, GATEBECK, KENDAL LA8 0UH
PROPOSAL: ERECTION OF AGRICULTURAL WORKER'S DWELLING (OUTLINE)
MR GIBSON
E357326 N486109 25/10/2012
SUMMARY: Outline application for the construction of an agricultural workers dwelling on an established working farm. Agricultural appraisal provides justification for an additional dwelling to serve the farm business.
PRESTON PATRICK PARISH COUNCIL: No objections in principle, but the Parish Council considers that the dwelling would be better located to the south of the farm track, on the site of the existing caravan, where it would be better screened by the field wall. If this is not possible, then the dwelling should be surrounded by a stone wall in order to reduce its impact on the landscape.
AGRICULTURAL CONSULTANT: The agricultural appraisal report submitted by the applicant has been assessed by an independent land agent employed by the Local Authority. He has concluded the following: 1. There is a clearly established existing functional need in relation to the landholdings that make up Low Audlands Farm, for 2 full time workers, actively involved in the management of this holding as an entire unit, to be resident on or immediately adjacent to it. The functional need test is therefore met. 2. I have calculated the labour requirement on this farming unit as an entire unit and can advise that there is a labour requirement in excess of 3 full time workers relating solely to the care of the existing livestock. Additional labour requirement in relation to the field work is largely met by
Page 57 contractors. The labour requirement test is therefore met. 3. This business has been established for many years, is financially viable and has a clear prospect of remaining so. Therefore the financial viability test is met. 4. The existing dwelling at Low Audlands Farm currently meets the requirement to house only 1 of the 2 full time workers actively involved in the management of this unit that are required to be resident on, or immediately adjacent to it.
CUMBRIA HIGHWAYS: Acceptable to the highway authority subject to the imposition of conditions regarding surface water drainage and hard surfacing.
SLDC ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION OFFICER: To be reported.
UNITED UTILITIES: No objections.
NATIONAL GRID:
No objections.
HISTORICAL CONTEXT:
There is no relevant planning history to the site.
DESCRIPTION AND PROPOSAL: Outline planning permission is sought for the construction of an agricultural worker’s dwelling at Low Audlands Farm, near Gatebeck. All matters other than layout are reserved. The farm occupies an elevated position in open countryside on the B6254 to the south east of Kendal, approximately mid-way between Kendal and Kirkby Lonsdale. The farm buildings are located on both sides of the highway. The existing farmhouse is located to the east of the carriageway, attached to traditional stone and slated farm buildings arranged around a yard area. The largest of the modern farm buildings are located to the west of the carriageway, although there is also a traditional stone building within this complex. Audlands Park, another working farm lies, immediately to the south of Low Audlands, to the east of the carriageway. The site of the proposed dwelling lies approximately 35 metres to the north of the silage pit on the western side of the road, opposite modern farm buildings and
Page 58 adjacent to a farm track. The site area measures 30 metres by 30 metres, and access will be via the existing farm track. The two-storey dwelling is to be positioned parallel to the road, measuring 16 metres in length and 6 metres in width. An additional garage building is proposed at the front of the property. A septic tank is proposed within the curtilage of the dwelling. The farming enterprise at Low Audlands was established in 1954, and now extends to 750 acres (303 ha), 400 acres (161 ha) of which are owned, and the remainder tenanted. As the business has expanded over the years, planning permission has been granted for the slurry pit, silos and modern agricultural buildings. The farm is run by the applicant and his son, who currently lives with his partner in the village of Holme. Casual help is employed at busy times and extensive use of contractors is made for all the field tractor work, including making silage and spreading slurry. The farm is run primarily for the rearing of livestock and milk production, and the accompanying agricultural appraisal indicates that the following stock are kept on the holding:
• 95 Holstein dairy cows producing around 8000 litres of milk per cow per year. The female calves from these cows are retained on the holding, and reared until around 2½ years of age when they calve and enter the milking herd to replace the older cows in the herd. The bull calves are also retained on the holding and sold fat around 14 months of age.
• 1200 lambing ewes, lambing outside in each year in March or April, with the lambs being sold fat off the holding.
• 150 hoggs which are the younger female sheep to replace the older breeding ewes.
• 35 tups.
Currently the only residential accommodation on the holding is the original 3 bedroomed farmhouse which is occupied by the applicant Mr Gibson and his wife. The proposed dwelling is to house the applicant’s son so that he can be available to deal with out of hours emergencies on the holding, i.e. calving cows and lambing ewes, rather than having to continually return to the farm outside normal working hours. No land or buildings belonging to the farm have been disposed of.
POLICY ISSUES:
National Planning Policy Framework Section 6 Delivering a wide choice of high quality homes states that local planning authorities should avoid new isolated homes in the countryside unless there are special circumstances such as the essential need for a rural worker to live permanently at or near their place of work in the countryside.
Page 59 South Lakeland Core Strategy
Policy CS 7.4 of the adopted South Lakeland Core Strategy supports the economic needs of the rural community including sustainable farming and food production.
South Lakeland Local Plan Saved Policy H9 of the South Lakeland Local Plan relates to agricultural and forestry dwellings in the open countryside. Such proposals will be permitted where it can be demonstrated that there is a functional need for the dwelling, there are no alternative opportunities for providing accommodation on the site for example through conversion of redundant buildings or subdividing an existing dwelling, the proposed dwelling should be located adjacent to the existing farmstead and the size of the dwelling is appropriate to the functional need for it. The explanatory text accompanying the policy sets out how the Local Authority will apply an occupancy condition to any dwelling permitted, which will also be applied to existing dwellings on the holding.
HUMAN RIGHTS ACT: This application has been determined to accord with the rights and limitations of the Act in relation to Article 6 (Right to a fair and public hearing), Article 8 (Right to respect for private and family life, home and correspondence), Article 14 (Prohibition of discrimination) and Article 1 of Protocol 1 (Right to peaceful enjoyment of possessions and protection of property).
ASSESSMENT: The independent consultant has confirmed the established existing functional need on the holding for an additional worker to be resident on the holding, particularly so when the dairy cows are calving throughout the year, the breeding ewes are lambing in the spring and for the general care of the livestock throughout the year, particularly the younger animals. Calculating the labour requirements of the landholdings, he advises that based on the existing livestock numbers and cropping practices, there is a labour requirement solely in relation to the care of the existing livestock, in excess of 3 full time workers. This is currently met by the applicant and his son working very long hours, with labour requirements for field work being largely met by contractors. He considers that in the interests of the wellbeing of the livestock, the efficient running of the holding and for overall security and dealing quickly with emergencies, it is essential that of the assessed labour requirement of in excess of 3 full time workers to deal with the existing livestock enterprises, 2 of those full time workers, actively involved in the management of this unit should be resident on or immediately adjacent to it. In principle an agricultural worker’s dwelling in this location is acceptable. It fulfils the stringent criteria needed to justify a new dwelling in the countryside, and is close to the farm buildings within the holding. In response to the Parish Councils comments, the applicant’s agent has confirmed that the site they identified as being more suitable had been considered. However, given the potential for future expansion of
Page 60 the farm, and the likelihood that the slurry store would need to be extended at some point, the location proposed for the new dwelling outside the operational area of the farm would not hinder any future development of the farm enterprise. The independent agricultural consultant also noted the possibility of the need to increase the capacity of the slurry store in the future should the area become subject to regulations relating to nitrate vulnerable zones. The agent has also clarified the uses of the existing buildings to confirm why they are unavailable and unsuitable for conversion. Alternative locations for the dwelling within the holding were considered, including to the south east of the existing farmhouse. This site was discounted on highway grounds, with inadequate visibility, particularly to the north, for a safe vehicular access. This was evident during the site visit. From distant viewpoints the dwelling will be viewed against the backdrop of farm buildings. Nevertheless, the structure will be prominent, particularly when viewed from approaches from the north, because of its elevated position within the open rural landscape. The land on the site itself falls away to the north and west, and as a result some underbuilding will be necessary for the dwelling in the position proposed. The indicative layout illustrates a two storey dwelling sited parallel to the road, with a lower ridge to the northern section which assists in reducing the impact of the dwelling. The final design of the dwelling will be determined at the reserved matters stage, but it is considered that the site proposed is suitable, and the layout and scale are of the dwelling are acceptable. The Highway Authority is satisfied with the access to the site, and subject to the submission of further details it is considered that the site can be satisfactorily served by non-mains drainage.
RECOMMENDATION: Delegated authority be given to the Director (People and Places) to grant planning permission subject to the following conditions:
(1) Standard outline conditions and reasons (2) Agricultural occupancy condition (3) Agricultural occupancy condition attached to existing farmhouse (4) Details of foul drainage (5) Details of surface water drainage (6) Details of water supply
Page 61 This page is intentionally left blank
Page 62 SCHEDULE A
Complex Planning Applications
SCHEDULE No: 4 SL/2012/0240 and SL/2012/0248
LOWER ALLITHWAITE: WELLS HOUSE FARM, FORD ROAD, CARTMEL, GRANGE over SANDS LA11 6PN
PROPOSAL: VARIATION OF CONDITIONS 1 (POSITION OF CARAVANS) AND 2 (SEASONAL OCCUPANCY) ON PLANNING PERMISSION 1/4/2705
MR ANDREW CRETNEY E337914 N478661 25/10/2012
SUMMARY:
To remove a seasonal restriction on a static caravan site in Cartmel, allowing occupation for holiday purposes at any time of the year; to remove a condition requiring caravans to be removed from site during the closed season; and the siting of two additional caravans.
LOWER ALLITHWAITE PARISH COUNCIL:
Recommend approval of the removal of Condition 1 and refusal of the removal of all other conditions.
ENVIRONMENT AGENCY:
No objection on the basis that the caravans are not permanently occupied.
OTHER:
No other comments were received directly. The Agent submitted 14 copies of a “pro forma” letter of support, indicating support from local businesses to the extended opening season as a means of supporting their own businesses.
Page 63 HISTORICAL CONTEXT:
The original permission for this site (1/4/2705) was granted in 1962 for the siting of 31 static caravans. The permission limited the number of caravans and indicated their conditions, as well as setting a closed season between 30 October and 1 March each year. To ensure compliance, caravans were to be removed from the site during this time.
DESCRIPTION AND PROPOSAL:
The site is located within the Cartmel Conservation Area, but is well screened by established planting and other buildings. There is an open grassed area in the middle of the site.
There are two applications for this site. The first (SL/2012/0240) is for two new static vans to be located in the site. The additional two static caravans would be located in the middle of the site, on the grass area but adjacent to the internal road and near the toilet block. They would be of the same style and size as the existing vans. These two vans would be subject to the year-round season applied for the rest of the site.
The second application (SL/2012/0248) is for the removal of the seasonal occupancy condition for the whole site and to remove the requirement to remove the vans from the site during the closed season.
POLICY ISSUES:
South Lakeland Local Plan
Policy S2 is the Design Guide which lists the principles of good design. There are also adopted guidelines regarding neighbourliness and design.
Policy T7 which requires that caravan sites are closed for a minimum period of six weeks.
Policies W6 and W7 which seek to expand and diversify the tourist economy.
South Lakeland Core Strategy
CS4 – Cartmel Peninsula, maintain and enhance strength of tourism across the area
Policy CS8.10 relates to design and ensuring it is appropriate.
CS8.8 relates to flood risk, and when development will be permitted.
CS8.6 relates to the Historic Environment, covering listed buildings and conservation areas.
Page 64 CS7.6 – Tourism development, supports creation, enhancement and expansion of tourist attraction and infrastructure.
CS10.2 – transport impact.
National Planning Policy Framework
Presumption in favour of sustainable development; support sustainable rural tourism; direct development away from highest flood risk areas.
Good Practice Guide on Planning for Tourism , 2006, DCLG
HUMAN RIGHTS ACT:
This application has been determined to accord with the rights and limitations of the Act in relation to Article 6 (Right to a fair and public hearing), Article 8 (Right to respect for private and family life, home and correspondence), Article 14 (Prohibition of discrimination) and Article 1 of Protocol 1 (Right to peaceful enjoyment of possessions and protection of property).
ASSESSMENT:
The siting of the two additional caravans is acceptable. It is within the screened boundaries of the site and does not interfere with access to the site. From outside the site, the two additional vans are unlikely to have any visual impact. Therefore, with regard to the siting there are no objections. Their occupancy would be extended to year-round as proposed by the other element of the application.
In 2006 a Good Practice Guide for Tourism was issued by DCLG. This indicated that applications for year round use should be considered sympathetically. Annex B refers to the application of what it calls the “holiday occupancy condition” and “seasonal occupancy condition”, required to safeguard local and national planning principles and policies. The former, according to the guidance, is necessary to ensure that the units remain for visitor use only and prevent the units becoming part of the local housing stock, and should be worded in such a way that it can be readily enforced.
Permission has been granted at a number of sites within SLDC area for year round use. These permissions have been granted subject to conditions that seek to ensure it remains as a visitor facility, in accordance with the Guidance and local policies. The conditions are as follows:
a. The caravans shall not be occupied other than as holiday accommodation. They shall not be used at any time as sole and principal residences by any occupants.
b. The owner / operator of the site known as “…” (outlined in red on the submitted plan) shall maintain an up-to-date register of the names of all of the
Page 65 individual caravan owners and occupiers and their main home addresses, and shall make the following information available to the Local Planning Authority upon request:
Copies of the register;
Copies of a caravan owner’s / occupier’s Council Tax bill for their main residence for the relevant financial year; and
A copy of the licence / contract between the site owner / operator and the caravan owner / occupier for each pitch.
For the avoidance of doubt, the expression “for the relevant financial year” shall mean that each financial year (1st April – 31st March) the caravan owner will provide an up-to-date Council Tax bill, so for example if the request was made in September 2012 then a bill for the tax year 2012 – 2013 would be provided or if the request was made in May 2014 then the 2014 – 2015 bill would be provided.
The inclusion of the Council Tax bill element was at request of the Members. There is a current appeal pending about this element regarding a site at Allithwaite.
It is essential that such conditions are enforceable and therefore copies of contracts / licences for each site are examined before permission is granted. These are expected to show that the owner also defines the site as a holiday site, prohibiting permanent use, and seeking documentary evidence of the permanent address from the visitors. In the permissions already granted the owner has been able to show that there are controls in place to be able to keep the register up to date and therefore comply with the condition.
There has been a change of ownership and management of the Wells House Farm site in the last 12 months. It has emerged that there are no leases, contracts or licenses between van occupants / owners and the site owner. Protracted negotiations have been on-going to secure a draft lease which satisfies the above conditions. The draft lease is considered to be acceptable and secures both the holiday use of the site and methods to ensure condition compliance.
As this is a draft lease, it is appropriate to place a time constraint on any permission to ensure that all caravan owners / occupiers sign the lease and are therefore complying with the permission. All tenants are on a 12 month invitation and 13 months would allow time for leases to be signed and submitted to the District Council for approval.
If the extension to the season is approved, there would be no need to remove the vans from site and it is a natural progression to also remove this condition. Additionally, information has been provided to indicate that the vans have not been moved in accordance with the condition for many years and there is permission for storage of the vans in a designated location on the original file.
Extending the season will not cause any extra harm visually, given the quality of the screening of the site and the fact that they have been on site for most if not all year for a material period of time.
Page 66 Holiday requirements have changed and caravans are now better constructed to allow occupation even at the coldest times of year. Therefore to meet the changing needs of the tourist industry and provide an extension to the revenue stream which local businesses indicate is important, an extended season is desirable. There is a risk that there will be an increase in disturbance to nearby residents as a result of vehicles accessing the site and occupation of the caravans at a time when the site was previously quiet, this is not likely to be materially harmful given the location within a busy village. Therefore the extension of season is unlikely to cause material harm to the amenity of local residents or the character of the village. The controls placed on the caravans by way of the lease and conditions, prevents them becoming second homes and affecting the economy in that manner.
RECOMMENDATION: GRANT SL/2012/0240 and SL/2012/0248 subject to:
Condition (1) The development hereby permitted shall be commenced before the expiration of THREE YEARS from the date hereof.
Reason To comply with the requirements of Section 91 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 as amended by Section 51 of the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004.
Condition (2) The development hereby permitted shall be carried out in accordance with the following approved plans:
• site plan received by the Local Planning Authority on 23 March 2012; and
• original drawing 40620/3/A deposited with the Local Planning Authority on 26 March 1962.
Reason For the avoidance of doubt and in the interests of proper planning.
Condition (3) The caravans shall not be occupied other than as holiday accommodation. They shall not be used at any time as sole and principal residences by any occupants.
Reason To safeguard the local tourist economy in accordance with Policy CS7.6 of the adopted South Lakeland Core Strategy.
Condition (4) The owner / operator of the site known as “Cartmel Park” (outlined in red on the submitted plan) shall maintain an up-to-date register of the names of all of the individual caravan owners and occupiers and their main home addresses, and shall make the following information available to the Local Planning Authority upon request:
Page 67 • copies of the register;
• copies of a caravan owner’s / occupier’s Council Tax bill for their main residence for the relevant financial year; and
• a copy of the licence/contract between the site owner / operator and the caravan owner / occupier for each pitch.
For the avoidance of doubt, the expression “for the relevant financial year” shall mean that each financial year (1st April – 31st March) the caravan owner will provide an up-to-date Council Tax bill, so for example if the request was made in September 2012 then a bill for the tax year 2012 – 2013 would be provided or if the request was made in May 2014 then the 2014 – 2015 bill would be provided.
Reason To safeguard the local tourist economy in accordance with Policy CS7.6 of the adopted South Lakeland Core Strategy.
Condition (5) Within 13 months of the date of this permission, signed copies of a lease (which must remain substantially in the form submitted to the Local Planning Authority on 2 October 2012 via email) for each and every caravan and / or plot must be submitted to the Local Planning Authority. After this date, any plot without an agreed lease shall be subject to the original conditions of planning permission 1/4/2705.
Reason To safeguard the local tourist economy in accordance with Policy CS7.6 of the adopted South Lakeland Core Strategy.
Condition (6) No railway vehicles, tramcar, omnibus body, aeroplane fuselage or similar structure, whether on wheels or not and howsoever adapted, shall be stationed or erected on the site.
Reason For the avoidance of doubt and to prevent over-intensive use of the site and preserve the local environment and landscape in accordance with saved Policy T6 of the South Lakeland Local Plan.
Condition (7) Notwithstanding the provisions of the Town and Country Planning (General Permitted Development) Order 1995 (or any order revoking and re-enacting that Order with or without modification), the written approval of the Local Planning Authority shall be obtained for the construction and siting of any buildings, structures, erections, decking (whether temporary or otherwise) to be placed on the site.
Reason To preserve the local environment and landscape in accordance with saved Policy T6 of the South Lakeland Local Plan.
Page 68 REASON FOR GRANTING PLANNING PERMISSION:
The use of the caravan site all year round will have a positive impact on the local economy. The alternative conditions will ensure that the caravans remain as holiday accommodation and cannot be used as permanent residences. The proposal therefore accords with the material considerations set out in the National Planning Policy Framework, the Good Practice Guide for Tourism and Policies CS1.1 and CS7.6 of the adopted South Lakeland Core Strategy.
Page 69 This page is intentionally left blank
Page 70 SCHEDULE A
Complex Planning Applications
SCHEDULE No: 5 SL/2012/0395
LOWER HOLKER: BARNS AT LOW BANK SIDE FARM, CARTMEL, GRANGE over SANDS LA11 7NR
PROPOSAL: CHANGE OF USE OF REDUNDANT AGRICULTURAL BUILDINGS TO STORAGE (CLASS B8) AND LIGHT INDUSTRIAL (CLASS B1)
HOLKER ESTATES CO LTD E336665.8 N477425.8 25/10/2012
SUMMARY: The diversification of an existing farm business, involving the change of use of redundant farm buildings to B8 and B1 Industrial uses. The principal issues are the loss of farm buildings, increased traffic and noise.
LOWER HOLKER PARISH COUNCIL: No comments received.
CUMBRIA HIGHWAYS: Require improved and increased visibility splays at the junction and further detailed plans.
SLDC ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION OFFICER: No objections, following the submission of additional details about hours of operation, noise and foul and surface drainage.
COUNTRYSIDE ACCESS OFFICER : Noted a discrepancy in the location of a footpath shown on the submitted maps, but which is outside the red line boundary.
Page 71 RAMBLERS’ ASSOCIATION: Object because there must be a significant increase in vehicles on what is now a public footpath. The proposed changes to the footpath constitute a significant change in the nature of the Right of Way.
OTHER: 6 letters of objection have been received. The principal concerns are: unsuitable development in a rural area; increased noise and traffic; impact on rights of way; increased danger to other road users; possible use of a further access via a poor road into Cark; the access is unsuitable; diversion of right of way onto a fenced path; creation of an industrial estate in the open countryside; loss of farm buildings and affect on farm business; impact on existing farm house; LDF has possible allocation at Cark; prominent location.
DESCRIPTION AND PROPOSAL: The site is an existing farm, with a farm house and a range of large farm buildings, with a private access from the public road, over a traditional stone bridge, and surrounded by fields. The farm is owned by Holker Estates and tenanted on a long term tenancy. The site is elevated above the public road and is prominent in the landscape. There is woodland behind the site. The nearest residential properties are approx. 500m away. The farm buildings are not traditional stone buildings but are of a more modern appearance. They appear largely unused and some are in poor condition. The proposal is to diversify the existing farm business by letting the unused buildings out for industrial and business uses. The existing steel portal buildings would largely remain, and although the footprint would not increase, a building in the middle of the group is structurally unsafe and would be removed. The other buildings would be repaired using matching materials. The nature of these buildings means the layout is flexible, but the remaining buildings would divide to seven distinct units of different sizes, but could divide further to smaller units. There are large openings to each unit and parking would be provided in the yard areas around the buildings. 2 small buildings on the rear of the main group would be retained as ancillary buildings for the farm. The existing stone bridge at the junction with the public road would be strengthened to take vehicles up to 10T, and the road widened to achieve visibility and also allow two vehicles to pass. At present the access is also a public right of way. A new 1metre wide path would be created along the entire length of the access, with hardcore surface and stock proof fence between the field and path / road. The access is single track along its entire length. A new landscaped banking would be created to the east of the farm buildings.
Page 72 Surface water would drain to the existing system and no toilets or other facilities are proposed so there is no need to provide foul drainage.
POLICY ISSUES: South Lakeland Core Strategy CS1.2 allows for development in the open countryside where it involves the appropriate change of use of an existing building. CS4 promotes Grange as the hub for economic growth and references the need to protect and enhance the local environment. CS7.4 sets out the policy in regard to the rural economy, including supporting diversification and indicating when employment development will be found acceptable. CS10.2 considers the transport impact of the development.
South Lakeland Local Plan Saved Policy E10 of the Local Plan supports proposals for farm diversification provided that certain defined criteria are met.
HUMAN RIGHTS ACT: This application has been determined to accord with the rights and limitations of the Act in relation to Article 6 (Right to a fair and public hearing), Article 8 (Right to respect for private and family life, home and correspondence), Article 14 (Prohibition of discrimination) and Article 1 of Protocol 1 (Right to peaceful enjoyment of possessions and protection of property).
ASSESSMENT: This is an isolated farm unit within the open countryside. The farm is well established and it is indicated that the farm will continue to operate as a viable unit, with additional income from the industrial units creating a diversification project to improve overall viability. Two ancillary buildings are retained for farm use and the farmhouse will remain associated with the farm unit and with the industrial units as a result of current tenure. The applicant is in negotiations with Cumbria County Highways about the access, the starting point being that the scheme is acceptable subject to improved visibility splays. The road is rural and typically winding, but at the point of access there is relatively good visibility. At present agricultural and large delivery vehicles access the site and use the local roads. Whilst increased traffic is probable, the road is capable of accommodating the traffic generated by the proposed development. The improvements to the bridge and public right of way are acceptable. A barrier will be erected at the rear of the site to stop vehicles using the rear track into the centre of Cark. The existing buildings are typical in appearance of those found on both agricultural and commercial sites. Their visual impact in the countryside will not increase as a
Page 73 result of the change of use. Although they will be repaired and tidied up, the footprint and visual impact will not increase. Therefore it cannot be considered that the buildings themselves cause any harm to the character of the area. The main concern relates to potential noise and disturbance. As these are B1 and B8 units, there will not be any uses which are noisy or create fumes or odours. The application is for light industry and office uses and storage and distribution and noise will be associated with vehicle movements. The nearest residential properties are over 500m away and are unlikely to be affected to a material degree by vehicle noise, although it is accepted that they will hear some noise, especially reversing bleepers on wagons. Furthermore, the restrictions on the hours of operation will prevent noise at unsociable hours. Although this is a rural location, there is a relatively busy road connecting Cark and Cartmel used by a variety of traffic, including farm traffic. Farm activities can be noisy in themselves, and there is noise on event days from Cartmel Racecourse. The area is not an undisturbed one in terms of noise, and the noise associated with these uses is unlikely to raise levels to a degree that the amenity of the area is materially changed, especially as they will be limited to normal working hours. The policies in the Core Strategy promote redevelopment of existing buildings to employment and support diversification providing that the buildings are capable of conversion, the use would not detract from the character and amenity of the area; there is a satisfactory access and there are services on site. In the case of this development, the criteria are considered to be met and subject to appropriate conditions can be controlled to a level to ensure continued compliance with the aims of the policies.
RECOMMENDATION: At present no written response has been received from Cumbria County Council Highways about the resolution of the visibility splays. Subject to no adverse comment being received from them it is recommended that delegated authority be given to the Director (People and Places) to grant planning permission subject to the following conditions: Subject to a satisfactory conclusion to negotiations over the details, the application be GRANTED subject to conditions relating to the following:
(1) Standard time limit (2) Approved plans (3) Permitted use classes and restrictions on changes (4) Hours of operation (5) Submission of details for each unit as it is let indicating welfare facilities eg toilets and foul drainage plans, allocated parking area, and extent of unit (6) No external lighting (7) Implementation of right of way prior to use commencing (8) No external lighting without prior approval
Page 74 (9) All works done in accordance with structural survey (10) Landscaping / planting scheme (11) Implementation of highways works prior to use commencing (12) Barrier at rear of site
REASON FOR GRANTING PLANNING PERMISSION:
The proposed conversion of the units would allow for diversification of the farm enterprise and create employment in the local area. The proposals will utilise an existing access and the proposed uses are acceptable in terms of impact on the character and amenity of the area. Although there will be some increased traffic and noise associated with the proposal it is considered these fall within acceptable levels and will not cause a material risk to other road users, nor any material harm to the amenity of the local area or local residential properties. The proposal is compatible with the objectives of PoliciesCS1.2 and CS7.4 of the adopted South Lakeland Core Strategy and saved Policy E10 of the South Lakeland Local Plan.
Page 75 This page is intentionally left blank
Page 76 SCHEDULE A
Complex Planning Applications
SCHEDULE No: 6 SL/2012/0505
ALDINGHAM: LAND ADJACENT TO BEECH MOUNT, GOADSBARROW, ULVERSTON LA12 0RE
PROPOSAL: TWO DWELLINGS
MRS CLARE WORRALL
E326109 N468256 25/10/2012
SUMMARY: Reserved Matters application for two dwellings on the edge of a small coastal hamlet. Recent appeal decision concluded that the principle of residential development on this site would be acceptable and outline consent was granted for two dwellings in April this year.
ALDINGHAM PARISH COUNCIL: No objection. The council’s earlier concerns regarding the height of the properties and mitigation against flooding appear to have been met by these plans.
CUMBRIA HIGHWAYS: The applicant must provide a 1.8m wide footway linking into the existing footway. The officer recommends a number of conditions regarding the provision of access, drainage, parking and turning facilities.
SLDC ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION OFFICER: I have taken a look at the site and now the amended location for the proposed package plant and have no concerns.
UNITED UTILITIES: No objections.
Page 77 NATURAL ENGLAND: The site lies within 50m of the Morecambe Bay Special Area of Conservation, Special Protection Area and Ramsar site. Natural England advises that the proposal if undertaken in strict accordance with the details submitted, is not likely to have a significant effect on the interest features for which Morecambe Bay has been classified. Natural England therefore advises that your authority is not required to undertake an Appropriate Assessment to asses the implications of this proposal and on the basis of the information submitted by the applicant we therefore withdraw our previous objection.
OTHER: At the time of writing, one letter of objection to the proposal has been received from neighbouring residents who are concerned about the proposal setting a precedent for further ribbon development, the future of the bus stop adjacent to the site, the adequacy of the parking and problems arising from parking on the road, increased traffic on a busy road causing concerns about road user and pedestrian safety, and surface water drainage from the site.
HISTORICAL CONTEXT: Outline planning permission was refused in September last year for the construction of two dwellings on this site. The reasons for refusal were: 1. The proposed dwellings cannot be regarded as an appropriate form of rounding off as permitted by Policy CS1.2 of the adopted South Lakeland Core Strategy. The development would result in a significant extension of an existing ribbon of dwellings on the roadside between the site and Long Lane, which would seriously detract from the rural character of the hamlet and the appearance of the surrounding countryside. The acceptance of development on this site could lead to pressure for further development on adjacent sites to the detriment of the locality. 2. The proposed northernmost dwelling would exert an over-bearing and visually intrusive influence on the neighbouring property, Beech Mount by reason of its scale, bulk and position. As a consequence, the development would be detrimental to the living conditions currently enjoyed by the occupiers of the neighbouring house. 3. The proposed dwellings would appear as a prominent form of development which would dominate this part of Goadsbarrow. It would be inappropriate in its context and would have a significant adverse effect on the character and appearance of the locality. Consequently, the proposal is in conflict with the aims and objectives of Policy CS8.10 of the adopted South Lakeland Core Strategy, saved Policy S2 of the South Lakeland Local Plan and Planning Policy Statement 3 in respect of good design. The applicant subsequently appealed the decision which was dismissed in January this year. However, in dismissing the appeal, the Inspector concluded that whilst he agreed with the Local Planning Authority in respect of refusal reason number 3, relating to the harmful impact of the layout and scale of the proposal, he found in favour of the appellant in relation to the development strategy and impact on the
Page 78 neighbouring occupiers. He considered that the development of the appeal site would, in principle, reinforce the linear character and tradition of the settlement without breaking out into open countryside. He concluded that the proposal would accord with the development strategy established in the Core Strategy and in particular with the objectives for smaller villages and hamlets set out in Policy CS1.2, and considered that the principle of residential development on this site would be acceptable. Outline planning permission was subsequently granted in April this year for the construction of two dwellings on this site. The consent was conditional upon the finished height of the proposed dwellings being no higher than the adjacent property known as “Lynmaris” or 14 metres above Ordnance Datum, whichever is the lower height. All other matters relating to the development were reserved for subsequent approval.
DESCRIPTION AND PROPOSAL: Goadsbarrow is a small hamlet which comprises a short row of five dwellings fronting onto the A5087, known locally as the Coast Road. A further group of dwellings are located inland along Long Lane to the north centred on a former farmstead. The site forms the larger part of a rectangular shaped field which fronts directly onto the Coast Road to the south of Beach Mount, the most southerly of the dwellings. Beach Mount is set back form the road frontage and is positioned close to the north western corner of the site, with an aspect over the site from three ground floor windows. A property known as Comfort Cottage is located some 35 metres to the south of the site. This application for reserved matters approval relates to the construction of two detached dwellings. The proposed three bedroomed properties would be one and a half storeys high, with an attached garage to the northern side and an attached conservatory to the southern side. The dwellings are of a conventional modern design with rendered walls and pitched slated roofs. The eaves heights would be 3.3 metres and the ridge heights would be 6.3 metres above the finished floor level which would be set at 7.68 metres above Ordnance Datum. The southernmost dwelling, plot 1, would be positioned roughly in the middle of the site, set back from the road frontage by 10 metres. Plot 2 would be stepped one metre forward. The first floor accommodation would be partly incorporated into the roofspace with dormer and gable features to the front elevations. Plot 1 would incorporate two dormer windows to the rear elevation and plot 2 would include three velux rooflights to serve the first floor accommodation. Each property would have an access and turning areas directly onto the Coast Road. The properties would be served by a new package treatment plant, to be located at the southern end of the site. Additional details of the foul drainage system and percolation tests have been submitted with the application as requested by Natural England. A flood risk assessment previously submitted with the outline application recommended, in line with the Environment Agency’s guidance that the finished floor levels of the new dwellings should be set at 7.68m AOD. The existing ground levels of the site are approximately 7.2m and 7.5m. It is proposed that the small difference is made by some minor re-grading of the site and lifting the floor level.
Page 79 POLICY ISSUES: Section 6 of the National Planning Policy Framework states that housing applications should be considered in the context of the presumptions in favour of sustainable development. Local Planning Authorities should avoid new isolated homes in the countryside unless there are special circumstances.
South Lakeland Core Strategy The Development Strategy (Policy CS1.2) explains that development will be concentrated in Kendal and Ulverston, then in the Key Service Centres, followed by a number of designated Local Service Centres and, finally, the smaller villages, hamlets and the open countryside. The Strategy states that approximately 11% of new housing and employment development will be in the network of smaller villages and hamlets. Development boundaries are not identified for these settlements; instead, new small-scale development, in the form of infilling and rounding-off, will be permitted in order to satisfy local need in the smaller villages and hamlets scattered across the District. The terms “infilling” and “rounding-off” are defined in paragraph 2.25 of the Core Strategy. Infilling is defined as building taking place on a vacant plot in an otherwise built-up street frontage; rounding-off is defined as the completion of an incomplete group of buildings on land which is already partially developed, in such a way that will either complete the local road pattern or finally define and complete the boundaries of the group. Policy CS3 of the Core Strategy explains the spatial strategy for the west of the District and, in the context of this current application, makes provision for small-scale housing development in the Local Service Centres and, to a lesser extent, in the smaller rural settlements in order to ensure a readily available supply of affordable housing. Policy CS6.4 relates to the rural exceptions policy, whereby housing development proposals outside development boundaries and not constituting infilling and rounding off will only be considered where they provide 100% affordable housing. Policy CS8.2 states that proposals for development should be informed by, and be sympathetic to the distinctive landscape and settlement character. Policy CS8.10 requires the siting, design, scale and materials of all developments to be of a character which maintains or enhances the quality of the landscape or townscape and, where appropriate, should be in keeping with the local vernacular tradition. The policy concludes by stating that designs that support and enhance local distinctiveness will be encouraged.
South Lakeland Local Plan Saved Policy S2 of the South Lakeland Local Plan requires all new development to take account of the South Lakeland Design Code. The protection of residential amenity, in one or more of its various aspects, is a recognised material consideration in deciding whether planning permission should be granted.
Page 80 HUMAN RIGHTS ACT: This application has been determined to accord with the rights and limitations of the Act in relation to Article 6 (Right to a fair and public hearing), Article 8 (Right to respect for private and family life, home and correspondence), Article 14 (Prohibition of discrimination) and Article 1 of Protocol 1 (Right to peaceful enjoyment of possessions and protection of property).
ASSESSMENT: The principle of residential development in the form of two dwellings on this site has been established. The technical issues regarding the foul drainage system have been addressed and the highways aspects are considered to be acceptable. The main issues to be considered in this case relate to the impact of the development, in terms of scale, form and layout, upon the character and appearance of the local area and the impact on the privacy and amenity of the adjacent residential property. The proposed dwellings are of a similar scale in terms of footprint and height to adjacent properties aligning the Coast Road and therefore it could be regarded that the form of the development would be in keeping with the character of the existing settlement. The neighbouring property most affected by the proposed development is Beach Mount which is positioned alongside the north eastern corner of the site. This property has ground floor bedroom and dining / kitchen windows facing south east very close to and overlooking the side boundary of the application site. A hedge, within the ownership of Beach Mount marks the boundary between the two sites. The floor level of this property is approximately 2metres above the level of the proposed dwellings. The rear elevation of plot 2 would face toward Beach Mount, albeit at an angle, with the nearest windows at 19 metres separation. The applicants have amended the position and design of plot 2, closest to Beach Mount in an attempt to address the concerns that have been raised regarding loss of privacy and amenity. Two dormer windows have been removed and replaced by velux rooflights, a rear conservatory has been moved to the side elevation and the position of the dwelling has been moved further forward to increase separation between the two properties. The aspect from the south eastern elevation of this property would undoubtedly be affected by the proposed development, however the lower floor level, finished height and separation between the properties is such that it is considered the development as amended would not be unreasonably overbearing or result in a significant loss of privacy. The neighbouring residents have been notified of the amended proposal and any additional comments received will be reported at the meeting.
Page 81 RECOMMENDATION: Grant subject to: (1) Standard time limit (2) Amended plans (3) Levels (4) Boundary treatments and landscaping (5) Drainage (6) Access and parking
REASON FOR APPROVAL OF RESERVED MATTERS: The proposed development would be compatible with the aims and objectives of the National Planning Policy Framework and Policies CS1.2, CS3.1, CS8.2 and CS8.10 of the adopted South Lakeland Core Strategy.
Page 82 SCHEDULE A
Complex Planning Applications
SCHEDULE No: 7 SL/2012/0514
NEW HUTTON: HILL TOP LODGES, BEEHIVE LANE, NEW HUTTON LA8 0AE
PROPOSAL: REMOVAL OF PLANNING CONDITION 3 ATTACHED TO PLANNING PERMISSION SL/2007/1091, TO ALLOW 12 MONTH HOLIDAY SEASON
HILL TOP LODGES LTD E354844 N491352 25/10/2012
SUMMARY: The removal of the condition is acceptable in the circumstances of this site.
NEW HUTTON PARISH COUNCIL: No objection.
CUMBRIA HIGHWAYS: No objection.
SLDC SOLICITOR: Confident that the leases have provisions that will allow the landlord to control occupation as holiday lets and not sole residences.
HISTORICAL CONTEXT: The site is based on the former walled garden of Hill Top House, approached by a private drive off the Kendal –Sedbergh road. Planning permission was refused in 2005 for a 17 pitch Caravan Park but an Inspector on appeal did not object to the principle of such a development though had issues with some of the individual pitches. Planning permission was subsequently granted in 2006 for a revised scheme for 14 pitches taking the Inspector’s comments into account. Then permission was granted under reference SL/2007/1091 for 16 pitches on the site. Condition 2 attached to that permission restricted the number of pitches to 16 and prohibited the use of the caravans as sole or main residences. Condition 3 prohibited the use of the caravans between 14 January and 1 March.
Page 83 DESCRIPTION AND PROPOSAL: This application seeks the removal of Condition 3 attached to the grant of permission SL/2007/1091 so as to allow a twelve month holiday season. Details were requested and submitted of the leases of the caravans to see that they reflected the restriction to holiday use and excluded use as sole or main residences. The agent suggests the use of model conditions to avoid use as main residences and has submitted appeal decisions where conditions relating to restricted seasons have been removed.
POLICY ISSUES: Saved Policy T7 of the South Lakeland Local Plan relates to the extension of caravan seasons and states that sites should be closed for a minimum of 6 weeks in the winter and there should be no detrimental impacts on landscape or ecology arising from the length of season. Policy CS7.6 of the adopted South Lakeland Core Strategy supports the enhancement and expansion of tourist infrastructure with a particular emphasis on improving the quality of visitor accommodation and broadening the range of accommodation provided. Policy CS8.4 of that Core Strategy protects bio-diversity. Policy CS8.2 of the same Core Strategy seeks to protect distinctive landscapes. Policy CS1.2 of the adopted Core Strategy directs new housing development to settlements with development in the open countryside only in exceptional circumstances. The National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) as part of its support for a prosperous rural economy supports sustainable rural tourism that benefits businesses in rural areas and should include supporting the provision and expansion of tourist and visitor facilities in appropriate locations. The NPPF has a presumption in favour of housing development that is sustainable. The Good Practice Guide on Planning for Tourism (2006) is not one of the documents replaced by the NPPF. It points out that the holiday season has extended outside the summer months and that seasonal conditions can exacerbate the seasonal nature of the tourism economy but that seasonal restrictions might be required to prevent detriment to the environment at sensitive times. It suggests conditions to avoid use as permanent residences.
HUMAN RIGHTS ACT: This application has been determined to accord with the rights and limitations of the Act in relation to Article 6 (Right to a fair and public hearing), Article 8 (Right to respect for private and family life, home and correspondence), Article 14 (Prohibition of discrimination) and Article 1 of Protocol 1 (Right to peaceful enjoyment of possessions and protection of property).
ASSESSMENT: There are no special ecological reasons for avoiding occupation of this site between January and March. There would be no greater landscape impact if the pitches were
Page 84 occupied during that period nor is the road system impassable during the current closed period. The key concerns on this site are therefore firstly to avoid the use of the caravans as sole or main residences which would be contrary to Policy CS1.2 of the South Lakeland Core Strategy and the NPPF because of the unsustainable location for residential development and secondly to retain the caravans as part of the tourist economy in line with national and local policies. This Local Planning Authority has refused permission for the removal of closed seasons on sites where the leasing or ownership arrangements would make impossible the enforcement of planning conditions prohibiting use as permanent or sole residences. In this case our legal advice is that the leasing on this site would allow enforcement of such conditions and the proposal therefore appears acceptable subject to appropriate conditions.
RECOMMENDATION: GRANT subject to: Condition (1) This permission only authorises the use of the site for 16 holiday caravan pitches and does not permit either a greater number of pitches or any use of the caravans as sole or main residences. Moreover, the owners / operators of the site shall maintain a bound register of consecutively numbered pages containing the names of all owners / occupiers of all the individual caravans together with the main home address of those owners / occupiers and the dates of occupation of the caravans and shall make available for inspection at the request of the Local Planning Authority: • this register shall be made available on request for the inspection of the Local Planning Authority; • a copy of the lease / licence between the site owner / operator and the caravan owner / occupier of each pitch; and • copies of a caravan owner’s / occupier’s Council Tax bill for his/her main residence in the relevant financial year(s) preceding the request. Reason To avoid an over-intensive and unneighbourly development and accord with Policies CS1.2 and CS7.6 of the adopted South Lakeland Core Strategy.
Condition (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 modification), the written approval of the Local Planning Authority shall be obtained for the placing of any overhead electricity lines on the site. Reason To preserve the local environment and landscape in accordance with saved Policy T6 of the South Lakeland Local Plan.
Condition (3) 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 modification), the written
Page 85 approval of the Local Planning Authority shall be obtained for the construction and siting of any buildings, structures, erections, motorhomes or touring caravans (whether temporary or otherwise) to be placed or parked on the site. Reason To preserve the local environment and landscape in accordance with saved Policy T6 of the South Lakeland Local Plan.
Condition (4) The caravans shall be painted or stained in a colour to a specification approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority within six months of their being sited and shall thereafter be retained in the approved colours. Reason To preserve the local environment and landscape in accordance with saved Policy T6 of the South Lakeland Local Plan.
REASON FOR GRANTING PLANNING PERMISSION: Subject to the attached condition prohibiting the use as sole or main residences the use of the caravan park for holiday purposes throughout the year would accord with the provisions of the National Planning Policy Framework and Policies CS1.2. CS7.6, CS8.2 and CS8.4 of the adopted South Lakeland Core Strategy. There are no other material planning considerations that outweigh these considerations indicating that planning permission should be granted.
Page 86 SCHEDULE A
Complex Planning Applications
SCHEDULE No: 8 SL/2012/0524
KIRKBY LONSDALE: FIELD TO THE EAST OF KIRKBY LONSDALE BUSINESS PARK, ADJOINING THE A65,
PROPOSAL: GENERAL PURPOSE AGRICULTURAL BUILDING
MR KEVIN HAWORTH
E359984 N478751 25/10/2012
SUMMARY: Consideration of this application was deferred at last month’s meeting because of concern over the materials of construction of the proposed building.
KIRKBY LONSDALE TOWN COUNCIL: Approval recommended.
HIGHWAYS: To be reported.
ENVIRONMENTAL HEALTH: No comments to make.
HISTORICAL CONTEXT: The applicant acquired the land in 2009. In 2010 planning permission was sought to erect an agricultural storage building in the lower part of the field, parallel to the road, and to regularise the creation of an access track and hardstanding. The proposed building measured 23 metres in length and 15 metres in width, with an eaves height of 5.5 metres and ridge height of 7.8 metres. The application was refused for the following reasons: 1. The proposed building would be of a utilitarian appearance in a position isolated from other farming operations on a relatively small portion of land
Page 87 within open countryside. If constructed it would cause material harm to the character and appearance of the area without the strong operational justification of a full-time farm enterprise. In these circumstances the development would be contrary to the aims and objectives of saved Policy S23 of the South Lakeland Local Plan.
2. The construction of a building in this location is likely to generate increased use of an unsuitable access onto a busy A road, to the detriment of highway safety.
No enforcement action was taken in respect of the access track and hardstanding which are considered acceptable. This revised application has been submitted for the agricultural storage building. Members have visited the application site but expressed concern at last month’s meeting over the use of box-profile metal sheeting for the side walls and gables.
DESCRIPTION AND PROPOSAL: The application site is a field positioned adjacent to the southern side of the A65, adjoining the eastern boundary of Kirkby Lonsdale Business Park. The land measures 1.43 hectares and is undulating, with land levels falling away from the road in a southerly direction before rising again towards woodland at the rear of the field. Vehicular access is directly off the A65. The visibility of the existing field access has been improved enabling vehicles to pull entirely off the A65 before entering the field. Hard core has been deposited to create a track which provides vehicular access down to the lower part of the field. To the east of the entrance a small area of land has been fenced off and a potting shed erected. A patch of land is being cultivated. Elsewhere in the field ponies are being grazed, although agricultural equipment and bales of hay are also evident. There was no livestock on the land evident during recent visits, and the land does not have the appearance of being intensively farmed. The proposed storage building will be sited in the lower part of the field, parallel to the road, measuring 23 metres in length and 15.5 metres in width. It will have an eaves height of 4 metres and ridge height of 6.4 metres. The walls and roof of the building will be constructed of box profiled sheet metal, coloured anthracite grey. The applicant states that he farms 30 acres of land and currently has a stock of 87 sheep situated in various fields at Biggins and Holme. The business is supplemented by a secondary business as an agricultural contractor which the applicant estimates contributes up to 30% of his total work. The existing vehicles are stored on the land. The applicant also states that his son and daughter have an interest in the family farming business.
POLICY ISSUES:
National Planning Policy Framework Part 3 Supporting a prosperous rural economy promotes the development and diversification of agricultural and other land based rural businesses.
Page 88 Promoting sustainable development, one of the key principles outlined in the NPPF is that the planning system should protect and enhance the natural environment.
Cumbria and Lake District Joint Structure Plan Saved Policy E37 Landscape Character requires that development and land use change should be compatible with the distinctive characteristics and features of Cumbria’s landscape types, with proposals being assessed in relation to a number of criteria including visual intrusion, scale in relation to landscape and features, public access, biodiversity, openness, remoteness and tranquillity.
South Lakeland Core Strategy Policy CS8.2 Protection and enhancement of landscape and settlement character seeks to protect, conserve and enhance South Lakeland’s highly valued landscape character. Policy CS7.4 Rural Economy encourages the diversification of the rural economy and supports sustainable farming and food production. Policy CS8.10 Design requires that the siting, design, scale and materials of all development proposals should be of a character which maintains or enhances the quality of the landscape or townscape. Policy CS10.2 Traffic Impact of new development outlines the criteria against which development proposals will be assessed in terms of highway safety, the need to travel and to maximise the use of sustainable forms of transport appropriate to its particular location.
South Lakeland Local Plan Saved Policy S23 Agricultural buildings supports new agricultural buildings where there is no adverse impact on the visual amenity of the area, the amenity of any nearby residential dwellings or local nature conservation interests. In considering proposals, the District Council will also have full regard to the operational needs of agricultural businesses.
HUMAN RIGHTS ACT: This application has been determined to accord with the rights and limitations of the Act in relation to Article 6 (Right to a fair and public hearing), Article 8 (Right to respect for private and family life, home and correspondence), Article 14 (Prohibition of discrimination) and Article 1 of Protocol 1 (Right to peaceful enjoyment of possessions and protection of property).
ASSESSMENT: The siting of the building at the lower field level will reduce its visual impact within the surrounding landscape. It will be viewed against the backdrop of rising land to the south and the buildings on the Kirkby Lonsdale Business Park to the west. The retention of the roadside hedge will screen the building from the north to some extent. Nevertheless, it is large, utilitarian building covering a floor area measuring
Page 89 23m by 15.5m and standing 6.4m to the ridge of the roof. The walls and roof are to be constructed of grey coloured, metal box-profile sheeting. At last month’s meeting, the Committee accepted the need for the building and rejected the argument that it would be harmful to the character and appearance of the surrounding landscape, that it would contrast unfavourably with the buildings on the adjacent business park and that its use would be prejudicial to road safety. The Committee found the building to be of an appropriate size and scale but considered that an improvement could be made in respect of the materials of construction and deferred consideration for this reason. A meeting will be arranged with the applicant to discuss the question of external materials.
RECOMMENDATION : The Director will report on the outcome of negotiations concerning the external materials to be used in the construction of the building.
Page 90 SCHEDULE A
Complex Planning Applications
SCHEDULE No: 9 SL/2012/0529
NEW HUTTON: BIRKS FARM, NEW HUTTON, KENDAL LA8 0AZ
PROPOSAL: CONVERSION OF DOMESTIC GARAGE TO CREATE A DWELLING
MR and MRS WIGHTMAN E356723 N493230 25/10/2012
SUMMARY: The conversion of this modern building in the countryside would be contrary to policy.
NEW HUTTON PARISH COUNCIL: The council has visited the site and is aware of the past Enforcement Notice. The housing density would increase but there is no objection on planning grounds but given the size of Birks Farmhouse there could be future difficulties to accommodate sufficient parking and turning space for both units. Suggest a site visit. The septic tank for the development has been re-located.
CUMBRIA HIGHWAYS: The proposal is acceptable but have some concerns about excessive parking indicated on the plan. Only parking for the existing and proposed properties should be provided. The local road network is not suitable for excessive additional vehicle activity.
SLDC ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION OFFICER: Concerned that: there may be adequacy problems with the water supply leading to shortages on site; the water may not be wholesome without suitable treatment; and the proposed location of the septic tank may contaminate the existing private water supply to adjacent properties. More information could lead to re-consideration of these concerns.
Page 91 OTHER: Objections have been received from residents of five adjoining dwellings. All object to the impacts of increased traffic on the access and 4 have concerns about the inadequacy of parking. 4 refer to potential problems with regard to the impact of foul drainage on the private water supplies. 3 point out that the conversion has previously been refused on appeal. 1 states that the former farm group on its private drive cannot be regarded as a hamlet and fears for the precedent if the conversion was allowed of a recently erected building in the open countryside.
HISTORICAL CONTEXT: In 2003 a Lawful Development Certificate was issued for the proposed erection of an ancillary domestic building to serve the original Birks Farm House. In 2006 an Enforcement Notice was served requiring that the use of that building for light engineering and fabrication work cease. The Notice was upheld on appeal. In 2008 planning permission was refused for the conversion of the building to a dwelling and an appeal against the refusal was dismissed.
DESCRIPTION AND PROPOSAL: The application site lies in the open countryside to the north of the Kendal –Sedbergh Road. It consists of part of the curtilage of the former Birks Farm House and includes the 19.4 metre x 7.5 metre domestic outbuilding erected after the issue of the 2003 Certificate of Lawful Development. The former stone barns of the farmstead were converted some years ago to 5 dwellings and the former farmer and his wife occupy a bungalow to the west of the farmstead group. The group is approached down a steep private drive off a minor road leading north from the Kendal-Sedbergh road. The outhouse is single storey with a slate roof. Its main wall is stone-faced and the others rendered. It is proposed to convert it to a three-bedroomed bungalow with integral garage. This would involve only minor external alterations. A plan has been submitted showing parking provision for both the existing dwelling and the proposed new dwelling and it is said that consideration is being given to sinking a bore hole for water. In support of the application the agent quotes the National Planning Policy Framework with its emphasis on sustainable growth and statement that conversions can be an important source of new housing and should be considered in relation to local strategies. The agent argues that the development would be in line with Policy CS1.2 of the Core Strategy with regard to development in smaller villages and hamlets. The applicants and their family live in the farm house and wish to downscale and occupy the converted outhouse.
POLICY ISSUES: Policy CS1.2 of the adopted South Lakeland Core Strategy, “The Development Strategy”, concentrates development in the main settlements but apportions some development elsewhere including 11% to smaller villages and hamlets and the open countryside. While priority is given to the re-use of existing buildings and previously developed land the Development Strategy limits development in the smaller villages and hamlets to infilling and rounding-off and states:
Page 92 “Exceptionally, new development will be permitted in the open countryside where it has as essential need for a rural location, is needed to sustain existing businesses, provides for exceptional needs for affordable housing, is an appropriate extension of an existing building or involves the appropriate change of use of an existing building.” Policies CS6.1 - CS6.6 of the Core Strategy provide specific housing policies for use in association with Policy CS1.2. Policy CS6.4 clearly states that outside settlements housing development will only be allowed where it provides 100% affordable units demonstrably meeting local housing need. Saved Policy H12 of the South Lakeland Local Plan gives detailed criteria in relation to the conversion of buildings outside settlements to residential use. Criterion (a) states that consideration should have been given to alternative agricultural or business use. Criterion (b) requires that the building is of “traditional stone construction, of a traditional design and capable of conversion without substantial modification. Policy CS8.2 of the Core Strategy seeks to protect and enhance the distinctive landscape character. The National Planning Policy Framework has a presumption in favour of sustainable development. The Framework gives specific advice that Local Planning Authorities should avoid new isolated homes in the countryside unless there are special circumstances such as: • the essential need for a rural worker to live at or near a place of work; • is the optimal viable use to secure the future of a heritage asset; • where the development would re-use redundant or disused buildings and lead to an enhancement to the immediate setting; or • is of outstanding or innovative design, significantly enhancing the setting and sensitive to local characteristics. The avoidance of polluted water supplies is a material planning consideration.
HUMAN RIGHTS ACT: This application has been determined to accord with the rights and limitations of the Act in relation to Article 6 (Right to a fair and public hearing), Article 8 (Right to respect for private and family life, home and correspondence), Article 14 (Prohibition of discrimination) and Article 1 of Protocol 1 (Right to peaceful enjoyment of possessions and protection of property).
ASSESSMENT: The conversion of the former stone barns at Birks farmstead giving a total of 7 dwellings in the group did not create a small village or hamlet in the context of Policy CS1.2 of the Core Strategy. It is a small building group or enclave not on a public road but approached by a narrow and steep private drive and surrounded by fields. There are no communal facilities. Infilling or rounding-off would not be acceptable in such a location. The conversion would only be acceptable if it met any of the exceptions referred to in the preceding Policy section. While the building is faced in stone and render it is not of stone construction or traditional design as required by saved Policy H12. It is not a heritage asset. There is no site specific working need
Page 93 for a dwelling on this site. The conversion would not class as being of outstanding architectural character nor would it meet a need to enhance the immediate setting. While the applicants may desire to downsize from the farmhouse this does not constitute an affordable housing exception. As confirmed by the Inspector dismissing the 2008 appeal, the site is not a sustainable housing location and would thus not conform to the NPPF. There is no technical reason to prevent the design of satisfactory means of water supply and drainage.
RECOMMENDATION: REFUSE for the reason below - The conversion of a recently erected building to a dwelling outside a smaller village or hamlet and standing in fine open countryside would be contrary to Policies CS1.2, CS6.4 and CS8.2 of the adopted South Lakeland Core Strategy and saved Policy H12 of the South Lakeland Local Plan. Moreover, it would not be a form of sustainable housing development in accordance with the advice of the National Planning Policy Framework. There are no other material planning considerations that outweigh these policy objections.
Page 94 SCHEDULE A
Complex Planning Applications
SCHEDULE No: 10 SL/2012/0576
ULVERSTON: MARL INTERNATIONAL LTD, MORECAMBE ROAD, ULVERSTON LA12 9BN
PROPOSAL: THREE DWELLINGS
RAR PROPERTY INVESTMENTS LTD
E329383 N477855 25/10/2012
SUMMARY: Outline application for three dwellings located within the grounds of a business park. Considered acceptable in principle.
ULVERSTON TOWN COUNCIL: Approve.
CUMBRIA HIGHWAYS: The proposal does not provide on site turning which is a poor feature of this application. On site turning should be provided although I notice that there are other developments on the street that do not have on site turning. Comments regarding the amended scheme to be reported.
ENVIRONMENT AGENCY: The proposal falls within Flood Zone 2 and is less than 1 hectare, therefore can be dealt with under Flood Risk Standing Advice. We have no comment to make on the sequential test or flood risk assessment submitted with the application.
OTHER: Three letters of objection to the proposal have been received from neighbouring residents. Their concerns are as follows: • The proposed development would result in the loss of privacy, and increased use thereafter which will affect the quietness and privacy of adjacent dwellings.
Page 95 • The effect of noise disturbance, dust and pollution from construction works on neighbouring residents. • The development would result in additional traffic on a busy road. The nearby waste disposal and recycling site, factory, allotments and existing residents result in parked cars along the narrow road. The development would exacerbate this situation. The Highways Officer states that the development does not make adequate provision for the manoeuvring of vehicles within the site and would be likely to result in vehicles reversing onto the highway with consequent risk of additional danger to all users of the road. • The building of three terraced houses as proposed will affect the appearance of the locality and set a precedent for building on the whole site. • The site currently functions as a car park for the factory, which is largely empty at the moment, may be required in the future. • Further building on this site of whatever type should be refused. The Council should not allow new buildings in a flood risk area where they would reduce the area of open ground for water to dissipate into. The previous application only yards away was refused because of its location in the flood plain. Although this site may be slightly higher it is essential that those taking planning decisions should act with caution so as not to exacerbate what on this site would be a considerable risk of serious flooding to existing neighbouring houses. • There are houses nearby which have been empty for some time - why are the Council considering new builds? • The development would have an impact on wildlife. The hedge and shrubs around the edge of the site are home to a variety of nesting birds. There is also a risk to pets in the area both from construction works and additional traffic.
HISTORICAL CONTEXT: An application of the construction of three dwellings on land to the south of this site was withdrawn in February this year following concerns raised by the Environment Agency. The site was located within Flood Zone 3 and an inadequate Flood Risk Assessment had been submitted.
DESCRIPTION AND PROPOSAL: This outline application relates to the construction of a terrace of three dwellings on the western side of Morecambe Road within the grounds of Marl Business Park. Residential properties align the eastern side of Morecambe Road opposite and facing towards the site, and the rear boundary of the site adjoins the gardens of dwellings fronting onto Watery Lane. It is located within the development boundary of Ulverston and within a Flood Zone 2 area (medium probability) due to its proximity to Dragley Beck located some 100m to the south of the site. The site is currently laid out as one of the car parking areas with access direct from Morecambe Road. The indicative layout plan submitted with the application includes a terrace of three dwellings located parallel to Morecambe Road. Each property would have front and
Page 96 rear gardens and off road parking. Following the concerns raised by the Highways Officer, an amended layout plan has been submitted which alters the proposed parking arrangements to include communal parking for six vehicles and turning area off a single access point to the south of the dwellings, rather than individual drives and parking areas to the front of each dwelling. The submitted Flood Risk Assessment states that the position of the dwellings has been moved northwards to an area of lower risk. Flood mitigation measures would be incorporated into the development including raised finished floor levels and permeable surfaces to accommodate surface water run off.
POLICY ISSUES: National Planning Policy Framework Section 6 of the National Planning Policy Framework states that housing applications should be considered in the context of the presumptions in favour of sustainable development. Section 10 states that in determining applications, local planning authorities should ensure that development does not result in an increased risk of flooding elsewhere.
South Lakeland Core Strategy Policies CS1.1 and CS1.2 promote sustainable development within Principal Service Centres. Policy CS3.1 states that provision will be for housing development within Ulverston, prioritising previously developed land and sites within the urban area. Policy CS6.6 seeks effective use of land with an average density of 30 dwellings per hectare. Policy CS8.8 states that development within Flood Risk Zones 2, 3a and 3b will only be acceptable where it is compatible with national policy and where the sequential test and exceptions test, where applicable have been satisfied. Policy CS8.10 seeks to promote good design which maintains or enhances the quality of the area. Policy CS10.2 promotes development which reduces the need to travel, has safe access to the highway network and where the road network can accommodate the additional traffic.
South Lakeland Local Plan Saved Policy H4 of the Local Plan indicates that small scale residential development will be permitted on suitable sites within the development boundary of Ulverston, providing this does not result in the loss of Important Open Space and subject to satisfactory density, siting, layout, landscaping and access details. Policy S10 seeks to ensure appropriate car parking provision.
HUMAN RIGHTS ACT: This application has been determined to accord with the rights and limitations of the Act in relation to Article 6 (Right to a fair and public hearing), Article 8 (Right to
Page 97 respect for private and family life, home and correspondence), Article 14 (Prohibition of discrimination) and Article 1 of Protocol 1 (Right to peaceful enjoyment of possessions and protection of property).
ASSESSMENT: The site is within the development boundary of Ulverston and can be regarded as a sustainable location within an established residential area. The proposed amended site layout, general form and density is considered to be acceptable in principle, although the response from the Highways Officer regarding the amended proposal is still awaited. The proposed position of the dwellings would not have a significant impact on the amenity or privacy of neighbouring properties. The main issues in this case relate to flood risk and whether the development of the site is likely to affect the current or future parking requirements associated with the Business Park. Firstly, the Standing Advice of the Environment Agency with regard to this category of proposal requires that a Flood Risk Assessment (FRA) is submitted which meets a number of criteria. These include the setting of the ground floor levels of the development a minimum of 300mm above ground level or 600mm above the 1in 100 annual probability river flood (whichever is the higher); the inclusion of flood resilience measures in the design of the development, and the management of surface water. The FRA states that the floor levels of the proposed dwellings would be set at 8.5 metres AOD which is approximately 500mm above the current ground levels and 850mm above the predicted flood levels. The FRA also refers to the incorporation of flood mitigation measures into the design of the dwellings and the use of sustainable drainage measures to accommodate surface water run off. The finer details of these aspects would form part of the reserved matters application, however it is considered that the development is in line with the Environment Agency’s standing advice. Secondly, the site comprises a bound surfaced car park and amenity land which form part of the grounds of Marl Business Park. The car park area which appears to act as an “overspill” , is somewhat divorced from the main buildings and is not heavily used. The Business Park has a number of other parking areas closer to the buildings to the north and there remains the potential to either extend the existing parking areas or provide replacement parking facilities if required in the future. It is therefore considered that the development of the parking area will not prejudice the future uses of the Business Park.
RECOMMENDATION: The Director (People and Places):- At present no written response has been received from the Highways Officer regarding the amended scheme and subject to no adverse comment being received from them it is recommended that delegated authority be given to the Director (People and Places) to grant outline planning permission with all matters reserved subject to the following conditions: (1) Standard time limit (2) Standard outline
Page 98 (3) Amended access and parking (4) Flood mitigation measures
Page 99 This page is intentionally left blank
Page 100 SCHEDULE A
Complex Planning Applications
SCHEDULE No: 11 SL/2012/0594
CASTERTON: CASTERTON GOLF COURSE, CASTERTON LA6 2LA
PROPOSAL: SINGLE STOREY PRACTICE RANGE BUILDING WITH ASSOCIATED LANDSCAPING WORKS
CASTERTON GOLF COURSE LTD E362142 N479079 25/10/2012
SUMMARY: This isolated, prominent building would be an intrusive form of development harmful to the character and appearance of the surrounding landscape.
CASTERTON PARISH COUNCIL: Recommend approval.
KIRKBY LONSDALE TOWN COUNCIL: Recommend approval.
CUMBRIA COUNTY COUNCIL COUNTRYSIDE ACCESS OFFICER: No objection provided that the proposed development does not affect the use and enjoyment of the nearby bridleway.
RAMBLERS’ ASSOCIATION: No comments.
YORKSHIRE DALES NATIONAL PARK AUTHORITY: The application should be determined in accordance with the National Planning Policy Planning Framework and Local Plan policies. Careful consideration should be given to the landscape impact and, in particular, light spillage from any external lighting.
Page 101 KIRKBY LONSDALE AND DISTRICT CIVIC SOCIETY: This application presents a sensitive design that minimizes the impact on the locality. The Civic Society’s only concern is whether floodlighting will be proposed at some future time. Floodlighting would have a very negative impact on a quiet dark area of the Parish. If planning permission is granted, it should be conditional on there being no future installation of floodlights.
BRITISH HORSE SOCIETY: The Society’s Regional Bridleway Officer objects strongly to the siting of the range in such close proximity to the bridleway running along the edge of the course. The range needs to be sited at least 500 yards away from any highway and screened with vegetation. Horses are by nature flight animals and when startled their natural reaction is to flee. As the bridleway terminates on a busy main road, accidents are virtually guaranteed. As the very lucrative equestrian business in this area, as well as the local infrastructure of equestrian-related businesses is highly dependant on safe off-road hacking this proposal needs to be amended with the safety of riders taken into consideration.
HISTORICAL CONTEXT: Following a site visit, the Committee granted planning permission in August 2011 for an extension to the golf course onto the three fields to the west of the original course. This permission has been acted upon and a 9-hole course, together with a practice range, has been created that operates alongside the original golf course. The two courses are separated by a bridleway. The new course is bounded to the north and west by the A683 and by a field and the Wood Close Caravan Park to the south. In its original submission, the planning application for the extended golf course included a practice range building as well as the practice range itself. The building was subsequently withdrawn from the application and was not included as part of the planning permission. The practice range, adjacent to the bridleway, remained as part of the application and has been laid out as part of the new course. Consideration of this current application for the practice range building was deferred at last month’s meeting to enable Members to visit the golf course.
DESCRIPTION AND PROPOSAL: Casterton Golf Course lies in the open countryside between Devil’s Bridge and the village of Casterton. It lies to the east of the A683 and a bridleway passes between the original course and that laid out following the planning permission gained in August last year. The ground levels of the newer course, which includes a practice range, are undulating and the open character is punctuated by individual trees and groups of trees. The proposed practice range building is to be positioned on raised ground towards the northern end of the 9-hole golf course and practice range. The building, which is in the form of a shallow semi-circle, contains seven bays for golfers and is 24 metres in length. Its width is in the region of 5.5 metres, widening to 8 metres and it will stand 4 metres high. The front, south-facing elevation is open and the bays are separated by internal timber partitions. The rear wall is to be finished with a
Page 102 roughcast render and the two sides are to be faced with stone. The flat roof over the practice bays and the shallow-pitched roof to the rear are to be covered with a sedum green roof system. This current application does not propose the floodlighting of the driving range.
POLICY ISSUES:
National Planning Policy Framework One of the core planning principles, described in Paragraph 17 of the NPPF, is that account should be taken of the different roles and character of different areas, including the recognition of the intrinsic character and beauty of the countryside. Paragraph 28 (“Supporting a prosperous rural economy”) states that leisure developments should be supported that benefit businesses in rural areas and which respect the character of the countryside.
South Lakeland Local Plan Saved Policy L7 of the Local Plan states that, outside the Arnside-Silverdale Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty, golf courses and driving ranges will be permitted providing that : (a) there is no significant adverse impact on the existing landscape or nature conservation interests ; (b) appropriate new landscaping will be carried out as part of the course construction ; (c) satisfactory access and car-parking arrangements can be achieved ; (d) the proposal does not result in the loss of the best and most versatile agricultural land ; (e) there would be no adverse impact on archaeological sites or water courses ; (f) there would be no other effect on the enjoyment of the public rights of way network.
South Lakeland Core Strategy Policy CS8.2 of the adopted Core Strategy is concerned with the protection and enhancement of landscape and settlement character. It states that proposals for development should be informed by, and be sympathetic to, the distinctive landscape character types identified in the Cumbria Landscape Character Guidance and Toolkit. The policy continues by requiring development proposals to demonstrate that their location, scale, design and materials will protect, conserve and, where possible enhance the special qualities and local distinctiveness of the area.
HUMAN RIGHTS ACT: This application has been determined to accord with the rights and limitations of the Act in relation to Article 6 (Right to a fair and public hearing), Article 8 (Right to respect for private and family life, home and correspondence), Article 14 (Prohibition
Page 103 of discrimination) and Article 1 of Protocol 1 (Right to peaceful enjoyment of possessions and protection of property).
ASSESSMENT: The golf course lies within landscape sub-type 8b (broad valleys) as identified in the Landscape Character Guidance. The Lune Valley, between Kirkby Lonsdale and Sedbergh, is characterised by a gently undulating floodplain of meadows, farmland and parkland which combine to create an ordered, well-managed landscape. An indication of the quality of the landscape is that it is included within the area proposed for a western extension to the Yorkshire Dales National Park. Whilst golf courses and driving ranges can alter the character of an area by reason of the scale of the development, the alteration of ground contours and mowing regimes, the recent extension to the Casterton Golf Course has been achieved without significant harm to the landscape. The ground levels have remained largely unchanged and although the grass is regularly mown the overall impact has not been detrimental to the appearance of the surrounding landscape. In contrast, the erection of the proposed building at the northern end of the driving range will intrude into the landscape. Although there is a hedge bordering the nearby bridleway, a small group of trees to the north and newly planted trees throughout the extended golf course, the driving range building will be a prominent and intrusive addition into the surrounding landscape. Its harmful impact will be exacerbated by the siting of the building on an elevated part of the recently completed golf course. In order to protect the fine Lune Valley landscape from this harmful form of development it is recommended that planning permission be refused.
RECOMMENDATION: REFUSE for the reason below - The proposed practice range building would be an isolated, prominent and harmful intrusion into the landscape and, as a consequence, would not be compatible with the aims and objectives of saved Local Plan Policy L7 and Policy CS8.2 of the adopted South Lakeland Core Strategy.
Page 104 SCHEDULE A
Complex Planning Applications
SCHEDULE No: 12 SL/2012/0633
ULVERSTON: 36 -38 MARKET STREET, ULVERSTON LA12 7LS
PROPOSAL: CHANGE OF USE OF GROUND FLOOR FROM CLASS A2 (FINANCIAL AND PROFESSIONAL SERVICES) TO MIXED CLASSES A1 (RETAIL) AND A3 (COFFEE SHOP)
PURPLE WORLD LIMITED E328705 N478323 25/10/2012
SUMMARY: Proposed change of use of vacant former estate agency to a coffee shop. Town centre location. Considered acceptable.
ULVERSTON TOWN COUNCIL: Ulverston Town Council opposes this application on the following grounds: a) Costa Coffee is a national chain outlet that would undermine the local economy and undercut similar outlets in the town. b) There are already sufficient coffee outlets in Ulverston. c) It would set a precedent and Ulverston is unique in having a range of independent shops.
BLAWITH and SUBBERTHWAITE PARISH COUNCIL: The Parish Council support Ulverston Town Council in its opposition to the planning application to turn the former Halifax building into a Costa coffee shop. Councillors recognised the specialness of the location and emphasised the need to value and protect local community enterprise rather than concede to another chain invasion.
SLDC ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION OFFICER: The proposal does not include the installation of an extraction ventilation system, I have no comments to make.
Page 105 OTHER: One letter of support for the proposal has been received from a neighbouring trader. The writer refers to the Town Council’s opposition to the proposal and is concerned that the rejection is based on the preference for empty shops rather than a popular destination experience. In a time of recession the Council should be offering incentives for any new enterprises in the town rather than driving them away.
DESCRIPTION AND PROPOSAL: The site is located on the corner of Market Street and Brogden Street within Ulverston Town Centre and the Conservation Area. It comprises of the ground floor of a three storey building and is currently vacant. It was formally occupied by the Halifax Estate Agency. A video rental shop is located next to the site on Market Street and a kitchen and bathroom showrooms adjoin the site on Brogden Street. The proposal involves the change of use of the premises from Class A2 (Financial and Professional Services) to a mixed Class A1(retail) and A3 (café) use for a national coffee shop chain. The supporting documents state that the business does not operate in the same way as a normal café in that there is no primary cooking taking place on site and they do not operate a table service. A retail element would include food and drink to take away and goods for sale such as coffee beans, cafetieres, and cups and saucers. No external alterations to the shop front are proposed apart from redecoration and new signage.
POLICY ISSUES: National Planning Policy Framework One of the defined aims of the NPPF, aimed at delivering sustainable development, is planning for prosperity, using the planning system to build a strong, responsive and competitive economy.
South Lakeland Core Strategy Policy CS7.5 states that the Core Strategy will support the diversity of main town centre uses in order to enhance their continued vitality and viability with regard to retail, business, cultural and leisure uses.
South Lakeland Local Plan Under saved Policy C16 of the Local Plan, priority is given in Conservation Areas to the preservation and enhancement of the character and appearance of the special architectural and historic interest of the area.
HUMAN RIGHTS ACT: This application has been determined to accord with the rights and limitations of the Act in relation to Article 6 (Right to a fair and public hearing), Article 8 (Right to respect for private and family life, home and correspondence), Article 14 (Prohibition of discrimination) and Article 1 of Protocol 1 (Right to peaceful enjoyment of possessions and protection of property).
Page 106 ASSESSMENT: Members will note the concerns raised by Ulverston Town Council. Whilst the sentiments of the Town Council are acknowledged, the consideration in this case is whether the proposed use is appropriate for this town centre location. The fact that the applicant is a national chain and that there are other café businesses in the town are not relevant planning matters. The proposal would not result in the loss of an existing retail unit and would introduce an element of retail as part of the proposal. It is considered that the proposal is acceptable, and would enable a currently prominent vacant unit to be occupied by a business with associated economic and employment benefits.
RECOMMENDATION: GRANT subject to: Condition (1) The development hereby permitted shall be commenced before the expiration of THREE YEARS from the date hereof. Reason To comply with the requirements of Section 91 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 as amended by Section 51 of the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004.
Condition (2) The development hereby permitted shall be carried out in accordance with the approved plans: Drawing No's .00441/5 and 1 Reason For the avoidance of doubt and in the interests of proper planning .
Condition (3) The premises shall only be used as a mixed retail and coffee shop outlet, serving coffee, other hot and cold drinks, sandwiches and other light refreshments for consumption on or off the premises. Reason For the avoidance of doubt and to ensure the control of the future uses of the site.
REASON FOR GRANTING PLANNING PERMISSION: The proposed change of use of the site will not adversely affect the vitality or viability of the town centre as it will not remove a retail unit and as such is in accordance with the aims and objectives of the National Planning Policy Framework, with Policy CS7.5 of the South Lakeland Core Strategy and with saved Policies C16 and S2 of the South Lakeland Local Plan. There are no material considerations that indicate against the proposal.
Page 107 This page is intentionally left blank
Page 108 SCHEDULE A
Complex Planning Applications
SCHEDULE No: 13 SL/2012/0646
MANSERGH: LAND AT GILL FOOT, MANSERGH, LA6 2EU
PROPOSAL: SITING OF CARAVAN FOR USE AS AGRICULTURAL WORKER'S DWELLING
MR GARY SUNTER
E361449.1 N486306.5 25/10/2012
SUMMARY: Siting of a caravan for occupation by an agricultural worker on an existing farmstead. The agricultural appraisal provides sufficient justification for the temporary siting of a caravan to serve the farm business, although the current arrangements would not support the construction of an agricultural worker’s dwelling.
MANSERGH PARISH MEETING: No comments received.
AGRICULTURAL CONSULTANT: The agricultural appraisal report submitted by the applicant has been assessed by an independent land agent employed by the Local Authority. He has concluded the following: 1. There appears to be clear evidence of a firm intention and ability to develop the enterprises concerned. 2. There is a clearly established existing functional need in relation to these landholdings and for the care of the livestock, particularly in relation to the suckler cow and ewe breeding enterprises. 3. There is clear evidence that the proposed enterprises have been planned on a sound financial basis. 4. The functional need cannot be fulfilled by another existing dwelling on the unit or any other existing accommodation in the area which is suitable and available for occupation by the worker concerned.
Page 109 SLDC ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION OFFICER: Comments in relation to private water supply and non-mains drainage
HISTORICAL CONTEXT:
There is no relevant planning history to the site.
DESCRIPTION AND PROPOSAL: Planning permission is sought for the siting of a static caravan for occupation by an agricultural worker. The farm occupies an elevated location on the western side of the Lune valley, and consists of a traditional farmhouse, a range of stone and slated barns, and a collection of modern farm buildings and hardstandings. A public bridleway follows the access track to the farm from the main highway, before heading down towards the river Lune in a south-easterly direction. The caravan is to be sited immediately adjacent to the livestock shed to the north of the site, where it can be connected to the septic tank which serves the farmhouse. Water and power connections are available from the adjoining building, and vehicle parking is available in the existing yards. The applicant farms approximately 120 acres (49 ha) which is located close to the farmstead. Gill Foot farm is owned by the applicant’s grandfather who has let the farmland and the farm buildings to the applicant on a rolling 12 month licence basis. The farmhouse is not included in the agreement, and is occupied by the grandparents. These arrangements commenced in November 2009. The applicant hopes that as the business expands more land can be rented, and the number of stock increased. Currently, the following livestock are kept at the holding: • 350 breeding ewes being a mixture of mules, texels and cheviots. Lambing is carried out inside one of the modern buildings at the farm. All the lambs are sold fat from these breeding ewes. • 8 tups. • 15 suckler cows calving throughout the year. • 1 Stock bull. • Around 30 holstein bulls are purchased as month old stirks each year and retained on the holding until they are fat at around 15 months of age. • 30 store cattle purchased each year and fattened on the holding.
This is an all grass farm with 50 - 60 acres being made into big bale silage or hay each year for feeding to the livestock in the winter months. The remainder of the farm is in grassland for grazing the livestock. Currently the only residential accommodation on the holding is the original 4 bedroomed farmhouse which is occupied by the applicant’s grandfather and his wife.
Page 110 The applicant lives approximately 5 miles from Gill Foot Farm at Low Bendrigg Farm, Old Hutton which is approximately 20 minutes travelling time from Gill Foot Farm. The applicant works full time in the business that he has established over the last three years. The proposed caravan would eliminate the necessity to travel, would permit the provision of adequate welfare and care for the existing stock whilst enabling a further expansion of the business. Farm trading accounts have been submitted to demonstrate the viability of the business and examined by the independent land agent employed by the Local Planning Authority. A temporary permission of three years is sought which would enable a review of the business, and the applicant has indicated that eventually a permanent dwelling may be applied for , depending on the progress of the business.
POLICY ISSUES:
National Planning Policy Framework Section 6 Delivering a wide choice of high quality homes states that local planning authorities should avoid new isolated homes in the countryside unless there are special circumstances such as the essential need for a rural worker to live permanently at or near their place of work in the countryside.
South Lakeland Core Strategy Policy CS 1.2 of the adopted South Lakeland Core Strategy outlines the development strategy for the district. Exceptionally, new development will be permitted in the open countryside where it has an essential requirement for a rural location or is needed to sustain existing businesses. Policy CS7.4 of the adopted South Lakeland Core Strategy supports the economic needs of the rural community including sustainable farming and food production. Policy CS8.2 of the adopted South Lakeland Core Strategy promotes the protection and enhancement of landscape and settlement character.
South Lakeland Local Plan Saved Policy H9 of the South Lakeland Local Plan relates to agricultural and forestry dwellings in the open countryside. Such proposals will be permitted where it can be demonstrated that there is a functional need for the dwelling, there are no alternative opportunities for providing accommodation on the site for example through conversion of redundant buildings or subdividing an existing dwelling, the proposed dwelling should be located adjacent to the existing farmstead and the size of the dwelling is appropriate to the functional need for it. The explanatory text accompanying the policy sets out how the Local Authority will apply an occupancy condition to any dwelling permitted, which will also be applied to existing dwellings on the holding.
HUMAN RIGHTS ACT: This application has been determined to accord with the rights and limitations of the Act in relation to Article 6 (Right to a fair and public hearing), Article 8 (Right to respect for private and family life, home and correspondence), Article 14 (Prohibition
Page 111 of discrimination) and Article 1 of Protocol 1 (Right to peaceful enjoyment of possessions and protection of property).
ASSESSMENT: The applicant has farmed at Low Bendrigg farm for a number of years, and has now established a farming enterprise at Gill Foot Farm which he has built up since 2009. He proposes to continue to expand this business by acquiring more livestock and taking on more land on a licence basis. The Council’s agricultural consultant has examined the farming operations and accounts associated with the business. He considers that the farm is being operated in an efficient manner, and the livestock well cared for. It is considered that the applicant has the firm intention and ability to continue to develop the suckler cow - and ewe - breeding enterprise on these landholdings. The consultant has confirmed the established functional need for a resident worker on the holding in relation to all-year-round animal care, although notably the suckler cows, particularly when they are calving, and the breeding ewes during lambing time. From the farm accounts it is evident that the business is being gradually built up in terms of increased livestock numbers and income. Although net income is small, there is evidence that the enterprises have been planned on a sound financial basis. It is judged that there is sufficient justification for one worker actively involved in the management of the unit to be resident on or immediately adjacent the holding. The occupier of the farmhouse is not actively involved in the farming operation, and it is considered that the caravan would provide a suitable solution in the short term enabling the applicant to continue the farming operations and possibly expand the enterprise further. A temporary permission of three years would enable the justification of need and the success of the farm business to be reviewed by the Local Planning Authority. At the present time the business is insufficient to support either the conversion of a farm building or a new building to provide accommodation. The applicant has indicated that if the business continues to expand consent might be sought for a dwelling in the future. However, as the Gill Foot farmstead is currently held on a 12 month rolling licence basis only, it is considered that this arrangement would not be sufficiently secure to justify the construction of a permanent dwelling, irrespective of other issues. Although tenure would need to be addressed at the time of any such future submission for a dwelling, the applicant needs to be aware that the tenancy arrangements and the availability of the existing farmhouse are issues which will be raised during the consideration of any future application. In terms of positioning, the caravan is in a suitable location, against a backdrop of farm buildings. The location relates to the availability of services on the farmstead and, functionally, is in close proximity to the calf and sheep rearing shed. It will be most visible on approaches from the north on the road from Killington. Nevertheless, it is sited immediately adjacent the existing farmstead, and will be largely screened from the Lune valley by the contours of the land. The dark colour will assist in minimising its appearance in the landscape. The caravan will not be particularly prominent in the landscape and will not adversely affect the character and appearance of this attractive rural locality. Its use for
Page 112 occupation by an agricultural worker supports a newly established farming enterprise, and on this basis the application is recommended for approval.
RECOMMENDATION: Delegated authority be given to the Director (People and Places) to grant planning permission subject to the following conditions: (1) Temporary three year permission (2) Agricultural occupancy condition (3) The colour of the caravan to be agreed in writing
Page 113 This page is intentionally left blank
Page 114 SCHEDULE A
Complex Planning Applications
SCHEDULE No: 14 SL/2012/0802 (FPA) and 0803 (CAC)
KENDAL: KENDAL BOWMAN, 155 HIGHGATE LA9 4EN
PROPOSAL: CONVERSION AND ALTERATIONS OF FORMER PUBLIC HOUSE TO FORM SEVEN SELF-CONTAINED FLATS AND GROUND FLOOR OFFICES, DEMOLITION AND PARTIAL RE-BUILDING OF SINGLE STOREY LEAN-TO OUTBUILDING
MRS ALEX WOLFENDEN, E351510 N492300 25/10/2012 FAIROAK HOUSING ASSOCIATION
SUMMARY: The conversion of the existing building range to the proposed uses is acceptable subject to some detailed design amendments.
KENDAL TOWN COUNCIL: Comments to be received by 26 October 2012.
CUMBRIA HIGHWAYS: To be reported.
CUMBRIA ACCESS OFFICER: Construction work is likely to affect the routes of two public rights of way and temporary orders will be necessary. The surfaces of the footpaths should be restored after works to a standard at least comparable to the current situation.
SLDC HOUSING STRATEGY OFFICER: To be reported.
SLDC ASSET MANAGER: To be reported.
Page 115 SLDC ENVIRONMENTAL HEALTH MANAGER To be reported.
HISTORICAL CONTEXT: The Kendal Bowman closed as a Public House in 2006. Planning Permission for its conversion to two retail units and eight flats was granted following an application in 2007. That permission was not implemented. In 2010 fresh applications were submitted for planning permission and conservation area consent for a scheme to provide two retail units and four flats in the frontage building, a further eight flats in a major new rear extension. Those applications, SL/2010/ 0756 and SL/2010/0757 feature elsewhere on the agenda for this meeting.
DESCRIPTION AND PROPOSAL: The property consists of a three storey range fronting the eastern side of Highgate with both northern and southern rear wings each three storey. East of these rear wings is an open yard area used in the past for parking and beer garden by the public house. A narrow SLDC car park separates this yard from Dowkers Lane, the access road formed before 1974 to serve the re-development of the south-east Highgate area as the Waterside flats complex. A narrow, traditional yard used as a public right of way, Jennings Yard, passes from Highgate to Dowkers Lane along the southern boundary of the application site. Another such right of way, Yard 153, passes through the building to the north and then crosses the open rear of the application site. On the eastern boundary this route corresponds to the existing vehicle access point from the Council car park. The frontage building facing Highgate has a distinctive appearance and form resulting from twentieth century alterations by the local brewery Whitwell and Marks to nineteenth and eighteenth century buildings. The rear wings are also of a traditional nineteenth century form typical of commercial buildings in the town. Since 2006 there has been a lack of maintenance on the building and its current condition and appearance are poor. The applicant, Fairoak Housing Association, provides accommodation for people with disabilities and propose to convert the upper floors and the whole of the southern rear wing into seven affordable flats. The ground floor of the frontage building and ground floor of the northern wing would provide office accommodation for the Association itself. The scheme would involve the provision of a new rear staircase in the narrow space between the two rear wings. A twentieth century lean-to on the rear elevation would be removed and replaced by a smaller lean-to. A flagged amenity area for residents would be provided to the east of the southern wing and this area would include a timber-screened bin store and a small pitched roofed bike store. The remainder of the open area would be surfaced in tarmac and 10 parking spaces including 1 disabled parking space provided. These spaces would be served by the existing access across the Council car park and would leave the route of the public right of way unobstructed. A timber fence is proposed on the eastern and northern boundaries. On the southern boundary to Jennings Yard a dwarf stone wall and trellis fence are proposed.
Page 116 The design utilises existing openings on the street elevation and on the side elevations of the rear wings. Some additional openings are proposed on the eastern gables of the rear wings overlooking the parking area. The windows facing onto Highgate at present have leadwork to resemble leaded lights but this is not shown on the proposed plans. The plans also show the proposed removal of the paired chimney stacks situated at the midpoint of the frontage building where the roof level steps down.
POLICY ISSUES: The site is within Kendal Conservation Area. In such areas the Council has a statutory duty to seek to preserve and enhance the special architectural and historic character of the area. Saved Policy C16 of the South Lakeland Local Plan reflects this duty to have special regard to the desirability of preserving and enhancing the character of a Conservation Area. Policy CS8.6 of the adopted South Lakeland Core Strategy relates to the Historic Environment and seeks to safeguard and enhance historic assets including conservation areas and important buildings within them. The Historic Environment Practice Guide continues to give detailed advice in relation to this subject. The National Planning Policy Framework’s Core Principles include conserving heritage assets in a manner appropriate to their significance. Saved Policy H4 of the South Lakeland Local Plan permits residential development on suitable small sites within Kendal subject to satisfactory detailing of density, layout and access. Policy CS1.2 of the adopted South Lakeland Core Strategy directs new development to service centres and gives priority to previously developed land and the safeguarding of historic assets. Policy CS6.3 of that Core Strategy requires that in Kendal on schemes of nine or more dwellings no less than 35% are for affordable occupation. The National Planning Policy Framework supports development in sustainable locations and delivering a wide range of high quality homes. The National Planning Policy Framework also seeks to ensure the vitality of town centres. Policy CS7.5 of the adopted South Lakeland Core Strategy seeks to maintain the vitality and viability of Kendal Town Centre. Saved Policy L10 of the South Lakeland Local Plan protects public rights of way. Neighbourliness and the amenity of adjoining property can be material planning considerations but private legal rights are not planning matters.
HUMAN RIGHTS ACT: This application has been determined to accord with the rights and limitations of the Act in relation to Article 6 (Right to a fair and public hearing), Article 8 (Right to respect for private and family life, home and correspondence), Article 14 (Prohibition of discrimination) and Article 1 of Protocol 1 (Right to peaceful enjoyment of possessions and protection of property).
ASSESSMENT: The principle of the conversion of the existing building to provide seven affordable flats is acceptable. Because there are fewer than nine units proposed there would be
Page 117 no requirement under Policy CS6.3 of the Core Strategy for a Section 106 Agreement. The use of the ground floor former licensed area as an office is appropriate in town centre terms and would not lead to pressure for larger display windows as might have been the case with a retail use. The retention and refurbishment of the whole building range apart from the modern lean-to is most welcome in conservation terms. Utilizing the existing openings and retaining many distinctive features is also welcome. Some details of the design are of concern including the loss of leaded windows, style of new windows on rear elevations, modern, glazed doors on the frontage, the removal of the central stacks and the enclosure of the rear area in timber fencing and amendments have been suggested to the agent. The proposed layout retains the public rights of way. There is residential property on the southern side of Jennings Yard. The existing building has windows overlooking the yard. These served the former bar areas, the first floor dinning area and bedrooms on the upper floor. These windows would be used as windows to habitable rooms in the proposed flats. The impact in terms of neighbourliness should not be greater than the impact of the past use. Subject to the design amendments referred to the scheme is acceptable.
RECOMMENDATION: Subject to a satisfactory conclusion to negotiations over the details:- (a) the planning application SL/2012/0802 be GRANTED subject to conditions relating to the following:
(1) Standard time limit (2) Any amended plans submitted as a result of negotiations (3) Matching roofing slate for areas of new roof (4) New external walling to match existing walling finishes (5) Use of timber for window frames and external doors (6) Finished ground levels (7) External surfacing details (8) Archaeological recording condition (9) Restriction on permitted hours of demolition and construction (10) Site Management Plan including details of control of noise and dust (11) Car parking to be laid out and available for use prior to the first occupation of the flats and thereafter retained (12) The bin store proposed shall be provided before the first occupation of the flats and thereafter retained (13) Approval of external lighting details and
Page 118 (b) Conservation Area Consent SL/2012/0803 be Granted subject to conditions relating to the following: (1) CAC time limit (2) Archaeological recording condition (3) Demolition not to take place until a contract has been let for the commencement of construction of the implementation of SL/2012/0802 or such other scheme as shall have been granted planning permission and such construction to start within 3 months of the commencement of demolition. (4) Restriction of permitted hours of works of demolition. (5) Site Management Plan including details of control of noise and dust.
Page 119 This page is intentionally left blank
Page 120 Item No.7
PART I
South Lakeland District Council PLANNING COMMITTEE
Meeting Date: 25 October 2012 Report Author: Kate Bellwood (Planning Officer) Portfolio: Jonathon Brook (Housing and Development Portfolio Holder) Report from: David Sykes - Director (People and Places) Wards affected: Kendal Far Cross Key Decision: Not applicable
CHANGE OF PROVISIONS OF SECTION 106 AGREEMENT FOR HOUSING DEVELOPMENT AT NORTH EAST SANDYLANDS, KENDAL
1.0 PURPOSE OF REPORT
1.1 This report is presented to request Members to consider the changing of the wording of the approved Section 106 Agreement for the housing development at North East Sandylands, which will allow an application for a variation of the surface water drainage arrangements previously approved by the Planning Committee to be issued.
2.0 RECOMMENDATIONS
2.1 It is recommended that the alteration to the provisions of the Section 106 Agreement as outlined in section 5 of this report be approved.
3.0 BACKGROUND
3.1 In 2005 an outline application for 94 dwellings, 47 of which are affordable, was submitted by the applicants. Whilst Committee resolved to approve the application, a Call-In from the Secretary of State prohibited the Council issuing the decision. The matter was determined at a Public Inquiry, where detailed and technical evidence relating to highways and drainage was considered. At that time drainage to Stock Beck was not considered possible (the Stock Beck Flood Alleviation Scheme was under construction) and the surface water was to be drained by pipeline to the River Mint, crossing fields to the north of the site and entering the Mint behind Morrison’s. The Secretary of State determined that permission should be granted and the following condition was
Page 121 attached to the permission: Before any building works are commenced, details of the proposed surface water drainage system and the pipeline to the River Mint shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The submitted scheme shall take into account all the information contained in the Flood Risk Assessment prepared by R G Parkins and Partners Ltd (their ref K22130 dated July 2005 and the addendum Flood Risk Assessment also prepared by R G Parkins and Partners Ltd ref K22130 dated January 2006). The development shall not be undertaken or completed except in complete accordance with the approved surface water drainage system.
Reserved matters were subsequently granted for the development and a material start made on site. 3.2 In September 2011 an amended application was reported to the Planning Committee seeking approval to vary the wording of the above condition to allow the surface water to drain to Stock Beck instead of the River Mint. Members voted to approve this application, subject to amended conditions for the development taking into account the above change and the fact that development had commenced, and subject to the issuing of a Deed of Variation to the S106 Agreement associated with the 2005 application. 3.3 For legal reasons the Deed of Variation has not yet been signed and in light of current economic conditions, a change to the wording is proposed by the applicant. 4.0 RESEARCH AND CONSULTATION 4.1 Discussions about the variation have been held between Development Management Team members, Legal Services and the applicants.
5.0 PROPOSAL 5.1 The original S106 Agreement required that payment of monies for Open Space and Play Space and Youth Facilities were made before development commenced. A material start was made on site but the payments were delayed because of land ownership issues. When the 2011 Application was approved by Members, the wording was to change in line with the conditions, reflecting the start made on site, and was to read that monies were to be received “prior to the erection of any superstructure on site”. 5.2 In April 2012 a request was made that the wording be altered to reflect the operational needs of the development, for example that payment for play spaces was made at the stage that they would have been constructed on site and that payment for the youth facilities be delayed for economic reasons being that the development faced a lot of upfront expenses in terms of drainage and highways, and it would be preferred if this could be made later. 5.3 The suggested wording is as follows: Open Space and Play Space: Prior to the completion of sale of the 48 th dwelling, to pay to the Council the
Page 122 sum of eighteen thousand pounds (£18 000) such sum to be used by the Council in providing Open Space and Play Space on the Sandylands Estate in Kendal in accordance with the terms of this Part of the Second Schedule. 5.4 Youth Facilities: Prior to the completion of sale of the 11 th dwelling, to pay to the Council the sum of twenty five thousand pounds (£25 000) such sum to be used by the Council in providing youth facilities on the Sandylands Estate in Kendal in accordance with the terms of this Part of the Second Schedule.
6.0 ALTERNATIVE OPTIONS 6.1 Refuse the variation of the wording, therefore requiring that payment of monies is made prior to the erection of any superstructure.
7.0 NEXT STEPS 7.1 Not applicable.
8.0 IMPLICATIONS 8.1 Financial and Resources 8.1.1 The recommendations in this report do not have any cost implications. 8.2 Human Resources 8.2.1 The recommendations in this report do not have any staffing implications. 8.3 Legal 8.3.1 Not applicable. 8.4 Social, Economic and Environmental Impact 8.4.1 This report does not have any registered significant environmental effects.
9.0 RISK ASSESSMENT
9.1 Not applicable.
10.0 EQUALITY AND DIVERSITY 10.1 The Draft Statement of Community Involvement takes account of the equalities issues in seeking to define South Lakeland’s community and interests relevant to the Local Development Framework which will influence the determination of individual planning applications.
11.0 LINKS TO THE CORPORATE PLAN AND PERFORMANCE INDICATORS 11.1 This report links to the aim of “Enhancing the environment in which we live .”
Page 123 12.0 CONCLUSION AND EXPECTED OUTCOMES 12.1 The proposed outcome is that permission is granted for the residential development and works can proceed on site.
CONTACT OFFICERS Kate Bellwood, Planning Officer. [email protected] . 01539 797561
BACKGROUND DOCUMENTS AVAILABLE Various Planning files.
TRACKING Director Portfolio Solicitor to the CMT Scrutiny Holder Council Committee N/A N/A 10 Oct 2012 N/A N/A Executive Committee Council Section 151 Monitoring (Cabinet) Officer Officer N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A Human Development Resource Management Services Group Manager Manager N/A 10 Oct 2012 (BAJ)
Page 124 Item No.8
PART I
South Lakeland District Council PLANNING COMMITTEE
Meeting Date: 25 October 2012 Report Author: Kate Bellwood (Planning Officer) Portfolio: Jonathon Brook (Housing and Development Portfolio Holder) Report from: David Sykes - Director (People and Places) Wards affected: Cartmel and Grange West Key Decision: Not applicable
REQUEST TO WITHDRAW EXEMPTION CERTIFICATES FOR CAMPING AND CARAVANNING EVENTS AT CARTMEL RACECOURSE
1.0 PURPOSE OF REPORT
1.1 This report is presented to Members to consider whether or not the Council should pursue a course of action, allowed under The Caravan Sites and Control of Development Act 1960, to remove the rights of camping and caravanning groups to camp at Cartmel Racecourse using Exemption Certificates issued by Natural England.
2.0 RECOMMENDATIONS
2.1 It is recommended that:- (1) The removal of Exemption Certificates at Cartmel Racecourse shall not be pursued as such a step is not necessary on the basis that suitable controls can be exercised by other departments and organisations.
3.0 BACKGROUND
3.1 For land to be used as a caravan site it must be licensed and planning permission is usually necessary. However the Caravan Sites and Control of Development Act 1960, Schedule 1, paragraph 12 enables the Secretary of State to issue exemptions to organisations that meet certain requirements. These are known as “touring caravan exemption certificates” and organisations that have been granted an exemption certificate do not need either a licence or planning permission. There is a similar certificate for tents.
Page 125 3.2 Natural England do not authorise sites, only the organisations. They do not limit the numbers of people who can attend any event, nor do they set limits on the number of events that can be held by any organisation. However there is a responsibility on the organisation to have proper management of the site and not create a nuisance. 3.3 Cartmel Racecourse has allowed exempted organisations to camp on the site for more than 10 years. In recent years the numbers of events, often accompanied by trade fairs, fun fairs and food and bar tents etc, have increased in both number and scale. These run in addition to an increased number of race days. 3.4 Local residents have objected to these events on the basis that the increased traffic, noise, activity and litter cause the village to become unbearable. The noise continues late into the night and traffic jams are commonplace. The large influx of people to each event causes additional noise and other antisocial problems. 3.5 As these events are operating under an Exemption Certificate, no planning permission is required and there is no control that the Planning Department can exercise. No site licence is required either. 3.6 Local residents have requested that SLDC withdraw the right of exempted organisations to use this site under Paragraph 13, First Schedule, Caravan Sites and Control of development Act 1960. The effect of a Paragraph 13 Order would be to require a site licence and / or planning permission to be sought for the use of the site as a caravan / camping site.
4.0 RESEARCH AND CONSULTATION 4.1 Information made available by Natural England about the extent of controls for Exemptions and procedures to withdraw them. 4.2 Concurrently with this, the Local Planning Authority is considering an application for a Certificate of Lawful use for camping on this site. Local consultation has been carried out about this application. Local residents have been given the opportunity to confirm the scale and size of events on the racecourse for the last 10+ years. However they have not been consulted on the potential withdrawal of Exempted Certificates and therefore whilst a number of people within the village have asked the Council to explore this option, the wider views of the village are unknown.
5.0 PROPOSAL 5.1 To pursue this, the Council would have to apply to the Secretary of State, stating the reasons why the Order (to remove the Exemption Certificate and issue an Article 4 direction) should be granted and why other controls and mechanisms can not resolve the issues. 5.2 To bring the site wholly under control an Article 4 direction would also be required to remove Permitted Development Rights for the site. At present, and wholly independently from the Exemptions, camping can be held for up to 28 days in any calendar year and events such as markets for up to 14 days. 5.3 The Article 4 direction would also have to be approved by the Secretary of State. However should the direction be granted and the owner seek to apply for planning permission for the development, the landowner is entitled to claim
Page 126 compensation from the Council for abortive expenditure and any loss or damage caused by the loss or rights. 5.4 The submission of a planning application would give the Local Planning Authority the ability to control the number of events held and numbers attending, as well as sound levels on sound systems, hours of operation etc. Consultation with County Highways and Environmental Protection would be key. 5.5 However, many of the controls that would be exercised by the planning application already exist. For example, if noise levels exceed appropriate levels, Environmental Protection can resolve this through their own legislation. 5.6 Other problems created by the events are outwith the planning system. Antisocial behaviour would be controlled by the Police. Numbers of cars, vehicles and people attending the events could not be controlled, and again responsibility lies with the police. The hours of activity could not be wholly controlled by the planning system. 5.7 Natural England also retain control over the organisations that hold Exemption Certificates. If an organisation is found to be breaching the terms, or complaints about the organisation are received, then these can be investigated. Antisocial behaviour and nuisance to local people by reason of the activities of that group could be addressed by Natural England. 5.8 The main gain of considering a planning application would be to limit the number of days events could run and number of camping units (tents, caravans, motorhomes) at each event. 5.9 The disadvantage of controlling the site through a planning application are financial risk to the Council through compensation, financial implications on local businesses from reduced numbers of events (people using local shops and accommodation whilst attending events), and confusion amongst local people as to the extent of the control of the application. 5.10 Furthermore, an application is currently under consideration to grant a Certificate of Lawful Development for camping and caravanning activities on this site. Evidence has been submitted which shows that camping and caravanning events have occurred on the site for more than 10 years. However when issued, the Certificate is expected to indicate that only small events on a handful of days each year have occurred over and above the Permitted Development allowance. Although these events are very small, they could not be stopped by either of the above methods. 5.11 The concerns of local residents are noted, but the level of control offered by the submission of a planning application will not resolve the concerns of local residents about the activities on site. Given the ability to control the worst elements of the events through other legislation and organisations, and the financial risk to the Council and local economic activity, it is not considered that a course of action to pursue a Paragraph 13 Order and Article 4 Direction is necessary or reasonable.
6.0 ALTERNATIVE OPTIONS 6.1 To consult with Natural England, Cumbria Highways, Cumbria Police, Environmental Protection, Counsel, Cartmel Racecourse and Local residents to gauge the extent of other powers, concern and likely impact of such a
Page 127 course of action, and report back to Members to make a further consideration. 7.0 NEXT STEPS 7.1 Not applicable.
8.0 IMPLICATIONS 8.1 Financial and Resources 8.1.1 The recommendation in this report does not have any cost implications. However the alternative option would have financial implications in the carrying out of consultation, carrying out the two orders and possible compensation. 8.2 Human Resources 8.2.1 The recommendations in this report do not have any staffing implications. 8.3 Legal 8.3.1 Will have to be consulted as to procedures and impact on Council activity. 8.4 Social, Economic and Environmental Impact 8.4.1 This report does not have any registered significant environmental effects. But there may be economic impacts on a local scale.
9.0 RISK ASSESSMENT
9.1 Not applicable.
10.0 EQUALITY AND DIVERSITY 10.1 The Statement of Community Involvement takes account of the equalities issues in seeking to define South Lakeland’s community and interests relevant to the Local Development Framework which will influence the determination of individual planning applications.
11.0 LINKS TO THE CORPORATE PLAN AND PERFORMANCE INDICATORS 11.1 This report links to the objective of Improving Environmental Quality across South Lakeland, of the Corporate Plan.
12.0 CONCLUSION AND EXPECTED OUTCOMES 12.1 The proposed outcome is that Members determine not to pursue this course of action and local residents are advised.
CONTACT OFFICERS Kate Bellwood, Planning Officer. [email protected] . 01539 797561
BACKGROUND DOCUMENTS AVAILABLE None.
Page 128 TRACKING Director Portfolio Solicitor to the CMT Scrutiny Holder Council Committee 8 Oct 2012 8 Oct 2012 10 Oct 2012 N/A N/A Ex ecutive Committee Council Section 151 Monitoring (Cabinet) Officer Officer N/A 25 Oct 2012 N/A N/A N/A Human Development Resource Management Services Group Manager Manager N/A 8 Oct 2012
Page 129 This page is intentionally left blank
Page 130 Item No.9
PART I
South Lakeland District Council PLANNING COMMITTEE
Meeting Date: 25 October 2012 Report Author: Mark Shipman (Development Management Group Manager) Eleanor Huddleston, Planning and Enforcement Assistant Portfolio: Jonathon Brook (Housing and Development Portfolio Holder) Report from: David Sykes (Director People and Places) Wards affected: All in the Furness Peninsula Key Decision: Not applicable
A REPORT ON THE SUBMISSION OF A LOCAL IMPACT REPORT TO THE NATIONAL INFRASTRUCTURE DIVISION REGARDING ROOSECOTE BIOMASS POWER STATION AT BARROW IN FURNESS
1.0 PURPOSE OF REPORT 1.1 This report is presented to inform Members about the draft Local Impact Report to be submitted to the National Infrastructure Division of the Planning Inspectorate (NID) and allow Members to comment thereon. 1.2 Appendix 1 contains the Draft Report.
2.0 RECOMMENDATIONS 2.1 It is recommended that Members of Planning Committee:- (1) Consider the report and suggest any revisions they wish to be incorporated; and (2) Endorse the report for submission to the NID.
3.0 BACKGROUND 3.1 The application seeks a Development Consent Order (DCO) to construct and operate a 90MW (gross) / 80MW (Net) biomass electricity generating power station on land at Roosecote, Barrow in Furness. 3.2 The main structures proposed comprise: a boiler house 70m high; a stack 90m high; a fuel storage shed 29m high, up to 120m x 55m in plan; four fuel storage silos for wood pellets each 25m in diameter and 35m tall; biomass screening building; road delivery unloading facility; rail unloading facility; a railway line connecting the existing rail infrastructure; and conveyors to transport fuel within the power station. The site of the proposal is approximately 1.2 kilometres from
Page 131 the boundary with South Lakeland. The nearest village within the District is Leece, which is approximately 1.9 km from the application site. There are many rural communities of varying sizes within a 5 km radius from the site which fall within two parishes, Aldingham and Urswick. 3.3 The Planning Act 2008 created the Infrastructure Planning Commission (IPC) and this has been changed into the National Infrastructure Division of the Planning Inspectorate by the Coalition Government. Their function is to issue all the necessary consents in one process for significant national infrastructure projects. There are thresholds set for energy production that define Nationally Significant Infrastructure Projects. Roosecote Biomass Power Station is defined as a Nationally Significant Infrastructure Project. 3.4 Section 60 (2) Planning Act 2008 states “The Commission must give notice in writing to each of the following, inviting them to submit a local impact report to it:- (a) each authority which, in relation to the application, is a relevant local authority within the meaning given by section 102(5), and (b) the Greater London Authority if the land to which the application relates, or any part of it, is in Greater London.” South Lakeland District Council is a relevant authority under subsection (a). 3.5 Section 60 (3) Planning Act 2008 states a “local impact report” is a report in writing giving details of the likely impact of the proposed development on the authority’s area (or any part of that area).” Local Impact Reports are referred to using the acronym LIR. 3.6 A guidance Note was produced by the IPC and is still the relevant document. The following advice is taken from that document: The content of the LIR is a matter for the local authority concerned as long as it falls within this statutory definition. Topics which may be of assistance in the report include: • site description and surroundings / location; • details of the proposal; • relevant planning history and any issues arising; • relevant development plan policies, supplementary planning guidance or documents, development briefs or approved master-plans and an appraisal of their relationship and relevance to the proposals; • relevant development proposals under consideration or granted permission but not commenced or completed; • local area characteristics such as urban and landscape qualities and nature conservation sites; • local transport patterns and issues; • site and area constraints; • designated sites; • socio-economic and community matters;
Page 132 • consideration of the impact of the proposed provisions; • requirements within the draft Order (such as the scheme) in respect of all of the above; and • development consent obligations and their impact on the local authority’s area. 3.7 This list is neither exhaustive nor prescriptive. Local authorities should cover any topics they consider relevant to the impact of the proposed development on their area. 3.8 Local authorities should set out clearly their terms of reference for the LIR. The LIR should be used by local authorities as the means by which their existing body of local knowledge and evidence on local issues can be fully and robustly reported to the Commission. 3.9 There is no need for the LIR to replicate the Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA). Nor is it necessary to replicate any assessment already produced in respect of the site such as those included in National Policy Statements. Rather, it should draw on existing local knowledge and experience. Examples might be local evidence of flooding, local social or economic issues or local knowledge of travel patterns to community facilities. 3.10 In producing a LIR, the local authority is not required to carry out its own consultation with the community. 3.11 The report should consist of a statement of positive, neutral and negative local impacts, but it does not need to contain a balancing exercise between positives and negatives; nor does it need to take the form of a committee report. The Commissioner will carry out a balancing exercise of relevant impacts, and these will include those local impacts specifically reported in the LIR . 3.12 By setting out clearly evaluated impacts in a structured document, local authorities will assist the Commission to identify local issues which might not otherwise come to its attention in the examination process. It will also be very helpful to have the local authority’s appraisal of the proposed development’s compliance with local policy and guidance. 3.13 It would assist the Commission if the local authority is able to give its view on the relative importance of different social, environmental or economic issues and the impact of the scheme on them. 3.14 It will be important for the Commission to have the local authority’s views on provisions, requirements and development consent obligations. Where specific mitigation or compensatory measures are proposed by the applicant, by way of suggested provisions; requirements; or development consent obligations, these should be identified, commented upon and given appropriate weight. Local authorities should mention them explicitly. The same applies to provisions; requirements; and obligations that the local authority considers ought to be included. 3.15 Parish councils, organisations and members of the public may have made representations to the local authority or directly to the applicant about the scheme (prompted, for example, by the applicant’s consultation). The LIR could include reference to these representations, but only where they are relevant to a particular local impact which the local authority itself wants to highlight. To make relevant
Page 133 representations about the application, interested persons must register their interest with the Commission at the appropriate time. Local authorities should therefore encourage such respondents to register their interest so that they can make representations about the scheme directly to the Commission. 3.16 The draft LIR is contained in Appendix 1.
4.0 RESEARCH AND CONSULTATION 4.1 Various planning files both within South Lakeland Local Planning Authority, Barrow Local Planning Authority and Cumbria County Council, Consultation Documents and application documents submitted to the NID. See below.
5.0 PROPOSAL 5.1 Submit the Local Impact Report to the National Infrastructure Division.
6.0 ALTERNATIVE OPTIONS 6.1 Not submit the Local Impact Report to the National Infrastructure Division.
7.0 NEXT STEPS 7.1 Incorporate any comments of Members and if appropriate subsequent relevant observations of Cumbria County Council, then submit the LIR to the NID.
8.0 IMPLICATIONS 8.1 Financial and Resources 8.1.1 No planning fee is received and SLDC is not a party to the Planning Performance agreement, though a pre-application fee of £600 plus VAT was received. 8.2 Human Resources 8.2.1 The recommendations in this report do not have any staffing implications. 8.3 Legal 8.3.1 See report. 8.4 Social, Economic and Environmental Impact 8.4.1 Has a sustainability impact assessment been carried out? Yes. The Appendix to this report does comment on environmental effects.
Page 134 9.0 RISK ASSESSMENT Risk Consequence Controls required Not submitting the LIR will Ombudsman Ensure submission of mean that the decision maladministration the LIR within the regarding Roosecote investigation. Result in relevant timescale. Power Station will be taken inappropriate forms of without regard to impacts development, which could within South Lakeland have an adverse impact on Local Planning Authority the character, and administrative area. appearance of the District’s town and rural landscapes.
10.0 EQUALITY AND DIVERSITY 10.1 The Planning Act 2008 takes account of the equalities issues in seeking to define South Lakeland’s community and interests relevant to the Local Development Plan, which will influence the determination of this Development Consent by the NID.
11.0 LINKS TO THE CORPORATE PLAN AND PERFORMANCE INDICATORS 11.1 This report links to the aim of “Enhancing the environment in which we live.”
12.0 CONCLUSION AND EXPECTED OUTCOMES 12.1 Officers conclude that it is unlikely that there will be a significant adverse impact on landscape and visual amenity within South Lakeland. However, there are still issues to be addressed with regards to air quality and traffic and transport which do have implications for the District given the proximity of the site to South Lakeland, and the location of main transport routes through the District. Panel members of the NID will have due regard to the South Lakeland LIR and ensure appropriate mitigation, conditions and limitations.
APPENDIX ATTACHED TO THIS REPORT Appendix No. 1 Draft LIR.
CONTACT OFFICERS Eleanor Huddleston, Planning and Enforcement Assistant, Tel: 01539 797771 Mark Shipman, Development Management Group Manager, Tel: 01539 797564 email: [email protected]
BACKGROUND DOCUMENTS AVAILABLE Various planning files. http://infrastructure.planningportal.gov.uk/projects/north-west/roosecote-barrow-biomass- power-station/
Page 135
TRACKING Assistant Portfolio Solicitor to the CMT Scrutiny Director Holder Council Committee 8 Oct 2012 8 Oct 2012 10 Oct 2012 N/A N/A Executive Committee Council Section 151 Monitoring (Cabinet) Officer Officer N/A 25 Oct 2012 N/A N/A N/A Human Development Resource Management Services Group Manager Manager N/A 8 Oct 2012
Page 136
APPENDIX 1 The purpose of this appendix is to provide a brief summary of the Roosecote Biomass draft LIR.
LOCAL IMPACT REPORT UNDER SECTION 60 OF THE PLANNING ACT 2008 INTO:-
AN APPLICATION BY CENTRICA RPS LIMITED (THE DEVELOPER) FOR A DEVELOPMENT CONSENT ORDER (DCO) TO ENABLE THE APPLICANT TO CONSTRUCT AND OPERATE A BIOMASS ELECTRCICITY GENERATING STATION WITH A NIOMINAL CAPACITY OF 90MW TOGETHER WITH A NUMBER OF ASSOCIATED DEVELOPMENTS
LAND AT: ROOSECOTE, BARROW-IN-FURNESS
1.0 INTRODUCTION 1.1 The application site lies within Barrow Borough and consequently Barrow Borough Council and Cumbria County Council defined “B” Authority as set out in the Planning Act 2008. As an adjoining Local Authority, South Lakeland District Council is identified as an ‘A’ Authority and have also been invited to prepare a Local Impact Report. 1.2 This assessment will concentrate on the likely impacts of the proposal on South Lakeland District which will be limited as the proposal falls outside its administrative boundary.
2.0 SITE LOCATION AND SURROUNDING AREA 2.1 The site relates to the existing Roosecote gas-fired power station, and other nearby land, which is located approximately 600m to the south east of Barrow-in- Furness. The site of the proposal is approximately 1.2 kilometres from the boundary with South Lakeland District. The nearest village within the District is Leece, which is approximately 1.9 km from the application site. There are many rural communities of varying sizes within a 5 km radius from the site which fall within two parishes, Aldingham and Urswick. 2.2 The Market Town of Ulverston is located approximately 10 km to the north. There are two main vehicle routes from Barrow-in-Furness both of which pass through South Lakeland. These are the A590 Trunk Road which goes through the centre of Ulverston, the A5087 which runs adjacent to the application site then continues to the east as the Coast Road, past many rural settlements, until it reaches Ulverston. 2.3 There are various designated ecological sites close to Rooscote Power Station. These include the Morecambe Bay Special Area of Conservation (SAC), Special Protection Area (SPA) and Ramsar Site, and part of the South Walney and Piel Channel Flats Site of Special Scientific Interest (SSSI). Cavendish Dock is part of the SPA and Ramsar site and part of the South Walney and Piel Channel Flats SSSI and part of the Cavendish Dock Wildlife Attraction. Salthouse Pool,
Page 137 between Cavendish Dock and the power station, is designated as a County Wildlife Site and also part of the Cavendish Dock Wildlife Attraction. The Duddon Estuary SPA and Ramsar Site (Duddon Estuary SSSI) are beyond Barrow-in- Furness to the north-west.
3.0 DETAILS OF THE PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT 3.1 The application seeks a Development Consent Order (DCO) to construct and operate a 90MW (gross)/80MW (Net) biomass electricity generating power station on land at Roosecote, Barrow-in-Furness. 3.2 The main structures proposed comprise: a boiler house 70m high; a stack 90m high; a fuel storage shed 29m high, up to 120m x 55m in plan; four fuel storage silos for wood pellets each 25m in diameter and 35m tall; biomass screening building; road delivery unloading facility; rail unloading facility; a railway line connecting the existing rail infrastructure; and conveyors to transport fuel within the power station. 3.3 Approximately 430,000 to 600,000 tonnes of biomass fuel (comprising a mix of virgin wood chip and pellets, with a proportion of recycled/waste wood chips) would be burnt per annum to generate electricity at the facility. A limit of 630,000 tonnes of fuel has been included in the draft DCO. The applicant states that other types of fuel could change in the future, subject to Local Authority agreement. 3.4 The application states that the Flue Gas Treatment (FGT) would clean the flue gases before release into the atmosphere, and would comprise NOx abatement, acid gas neutralisation, heavy metals absorption and particulate filtration components. Continuous on-line emissions monitoring equipment would monitor the performance of the Gas Flue Treatment system and warn of trending toward the emission limits. This reporting mechanism would be agreed with the Environment Agency. 3.5 The fuel would be delivered to the power station either by sea to the Port of Barrow (and then by train to the power station), or alternatively from another UK port and then by train via the rail network. The proposal would involve the creation of a berth, fuel storage and handling facility at the port and a rail link from the proposed power station to the existing line that serves the port. 3.6 Depending upon the source of fuel, up to three ships per week would deliver fuel to the Port of Barrow, and up to seven trains per day would deliver the fuel to the power station. The removal of waste products is likely to be by road, although the option of removal by rail is being considered by the applicant. The generation of waste products including ash is expected to be 50-85 tonnes per day; sand consumption approximately 6-12 tonnes per day; and limestone consumption approximately 2–5 tonnes per day. The transport of the ash and process materials would result in up to ten HGV movements per day (5 in and 5 out). 3.7 All conveyors and transit points would be enclosed with appropriate dust filters. All train unloading would take place within a purpose built enclosed building, also fitted with appropriate dust controls and filters. All dust collected at the dust filters would be combusted in the boiler. At the Port of Barrow, once the fuel had been unloaded it would be transferred to the buffer stores via means of belt conveyors housed in enclosed galleries. 3.8 Cooling water would be pumped from Cavendish Dock and returned to the dock using the existing pump house and delivery and discharge pipes. Approximately
Page 138 300,000 cubic meters of cooling water would be required, but would not change the current abstraction and discharge consents held by the Power Station, as it would not exceed the current consented limit of 346,000 cubic metres. 3.9 The Biomass power station would generate electricity 24 hours a day, 7 days a week. It would operate continuously throughout the year except during shutdowns for maintenance or unplanned outages. It is anticipated that rail movements would be restricted to a 13 hour period (8am – 9pm) Monday to Saturday. Unloading of trains would continue between 9pm – 11pm. Sunday deliveries would only be required in the case of emergencies, or to clear any backlogs at the port if space was required for imminent fuel delivery. Deliveries and movement of HGVs would be between 6am and 11pm Monday – Friday, and 7am and 5pm on Saturday. During operation, in excess of 50 full-time operational and maintenance staff are expected to be employed, working a combination of shift and day time hours. 3.10 Subject to approval, the applicant anticipates that construction would commence in the third quarter of 2013, and would last for approximately 26 months. Construction materials would be generally transported by road, and it is anticipated that around 500 construction jobs would be created at its peak. Following a 6 month period of commissioning and testing, the biomass power station would become operational in the first quarter of 2016. It would have a minimum design life of 20 years.
4.0 PLANNING POLICIES 4.1 National Policy Statements 4.1.1 As the proposal exceeds 50MW of electricity generation, it falls within the definition of a Nationally Significant Infrastructure Project (NSIPs) under Part 3 of the Planning Act 2008. The Secretary of State for Energy and Climate Change designated six National Policy Statements (NPSs) of which the most relevant are: the Overarching National Policy Statement for Energy (EN1) and the Renewable Energy Infrastructure National Policy Statement (EN3). 4.1.2 EN1 sets out the national policy for energy infrastructure applications. It gives support to the transition to a low carbon economy to realise the UK’s climate change commitments. It sets out that the Government is committed to cut greenhouse emissions by at least 80% by 2050, compared to 1990 levels by delivering secure energy supplies. It recognises that a diverse mix of technologies and fuels is required so that the country does not rely on any one technology or fuel, and indicates that the determining authority should give substantial weight to the contribution which projects would make towards satisfying this need when considering applications for development consent.
4.1.3 In terms of the role of renewable energy, EN1 states that the UK has committed to sourcing 15% of its energy from renewable energy sources by 2020, and biomass is considered to be low carbon, “providing that the biomass has been cultivated, processed and transported with due consideration to sustainability .”.
4.1.4 In terms of assessing proposals, paragraph 4.1.2 of EN1 states that the IPC (now National Infrastructure Directorate) should start with a presumption in favour of granting consent to applications for energy NSIPs. It states that that presumption applies unless any more specific and relevant policies set out in
Page 139 the relevant NPSs clearly indicate that consent should be refused.
4.1.5 In considering any proposed development, and in particular when weighing its adverse impacts against its benefits, the IPC should take into account the potential benefits “including its contribution to meeting the need for energy infrastructure, job creation and any long-term or wider benefits; and its potential adverse impacts, including any long-term and cumulative adverse impacts, as well as any measures to avoid, reduce or compensate for any adverse impacts”.
4.1.6 Paragraph 4.10.2 of EN1 states that the planning system controls the development and use of land in the public interest. It pays a key role in protecting and improving the natural environment, public health and safety, and amenity, for example by attaching conditions to allow developments which would otherwise not be environmentally acceptable to proceed, and preventing harmful development which cannot be made acceptable even through conditions.
4.1.7 Paragraph 4.10.3 of EN1 goes onto states that in considering an application for development consent: “the IPC should focus on whether the development itself is an acceptable use of land and on the impact of that use, rather than the control of processes, emissions or discharges themselves”. EN1 states that the IPC should work on the assumption that the relevant pollution control regime and other environmentally regulatory regimes, including those on land drainage, water abstraction and biodiversity, will be properly applied and enforced by the relevant regulator, and should act to complement but not seek to duplicate them”.
4.1.8 National Policy Statement for Renewable Energy Infrastructure (EN3) reaffirms the advice in EN1 on the basis that the need for infrastructure covered by the NPS has been demonstrated, and that there are ambitious renewable targets in place and a significant increase in generation from large-scale renewable energy infrastructure is necessary to meet the 15% renewable energy target.
4.1.9 Part 2.5 deals specifically with biomass and waste combustion electricity generation, and states that this type of technology is likely to play an increasingly important role in meeting the UK’s renewable energy targets. It states that biomass generating stations should be Carbon Capture Ready (CCR) and/or have a Carbon Capture and Storage (CCS) technology applied. EN3 identifies the type of fuel appropriate for biomass schemes, and states that the social, environmental and economic case for widespread deployment of biomass-fuelled plant depends on the sustainability of fuel used in it. It sets out that the Government is proposing to introduce sustainability criteria for solid biomass plants as a condition of their eligibility for Renewables Obligation Certificates (ROCs).
4.1.10 EN3 states that applications for Biomass electricity generating stations must include information on how it would be connected to the grid network, and recognises that biomass generating power stations are likely to generate considerable transport movements. It goes on to state that Government policy encourages multi-modal transport, and the IPC should expect materials (fuel and residues) to be transported by water or rail routes where possible.
Page 140 4.1.11 For sites with nationally recognised designations (i.e. Sites of Special Scientific Interest, National Nature Reserves, National Parks, the Broads, Areas of Outstanding Natural Beauty, and Registered Parks and Gardens), consent for renewable energy projects should only be granted where it can be demonstrated that the objectives of designation of the area would not be compromised by the development, and any significant adverse effects on the qualities for which the area has been designated are clearly outweighed by the environmental, social and economic benefits.
4.2 National Planning Policy Framework
4.2.1 The National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) was published in March, and replaced the PPS and older PPG documents with a broader policy approach. The key message is that sustainable development should be supported unless other material considerations dictate otherwise.
4.2.2 Section 10 Meeting the challenge of climate change, flooding and coastal change, states that planning plays a key role in supporting the delivery of renewable and low carbon energy and associated infrastructure. When determining applications, LPAs should approve the application if its impacts are (or can be made) acceptable.
4.2.3 Section 11 Conserving and enhancing the natural environment, states that the planning system should seek to protect and enhance valued landscapes and to minimise impacts upon biodiversity.
4.3 Regional Policy
4.3.1 The Regional Spatial Strategy for North West England was issued in September 2008 and provides a framework for development and investment in the region up to 2021. The Coalition Government has announced its intention to abolish Regional Spatial Strategies, but until that takes place, the RSS (NW) remains part of the development plan for the region.
4.3.2 Relevant Policies to the Roosecote Biomass proposal contained in the RSS (NW) are: DP1 – Spatial Principles; DP2 – Promote Sustainable Communities; DP3 – Promote Sustainable Economic Development; DP4 – making the Best Use of existing resources and Infrastructure; DP5 - Manage Travel Demand; Reduce the Need to Travel and Increase Accessibility; DP7 – Promote Environmental Quality; DP9 - Reduce Emissions and Adapt to Climate Change; RDF1 – Spatial Priorities; RDF3 - The Coast; W1 – Strengthening the Regional Economy; RT4 – Management of the Highway Network; RT6 – Ports and Waterways; RT8 – Intermodal Freight Terminals; RT9 – Cycling and Walking; EM1 – Integrated Enhancement and Protection of the Region’s Environmental Assets;
Page 141 EM5 – Integrated Water Management; EM6 – Managing the North West’s Coastline EM10 – A Regional Approach to Waste Management EM11 – Waste Management principles; EM12 – Locational Principles; EM13 – Provision of Nationally, Regionally and sub-Regionally Significant Waste Management Facilities; EM15 – A Framework for Sustainable Energy in the North West; EM17 – Renewable Energy; EM18 – Decentralised Energy Supply; CNL1 – Overall Spatial Policy for Cumbria; and CNL2 – Sub-area Development priorities for Cumbria.
4.3.3 Policy EM17 specifically promotes renewable energy sources and states that significant weight should be given to the wider environmental, community and economic benefits of renewable energy schemes. It lists wide-ranging criteria which should be taken into account when assessing renewable energy proposals, including the effects on local amenity, visual impact and nature conservation. The visual impact of such schemes is a matter to be taken into account but should not be used to rule out or place constraints on the development of all, or specific types of, renewable energy technologies.
4.3.4 Policy EMI(A) states that priority should be given to conserving and enhancing areas, sites, features and species of international, national, regional and local landscape, natural environment and historic environment importance. 4.3.5 RSS Policy DP7 promotes the protection and enhancement of environmental quality, including green infrastructure, but at the same time respecting the character and distinctiveness of landscapes and the maintenance and enhancement of the tranquillity of the open countryside. 4.4 Structure Plan Policy
4.4.1 The Cumbria and Lake District Joint Structure Plan 2001 – 2016 (JSP) was adopted in April 2006, 23 policies were subsequent saved and extended as part of the North West of England Plan - Regional Spatial Strategy to 2021. 4.4.2 Relevant Saved and Extended JSP policies to the Roosecote development are: ST4 – Major Development Proposals ST5 – New Development and Key Service Centres outside the Lake District National Park T30 – Transport Assessments T31 – Travel Plans E35 – Areas and features of nature conservation interests other than those of national and international importance E37 – Landscape Character E38 – Historic Environment R44 – Renewable Energy outside the Lake District National Park and AONBs R51 – Residual Waste and Landfill
4.4.3 Saved Policy R44 of the Cumbria and Lake District Joint Structure Plan states that outside the Lake District National Park and the AONB proposals for renewable energy will be favourably considered if:
Page 142 (1) there is no significant adverse effect on the landscape character, biodiversity and the natural and built heritage of the area either individually or cumulatively through their relationship with other utility infrastructure; (2) there is no significant adverse effect on local amenity, the local economy, highways or telecommunications; and (3) the proposal takes all practicable measures to reduce any adverse impact on the landscape, environment, nature conservation, historical and local community interests. 4.4.4 In considering applications for planning permission in relation to the above criteria, and other policies in the Structure Plan, the environmental, economic and energy benefits of renewable energy proposals should be given significant weight. 4.4.5 Saved Structure Plan Policy E37 requires development to be compatible with the distinctive characteristics and features of Cumbria’s landscape types. It requires proposals to be assessed in relation to: (1) locally distinctive natural or built features; (2) visual intrusion or impact; (3) scale in relation to the landscape features; (4) the character of the built environment; (5) public access and community value of the landscape; (6) historic patterns and attributes; (7) biodiversity features, ecological networks and semi-natural habitats; and (8) openness, remoteness and tranquillity.
4.5 South Lakeland Core Strategy
4.5.1 The South Lakeland Core Strategy was adopted in October 2010.
4.5.2 Policy CS7.7 of the adopted South Lakeland Core Strategy supports, in principle (where the protection of the environment is assured and designated areas are safeguarded), appropriately located schemes which will increase energy production from the full range of renewable sources, including wind energy.
4.5.3 Policy CS8.2 (Protection and enhancement of landscape and settlement character) states that proposals for development should be informed by, and be sympathetic to, the distinctive landscape character types identified in various documents, including the Cumbria Landscape Character Guidance and Toolkit. Development proposals should demonstrate that their location, scale, design and materials will protect, conserve and, where possible, enhance the special qualities and local distinctiveness of the area.
4.6 Cumbria Landscape Character Guidance and Toolkit (March 2011)
4.6.1 This document identifies and assesses landscape types and provides a strategic framework and guidelines to help protect, manage and plan changes to maintain and enhance landscape distinctiveness.
4.6.2 The site lies within the landscape sub-type 2d – Coastal Urban Fringe, immediately adjacent to sub-type 7a – Low Drumlins to the east, which extends into South Lakeland District. The majority of the closest small settlements within
Page 143 South Lakeland fall within sub-type 7b – Drumlin Field. 4.6.2 The key characteristics of the Coastal Urban Fringe are identified as low lying flat land; urban influences linked to tourism development, derelict buildings and major transport routes; strong man-made landforms on coastal edges; mixed land cover of mown grass, pasture, scrub and semi natural grassland; and weak field patterns. In relation to development, the guidance recommends that the impact of new development is minimised by careful siting, design and high standards of landscape treatment particularly where public views are affected, and new development on brownfield and vacant sites is encouraged to protect and enhance habitats. 4.6.3 The key characteristics of the adjacent landscape character type, low drumlins, are tracts of low drumlins; broad rounded tops, often with steep sides; strong agricultural pattern of medium to large improved pasture fields; strong matrix of hedges with minimal tree cover; intersected by small streams and watercourses; scattered farmhouses with modern outbuildings; and expanding historic stone villages, with peripheral modern housing and scattered farmhouses. Around Barrow, fields are more irregular in shape, boundary hedgerows are often planted on small stone banks and scattered farmhouses are reached by a network of winding lanes and tracks.
5.0 ASSESSMENT OF LIKELY IMPACTS
5.1 As the proposal falls is with within Barrow Borough, the potential impacts on South Lakeland District are most likely to be limited to: landscape and visual, air quality and health from emissions, the capacity of local road networks and traffic generated through South Lakeland, and socio and economic effects. Most of the other issues are site specific or relate to other land within Barrow Borough Council. 5.2 The potential ecological impact relates to the immediate surroundings of the site in addition to the Morecambe Bay and the Duddon Estuary which are both designated as Sites of Special Scientific Interest (SSSI), Special Protection Areas (SPA), and Ramsar Sites. The Duddon Estuary also forms part of the Morecambe Bay Special Area of Conservation (SAC). South Lakeland District Council is satisfied that the ecological issues will be covered by Barrow Bough Council, Cumbria County Council and other statutory consultees such as Natural England. 5.3 In relation to landscape & visual impacts and air quality, Cumbria County Council and Barrow Borough Council have jointly commissioned external consultants to carry out the assessment of the applicant’s submission. These will be used to help inform South Lakeland District Council’s assessment. 5.4 Landscape and visual impacts
5.4.1 The applicant has assessed the potential landscape and visual effects of the proposed biomass development. The assessment study area extended 10km from the site of the proposed biomass power station, and additional viewpoints in the Lake District National Park and the Arnside and Silverdale Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty beyond this were also considered. 5.4.2 The submission considers that the operational biomass power station would have no more than a minor adverse level of significance on landscape character. The visual effects on representative viewpoints in both the Lake District National Park and the Arnside and Silverdale AONB are assessed as
Page 144 being of negligible significance. Areas where there would be visual effects of some significance would be the Dowie Close and Hornbeam Crescent residential areas of Barrow-in-Furness. 5.4.3 The power station would need to be lit for safety and operational reasons and a lighting strategy would be developed taking account of landscape, ecological and visual issues. The applicants state that key principles have been agreed such as using task specific lighting, which is only turned on when actually needed, the use of luminaires, which minimise light pollution in terms of light trespass, sky glow and glare. 5.4.4 White Young Green (WYG) have undertaken an assessment on behalf of Cumbria County Council to consider the potential landscape and visual impact of the proposed 80MW Biomass Power Station. They have reviewed the applicant’s information as provided in the Landscape and Visual chapter of the Environmental Statement (June 2012) prepared by RPS for Centrica Energy, identifying the potential for receptors to be affected by the proposed development based on a desk based review of the applicant’s Landscape and Visual Impact Assessment (LVIA) along with site analysis, and providing comments as to the applicant’s predicted significance of effect on these receptors. 5.4.5 Landscape Impact
5.4.6 The Arnside and Silverdale Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty (AONB) is situated approximately 20km to the north east of the site within Morecombe Bay with the closest land based location within the AONB situated 22km from the site, part of which is located within South Lakeland District. WYG have highlighted that no assessment is provided for the effects of the proposed Biomass Power Station on the landscape character of the AONB. This assessment should have been provided by the applicant or an explanation as to why this has not been assessed included within the report. Although the applicant has not provided an assessment of the impacts of the development on the landscape character of the AONB, given the distance of the development site from the AONB and the information provided by the applicant on the assessment of the representative view from the AONB, officers would anticipate that the potential effects on the landscape character of Arnside and Silverdale AONB are likely to be ‘not significant’ in EIA terms. 5.4.7 The application site falls within National Character Area 7, ‘West Cumbria Coastal Plain’ as defined in Natural England’s Joint Character of England Map (1996). Description of the published key characteristics of the National Character Area are detailed in the applicant’s assessment along with the landscape types which fall within the study area as described in the Cumbria Landscape Character Guidance and Toolkit (March 2011). WYG identifies that no assessment of the landscape effects of the proposed development on the National Character Area is provided by the applicant, however assessment is provided on the landscape effects on the landscape types as identified within the Character Guidance and Toolkit, within the study area. 5.4.8 WYG conclude that it is likely there will be adverse effects on the Landscape Character Types within the study area due to the size of the proposed structures within the proposed Biomass Power Station in comparison to the existing power station plant and the potential for the development to feature in the views in and out of the Landscape Character Types. However, in general, they agree with
Page 145 the overall significance of effect on landscape character arrived at by the applicant, i.e. not significant in EIA terms. The change to the landscape character types within the study area brought about by the proposed development would take place in a landscape which is already influenced by industrial activity where stacks, plumes and industrial buildings of differing scales are characteristic features. 5.4.9 Visual Impacts
5.4.10 Zone of Theoretical Visibility (ZTV) maps have been prepared by the applicant for the 10km study area to illustrate the visibility of the existing structures, the tallest proposed building (70m in height) and the proposed stack. Justification is provided within the report for the selection of the 10km study area. 5.4.11 In general, the residential receptors closest to the site (within 1.5km) are assessed as having a ‘medium’ or ‘low’ magnitude of change and those at a medium distance from the site are assessed as having a ‘low’ magnitude of change. In general WYG agree with the magnitude of change identified for close and medium distance residential receptors. However, they question if the assessment considers all features of the proposed development, including the night time effect and plume from the stacks, cumulative effect of other existing and consented development, as this is not evident from the assessment. This information should have been included to ensure that a transparent and robust assessment has been carried out. 5.4.12 At Visual receptor 7, properties at Scales, 7km from the site, WYG question whether it would be more appropriate for the magnitude of change to be assessed as ‘low’ rather than ‘negligible’ as the tallest buildings (over 60m) and accompanying stacks would be seen to break the skyline, in contrast to the existing view where only the top section of the existing stack at Roosecote Power Station is visible on the skyline. The existing view comprises what appear as narrow vertical structures whereas the proposed view will introduce large buildings which may be viewed as incongruous features on the skyline. Nonetheless they generally agree with the applicant’s assessment that the visual effects on visual receptors at Scales will not be considered significant in EIA terms. 5.4.13 In terms of visual effects, WYG conclude that the proposed Biomass Power Station development would result in significant effects upon only a small number of residents situated within close proximity of the site, namely at the southern eastern end of Dowie Close and in the Hornbeam Crescent area on the southern edge of Barrow-in-Furness. At this location they consider that the proposals would significantly alter the existing views from the properties. 5.4.14 Cumulative impact
5.4.15 The cumulative effects of the proposed development are discussed in summary towards the end of the LVIA report. WYG have noted that the significance of the cumulative effects on receptors is not identified within the assessment report or the Effects Schedules in Appendix 11.5. The applicant should have addressed the cumulative effects on the agreed viewpoint locations and landscape receptors so that the basis of the judgement made on the cumulative effects was supported through the assessment. As such, they can draw no conclusion on the significance of the cumulative effects of the development as no detail is provided within the assessment.
Page 146 5.4.16 The LVIA report states that the proposed lighting scheme for the proposed power station and associated structures at Ramsden Dock has not been finalised and that key principles have been established. WYG sets out that the proposed lighting strategy should have been included within the assessment of effects and this information included within the assessment schedules or clearly described within the report so that the basis of the judgement made is understandable and transparent. As such, they can draw no conclusion on the significance of the night time effects on landscape and visual receptors as no detail is provided within the assessment. 5.4.17 Conclusion of Landscape and Visual Impacts
5.4.18 Following review of the applicant’s LVIA (notwithstanding the shortcomings of the LVIA as discussed above) WYG conclude that the proposed Biomass Power Station would not have a significant effect on the landscape character of the local and wider landscape including that of the Lake District National Park, Arnside and Silverdale AONB and locally designated landscapes. The proposed development is situated within a landscape which is characterised locally by industrial features and the proposed elements of the Biomass Power Station are unlikely to significantly alter the surrounding landscape character. South Lakeland District Council has no reason to adopt a different view. 5.5 Air quality and health
5.5.1 The application states that the proposed biomass facility will be designed to minimise emissions from the stack using Best Available Techniques (BAT) and to treat any residual emissions by flue gas treatment prior to their release. The existing gas-fired power station operates under a permit granted in 2006 and the proposal would operate under a variation of the same permit. In addition, as the plant would be utilising recycled/waste wood as a fuel, the emissions would comply with the limits specified in the European Union (EU) Industrial Emissions Directive (IED). 5.5.2 During operation, the principal source of atmospheric emissions would be residual levels of pollutants exhausted from the stack after treatment in the Flue Gas Treatment system (FGT). On the basis of some dispersion modelling work completed for the design site, a 90m high stack has been determined as being appropriate to minimise ground level pollutant concentrations, which would be well within current air quality objectives and limit values for health. 5.5.3 Road, ship and train emissions have been considered in the air quality assessment, and the application sets out that no significant impacts are predicted due to the proposals in isolation or in combination with emissions from the exhaust stack. During construction, the potential effects on air quality arising from construction activities at the site have been assessed based on the London Best Practice Guidelines for Construction Dust, and the application states that the implementation of dust management would ensure that the effects would be minimised. 5.5.4 The Environmental Statement submitted in support of the application for the proposed Roosecote Biomass Power Station includes detailed assessments of air quality, the effects of air pollutants on nature conservation sites, and the risks to health posed by emissions to air. These aspects of the Environmental Statement have been reviewed by AEA Technology on behalf of Barrow Borough Council.
Page 147 5.5.5 It was found that the applicant has in general used appropriate techniques to evaluate the air quality, conservation and health issues, and in most respects, emissions to air would not pose significant risks to air quality, human health or natural ecosystems. However, a number of concerns regarding the study methods and findings were identified. The “high significance” issues identified in relation to the assessments of air quality, health risk for the proposed development were as follows: 5.5.6 • Substantial increases in levels of air pollution and risks to health are forecast for some substances in some locations. The EN-1 guidance document advises that these air quality considerations should be viewed as “important”; • A risk-based and/or quantitative assessment of dust from the storage and handling of biomass material should be provided; • Levels of benzo(a)pyrene may have been under-reported in the modelling study. The forecast levels could potentially result in a significant impact on air quality; • The assessment of chromium VI is based on data from waste incineration facilities which may not be representative of the proposed facility. If this is the case, levels of chromium VI could potentially exceed the relevant air quality guideline • The assessment of the health risks due to exposure to released substances via consumption of fish has not been carried out on a worst- case basis, and consequently the risks to health may have been under- estimated 5.5.7 A number of issues identified as being of “medium significance” and “low significance” were also identified. In particular, the Environmental Statement does not address the issue of ultrafine particulate matter. This has been highlighted by a number of consultees, and it would be helpful for the applicant to provide an assessment of ultrafine particulate matter. This and other “medium” and “low” significance issues should be considered in the evaluation of the planning application along with the “high significance” issues listed above. 5.6 Traffic and Transport
5.6.1 The applicant has assessed the existing transport network, including the adjacent highway network, facilities for pedestrians and cyclists, and public transport provision. They have carried out traffic surveys to establish details of existing traffic flows along the adjacent highway network. To estimate future traffic flows, the applicant has applied traffic growth rates to account for the projected increase in traffic and the effect of other committed developments in the area. The applicant states that the observed traffic flows are as expected, and do not show anything out of the ordinary.
5.6.2 There is an existing bus service on Rampside Road with bus routes between Barrow-in-Furness, Roa Island, Coast Road and Ulverston. The applicant proposes to provide an additional bus stop within 400m of the access road to encourage employees to travel to the site by bus. There is a railway station at Roose with services running between Carlisle, Barrow, Lancaster and Manchester Airport. The applicant anticipates that a proportion of the construction workers would already be living in close proximity of the site or
Page 148 would be staying in temporary local accommodation. Therefore they could use the existing pedestrian and cycle routes to access the site.
5.6.3 A Framework Construction Travel Plan has been prepared by the applicant, which sets out measures to reduce the traffic impact during the construction phase including specific targets to minimise the use of single occupancy vehicles, to ensure operational vehicles use appropriate routes, to maximise the use of public transport and to maximise the efficiency of operational vehicles. They propose that this Travel Plan would be reviewed and consulted with Cumbria County Council and other relevant parties before being finalised.
5.6.4 Construction materials would be sourced locally where reasonably practicable and would generally be transported by road. The site’s location provides the opportunity to deliver fuel for the proposed biomass plant (wood pellets, virgin wood chips and recycled/waste wood) by alternative methods to road transport. All fuel would be delivered to the power station by ship to the Port of Barrow and then by rail to the power station, or by train from the main rail network.
5.6.5 In terms of total traffic, the applicant considers that the operation of the power station is unlikely to have any significant environmental effect.
5.6.6 The Cumbria County Council’s Transport & Highways Division have carried out an assessment in relation to this aspect of the scheme. They consider that the worst case scenario of all fuel being delivered via the road network should have been considered to demonstrate the possible impact of the proposed development. Alternatively, the proposed Development Consent Order should be amended to expressly prohibit fuel deliveries via the road network and require the developer to keep a log of all deliveries and present this information upon request of the relevant planning authority.
5.6.7 The Construction Travel Plan sets out clear and acceptable objectives and targets, including achieving a vehicle occupancy rate of 2.1 or better and specific targets for use of sustainable transport. It sets out the responsibilities of the Travel Plan Co-ordinator along with a structured timetable for implementation of the Travel Plan. The County Council considers the proposed measures to be generally sound and acceptable, although the proposal to contribute towards additional bus services is unlikely to encourage modal shift, and the provision of a dedicated workers’ bus service should be considered as an alternative. If this change is adopted, the Construction Travel Plan will be considered to be acceptable.
5.6.8 Requirement 18 in Schedule 1 of the draft Development Consent Order should be amended to refer to the Operational Travel Plan, and should also set out that the Construction Travel Plan should be submitted to the relevant planning authority and approved prior to construction commencing. The Travel Plan should be properly secured to ensure the developer’s commitment to achieving the stated targets and minimising the overall impact of the development in terms of vehicle trips.
5.6.9 The County Council also consider that a carriageway condition survey of the proposed haul route should be undertaken by the developer as the proposed additional HGV movements would contribute to an accelerated deterioration of parts of the route. Future maintenance of the route should be considered by
Page 149 the developer as part of the Construction Traffic Management Plan in order to enable uninterrupted access along the route to be achieved.
5.6.10 It is also set out by the County Council that the traffic impact during the construction phase of the development detailed in the Transport Assessment is overly optimistic and should be revised taking into account their detailed comments in order to provide a more realistic evaluation of the impact the development will have on the highway network.
5.7 Socio and economic effects
5.7.1 The key findings of the applicant’s report are that Barrow-in-Furness is a relatively isolated area, which shows significant deprivation in many but not all parts, and on some but not all indicators. The town and surrounding area have considerable natural and historic assets. These are, however, not among the most popular attractions in Cumbria, partly as a result of the area’s comparative isolation.
5.7.2 The project is expected to provide a significant number of jobs in the construction phase. Many of these would require specialist skills which are more likely than not to be brought in from outside the area. The most likely benefits therefore are employment for local people to the extent that their skills can match requirements and the measures available to create the best match. There would also be benefits to local hotels and providers of other accommodation catering for workers who would be brought in from outside the area.
5.7.3 Cumbria County Council’s Economic Development Division has assessed this aspect of the proposal. They consider that the potential to engage local people in direct and indirect employment opportunities resulting from construction and operation are not fully realised or the benefits understood within the submission. The ES outlines that whilst a number of jobs will be created through the construction phase, because of the specialist nature of the build a number of these skills will be brought in from outside of the area. It suggests that the workforce in the operational stage is more likely to be drawn from the local area bearing in mind the history of power generation at the site.
5.7.4 Concern is raised that more certainty cannot be given to the encouragement of the use of local labour within the construction period. It is suggested that there is a clear need for a more comprehensive and integrated programme of intervention to improve the opportunities for employment creation to help promote lasting and positive skills beyond the construction period to deliver long term sustainable employment benefit to the area. The County Council would be willing to help in developing, in consultation with the developer, an employment brokerage scheme to enable the developer to use local workforce and apprenticeship opportunities. This would ensure that local residents are supported to access employment and training opportunities on site. 5.7.5 There is a lack of consideration of the potential of the operation and benefits which could be gained from using existing supply chains within the local area and how this could be complemented by the effective approach to developing local workforce skills. Timely work should be carried out by developers to access the foundations for a local supply chain at the earliest opportunity – ensuring local businesses have equal access to opportunities and are able to
Page 150 prepare for their input into projects. 5.7.6 It is considered that there is a lack of a clear analysis of the interrelationship of topic based matters and the effect on the community arising from the development of a biomass power plant. For example the Social and Economic chapter states that the Transport chapter addresses the matters arising from transport implications of the developments and makes no further comment about the interrelationship. Similarly there is no consideration air quality issues and impacts on the local community. The ES is also lacking in its consideration of the effect on the community in terms of the perception of a biomass plant being located within an area. 5.7.7 The concept of Community Benefit Contribution is common in other parts of the UK in relation to renewable energy developments. It is considered appropriate that a request is made in respect of the proposed development as it is considered to be in the national interest. At the present time a CBC package has not been offered by the developer. It will therefore be necessary to explore whether the developer is willing to offer this and how it will be quantified.
6.0 CONCLUSIONS 6.1 It is accepted that the proposed Roosecote Power Station would be built on the site of the existing power station, and the principle for this kind of electricity generating development is therefore established for the site. 6.2 However, the question is whether or not the proposed development would be significantly different from the existing power station in terms of its’ impact upon local amenities and identified interests of local, national and international importance. The extent to which the benefits of the scheme are outweighed by the disbenefits to accord with the above referred to planning policies has yet to be demonstrated. 6.3 Cumbria County Council have identified that there is need for further detailed evidence covering various issues. Those relevant to South Lakeland are the potential adverse impacts on: • air quality; • landscape & visual; and • traffic and transport.
6.4 From the work conducted by White Young Green, on behalf the Cumbria County Council, it is unlikely that there will be a significant adverse impact on landscape and visual amenity within South Lakeland. However, there are still issues to be addressed with regards to air quality and traffic and transport which do have implications for the District given the proximity of the site to South Lakeland, and the location of main transport routes through the District.
6.5 At this stage, it is not possible to determine therefore as to whether or not the benefits of the scheme necessarily outweigh the disbenefits. It is considered that mitigation measures are inevitable, given the findings of the Local Impact report so far, and it will be vital to secure contributions to mitigate the direct effects of the development itself, but also Community Impact Mitigation (CIM) as well as Community Benefit Contribution (CBC) funded projects in order to compensate the local community in recognition of the potential impacts of the development on the quality of life and well being of local communities. The level of mitigation and
Page 151 satisfactory design measures will determine the level of harm.
6.6 It is recommended that further detailed investigation will be required as part of the Nationally Significant Infrastructure Project (NSIP) Examination process to be carried out by the National Infrastructure Directorate (NID) to understand and quantify all those impacts before a complete picture of the effects of the development are known and a recommendation to the Secretary of State can be made about the appropriateness, or otherwise, of the development and the level of mitigation required should it be so minded to recommend approval of the scheme.
6.7 The findings and recommendations contained in the South Lakeland District Council Local Impact Report are therefore commended to the National Infrastructure Directorate (NID).
Page 152 Item No.10
PART I
South Lakeland District Council
PLANNING COMMITTEE
Meeting Date: 25 October 2012 Report Author: Mark Balderson, Planning Enforcement Officer Portfolio: Cllr Jonathan Brook (Housing and Development) Report from: David Sykes - Director (People and Places) Wards affected: All Key Decision: Not applicable
A REPORT ON MONTHLY ENFORCEMENT ACTIVITY FROM: 1 TO 31 AUGUST 2012
1.0 PURPOSE OF REPORT 1.1 This report is presented to inform Members about enforcement activity between 1 and 31 August 2012, relating to all cases. This report aims to
provide a brief and informative insight into current enforcement cases, action taken and on-going investigations. 1.2 Appendix 1 is an updated monthly report on cases which Committee have authorised formal enforcement action.
2.0 RECOMMENDATIONS 2.1 It is recommended that Members of the Planning Committee note the report.
3.0 BACKGROUND 3.1 Enforcement Activity : August 2012 Cases on hand at 1 August 2012 384 New cases 14 Cases closed 7 Cases on hand at 31 August 2012 391 3.2 There are no cases requiring formal enforcement action. 3.3 An update on those cases involving formal enforcement action is attached as Appendix 1 for Members information. 3.4 Skelsmergh – Holme House Farm 3.4.1 A further court hearing was held on 3 October 2012 with respect to Mr Steele’s
Page 153 breach of the Enforcement Notice. The Council applied for an Injunction Order requiring Mr Steele to comply with the Enforcement Notice. The Order was granted. The provisions were as follows: • Mr Steele was ordered to comply with the Enforcement Notice by removing all unauthorised material from the land (save for those caravans occupied by residents) by 31 October 2012. • With respect to the caravans occupied by residents, Mr Steele was ordered to have these caravans removed from the land by 28 November 2012. • He was ordered to reinstate the land by 30 April 2013 which includes seeding the land. • Mr Steele was also ordered to pay the Council’s costs in this matter amounting to £3883.00 by 30 April 2013. 3.5 The Enforcement Team will continue to monitor the site and further steps will be taken if there is a failure to comply. 3.6 If there are any specific enforcement cases that Members would like to be updated on at the next Planning Committee meeting, please contact Mark Balderson, Planning Enforcement Officer.
4.0 RESEARCH AND CONSULTATION 4.1 Not applicable.
5.0 PROPOSAL 5.1 Not applicable.
6.0 ALTERNATIVE OPTIONS 6.1 Not applicable.
7.0 NEXT STEPS 7.1 Continue dealing with priority cases reported in September 2012 and those listed in Appendix 1. Receive and prioritise all new cases, taking any appropriate action necessary, in accordance with the relevant Acts and guidance.
8.0 IMPLICATIONS 8.1 Financial and Re sources 8.1.1 Cost implications only arise if the matter ultimately requires court or direct action in default. 8.2 Human Resources 8.2.1 The recommendations in this report do not have any staffing implications. 8.3 Legal 8.3.1 See report.
Page 154 8.4 Soci al, Economic and Environmental Impact 8.4.1 Has a sustainability impact assessment been carried out? No. This report does not have any registered significant environmental effects.
9.0 RISK ASSESSMENT 9.1 Risk Consequence Controls required The failure of a Ombudsman To maintain sufficient statutory requirement maladministration resources in planning to investigate investigation. Result in enforcement and breaches of planning inappropriate forms of prioritise and co- law, to have an development, which would ordinate the effective investigative have an adverse impact on investigation of compliance and the character, and breaches of planning enforcement system. appearance of the District’s control. rural landscape.
10 .0 EQUALITY AND DIVERSITY 10.1 The Statement of Community Involvement takes account of the equalities issues in seeking to define South Lakeland’s community and interests relevant to the Local Development Framework, which will influence the determination of individual planning applications.
11 .0 LINKS TO THE CORPORATE PLAN AND PERFORMANCE INDICATORS 11.1 This report links to the aim of “Enhancing the environment in which we live .” 11.2 Having a clear, firm and fair approach to planning enforcement fosters strong links with the community, increased public confidence in the Council and value for money. It contributes towards the goal of making South Lakeland the best place to live, work and visit.
12 .0 CONCLUSION AND EXPECTED OUTCOMES 12.1 Breaches of planning control will be dealt with in a robust manner to ensure that no public harm arises.
APPENDICES ATTACHED TO THIS REPORT: Appendix No. 1 A report on enforcement cases where authorisation to take enforcement action has been sought .
CONTACT OFFICERS: Mark Balderson, Planning Enforcement Officer, Tel: 01539 797566 email: [email protected]
Page 155 BACKGROUND DOCUMENTS AVAILABLE: Various planning files.
TRACKING Assistant Portfol io Solicitor to the CMT Scrutiny Director Holder Council Committee N/A N/A 11 Oct 2012 N/A N/A Executive Committee Council Section 151 Monitoring (Cabinet) Officer Officer N/A 25 Oct 2012 N/A N/A N/A Human Development Resource Management Services Group Manager Manager N/A 5 Oct 2012
Page 156 APPENDIX 1 The purpose of this appendix is to provide a brief summary of authorised enforcement cases. REF No . PARISH SITE ADDRESS BREACH / PROGRESS / NEXT STEP CONTRAVENTION 06/068 ALDINGHAM Low Sunbrick Farm Installation of uPVC windows Enforcement action authorised in Listed Building. with a 10 year compliance period. Officers have drafted enforcement instruction to require replacing windows of the same design and materials as the original ones. 07/025 LOWER Priory Close Internal alteration to Listed Officers are making inquiries to ALLITHWAITE Cartmel Building. commence legal action.
Page 157 Enforcement officer consulting with legal services. 08/345 SKELSMERGH Holme House Farm Unauthorised development See main report (para 3.4). Garth Row Lane involving the construction of caravan / chalet structures and business uses. 10/208 LOWER Blenkett wood caravan park Laying new 300m access An appeal has been made to the ALLITHWAITE track. Planning Inspectorate against the Enforcement Notice. 10/209 KENDAL Boundary Bank Unauthorised use of site for Part of site has been cleared, the storage of machinery and further monitoring. Officers to carry hardcore. out site visit to confirm compliance. 10/289 BEETHAM Fern Bank, Hale Unauthorised siting and Caravan has been removed. The residential use of caravan. site is now being used for the storage of a motorhome and the parking of vehicles.
REF No . PARISH SITE ADDRESS BREACH / PROGRESS / NEXT STEP CONTRAVENTION 10/311 CASTERTON Chapel House Farm Unauthorised removal of Hedge Replacement Notice served hedge. 12 July 2011. Appeal dismissed, replanting required by 31 January 2013 in PI decision letter. 11/256 SKELSMERGH Holme House Farm Material Change of Use of Dealt with by the injunction agricultural barn to a proceedings. See main report. structure used as a dwellinghouse.
Page 158 11/257 KENDAL 55 Helmside Road Untidy land to front of Officers have served a Section 215 dwelling. Notice to tidy the front of the dwelling. Officers in the process of obtaining estimates for the work. 11/078 SKELSMERGH Holme House Farm Engineering operation. Drafting instruction to legal Large scale excavation to services for formal service of public footpath. Enforcement Notice. 12/134 EGTON with Field adjacent Alpine Road Removal of 85m of field Hedge Replacement Notice NEWLAND hedge. served. No appeal received.
Item No.11
PART I
South Lakeland District Council
PLANNING COMMITTEE
Meeting Date: 25 Oct 2012 Report Author: Simon Lloyds (Development Strategy Monitoring Officer) Portfolio: Jonathon Brook (Housing and Development) Report from: David Sykes Director (People and Places) Wards affected: All Key Decision: Not applicable
QUARTERLY REPORT - RESIDENTIAL MONITORING FOR THE PERIOD 1 APRIL 2012 TO 31 MARCH 2013
1.0 PURPOSE OF REPORT 1.1 The purpose of this report is to present the situation at 30 September 2012 with regards to residential permissions and completions within the monitoring period 1/4/12 – 31/3/13, in comparison with the adopted Core Strategy housing requirement.
2.0 RECOMMENDATIONS 2.1 It is recommended that Members note the content of this report.
3.0 BACKGROUND 3.1 This is the second quarterly report for the monitoring period 1/04/12–31/03/13. Appendix 1 provides summarised monitoring figures for this period. This report monitors housing completions against the requirements of the Core Strategy, which was adopted in October 2010.
4.0 RESEARCH AND CONSULTATION 4.1 The data is obtained from District Council records in Building Control (Fastcontrol) and Development Management (Fastplanning) as at 4 October 2012.
Page 159 5.0 PROPOSAL 5.1 That Members note the report and the information provided.
6.0 ALTERNATIVE OPTIONS 6.1 If residential monitoring is not undertaken then the Council will not be able to provide information required in relation to National and Local Performance Indicators and will not be able to manage the housing supply in a sustainable manner.
7.0 NEXT STEPS 7.1 This information is reported in the Annual Monitoring Report and the Housing Land Position Report, which form part of the Local Development Framework evidence base. The information is taken into account in preparing LDF documents including the Land Allocations document.
8.0 IMPLICATIONS 8.1 Financial and Resources The recommendations in this report do not have any cost implications. 8.2 Human Resource s The recommendations in this report do not have any staffing implications. 8.3 Legal Not applicable. 8.4 Social, Economic and Environmental Impact This report does not have any registered significant environmental effects.
9.0 RISK ASSESSMENT Risk Consequence Controls required The risk Data gained from residential Permissions and associated with monitoring is used to assess the completions data is residential implementation and effectiveness of thoroughly crosschecked monitoring planning policy and inform decisions to ensure that residential relates to the to review policy. Monitoring monitoring is as accurate accuracy of the information is also used to justify and as possible and data presented. if necessary defend decisions in continuing improvements relation to planning applications. are being made to the Accuracy is therefore important as monitoring system. information can be challenged at examinations and public inquiries.
10.0 EQUALITY AND DIVERSITY Not applicable.
Page 160 11.0 LINKS T O THE CORPORATE PLAN AND PERFORMANCE INDICATORS The delivery of housing contributes to the delivery of Corporate Plan Priority Housing; Provide homes to meet need.
12.0 CONCLUSION AND EXPECTED OUTCOMES The completion of 72 dwellings in South Lakeland (outside the National Parks) in the first two quarters 2012/13 is an increase on the performance in 2011/12 but is still below completion rates in 2010/11 and 2009/10. The low rate of housing completions reflects to a large extent the downturn in the economy and housing market. The Land Allocations document will allocate land for new housing and employment development and protect green spaces from development in South Lakeland (outside the National Parks) in accordance with the adopted Core Strategy. The proposed submission edition of the Land Allocations Document was approved at a special meeting of Full Council on 18 January 2012 for consultation and submission to the Secretary of State.
APPENDICES ATTACHED TO THIS REPORT Appendix No. 1 Report on residential monitoring for the period 1 April 2012 to 31 March 2013 (second quarterly report).
CONTACT OFFICERS Alastair McNeill - Principal Development Plans Officer [email protected] ph: 717352
BACKGROUND DOCUMENTS AVAILABLE North West Regional Spatial Strategy, 30 September 2008. Core Strategy (October 2010).
Page 161 TRACKING Assistant Portfolio Solicitor to the CMT Scrutiny Director Holder Council Committee N/A N/A 4 Oct 2012 N/A N/A Executive Committee Council Section 151 Monitoring (Cabinet) Officer Officer N/A 25 Oct 2012 N/A N/A N/A Human Development Resource Strategy Services Group Manager Manager N/A 21 May 2012
Page 162 REPORT ON RESIDENTIAL MONITORING FOR THE PERIOD 1 APRIL 2012 to 31 MARCH 2013 PURPOSE OF APPENDIX 1 The purpose of this Appendix is to summarise residential permissions and completions.
Monitoring Period 1/4/12 - 31/3/13
This is the second quarterly residential monitoring report to be presented to the Planning Committee for this monitoring period. This report covers permissions and completions for the period 1 April 2012 to 30 September 2013 (two quarters/6 months).
1. Overall Progress Targets within the 1 April 2012 to 31 March 2013 period
Total Net Dwelling Completions in the Annual Completions Target period 1 April 2012 to 30 September 2013 Shortfall Page 163 (Net Dwelling Units) (6 months)
Total Requirement 2003 - 2025 : 8800 72 Annual Target : 535 Completions 2003 - 2012: 1838 (Average of 12 per month) Net Completions : 72 Target: 2012 - 2025 : 6962 Shortfall : 463 Annual Target: 535 (Average of 43 per month)
2. Completions Data
Net Completions by Month as of 30 September 2012 within the 1 April 2012 to 31 March 2013 monitoring period
Month Apr May June July Aug Sept Oct Nov Dec Jan Feb Mar Total to date Net Units 9 2 7 3 14 37 72 Completed
Analysis of residential completions by settlement as of 30 September 2012 within the 1 April 2012 to 31 March 2013 monitoring period
No. of Units Completed Settlement Gross Net Net Net Affordable Local 1 Brown Green Occupancy
PSC Kendal 44 44 44 0 13 13 PSC Ulverston 11 11 10 1 0 0 KSC Grange 2 2 1 1 0 0 KSC Kirkby 10 10 0 10 5 5 Lonsdale KSC Milnthorpe 0 0 0 0 0 0 Total 67 67 55 12 18 18
LSC 5 3 1 2 0 0 Other 3 2 1 1 0 0
South District Total 75 72 57 15 18 18 Lakeland
1 Local Occupancy figures are inclusive of Affordable figures
Page 164 3. Permissions Data
Net Permissions by Month as of 30 September 2012 within the 1 April 2012 to 31 March 2013 monitoring period Month Apr May June July Aug Sept Oct Nov Dec Jan Feb Mar Total to date Net Units 4 8 24 11 11 6 64 Permitted
Analysis of residential permissions by settlement as of 30 September 2012 within the 1 April 2012 to 31 March 2013 monitoring period.
No. of Units Permitted Settlement Gross Net Net Net Affordable Local 2 Brown Green Occupancy
PSC Kendal 20 17 16 1 0 0 PSC Ulverston 10 9 9 0 0 0 KSC Grange 15 14 1 13 4 4 KSC Kirkby 5 4 3 1 0 0 Lonsdale KSC Milnthorpe 2 2 0 2 0 0 Total 52 46 29 17 4 4
LSC 2 2 0 2 0 0 Other 22 16 4 12 0 0
South District Total 76 64 33 31 4 4 Lakeland
PSC / KSC = Principal / Key Service Centre (Kendal, Ulverston, Grange, Milnthorpe, Kirkby Lonsdale)
LSC = Local Service centres
Other = All other settlements and rural areas
2 Local Occupancy figures are inclusive of Affordable figures
Page 165 This page is intentionally left blank
Page 166 Item No.12
PART I
South Lakeland District Council PLANNING COMMITTEE
Meeting Date: 25 October 2012 Report Author: Mark Shipman (Development Management Group Manager) Portfolio: Jonathon Brook (Housing and Development Portfolio Holder) Report from: David Sykes (Director People and Places) Wards affected: All Key Decision: Not applicable
APPEALS UPDATE
1.0 PURPOSE OF REPORT 1.1 To provide Members with information about the receipt and determination of planning appeals from the start of the financial year in April 2012. 2.0 RECOMMENDATIONS 2.1 Note the report.
3.0 BACKGROUND 3.1 Appeals as set out in Appendix 1.
3.2 This national indicator has been deleted. It is considered to be a valuable local indicator because it shows the efficacy of policy.
4.0 RESEARCH AND CONSULTATION 4.1 Not applicable
5.0 PROPOSAL 5.1 Not applicable
6.0 ALTERNATIVE OPTIONS 6.1 Not applicable
7.0 NEXT STEPS 7.1 Not applicable
Page 167 8.0 IMPLICATIONS 8.1 Financial and Resources 8.1.1 The recommendations in this report do not have any cost implications. 8.2 Human Resources 8.2.1 The recommendations in this report do not have any staffing implications. 8.3 Legal 8.3.1 Not applicable 8.4 Social, Economic and Environmental Impact 8.4.1 This report does not have any registered significant environmental effects.
9.0 RISK ASSESSMENT 9.1 Not applicable
10.0 EQUALITY AND DIVERSITY 10.1 The Statement of Community Involvement takes account of the equalities issues in seeking to define South Lakeland’s community and interests relevant to the Local Development Framework which will influence the determination of individual planning applications. 11.0 LINKS TO THE CORPORATE PLAN AND PERFORMANCE INDICATORS 11.1 This report links to the aim of “Enhancing the environment in which we live .”
11.2 Indicator BVPI 204 sets a target of a maximum number of appeals allowed as 33%. All enforcement appeals are discounted from the indicator because it shows the efficiency of planning policy. The current performance, calculated from those decisions received since 1 April 2012, is 20% (ie 80% success to date in defending appeals against refusal).
12.0 CONCLUSION AND EXPECTED OUTCOMES 12.1 It is anticipated that targets and objectives will continue to be achieved at the year end.
APPENDIX ATTACHED TO THIS REPORT Appendix 1 Appeals table (commencing 1 April 2012), updated to include new appeals and appeal decisions received between 14 September and 11 October 2012.
CONTACT OFFICERS Mark Shipman, Development Management Group Manager – Tel: 01539 797564.
BACKGROUND DOCUMENTS AVAILABLE Various planning files.
Page 168 TRACKING Assistant Portfolio Solicitor to the CMT Scrutiny Director Holder Council Committee N/A N/A 10 Oct 2012 N/A N/A Executive Committee Council Section 151 Monitoring (Cabinet) Officer Officer N/A 25 Oct 2012 N/A N/A N/A Human Development Resource Management Services Group Manager Manager N/A 10 Oct 2012 (BAJ)
Page 169 APPENDIX 1
Site Description SLDC Decision Planning Inspectorate Ref Planning and start date Inspectorate Appellant South Lakeland Planning Ref Decision
LOWER Use of land for siting one static Refused 27/10/11 APP/M0933/A/11/2166797 DISMISSED ALLITHWAITE: holiday caravan (Committee) 16/12/11 11 May 2012 Blenkett Wood Lodge PO Recommend: SL/2011/0730 Park, Jack Hill, Refuse Allithwaite
Page 170 KENDAL: Redevelopment of site to form retail Refused 25/11/11 APP/M0933/A/11/2166628 DISMISSED Kendal Rugby Union development with associated car (Committee) 22/12/11 21 June 2012 Football Club parking and servicing facilities PO Recommend: SL/2010/0180 Shap Road Grant
KIRKBY IRELETH: Removal of conditions 9, 10 and 11 Refused 24/11/11 APP/M0933/A/11/2167375 DISMISSED The Boat House on PP SL/2005/0493 4/1/12 1 May 2012 Soutergate SL/2011/0793 Kirkby in Furness
EGTON with Agricultural building Refused 30/12/11 APP/M0933/A/11/2168927 DISMISSED NEWLAND: 19/1/12 30 April 2012 Field adj to Oak Bank SL/2011/0860 Broughton Beck
Site Description SLDC Decision Planning Inspectorate Ref Planning and start date Inspectorate Appellant South Lakeland Planning Ref Decision
ALDINGHAM: Appeal against issuing of Enforcement APP/M0933/ C/12/2170352 ALLOWED Land at Baycliff Farm, Enforcement Notice 13/2/12 15 June 2012 Main Street, Baycliff SL/2011/0994
EGTON with Change of Use of Public House to Refused 25/8/11 APP/M0933/A/11/2169517 DISMISSED NEWLAND: dwelling (Committee) 15/2/12 - Hearing 19 June 2012 Britannia Inn PO Recommend: SL/2011/0233 Penny Bridge Refuse Page 171 KENDAL: First floor extension Refused 6/2/12 APP/M0933/ C/12/2171660 DISMISSED 46 Sandylands Road 5/3/12 (Householder) 2 May 2012 SL/2011/1020 PRESTON RICHARD: Erection of 15m high (to tip of blade) Refused 28/2/12 APP/M0933/ A/12/2173166 ALLOWED Carter House wind turbine 29/3/12 27 September Crooklands SL/2011/0991 2012 ULVERSTON: Erection of four dwellings Refused 6/3/12 APP/M0933/ A/12/2173314 DISMISSED Land at Old Hall Road 2/4/12 30 August 2012 SL/2011/0974 GREAT URSWICK: Dwelling, detached garage and Refused 24/11/11 APP/M0933/ A/12/2176000 DISMISSED Land adjacent to Daisy access (Committee) 14/6/12 20 September Hill Cottage PO Recommend: SL/2011/0741 2012 Refuse Site Description SLDC Decision Planning Inspectorate Ref Planning and start date Inspectorate Appellant South Lakeland Planning Ref Decision
LOWER Variation of Condition No 4 (Proof of Refused 20/4/12 APP/M0933/ A/12/2176328 Awaited ALLITHWAITE: main residence elsewhere) on PP 19/6/12 SL/2011/0862 Old Orchard SL/2012/0155 The Pastures Templands Lane WHINFELL: Change of Use of agricultural land to Refused 22/12/11 APP/M0933/ A/12/2176737 DISMISSED Patton Hall Farm form extension to existing caravan 22/6/12 28 September site for the siting of 12 static caravans
Page 172 Patton 2012 and associated landscaping SL/2011/0808 LUPTON: Change of Use of partially completed Refused 26/1/12 APP/M0933/ A/12/2177360 DISMISSED Thompson Fold holiday accommodation units to four 22/6/12 2 October 2012 permanent dwellings SL/2011/0950 KIRKBY LONSDALE: Completion of the partially developed Refused 26/4/12 APP/M0933/ A/12/2177363 Awaited Biggins Hall Barn site, Biggins Hall Barn site to provide (Committee) 3/7/12 seven dwellings (two of which are to High Biggins PO Recommend: SL/2012/0103 be affordable) Refuse KENDAL: Erection of 25 dwellings Refused 14/3/12 APP/M0933/ A/12/2176802 DISMISSED Gallowbarrow Mill, 6/7/12 10 October 2012 Natland SL/2011/1069 HOLME: Alterations to provide first floor Refused 17/4/12 APP/M0933/ D/12/2177787 ALLOWED Green Acre, accommodation and replacement 10/7/12 (Householder) 5 September 2012 single storey extension Milnthorpe Road SL/2012/0124
Site Description SLDC Decision Planning Inspectorate Ref Planning and start date Inspectorate Appellant South Lakeland Planning Ref Decision
HELSINGTON: Conversion and alterations to Refused 23/3/12 APP/M0933/ D/12/2178010 DISMISSED Hill House, Brigsteer attached outbuilding to form 16/7/12 (Householder) 4 September 2012 additional domestic accommodation SL/2012/0084 LUPTON: Dwelling with new vehicular access Refused 31/5/12 APP/M0933/ A/12/2178225 Awaited Tavern House, Nook, drive 20/7/12 Cow Brow SL/2012/0295 KIRKBY LONSDALE: Discharge of Condition 5 (roofing Refused 13/4/12 APP/M0933/ A/12/2179979 Awaited slates) on PP SL/2009/0838 (housing Page 173 Land off Biggins Road 26/7/12 development) SL/2012/0147 PRESTON PATRICK: Residential development Not Determined APP/M0933/ A/12/2178909 Awaited Former School playing 27/7/12 field, A65, Crooklands SL/2012/0372 LOWER Appeal against the issuing of an Enforcement APP/M0933/ C/12/2181345 Awaited ALLITHWAITE: Enforcement Notice APP/M0933/ C/12/2181343 Blenket Farm, Jack Hill APP/M0933/ C/12/2181344 20/8/12 SL/2012/0730 URSWICK: Wind turbine (34.2 m to blade tip) Refused 28/6/12 APP/M0933/ A/12/2180859 Awaited Bolton Manor Farm 20/8/12 SL/2012/0241 Site Description SLDC Decision Planning Inspectorate Ref Planning and start date Inspectorate Appellant South Lakeland Planning Ref Decision
HEVERSHAM: Dwelling with vehicular access Refused 27/6/12 APP/M0933/ A/12/2181825 Awaited Ghyll Cottage, Leasgill 22/8/12 SL/2012/0371 KENDAL: Replacement exterior doors and Refused 25/7/12 APP/M0933/ D/12/2182610 Awai ted The Old Post Office, uPVC sliding sash window frames 30/8/12 (Householder) 10 Greenside SL/2012/0356
Page 174 LOWER HOLKER: Proposed building for storage of Refused 28/6/12 APP/M0933/ A/12/2182072 Awaited Land to the east of agricultural contractor’s machinery 4/9/12 Trino, Willow Lane, SL/2012/0265 Flookburgh MILNTHORPE: Detached dwelling Refused 22/3/12 APP/M0933/ A/12/2182378 Awaited Crosby House, 7/9/12 Ackenthwaite SL/2011/0867 GRANGE over Cert of Lawful Dvpt for storage of Refused 25/7/12 APP/M0933/ X/12/2184048 Awaited SANDS: vintage cars (non-domestic garaging) 24/9/12 Former Wilson SL/2012/0313 Robinson workshop, Hampsfell Road
NEW HUTTON: Single Wind Turbine (79.6 M to blade Refused 29/6/12 APP/M0933/ A/12/2183618 Awaited Hawkrigg Hill tip) and associated metering units 2/10/12 SL/2012/0289
Page 175 This page is intentionally left blank
Page 176