to
Thursday 2 April 2015
Development Panel Will meet on Tuesday 14 April 2015 at 1.00 pm in Council Chamber - Allerdale House
Membership:
Councillor Peter Bales (Chairman)
Councillor John (Binky) Armstrong Councillor Carole Armstrong Councillor Nicky Cockburn Councillor Bill Finlay Councillor Margaret Jackson Councillor Peter Kendall Councillor Jim Lister Councillor Billy Miskelly Councillor Sam Standage Councillor Martin Wood Councillor Joan Wright
Members of the public are welcome to attend the meeting. If you have any questions or queries contact Paula McKenzie on 01900 702557.
Agenda
1. Minutes (Pages 1 - 20)
To sign as a correct record the minutes of the meeting held on 24 March 2015.
2. Apologies for absence
3. Declaration of Interest
Councillors/Staff to give notice of any disclosable pecuniary interest, other registrable interest or any other interest and the nature of that interest relating to any item on the agenda in accordance with the adopted Code of Conduct.
4. Questions
To answer questions from members of the public – 2 days’ notice of which must have been given in writing or by electronic mail.
5. Development Panel -2.2015.0009 -Extension to provide additional living space-38 Sycamore Road, Maryport (Pages 21 - 28)
6. Development Panel -2.2014.0861 -Erection of wind turbine 67m to tip and associated development-Drumleaning Farm, Aikton, Wigton (Pages 29 - 42)
7. Development Panel -2.2015.0098 -Outline application for two detached dwellings with private access from new field access point.-Land Adjacent to Belle Mount Papcastle (Pages 43 - 50)
8. Development Panel -2.2015.0012 -Outline application for the erection of a dwelling house-Site Adjacent to Borriskill, Ellenborough, Maryport (Pages 51 - 58)
9. Development Panel -2.2014.0544 -Erection of a bungalow -Longwood Garden Centre, Silloth, Wigton (Pages 59 - 68)
Corporate Director
Date of Next Meeting Tuesday 5 May 2015 at 1.00 pm Council Chamber - Allerdale House
Agenda Item 1
At a meeting of the Development Panel held in Council Chamber - Allerdale House on Tuesday 24 March 2015 at 1.00 pm
Members
P Bales (Chairman)
C M Armstrong J Lister N Cockburn B Miskelly B Finlay S Standage C M Jackson M G Wood P G Kendall J Wright
Apologies for absence were received from Councillor J Armstrong.
Staff Present
B Carlin, K Kerrigan, S Long, P McKenzie, S Robinson and S Sewell.
456 Site Visits
The following Councillors were present at the site inspection, planning reference 2/2013/0664 – Outline application for erection of 60 dwellings, Land adjoining West Road, Wigton.
C Armstrong, P Bales, N Cockburn, B Finlay, M Jackson, J Lister, B Miskelly, S Standage, M Wood and J Wright.
457 Minutes
The minutes of the meetings held on Tuesday 10 February 2015 and Tuesday 3 March 2015 were signed as correct records.
458 Declaration of Interest
None declared.
459 Questions
None received.
460 Public participation
The following objectors/supporters/applicants addressed the Panel.
Rose Anne O’Hea, Mary Clark, Dave Stanton, Louie Bell and Julia Webster outlined their objections to application 2/2013/0664. Alison Dodd, Town Clerk representing Wigton Town Council outlined her objections to the application and Ward Councillor Councillor John Crouch spoke against the application. The agent Bob Taylor exercised his right of reply.
Page 1
The applicant Martyn Minchella spoke in favour of his application 2/2015/0009.
The agent Colin Ortlepp spoke in favour of his application 2/2015/0038.
461 Development Panel - 2.2013.0664, Land at West Road, Wigton. Outline application for 60 dwellings.
Application: Outline application for erection of 60 dwellings, access roads, engineering works and landscaping etc. Land adjoining West Road, Wigton.
The Senior Planner recommended approval subject to conditions and the completion of a Section 106 legal agreement to secure the following:
(a) Provision for future management of the Local Area of Play, amenity green space, landscaped areas and EVA/pedestrian route to include transfer to and future maintenance by a private management company
(b) The provision of 20% affordable housing across the site
(c) A Travel Plan administration fee of £6,600
Members were informed that the NPCU had placed an Article 25 Holding Direction on the application to allow the requisite time to assess whether the proposal constitutes EIA development, it was explained that this did not prevent members from considering the application but, in the event that members resolved to grant planning permission, no decision may be issued until the NPCU had issued their decision.
The Senior Planner outlined the application and detailed the main issues within the report as detailed below;
Officers concluded that the proposed development constituted a sustainable location for residential development and was of a scale that was compliant with both the spatial strategy and settlement hierarchy. It would also make a valuable contribution towards the fulfilment of the housing supply target identified for the town. It was therefore considered to be compliant with the provisions of Policies S2, S3 and S5 of the Allerdale Local Plan (Part 1).
Officers concluded that the proposed development would not have a significant adverse impact on the local highway network in terms of both capacity and safety. The applicant had offered to implement a Travel Plan that included measures to maximise the use of sustainable transport modes and reduce the number of car trips from the site. On this basis the proposed development was considered compliant with the provisions of Policies S2, S5 and S22 of the Allerdale Local Plan (Part 1).
Officers concluded that with the incorporation of the mitigation measures set out in the Landscape and Visual Assessment the proposed development would not have a significant adverse impact on landscape character and visual amenity and therefore was compliant with the provisions of Policies S32 and S33 of the Allerdale Local Plan (Part 1).
Page 2
Officers have considered the standing advice for protected species referred to in the Natural England response. Based on the information and guidance contained therein, officers considered that subject to the inclusion of the mitigation measures identified within the Environmental Statement and accompanying Ecological Assessment, the proposed development would not cause significant harm to protected species that may roost, forage or commute within the site.
Officers concluded that the proposed development would not have a significant adverse impact on ecology and therefore was compliant with the provisions of Policies S35 and S36 of the Allerdale Local Plan (Part 1).
It was acknowledged that the site incorporated medium and high risk flood zones and had flooded historically. However it was considered that this scheme, and the proposed flood storage and management measures included within in it, represents an opportunity to mitigate the problem.
The Environment Agency had no objections to the proposed development based on the provision of the proposed flood storage and management measures. They acknowledge that a considerable amount of work had been undertaken with regards to detailed modelling, analysis of the flood risk issues and the development of mitigation measures.
On the basis of the findings of the submitted Flood Risk and Drainage Statement and the position of the Environment Agency, officers concluded that the proposed development was acceptable from a flood risk perspective. Subject to the implementation of the flood mitigation measures identified, the proposed development would not be liable to or exacerbate flood risk and therefore was compliant with the provisions of Policies S2 and S29 of the Allerdale Local Plan (Part 1).
Members noted 3 petitions; • against the proposed development of land adjoining West Road – 346 people
• against the proposed development of land adjoining West Road – 121 people
• to save the cycle track from rerouting/realignment – 341 people
147 letters of objection the main grounds of which were noted in the officer’s report, 1 additional letter of objection and a letter from Wigton Town Council maintaining their objection which appeared on the late list.
Councillor J Lister moved approval as per officer’s recommendation. This was seconded by Councillor M Jackson.
A vote was taken, 10 in favour of approval as per officer’s recommendation, 1 against and 0 abstentions.
The motion in favour of approval as per officer’s recommendation was carried.
Page 3
Decision: Approved. (Subject to Section 106 and confirmation of the removal of the holding direction from the Secretary of State)
Conditions: 1. Before any works commence details of the layout, scale, appearance and landscaping (hereinafter called ‘reserved matters’) shall be submitted to and approved by the Local Planning Authority, in accordance with the phasing scheme as agreed under condition No. 5 and the development shall be carried out as approved. Reason: The application has been submitted as an outline application, in accordance with the provisions of the details of the town and country Planning (General Development Procedure) Order 1995.
2. The development of the Phase 1 site shall be carried out solely in accordance with the following plans: • 12-15-00d – Site Location Plan (amended 12/01/15) • 11052-002 Rev C – Site Overview (amended 17/10/14) • 11052-003 Rev B – Wiza Beck Flood Extent (amended 29/07/14) • 11052-004 Rev C – Flosh Beck Flood Extent (amended 12/09/14) • 11052-005 Rev D – Flood Compensation Cut And Fill (amended 17/10/14) • 11052-0010 Rev A – Modelled Node Flooding Sections Location Plan (amended 10/09/14) • 11052-0011 – Sections Through Modelled Flood Nodes: Flosh Beck (amended 14/05/14) • 11052-0012 – Sections Through Modelled Flood Nodes: Wiza Beck (amended 14/05/14) • 11052-0015 – Proposed Weir Wall Details To Flosh Beck (amended 14/05/14) • 11052-0016a – Flood Zone Extents (amended 17/10/14) • 11052-0017 – Proposed Junction Layout (amended 20/08/14) • Flood Risk Assessment: RO/FRA/11052.100.1 Version 2 (October 2014) • Phase 1 Desk Top Study: 2012-291 (July 2012) • Ground Investigation Report: 2012-324 (November 2012) • Ground Gas Risk Assessment Report: 2012-324 (November 2012) • Noise Assessment Report: NAL/WR/NA/11/12 (December 2012) • Ecological Scoping Survey: NA12PHA1022.001 (August 2012) Email amendment (05/01/2015) Reason: To ensure a satisfactory standard of development and for the avoidance of doubt.
3. The submission of all reserved matters applications shall be made no later than the expiration of 3 years beginning with the date of this permission and the development shall begin no later than whichever is the later of the following dates: a) The expiration of 3 years from the date of the grant of this permission, or
Page 4
b) The expiration of 2 years from the final approval of the reserved matters or, in the case of approval on different dates, the final approval of the last such matter to be approved. Reason: In order to comply with Section 51 of the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004.
4. Any application for reserved matters of layout shall include plans showing the following: a) Cross sections through the site; b) Details of existing and proposed ground levels; c) Proposed finished floor levels of buildings; d) Levels of any paths, drives, garages and parking areas; The development shall be carried out in accordance with the details so approved. Reason: To ensure that the works are carried out to a suitable level in relation to the adjoining properties and highways and in the interests of visual amenity, in accordance with Policies S4 and DM14 of the Allerdale Local Plan (Part 1), Adopted July 2014.
5. Any application for reserved matters of layout site shall include a programme showing the phasing of the development to be submitted to and approved by the Local Planning Authority and the development shall not proceed other than in accordance with the approved programme. Reason: To serve in the public and visual interests a satisfactory correlated order of development, in accordance with Policies S5 and DM14 of the Allerdale Local Plan (Part 1), Adopted July 2014.
6. No dwelling/house within any 'reserved matter(s)' application submitted under Condition 1 shall be sited within the areas covered by Flood Zone 2 and 3, as indicted on drawing number 12-15-16a: Flood Zone Extents received 17 October 2014. Reason: To reduce the risk of flooding to the proposed development and future occupants in compliance with Policies S2 and S29 of the Allerdale Local Plan Part 1.
7. No part of the development hereby permitted shall be commenced until there has been submitted to and approved by the Local Planning Authority a scheme of hard and soft landscaping which shall include indications of all existing trees and hedgerows on the site, and details of any to be retained, together with measures for the protection in the course of development. The scheme shall include: a) The treatment proposed for all ground surfaces, including hard areas; b) Full details of tree planting; c) Planting schedules, noting the species, sizes, numbers and densities of plants; d) Finished levels or contours; e) Any structures to be erected or constructed; f) Functional services above and below ground; and g) All existing trees, hedges and other landscape features, indicating clearly those to be removed. The works shall be implemented in accordance with the approved scheme details.
Page 5
Reason: In order to enhance the appearance of the development, minimise the impact of the development in the locality and to ensure the retention of existing important trees on the site, in compliance with Policies S4, DM14 and DM17 of the Allerdale Local Plan (Part 1), Adopted July 2014.
8. Pursuant to condition 7, all planting, seeding or turfing comprised within the scheme shall be carried out in the first planting season following completion of the development and any trees or plants which within a period of 5 years from the completion of the development die, are removed or become seriously damaged or diseased shall be replaced in the next planting season with other similar size and species, unless otherwise agreed in writing by the Local Planning Authority. Reason: In order to enhance the appearance of the development and minimise the impact of the development in the locality, in compliance with Policy DM14 of the Allerdale Local Plan (Part 1), Adopted July 2014.
9. No part of the development hereby permitted shall be commenced until full details of the Local Area of Play to be provided within the site have been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The Local Area of Play shall be fully implemented prior to the occupation of the thirtieth (30th) dwelling/house on the site. Reason: To ensure the satisfactory provision of open space, in compliance with Policies S2, S4, S24, S25, S26 and DM14 of the Allerdale Local Plan (Part 1), Adopted July 2014.
10. No development hereby permitted shall be commenced until the applicant has secured the implementation of a programme of archaeological work in accordance with a written scheme of investigation which has been submitted by the applicant and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. This written scheme of investigation will include the following components: a) An archaeological evaluation b) An archaeological recording programme the scope of which will be dependent upon the results of the evaluation Reason: To afford reasonable opportunity for an examination to be made to determine the existence of any remains of archaeological interest within the site and for the examination and recording of such remains, in compliance with Policies S2 and S27 of the Allerdale Local Plan (Part 1), Adopted July 2014.
11. Pursuant to condition 10, where the results of the programme of archaeological work make it appropriate, there shall be carried out within one year of the completion of that programme on site, or within such timescale as otherwise agreed in writing by the Local Planning Authority: an archaeological post-excavation assessment and analysis, the preparation of a site archive ready for deposition at a store, the completion of an archive report, and the preparation and submission of a report of the results for publication in a suitable specialist journal. Reason: To ensure that a permanent and accessible record by the public is made of the archaeological remains that have been disturbed by the
Page 6
development, in compliance with Policies S2 and S27 of the Allerdale Local Plan (Part 1), Adopted July 2014.
12. The works shall be implemented solely in accordance with the mitigation outlined in Section 7 of the Ecological Scoping Survey (NA12PHA1022.001 – August 2012). Reason: To safeguard the habitat of wildlife/vegetation, in compliance with Policies S2 and S35 of the Allerdale Local Plan (Part 1), Adopted July 2014.
13. No development approved by this planning permission shall take place until a detailed scheme to provide compensatory flood storage has been submitted to and approved by the local planning authority. The compensatory flood storage proposals shall be based on the principles as detailed in plan 11052-005 Rev D – Flood Compensation Cut and Fill (amended 17/10/14). The details to be submitted shall include: a) Plans showing existing and proposed contours b) Long section drawings showing the existing and proposed flood plain c) Details sections showing the construction of the causeway containing the access road and realigned cycle path for the containment of land and floodwater The above details shall be informed by running the up to date hydraulic model with the landscape changes in place in order that flood extents for various return period events up to, including the design flood event, and the 1:1000 year indicative outline. The scheme shall be fully implemented and subsequently maintained, in accordance with the timing / phasing arrangements embodied within the scheme or within any other period as may subsequently be agreed, in writing, by the local planning authority. Reasons: 1) To prevent flooding by ensuring the satisfactory storage and disposal of surface water from the site. 2) To prevent flooding elsewhere by ensuring that compensatory storage of flood water is provided. 3) To ensure safe access and egress from and to the site. 4) To reduce the risk of flooding to the proposed development and future occupants. In compliance with Policy S29 of the Allerdale Local Plan (Part 1), Adopted July 2014.
14. No development shall take place until a Construction Environmental Management Plan has been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local planning authority. The approved Plan shall be adhered to through the construction period. The Plan shall include the following: a) Traffic Management Plan to include:
• Reserving adequate land for site offices/stores, secure compounds, including adequate land for the parking/turning of vehicles/plant, engaged in the construction operations associated with the development hereby approved. Such land, including the vehicular access thereto, shall be used for or be kept available for
Page 7
these purposes at all times until completion of the construction works. • all traffic associated with the development, including site and staff traffic • the means of access for construction traffic • the loading and unloading of plant and materials • the storage of plan and materials used in constructing the development • wheel washing facilities b) Procedure to monitor and mitigate noise and vibration from the construction and demolition and to monitor any properties at risk of damage from vibration, as well as taking into account noise from vehicles, deliveries. All measurements should make reference to BS7445. c) Mitigation measures to reduce adverse impacts on residential properties from construction compounds including visual impact, noise, and light pollution. d) A detailed plan for the eradication of Japanese knotweed from the site to be implemented prior to any excavation on site. e) A written procedure for dealing with complaints regarding the construction or demolition; f) Measures to control the emissions of dust and dirt during construction and demolition; g) Programme of work for Demolition and Construction phase; h) Hours of working and deliveries; i) Details of lighting to be used on site. The approved statement shall be adhered to throughout the duration of the development. Reason: In the interests of highway safety, the amenity of the occupiers of neighbouring properties and to secure appropriate mitigation of ecology interests on the site, in compliance with Policies S32 and S35 of the Allerdale Local Plan (Part 1), Adopted July 2014.
15. No development approved by this permission shall commence until all necessary site investigation works within the site boundary (as detailed on the drawing 12-15-00b – Site Location Plan) have been carried out to establish the degree and nature of the contamination and its potential to pollute the environment or cause harm to human health. The scope of works for the site investigations should be agreed with the Local planning authority prior to the commencement. Reason: To minimise any risk arising from any possible contamination from the development to the local environment, in compliance with Policy S30 of the Allerdale Local Plan (Part 1), Adopted July 2014.
16. Where land affected by contamination is found which poses unacceptable risks to human health, controlled waters or the wider environment, no development shall take place until a detailed remediation scheme has been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local planning authority. The scheme must include an appraisal of remediation options, identification of the preferred option(s), the proposed remediation objectives and remediation criteria, and a
Page 8
description and programme of the works to be undertaken including the verification plan. Reason: To minimise any risk arising from any possible contamination from the development to the local environment, in compliance with Policy S30 of the Allerdale Local Plan (Part 1), Adopted July 2014.
17. Should a remediation scheme be required, a verification plan providing details of the data that will be collected in order to demonstrate that the works set out in the remediation strategy are complete and identifying any requirements for longer-term monitoring of pollutant linkages, maintenance and arrangements for contingency action shall be submitted to and approved, in writing, by the local planning authority. Reason: To minimise any risk arising from any possible contamination from the development to the local environment, in compliance with Policy S30 of the Allerdale Local Plan (Part 1), Adopted July 2014.
18. No occupation of the development (or relevant phase of the development) shall take place until a verification report demonstrating completion of works set out in the approved remediation strategy and the effectiveness of the remediation shall be submitted to and approved, in writing, by the local planning authority. The report shall include results of sampling and monitoring carried out in accordance with the approved verification plan to demonstrate that the site remediation criteria have been met. It shall also include any plan (a "long-term monitoring and maintenance plan") for longer-term monitoring of pollutant linkages, maintenance and arrangements for contingency action, as identified in the verification plan. The long-term monitoring and maintenance plan shall be implemented as approved. Reason: To minimise any risk arising from any possible contamination from the development to the local environment, in compliance with Policy S30 of the Allerdale Local Plan (Part 1), Adopted July 2014.
19. In the event that contamination is found at any time when carrying out the approved development that was not previously identified it must be reported immediately to the Local planning authority. Development on the part of the site affected must be halted and a risk assessment carried out and submitted to and approved in writing by the Local planning authority. Where unacceptable risks are found remediation and verification schemes shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local planning authority. These shall be implemented prior to the development (or relevant phase of development) being brought into use. All works shall be undertaken in accordance with current UK guidance, particularly CLR11. Reason: To minimise any risk arising from any possible contamination from the development to the local environment, in compliance with Policy S30 of the Allerdale Local Plan (Part 1), Adopted July 2014.
20. The carriageways, footways and cycle paths shall be designed, constructed, drained and lit to a standard suitable for adoption and in this respect further details, including longitudinal/cross sections, shall be submitted to the Local planning authority for approval before any part of the development hereby permitted is commenced. No work shall be
Page 9
commenced until a full specification has been approved. These details shall be in accordance with the standards laid down in the current Cumbria Design Guide. Any works so approved shall be constructed before the development is completed. Reason: To ensure a minimum standard of construction in the interests of highway safety, in compliance with Policies S2, S5, S22 and DM14 of the Allerdale Local Plan (Part 1), Adopted July 2014.
21. The access drives, parking areas, public open space features, including works alongside watercourses shall be designed, constructed and drained to the satisfaction of the Local planning authority and in this respect full engineering details, shall be submitted to the Local planning authority for approval before any part of the development hereby permitted is commenced. No work shall be commenced until a full specification has been approved. Any works so approved shall be constructed before the development is completed. Reason: To ensure a minimum standard of construction in the interests of highway safety, in compliance with Policies S2, S5, S22 and DM14 of the Allerdale Local Plan (Part 1), Adopted July 2014.
22. Within six months of the occupation of the first dwelling, the developer shall prepare and submit to the Local Planning Authority for their approval a Travel Plan which shall identify the measures that will be undertaken by the developer to encourage the achievement of a modal shift away from the use of private cars to visit the development to sustainable transport modes. The measures identified in the Travel Plan shall be implemented by the developer where practicable prior to the occupation of the first dwelling, in order to encourage the use of sustainable modes from the outset, including targets and the appointment of a Travel Plan Co-ordinator. The Travel Plan shall be the subject of annual review for a period of five years following the occupation of the first dwelling Reason: To aid in the delivery of sustainable transport objectives
23. No development shall take place until a plan indicating the positions, design, materials and type of boundary treatment to be erected has been submitted to and approved in writing by the local planning authority. The boundary treatment shall be completed before the buildings they enclose are first occupied. The development shall be carried out in accordance with the approved details. Reason: To ensure a satisfactory standard of development which is compatible with the character of the surrounding area, in compliance with Policy DM14 of the Allerdale Local Plan (Part 1), Adopted July 2014.
24. No dwelling shall be occupied until any parking spaces, garages and turning areas associated with them have been provided in accordance with details to be submitted to and approved in writing by the local planning authority. Thereafter, the parking and turning areas provided shall not be used for any purpose other than the parking and turning of vehicles. Reason: To ensure that proper access and parking provision is made and retained for use in relation to the development.
Page 10
25. Details of all measures to be taken by the applicant/developer to prevent surface water discharging onto or off the highway shall be submitted to the local planning authority for approval prior to development being commenced. Any approved works shall be implemented prior to the development being completed and shall be maintained operational at all times thereafter. Reason: In the interests of highway safety and environmental management, in compliance with Policies S2, S5, S22 and DM14 of the Allerdale Local Plan (Part 1), Adopted July 2014.
26. Prior to the commencement of development, a scheme for separate surface water and foul water drainage systems (inclusive of how the scheme shall be maintained and managed after completion) shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the local planning authority. The drainage scheme submitted for approval shall be in accordance with the principles set out in the Flood Risk & Drainage Statement, ref RO/FRA/11052.1, version 2, December 2014, proposing surface water from the site discharging into the Flosh Beck. Foul water must discharge into the manhole ref NY25480101 along Skiddaw View and the manhole ref NY25483201 along West Street. No part of the development shall be occupied until the drainage scheme has been constructed in accordance with the approved details. For the avoidance of doubt, surface water, land drainage, nor highway drainage shall connect into the public sewerage system (directly or indirectly). The development shall be completed, maintained and managed in accordance with the approved details. Reason: To ensure a holistic approach to the construction of the detailed drainage infrastructure for the site so that the drainage infrastructure which is constructed is able to cope with the foul and surface water discharges from the entire development site and minimise the risk of water pollution to the local water environment, in compliance with Policies S2, S35 and S36 of the Allerdale Local Plan (Part 1), Adopted July 2014.
27. No development shall take place until a surface water drainage scheme for the site, based on sustainable drainage principles and an assessment of the hydrological and hydro geological context of the development, has been submitted to and approved in writing by the local planning authority. The drainage strategy should demonstrate the surface water run-off generated up to and including the 1 in 100 year critical storm will not exceed the run-off from the undeveloped site following the corresponding rainfall event. Discharge rates shall be limited to Qbar (the mean annual peak runoff for the Greenfield site). The scheme shall subsequently be implemented in accordance with the approved details before the development is completed. The scheme shall also include details of how the scheme shall be maintained and managed after completion. Reason: To promote sustainable development, secure proper drainage and to reduce the risk of flooding and pollution, in compliance with Policies S2, S35 and S36 of the Allerdale Local Plan (Part 1), Adopted July 2014.
Page 11
28. Details of glazing for all dwellings hereby approved shall be submitted and approved in writing by the local planning authority. The details shall accord with the recommendations detailed within the acoustic consultants' report ref: NAL/WR/NA/11/12 dated 13 December 2012. Any such windows shall be installed prior to the occupation of the dwellings and retained thereafter as approved and shall not be altered or replaced without written permission of the local planning authority. Reason: To ensure a satisfactory standard of housing development in accordance with the National Planning Policy Framework and Policies S2, S4, S32 and DM14 of the Allerdale Local Plan (Part 1), Adopted July 2014.
Proactive Statement
Application Approved Following Revisions
The Local planning authority had acted positively and proactively in determining this application by identifying planning policies, constraints, stakeholder representations and matters of concern within the application (as originally submitted) and where appropriate negotiating, with the Applicant, acceptable amendments and solutions to the proposal to address those concerns. As a result, the Local planning authority had been able to grant planning permission for an acceptable proposal, in accordance with the presumption in favour of sustainable development, as set out within the National Planning Policy Framework.
462 Development Panel - 2.2015.0009, 38 Sycamore Road, Maryport. Extension to provide additional living space.
Application: Extension to provide additional living space. 38 Sycamore Road, Maryport.
The Principal Planning Officer recommended refusal.
The Principal Planning Officer outlined the application and detailed the main issues within the report as detailed below;
The proposal was of a scale which would result in overdevelopment of the curtilage of the property and would dominate the original, existing dwelling house. The applicant had excluded an area of public open space which had been incorporated into his residential curtilage. This area of land was not in the applicant’s ownership nor did it benefit any change of use planning permission.
The proposal was of a design in use within the locality; however, the forward facing extension would be at odds with the locality so as to have an adverse visual impact upon the property, street scene and surroundings.
The proposed rear extension would constitute overbearing development by virtue of the height, length and proximity to the rear shared boundary with 40 Sycamore Road. This would result in an increased sense of enclosure for the occupiers of this dwelling. Likewise, the proposed rear extension would lead to a loss of daylight in the morning to the neighbouring dwelling. The proposed
Page 12
rear extension would lead to an unacceptable loss of residential amenity for the occupiers of 40 Sycamore Road.
Existing off street parking provision would be retained with no objections from the Highways Department.
Members noted 1 late letter of objection received from the neighbouring bungalow property.
Councillor N Cockburn moved deferral for a site visit. This was seconded by Councillor C Armstrong.
Councillor M Jackson moved refusal as per officer’s recommendation. This was seconded by Councillor J Lister.
A vote was taken, 4 in favour of refusal, 7 against and 0 abstentions.
The motion in favour of refusal was lost.
A vote was taken, 7 in favour of deferral for a site visit, 2 against and 2 abstentions.
The motion in favour of deferral for a site visit was carried.
Decision: Deferred for a site visit.
463 Development Panel - 2.2014.0893, Bromfield Farm, Bromfield. Variation of condition 2 on planning approval 2.2013.0144.
Application: Variation of condition 2 on appeal approval APP/G0908/A/13/2203520 (2/2013/0144). Bromfield Farm, Bromfield, Wigton.
The Principal Planning Officer recommended approval.
The Principal Planning Officer outlined the application and detailed the main issues within the report as detailed below;
The scheme seeks a replacement turbine design to change turbine type from 'NPS 60-23-37’ 36.8m tower/blade tip height 48.3m (as approved under appeal APP/G0908/A/13/2203520) to 'NPS 100C-24-37 – 35.7m tower/blade tip height 48.8m'.
The only matter that needs to be reviewed related to noise. The Environmental Protection Team had considered the submitted noise assessment and confirmed that the predicted noise levels would be acceptable.
The original application approval related to a turbine of 48.3m to tip and this scheme related to a slightly larger turbine of 48.8m to tip. The slight increase in height and rotor diameter was considered not to result in any significant visual impact to its site or surroundings.
Page 13
The proposed scheme related to a turbine with an output of 100kW the approved scheme had an output of 60kW. The slight increase in output increases the contribution the turbine will make to the generation of renewable energy generation and was not considered to harm the area.
Members noted 3 letters of objection and 1 letter of concern the main grounds of which were noted in the officer’s report.
Councillor M Wood moved approval as per officer’s recommendation. This was seconded by Councillor J Wright.
A vote was taken, 10 in favour of approval, 1 against and 0 abstentions.
The motion in favour of approval was carried.
Decision: Approved.
Conditions: 1. The development hereby permitted shall be begun before the expiration of three years from the date of this permission. Reason: In order to comply with the requirements of Section 91 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 as amended by Section 51 of the Planning & Compulsory Purchase Act 2004.
2. The development hereby permitted shall be carried out solely in accordance with the following plans: BROM/0001 Rev A – Site Location Plan Drawing Number 1017334 Revision B – Turbine Details Noise Assessment received 6 March 2015. Reason: In order to ensure a satisfactory standard of development.
3. This permission shall remain valid for a period of 25 years from the date that electricity from the development is first produced (the date of the 1st production of electricity shall be notified in writing to the Local Planning Authority within 28 days of the event occurring). Reason: To ensure that this site within open countryside is restored to an appropriate standard, in accordance with the National Planning Policy Framework and Policies S32 and S33 of the Allerdale Local Plan (Part 1), Adopted July 2014.
4. Not later than 12 months before the end of this permission, a decommissioning and site restoration scheme shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The scheme shall make provision for the removal of the wind turbine and the associated above ground equipment and foundations to a depth of at least one metre below ground. The approved scheme shall be fully implemented within 6 months of the expiry of this permission. Reason: To ensure that this site within open countryside is restored to an appropriate standard, in accordance with the National Planning Policy Framework and Policies S32 and S33 of the Allerdale Local Plan (Part 1), Adopted July 2014.
Page 14
5. If the turbine hereby approved ceases to be operational for a continuous period of at least 6 months, the development hereby permitted shall be removed and the land restored in accordance with a decommissioning and site restoration scheme. The scheme shall be submitted to the Local Planning Authority within three months of the continuous six month cessation period coming to an end. The land shall be restored in accordance with the approved scheme within 6 months of the scheme's approval by the Local Planning Authority. Reason: To safeguard the visual amenity of the site and surroundings from non-essential development in the open countryside.
6. Within 6 months of the completion of the construction works, any temporary working areas around the turbine shall be removed in accordance with a scheme to be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority, prior to any development commencing. Reason: To minimise the visual impact of the development on its site and surroundings in the open countryside.
7. Notwithstanding the details in the submitted drawings, no development shall take place until full details of the finish and colour of the wind turbine have been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The development shall be carried out only in accordance with the approved details. No part of the structure shall carry any logo or lettering. Reason: To minimise the visual impact of the development on its site and surroundings in the open countryside.
8. Development shall not commence until the developer has provided written confirmation to the Local Planning Authority, NATS en-route plc, Civil Aviation Authority and the Ministry of Defence of the proposed commencement date, the anticipated completion date, the height above ground level of the highest structure and the turbine's position in latitude and longitude. Reason: In the interests of air safety.
9. All cabling between the turbine and the substation shall be laid underground. Reason: In the interests of visual amenity.
10. The following background noise levels shall not be exceeded when the wind turbine is in operation: i. Night time noise limits (23:00 to 07:00) - The LA90 (10 minutes) specific noise levels due to the operation of the turbine shall not exceed 43dB (A) as measured 3.5m from the façade of the nearest noise sensitive use, namely ‘Bank House, Bromfield, CA7 3NB’ (being the nearest noise sensitive use in existence at the date of this permission) or 5dB above the night time LA90 background noise level up to wind speeds of 12m/sec, whichever is the greater. ii. Day time noise limits (07:00 to 23:00) - The LA90 (10 minutes) specific noise levels due to the operation of the turbine shall not exceed 35dB (A) as measured 3.5m from the façade of ‘Bank House, Bromfield, CA7 3NB’ (being the nearest noise sensitive use in
Page 15
existence at the date of this permission) or 5dB above the quiet day time LA90 background noise level up to wind speeds of 12m/sec, whichever is the greater. Reason: In the interests of residential amenity and in accordance with the National Planning Policy Framework and Policy S32 of the Allerdale Local Plan (Part 1), Adopted July 2014.
11. In the event of a complaint being received in writing by the Local Planning Authority (LPA) alleging noise nuisance at a dwelling(s) within 3km of the turbine arising from the operation of the wind turbine, the operator shall at its expense, employ an independent consultant approved by the Local Planning Authority to measure and assess the level of noise emissions from the turbine at the complainant's dwelling. The LPA shall be notified in writing of the results within 3 months of the date of notification of the complaint. If a breach of Condition 10 (i or ii) is confirmed at the complainant's dwelling, the turbine operation shall cease until the Local Planning Authority is satisfied that the turbine can operate within the condition 10 (i or ii) noise limits. Reason: In the interests of residential amenity and in accordance with the National Planning Policy Framework and Policy S32 of the Allerdale Local Plan (Part 1), Adopted July 2014.
12. In the event that a written complaint being received relating to electro- magnetic interference, a written scheme shall be submitted to and approved by the Local Planning Authority setting out a protocol for the assessment of electro-magnetic interference, including remedial measures. The turbine shall be operated in accordance with the agreed protocol. Reason: In order to minimise the risk of nuisance.
13. No development shall take place until a Traffic Management Plan (TMP) addressing traffic impact issues during the construction period has been submitted to, and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. Development shall be carried out in accordance with the approved details. The TMP shall include agreement on phasing of the construction of any accesses, details of routes to be used by construction traffic, any street furniture that needs to be moved to accommodate construction vehicles and any appropriate on-street waiting restrictions required. Reason: In the interests of highway safety.
14. No development shall take place until a scheme of measures to be taken to prevent mud and debris being carried from the site onto the public highway has been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. Works shall be carried out in accordance with the approved scheme which shall remain in operation until the construction phase of the development has been completed. Reason: In the interest of public safety.
464 Development Panel- 2.2015.0038 Beck Farm, Wheyrigg, Wigton- Variation of condition 3 on planning approval 2.2012.0563
Page 16
Application: Variation of condition 3 on planning approval 2/2012/0563. Beck Farm, Wheyrigg, Wigton.
The Principal Planning Officer recommended refusal.
The Principal Planning Officer outlined the application and detailed the main issues within the report as detailed below;
Removal of mast recommended as landscape and visual impacts were approved on a temporary 24 month basis and the continued retention of this structure would have an adverse visual impact on the landscape. The applicant’s presentation suggested that they sought to retain the mast for an additional 12 month period to provide visual height guidance for a future turbine development. Officers did not consider this to constitute grounds to support the application.
Members noted Environmental Health’s response of no objection which appeared on the late list.
Councillor N Cockburn moved refusal as per officer’s recommendation. This was seconded by Councillor M Jackson.
A vote was taken, 10 in favour of refusal, 0 against and 1 abstention.
The motion in favour of refusal was carried.
Decision: Refused.
Reason: The Local Planning Authority considered the visual impact of the retention of the 70m anemometer mast would be detrimental to the visual amenity and landscape of its surroundings, contrary to Policies S19 and S33 of the Allerdale Local Plan (Part 1) July 2014 and the National Planning Policy Framework.
Proactive Statement
The Local Planning Authority had acted positively and proactively in determining this application by identifying planning policies, constraints, stakeholder representations and matters of concern with the proposal and discussing those with the Applicant. However, the issues were so fundamental to the proposal that it had not been possible to negotiate a satisfactory way forward and due to the harm which had been clearly identified within the reason(s) for the refusal, approval had not been possible.
465 Development Panel- 2.2015.0064, 2 Lorne Villas, Workington. Alteration to lean to store and back door to rear.
Application: Alterations to lean-to store and back door to rear. 2 Lorne Villas, Workington.
Page 17
The Head of Development Services recommended approval.
The Head of Development Services outlined the application and detailed the main issues within the report as detailed below;
The design and materials of the proposed alterations are considered to be acceptable and would preserve the character of the Conservation Area.
Given the minor nature of the alterations, and the siting to the rear of the dwelling, it was not considered that the proposal would have an adverse impact on residential amenity.
There were no highway safety objections to the application.
There were no ecological implications
The development would not impact upon any flood risk within the locality.
Councillor P Kendall moved approval as per officer’s recommendation. This was seconded by Councillor M Wood.
A vote was taken, 11 in favour of approval, 0 against and 0 abstentions.
The motion in favour of approval was carried.
Decision: Approved.
Conditions: 1. The development hereby permitted shall be carried out solely in accordance with the following plans: SPLO1 Site location plan PLO 2 Elevations/sections PLO3 Elevations/Plans Reason: In order to ensure a satisfactory standard of development.
2. The development hereby permitted shall be begun before the expiration of three years from the date of this permission. Reason: In order to comply with the requirements of Section 91 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 as amended by Section 51 of the Planning & Compulsory Purchase Act 2004.
466 Development Panel- Enforcement Plan Report
The Head of Development Services explained to members that The National Planning Policy Framework suggested that Local Planning Authorities consider publishing a local enforcement plan to manage enforcement proactively in a way that was appropriate to their area.
Enforcement Plans should set out how they will monitor the implementation of planning permission, investigate alleged cases of unauthorised development and take action where it is appropriate to do so.
Page 18
An Enforcement Plan was not part of the Development Plan but would help to communicate to the wider community how the Local Planning Authority approaches planning enforcement.
A draft Enforcement Plan was considered by the Planning Policy Working Group in December 2014. The Enforcement Plan was welcomed by the Planning Policy Working Group and it was suggested that the document be endorsed by the Development Panel.
It was noted that the approach set out in the Plan largely reflected existing practice and was consistent with the advice relating to planning enforcement provided by the National Planning Practice Guidance published by Government.
Agreed:
That;
a) That the Development Panel endorses the Allerdale Enforcement Plan. b) A copy of the Enforcement Plan be emailed to all Parish Councils.
The meeting closed at 3.45 pm
Page 19 This page is intentionally left blank
Page 20 Agenda Item 5
Allerdale Borough Council
Planning Application 2/2015/0009
Reference No: 2/2015/0009 Valid Date: 07/01/2015 Location: 38 Sycamore Road Maryport Applicant: Mr Martin Minchella
Drawing Numbers: MMSM-1-1-15 Proposed Extensions MMSM-1-14-15 Rev A – Proposed extensions
Proposed Extension to provide additional living space Development: Recommendation: Refused
Summary/Key Issues
Issue Conclusion
Scale The proposal is of a scale which would result in overdevelopment of the curtilage of the property and would dominate the original, existing dwelling house. Design The proposal is of a design in use within the locality; however, the forward facing extension would be at odds with the locality so as to have an adverse visual impact upon the property, street scene and surroundings. Amenity The proposed rear extension would constitute overbearing development by virtue of the height, length and proximity to the rear shared boundary with 40 Sycamore Road. This would result in an increased sense of enclosure for the occupiers of this dwelling. Likewise, the proposed rear extension would lead to a loss of daylight in the morning to the neighbouring dwelling. The proposed rear extension would lead to an unacceptable loss of residential amenity for the occupiers of 40 Sycamore Road. Highways Existing off street parking provision would be retained with no objections from the Highways Department.
Page 21 Site
The development site comprises a modern two storey end terraced dwelling house situated on a no through road in a residential area of Maryport.
The dwelling has a detached single garage set at a ninety degree to the dwelling positioned within the side garden, forward of the main dwelling house. Additional parking is provided by means of a driveway.
The dwelling also benefits from a rear garden and small front garden. An area of land to the side of the dwelling has been enclosed by the applicants to be used as additional garden area. The ownership of this area of land is unclear.
Proposal
The proposal involves the erection of extensions to the front and rear.
The front extension would be two storey and would create a hall and shower room at ground floor level and bathroom at first floor level. This extension would project beyond the front elevation by 1.8m, wrapping around the side of the dwelling to extend 1.5m beyond the side elevation. The eaves height would be 5.2m and the overall height would be approx. 6.2m, below the ridge height of the main dwelling.
The rear extension would create two storey and single storey extensions creating dining room and kitchen at ground floor level and two additional bedrooms at first floor level. The two storey element would project 4.35m beyond the rear elevation, with a single storey extending a further 4.75m into the rear garden, creating a combined length of 9.1m for both extensions. The extensions would have a width of 5.6m. The two storey extension would have an eaves height of 5.2m and ridge height of 6.6m. The single storey extension would have a ridge height of 2.75m and overall height of 3.8m.
Both these extensions would run along the shared boundary with the adjoining property at 40 Sycamore Road, set back within the applicant’s own garden by approx. 20cm. The rear extension would be situated approx. 1m from the rear boundary.
Relevant Policies
National Planning Policy Framework Paragraph 17 Chapter 7 - Requiring good design
Allerdale Local Plan (Part 1) July 2014 Policy DM15 - Extensions and alterations to existing buildings and properties Policy S4 - Design principles Policy S32 - Safeguarding amenity
Page 22 Relevant Planning History
None
Representations
Town Council – No objections
Highways – No objections
Environmental Health – No objections
The application has been advertised on site and neighbouring properties have been notified. No resulting representations have been received to date.
The application has been ‘called-in’ for consideration at the Development Panel by Councillor Martin Wood. The reason for calling in the application is given as “Six members of the family are living in a small space and to allow the children separate bedrooms and space the extension is needed. There will be no overlooking windows or shadowing of neighbours”.
Assessment
Scale
The applicant’s proposal is large in scale, increasing the floor space of the dwelling by approx. 118%. The extension would result in the loss of much of the rear garden, part of the front garden and part of the side garden (excluding the enclosed area of land). This would result in the loss of the majority of the applicant’s amenity space.
Policy DM15 of the Allerdale Local Plan (Part 1) July 2014 specifies that extensions within the curtilage of existing properties will only be permitted where ‘the extension would not become the dominant feature of the building’ and where ‘the extension will not result in overdevelopment of the curtilage of the property’
In this case, the scale of the extensions and loss of private outdoor amenity space would result in most of the applicant’s owned amenity space which is considered to constitute overdevelopment of the site. In turn, the extensions would alter the appearance of the dwelling so as to engulf the original dwelling house and become the dominant feature of the property as a whole.
The proposal is considered contrary to planning policy DM15 of the Allerdale Local Plan (part 1) in relation to scale.
Design/Amenity
The applicant’s proposal would extend the dwelling to the front and rear. The general form of the extensions and materials proposed are in evidence in the locality, however, the position of the extension to the front would have the effect of materially altering the
Page 23 appearance of dwelling from the highway. This in turn would impact upon the development pattern currently in evidence along the street scene and in the immediate vicinity.
Policy DM15 of the Allerdale Local Plan (Part 1) indicates that extensions to existing properties would not be permitted where they fail to achieve a satisfactory visual and architectural relationship with adjoining development and/or the character of the area. Policy S4 of the Allerdale Local (Part 1) also seeks to ensure development integrates well with existing development. Policy S32 of the Allerdale Local Plan (Part 1) states that proposal will not be supported which ‘result in a detrimental effect on the local area in terms of visual amenity, distinctive character or environmental quality’.
As most two storey development within the area is located to the rear or side of dwelling, the proposed two storey extension extending beyond the front elevation would be at odds with the general appearance of properties along the street and in the locality. The visual clash with the existing development pattern and appearance of the street scene would result in an unsatisfactory architectural relationship which would have a detrimental effect on the visual amenity of the local area.
The proposal is considered to be contrary to planning policies DM15, S4 and S32 of the Allerdale Local Plan (part 1) in relation to design and amenity.
Residential Amenity
The applicant’s proposal to extend the property to the rear would result in a large extension running alongside the shared boundary with 40 Sycamore Road, set back approx. 20cm and approx. 9.1m in length. The two storey element of the proposal would be at a height of 5.2m to the eaves and 6.6m overall projecting 4.35m from the rear of the dwelling.
Policy DM15 of the Allerdale Local Plan (part 1) specifies that extensions to existing properties would not be permitted where they would materially harm the amenity of the occupants of neighbouring properties or adjacent properties. Policy S4 of the Allerdale Local Plan (part 1) also indicates that new development should ensure suitable standards of amenity are achieved and maintained in relation to the development itself and the local area. Policy S32 of the Allerdale Local Plan (part 1) seeks to safeguard amenity and states that proposals will not be supported where they would have an unacceptable impact on residential amenity and surrounding land uses in terms of increased sense of enclosure as a result of overbearing development or a loss of sunlight/daylight received by the property as a result of overshadowing.
The neighbouring property mirrors that of the applicant’s dwelling and it is presumed that the windows directly adjacent to the boundary would serve a living room at ground floor level and bedroom at first floor window.
The proposed rear extension would be positioned to the north east of the dwelling which would affect the light available to 40 Sycamore Road during the morning. The proposed two storey extension is considered to be at such a height and length, in close proximity to the adjacent habitable windows at the neighbouring dwelling so that this loss of light would be at a level so as to have a significant adverse effect upon the residential amenity
Page 24 of the occupiers of the neighbouring dwelling.
Likewise, the full length of the proposal in close proximity to the shared boundary and habitable rooms of 40 Sycamore Road, exacerbated by the height of the two storey element of the extension, would be overbearing to these occupiers. This overbearing development would result in an increased sense of enclosure which would have a harmful and unacceptable effect upon the residential amenity of the neighbouring dwelling.
The proposal is considered contrary to planning policies DM15, S4 and S32 of the Allerdale Local Plan (Part 1) in relation to residential amenity.
Highways
The proposal would not impact upon the off street parking provision available to the dwelling. No objections have been raised by the Highways Department.
Local Financial Considerations
Having regard to S70 (2) of the Town and Country Planning Act the proposal would not result in any local financial benefits.
Conclusion
The proposed extensions are excessive in scale. The scale would result in overdevelopment of the site and engulf the existing dwelling so as to dominate the original property.
The proposed two storey extension to the front would be out of character with the development pattern within the area and would have an adverse visual impact upon the property and the street scene.
The proposed two storey and single storey extensions to the rear are of a length, height and proximity to the neighbouring dwelling at 40 Sycamore Road so as to create an overbearing form of development to these occupiers which would create an unacceptable sense of enclosure and loss of light, significantly affecting the residential amenity of these occupiers.
The proposal is considered contrary to current planning policy and is recommended for refusal.
Page 25 Annex 1
Reasons for Refusal
1. The proposed extensions would result in overdevelopment of the curtilage of the property and would engulf the original building so as to become the dominant feature of the building, contrary to Paragraph 17 of the National Planning Policy Framework and Policy DM15 of the Allerdale Local Plan (part 1) July 2014.
2. The proposed rear extension, by reason of height, length and proximity to the shared boundary with 40 Sycamore Road, would have an unacceptable effect on the residential amenity of the occupiers of the adjoining property at 40 Sycamore Road. These occupiers would experience an inappropriate sense of overbearing and enclosure as well as a loss of natural daylight available to the habitable rooms running adjacent to the shared boundary, contrary to Chapter 7 of the National Planning Policy Framework, Paragraph 17 of the National Planning Policy Framework and Policies DM15, S4 and S32 of the Allerdale Local Plan (Part 1) July 2014.
3. The proposed front extension, by virtue of its scale and siting, would be out of character with the existing streetscene which would in turn have a significant detrimental impact upon the visual amenity of the locality, contrary to Paragraph 58 of the National Planning Policy Framework and Policies DM15 and S4 of the Allerdale Local Plan (Part 1) July 2014.
Proactive Statement
The Local Planning Authority has acted positively and proactively in determining this application by identifying planning policies, constraints, stakeholder representations and matters of concern with the proposal and discussing those with the Applicant. However, the issues are so fundamental to the proposal that it has not been possible to negotiate a satisfactory way forward and due to the harm which has been clearly identified within the reason(s) for the refusal, approval has not been possible.
Notes to Applicant:
Page 26
Page 27 This page is intentionally left blank
Page 28 Agenda Item 6
Allerdale Borough Council
Planning Application 2/2014/0861
Proposed Erection of 1no. wind turbine 45m to hub 67m to tip and associated Development: works. Location: Drumleaning Farm Drumleaning Wigtojn Recommendation: Refused
Summary/Key Issues
Issue Conclusion
Principle of Paragraph 93 of the NPPF makes clear that the provision of Development renewable energy infrastructure is central to the economic, social and environmental dimensions of sustainable development. Landscape and Regard has been had to three recent appeal decisions for Visual Impact turbines within this locality, all of which were refused.
It is considered that the proposal has the potential for significantly harmful cumulative impacts on the character of the landscape and the visual amenities of the locality. Residential The proposed turbine is within the 800m of residential Amenity properties. Although the applicants have sought to demonstrate that the proposal will not have a significant effect on residential amenity the proposal will nevertheless result in noticeable changes in views from a number of residential properties. Heritage No significant harm identified.
Benefits The proposal will make a small contribution to renewable energy deployment nationally. It would also make a contribution to the running costs of the farm business by creating an alternative source of income, supporting rural enterprise and economic activity. The benefits of the development are not considered to outweigh the harm of the proposal.
Proposal
The application seeks permission for the erection of a single wind turbine 67m to tip with associated infrastructure.
Page 29 Site
The application site for the proposed turbine is within an agricultural field located approximately 500m to the east of the buildings at Drumleaning Farm.
Relevant Policies
National Planning Policy Framework
Building a strong, competitive economy Meeting the challenge of climate change, flooding and coastal change Conserving and enhancing the natural environment Conserving and enhancing the historic environment Supporting a prosperous rural economy Requiring good design
Allerdale Local Plan (Part 1)
Policy S1 - Presumption in favour of sustainable development Policy S2 - Sustainable development principles (excluding highways) Policy S4 - Design principles Policy S14 - Rural economy Policy S19 - Renewable Energy and Low Carbon Technologies Policy S27 - Heritage Assets Policy S29 - Flood Risk and Surface Water Drainage Policy S32 - Safeguarding amenity Policy S33 - Landscape Policy S35 - Protecting and enhancing biodiversity and geodiversity Policy DM14 - Standards of Good Design
Relevant Planning History
SCR/2014/0099 – Screening Opinion – Not EIA development
Representations
Aikton Parish Council – Object to the proposal on the grounds of size, cumulative effect and the turbine would be visible from St Andrews Church which is a grade I listed building.
Thursby Parish Council - Object to the proposal on the grounds of saturation of wind turbines within the area, within site of a listed building, noise, visual amenity and the fact that the proposal is within 800m of a number of dwellings.
Electricity North West – The development has no impact on their infrastructure or assets
Cumbria Highways – No objections subject to conditions relating to prevention of
Page 30 bringing mud and debris onto the highway, the submission of a traffic management plan and highway condition survey.
Arqiva – No objections
Natural England – no objections
NATS – No safeguarding objections
Cumbria County Council – Will not be responding from a strategic planning prospective. The LPA should consider the potential cumulative impacts of the proposal
CAA – No objections
English Heritage – No objections
MOD – No objections subject to the installation of aviation lighting and details of construction timing, maximum height and co-ordinates of turbines.
Environmental Health – Comment that the noise assessment appears not to have considered whether there are any other existing or approved wind turbines within 1km of the proposed turbine. Based on the principles of the Institute of Acoustics good practice guide to the application of ETSU-R-97 consideration should be given to cumulative noise impacts from other wind farms in the locality. If the proposed wind turbine produces noise levels within 10dB of any existing wind farms at the same receptor location then a cumulative noise impact assessment is necessary.
Subject to confirmation that a cumulative noise assessment is not required, they would not object to the proposal subject to conditions relating to noise.
The application has been advertised on site and neighbouring properties have been notified.
There have been 7 letters of support which outline the support for renewable energy, investing in the future of the business
There has been 11 letters of objection (including FORCE and Westnewton Action Group) which outline the following points:- • Landscape impacts • Cumulative impacts • Scale • Noise • Shadow flicker • Environmental impacts • Effects on the Solway Coast AONB • Effects on Lake District National Park • Effects on wildlife • Effects on nearby communities and nearby properties • Loss of amenity
Page 31 • The development is within 800m of residential properties • Reduction in house prices and potential to make a property unsaleable • Safety of wind turbine – blowing over, catching fire, ice falling from blades and parts becoming detached • Alternative energy sources are available e.g. solar • The applicant would not be able to view the turbine from their property • The natural screening referred to in the application is only temporary as much is deciduous • The photomontages do not provide an accurate reflection e.g. positioning of trees • The cumulative impact radius is too small and not in accordance with Cumbria Wind Energy Supplementary Planning Documentation • Some turbine have been omitted from the assessment such as the turbines at Great Orton, How End Thursby and High Pow • Other appeal decisions within the locality highlight cumulative concerns
Main Issues:
The application has been called in by Councillor Patricia Macdonald
The proposed site is on land near to Drumleaning Farm, 1.2km to the south of Aikton; the application seeks planning consent for the construction of a single three bladed wind turbine up to 67m in height to blade tip (45m hub height with a 44m rotor diameter. The scheme would also incorporate a sub-station building adjacent to the base of the turbine, with an access track 5m by 80m and a crane hard standing 25m by 30m. The colour would be a light grey mat finish.
Local Finance Considerations
Having regard to S70 (2) of the Town and Country Planning Act the proposal does not have any local finance considerations.
Policy
National Planning Policy and the Allerdale Local Plan (Part 1) are broadly supportive of proposals for renewable energy development. The need to meet national targets for the generation of electricity and heat from renewable and low carbon sources is recognised as are the wider environmental, community and economic benefits of such development.
To ensure that the impacts of development (either in isolation or cumulatively) are, or can be made acceptable, Policy S19 of the Allerdale Local Plan sets out clear criteria for the consideration of proposals for renewable energy development, including wind turbines. The criteria most relevant to the consideration of this application are considered below.
In assessing the merits of the proposed development it is necessary to balance the economic, social and environmental benefits of the proposed renewable energy development with any adverse environmental impact of the proposed turbine.
Page 32 Need for an Environmental Impact Assessment
A screening opinion was issued indicating the proposal was not considered to be EIA development; the application, in officer’s opinion is considered to contain sufficient information within the supporting documentation to assess the proposal.
Site and surroundings
The site is in agricultural use and occupies a flat field which slopes down from the north of the site and is bound by a stream to the north and hedgerows to the south and east. A new access track would be formed onto the public highway on land that is within control of the applicant.
The surrounding area is rural in nature, with a number of interspersed single dwellings or farms and small clusters of dwellings and small villages; Wigton is the nearest town 3.15km to the south west, with the village of Aikton is 1.3km to the north, Parton is 800m to the south and Thornby Villa 1.1km to the east. The National Park boundary is approximately 10.77km to the south with the Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty (AONB) 7km to the north.
There are numerous wind farm developments within this part of the borough, of note:-
Within 5km:
• Greyrigg House 695m to the south east 20m turbine approved but not erected • Thornby Villa 894m to north east (34.6m to tip) • Moorhouse Hall 900m to south west (24.9m to tip) • Moordyke, Aikton 2.4km to north (1 turbine 34.5m to tip) • Great Orton wind farm 3.7km to north east (6 turbines 69m to tip) • Thursby 4.6km to south east (1 turbine 74m to tip) • A single turbine with a height of 74m to hub was given consent by Carlisle City Council at Midtown Farm, Great Orton 4.7km to north east
Large scale wind turbine development in excess of 5km:
• Great Orton Farm 7.5km to the east (3 turbines, 2 at 86.45m to tip and 1 at 65m to tip) • High Pow 9.4 km to south (3 turbines 95m to tip) • Brayton Park, 13.4km to the south west (1 turbine 60m to tip). • Parkhead windfarm is 14.33km (4 turbines 121m to tip) to the west. • Wharrels Hill wind farm (8 turbines 81m to tip) is 16.2km to the south west. • Westnewton windfarm (3 turbines 107m to tip) 16.5km to the south west • Tallentire windfarm is 21.2km to the south west (86m to tip)
An application for a m tall turbine at park House Aikton (2/2014/02920) was refused on cumulative grounds and the proliferation of turbines in the area. This application is presently the subject of an appeal.
Page 33 Access and Highways
The access to the site is via an access from a minor highway which in turn connects with other local minor roads and the A596. The site would be accessed with standard HGV’s no oversized vehicles would be required to deliver the turbine.
A small section of new access road would be constructed within the field with a new concrete hard standing installed for the crane to operate from; suitable access is considered to be gained off the highway.
The highways authority has indicated they have no objections to the proposal subject to the imposition of conditions relating to a traffic management plan and assurance that debris will not enter onto the highway.
The proposal is considered not to affect users of the highway and no objections have been received from the Highways Authority in this regard.
Landscape and Visual Impact Implications
The Cumbria Landscape Character Guidance and Toolkit (LCG) supports appropriately located schemes for wind energy in line with the provisions of the Cumbria Joint Wind Energy Supplementary Planning Document (SPD) which was adopted by the Council in 2007.The site falls within Cumbria’s landscape classification 5b Low Farmland – which is characterised by:
• Undulating and rolling topography • Intensely farmed agricultural pasture dominates • Patchy areas of woodland provide contrast to the pasture • Woodland is uncommon west towards the coast • Fields are large and rectangular • Hedges, hedgerow trees and fences bound fields and criss cross up and over the rolling landscape
The toolkit outlines that energy infrastructure including large scale wind energy generation should be carefully sited and designed to prevent this sub type becoming an energy landscape and prominent locations should be avoided.
The applicant has submitted a planning report, landscape and visual impact assessment report, a ZTV plan and photomontages.
The turbine would not be an isolated development due to its proximity to existing wind turbine development and the NPPF explicitly requires that regard be had to the potential cumulative impact of multiple developments, whether of single turbines or groups, or a combination of both. In this case the cumulative impacts mainly relate to the simultaneous appearance of different existing and proposed turbines in the same views and how they would relate to one another.
Having regard to the respective scales of the turbines, the separation distances and design, the Great Orton windfarm and Thornby Villa turbines were clearly designed as an
Page 34 integrated scheme of matching turbines with regular spacing between the turbines. The turbines are notable man-made landscape feature which dominate the immediate surroundings in a landscape of straight roads, paths and field boundaries.
The addition of a single wind turbine would not been seen as part of any grouping but would be seen in some of the same views as wind turbine development within the locality.
Landscape and Visual Impact
The size of proposal makes the development difficult to screen and by the very nature of the development there is likely to be some harmful effects on the landscape and visual amenities of the area; however, the degree of harm needs to be weighed up against the benefits arising from the proposal.
The applicant has provided a landscape assessment that has identified there would be the potential for localised landscape impacts.
The landscape surrounding the site is dominated by open fields with a line of pylons to the north of the proposed site. The site would be visible from a network of public footpaths within the locality; both long and short term views of the turbine would be gained.
Public views of the proposed turbine would be possible from along parts of the surrounding highway network, including local roads and longer views from the A595 and A596. Given the scale of the proposal, it would be visible at a greater distance on surrounding public highways and rights of way.
The individual turbine would on its own result in only a local adverse impact on landscape character that would diminish with distance. However, the proposed turbine is larger than many of the single turbine developments that are typically found on farms in the countryside and will accordingly have a proportionally wider individual impact. Officers considered that the introduction of a turbine of the proposed scale would further harm the rural landscape character. That landscape is of particular value because the footpath network, views from the local highway and surrounding villages and dwellings.
Given the scale of the proposal, the location within a low lying and wide valley and the separation from the Solway Coast AONB and Lake District National Park, the proposal individually is not considered likely to have landscape and visual impacts sufficient to be considered of more than local importance.
Cumulative Impacts
Detailed guidance within the ‘Cumbria Wind Energy, Supplementary Planning Document’ adopted by Allerdale Borough Council and Cumbria County Council is particularly relevant to the consideration of cumulative effects given the landscape (‘low farmland’ landscape Class 5 sub category 5b) with low to moderate landscape capacity for turbines in this locality, is identified as a small group (3-5), exceptionally a large group (6-9).
The NPPF requires that regard be had to the potential cumulative impact of multiple
Page 35 developments. The combination with turbines within the locality and that of the application turbine would be seen in some of the same views as these existing and proposed turbines when looking east, north and south along the coastal highway and especially from the local road networks surrounding the site. The development would extend the defining characteristic of wind farm development further west.
The proposal relates to a single turbine of a scale and size similar to the turbines at Great Orton Wind Farm and would not be seen as part of a group with other turbines.
The position of the proposed turbine extends the landscape and visual impact of turbine development within the surrounding area over the wide open landscape. It is considered that the proposal would add cumulatively to the landscape impact of the development with the wind farm development at Great Orton, Thornby, Thursby and the other aforementioned wind turbine developments above.
The applicant has provided an assessment on the potential cumulative effects of the development with the proposed and existing turbines within the immediate locality. The assessment concludes that the development would theoretically be seen cumulatively in combination with existing wind turbine developments but indicates there would be no significant impacts arising from the addition of a single turbine due to screening or filtering by existing landform and vegetation. The landscape and cumulative visual impacts are considered to be Moderate to neutral and therefore not significant.
There have been three recent appeals for wind turbine development of a similar scale to that proposed within the vicinity of the application site, that have all been dismissed:
1. Flatt Farm, (within Carlisle City Council administrative boundary), To the north west of Great Orton village. Appeal ref. 2190325 2. Land to the South of Flatt Farm, Great Orton. To the north of turbine 4 at the airfield. Appeal ref. 2187146 3. Land adjoining airfield, Wiggonby. Land to west of airfield and north of Wiggonby village. Appeal ref. 2192507
In relation to the first appeal referenced, the Inspector found that in isolation this proposal would have moderate visual effects and at least moderate effects on the wider landscape, however, more significantly she concluded that the cumulative visual impact would be harmful. Particular reference is made to the significant visual prominence of the existing windfarm from the southern edge of Great Orton and the impact of adding a further turbine that would be particularly visible when approaching the village from the north, noting the relationship to the single Midtown Farm turbine. The sequential impact particularly would be harmful, experienced by villagers, footpath users etc. The Inspector concludes that the proposal exceeds the capacity identified by the SPD, and the details provided with the application did not lead her to conclude that this scheme should be considered an exception, to justify a larger grouping.
The second appeal on land to the South of Flatt Farm notes that this proposed turbine, due to its scale and location would not be viewed as part of the Orton airfield windfarm, nor would it appear as an obvious pair with the Midtown Farm turbine. It was deemed to be visually incoherent, disrupting the ordered appearance and layout of the linear windfarm, resulting in a piecemeal appearance, unsettling to the viewer and having a
Page 36 significant adverse impact on the ordered landscape. This adverse cumulative impact on the landscape would be experienced by visitors to the Nature Reserve, users of local footpaths and roads, and from residents/villagers of Great Orton.
The third appeal on land to the west of the airfield and north of Wiggonby village, noted that this proposed turbine would not share the scale, spacing or linear format of the existing Orton airfield windfarm. As a result the proposal would compromise and would be awkwardly juxtaposed to, the existing coherently planned windfarm. However, this Inspector goes on to state that the proposed turbine would add to the number of turbines in the vicinity of the former airfield and would contribute to an impression that there is already an over-concentration of turbines in the area. He concludes that cumulatively with existing turbines, the proposal would have a significant adverse effect on the character and quality of the landscape in the vicinity of the former airfield. He refers to an ‘over-concentration of turbines within the countryside area that encompasses Wiggonby and Great Orton’.
The current proposal must be considered on its individual merits, however, the above appeal decisions are material considerations.
The third appeal referenced above (Land adjoining airfield, Wiggonby), states at Paragraph 15 that, ‘If the proposed turbine was to be a singular feature in the landscape, the harm it would cause to the character and quality of the landscape would be outweighed by its renewable energy benefit. However, it would not be a singular feature but would be added to many existing similar features in the near vicinity and in the wider area. There is already an over-concentration of wind turbines in the countryside area that encompasses Wiggonby and Great Orton and the proposed turbine would, cumulatively with existing turbines, have a significant adverse effect on the character and quality of the landscape. This significant adverse effect, despite the encouragement provided by paragraph 98 of the NPPF, is not outweighed by the renewable energy benefit of the proposed wind turbine’.
The turbine development within this locality, including those across the administrative boundary into Carlisle would add to the over-concentration of wind turbine development within this locality identified in this last appeal, adding further harm to the character and quality of the landscape, with resulting harm to visual amenity.
In terms of capacity within the ‘Cumbria Wind Energy, Supplementary Planning Document’ landscape type 5 when considering the larger scale developments within the locality; the existing (6 turbines at Great Orton Airfield, 3 turbines at Orton Grange, 1 Turbine at Thursby and the approved application at Mid Town Farm along with the two turbines at Thornby Villa the total number of turbines would exceed the capacity within this locality and therefore would not be within the parameters set within the guidance of the supplementary planning document.
The proposal is therefore considered to conflict with policy S19 of the Allerdale Local Plan (Part 1) adopted July 2014 in particular, which supports renewable energy provided it meets various criteria including that there is no significant adverse impact on the location, in relation to visual impact and impact on the character and sensitivity of the surrounding landscape. Conflict also arises with policies S32 and S33 for similar reasons.
Page 37 The position of the proposed turbine extends the landscape and visual impact of the existing wind turbine development over the gently undulating landscape to the detriment of the surrounding area.
The resulting piecemeal appearance of the development within the locality would be unsettling to the viewer and would have significant adverse impacts on the local ordered rural landscape, contrary to local plan objectives or the NPPF.
The adverse cumulative visual impact of the turbine on the landscape would be experienced by members of the public using local footpaths to the east and west of the area and local roads surrounding the site and in the outlook from some dwellings within the locality.
Residential Amenity
Policy S19 seeks to protect local residents from unacceptable harm and the supporting text references that in order to address community concerns and in the interests of residential amenity and safety in relation to turbine development a separation distance of 800m to residential properties will be expected. This distance has been established as being generally sufficient to avoid unacceptable impact on residential amenity. The Local Plan does recognise the need for flexibility and that “in some cases due to site-specific factors such as orientation of views, land cover, other buildings and topography, it may be appropriate to vary this threshold, where it can be demonstrated through evidence that there is no unacceptable impact on residential amenity”.
The application has been accompanied by a Residential Assessment which considers those properties within the locality and the likely impact. This deals primarily with visual impact and the views from residential properties and considers the change that will be experienced by residents.
There would be a small number of residential visual receptors within the area; however, due to the distance from the site, orientation of dwellings and existing screening the proposal does not raise any significant concerns when viewed from these properties.
Protected Areas
When looking from the north towards the development longer term views may be gained from the AONB of numerous windfarm developments however given the distance it is not considered significant to warrant refusal on this ground.
Public Rights of Way
The nearest public right of way is approximately 450m to the north west of the proposed turbine; although visual amenity of users would be affected it is not considered significant enough to warrant a refusal on this ground.
There is sufficient topple distance in relation to the proximity of the nearby rights of way; and would be at a distance greater than the height of the turbine.
Page 38 Noise
A noise report accompanying the application indicated that an assessment was undertaken in accordance with ETSU R97 which demonstrated that predicted noise levels would not exceed the background derived daytime and night time noise limits.
Further clarification has been requested based on the environmental consultation response in relation to potential cumulative impacts. Subject to a satisfactory response Environmental Protection has confirmed that they would be satisfied with the information provided if a cumulative noise assessment is not required. However, in order to safeguard the amenity of the surrounding area, conditions are recommended relating to the ETSU noise limits and a complaints protocol.
Any further information relating to this issue will be reported to the development panel.
Shadow Flicker
In terms of shadow flicker, the standard assessment would be that properties within 10 rotor diameters of the turbine could potentially be affected by shadow flicker; this is also influenced by the position of the sun within the sky. In this case the rotor diameter is 44m. There are no residential properties within 440m of the turbine.
A shadow flicker map has been produced which has not highlighted any properties at risk from the proposal.
Historic Environment
Although the site is within 1.2km of St Andrew Church to the north east which is a Grade I listed building and Down Hall which is a scheduled ancient monument it is considered that the setting of these historic sites would not be affected by the proposal. English Heritage have confirmed that the development although would be visible from both sites would not impact on their settings to any significant degree.
In terms of the setting of the Hadrian’s Wall World Heritage Site, the development is considered to be sufficiently away from this designation not to affect its setting.
The development is not considered to significantly affect the setting of Gamelsby conservation area.
Electromagnetic Interference (EMI), Aviation and RADAR
The CAA, NATS and the MOD have all been consulted on the proposal and have raised no objections with regards to the proposal. Conditions are requested relating to aviation lighting and notification when the turbine is erected. The scheme is considered acceptable in terms of aviation safety and radar. Electromagnetic interference could be dealt with by condition.
Ecology
The proposed turbine would not be located within an identified designated site or habitat.
Page 39 Broad Dales SSSI 2km to the west is not considered to be effected by the development.
Natural England has not raised concerns on the landscape impact.
The proposed turbine has been sighted in excess of 50m from the nearest potential bat foraging habitat, this exceeds the recommended distance within Natural England’s standing advice on bats.
The ground works in associated with the turbine and access would be limited and is unlikely to cause significant harm to any habitats, due to the nature of the limited works.
Flood Risk
The site is located within close proximity to flood zones 2 and 3 however none of the built development would be located within this area. Officers consider that the development is acceptable in terms of flood risk.
Conclusions
In balancing the degree of harmful effects of the proposal, which are in the main limited to the impact on the landscape and visual amenity, against the benefits arising from the promotion of renewable energy development; it is considered that on balance, the development would have a significant cumulative visual harm that is not outweighed by the benefits of the proposal.
Conclusion
In balancing the degree of harmful effects of the proposal, which are in the main limited to the impact on the landscape and visual amenity, against the benefits arising from the promotion of renewable energy development; it is considered that on balance, the harm identified is not outweighed by the benefits arising from the proposal and therefore refusal is recommended.
Page 40 Annex 1
Conditions
1. The proposed turbine, by virtue of its siting, scale and proximity to other turbine development would be a prominent and incongruous feature within the landscape, and would increase the proliferation of turbines in the area, resulting in a significantly harmful impact on the landscape and visual amenities of the locality. The proposal is therefore considered contrary to policies S19, S32 and S33 of the Allerdale Local Plan (Part 1) adopted July 2014 and the advice contained within the National Planning Policy Framework and Planning Practice Guidance for Renewable and Low Carbon Energy.
Notes to Applicant:
Page 41
Page 42 Agenda Item 7
Allerdale Borough Council
Planning Application 2/2015/0098
Proposed Outline application for two detached dwellings with private access Development: from new field access point. Location: Land Adjacent to Belle Mount Papcastle Cockermouth Recommendati on: Refused
Summary/Key Issues
Issue Conclusion
Principle of The principle of development is not considered acceptable at development this location. The site is not infill or rounding-off of the village and will contribute to settlements joining together by ribbon development. The proposals are contrary to Local Plan policies regarding strategic housing growth within the defined hierarchy of settlements. The proposals do not qualify as an exception of any kind for housing outside the settlement. Conser vation Area The site is considered to exte nd the village as ribbon and Landscape development with adverse impact upon the traditional Character settlement form and the Conservation Area with immediate and wider landscape impact. Drainage There are a numbe r of potentially achievable solutions for surface water and foul drainage at the site in accordance with the hierarchy of sustainable drainage. United Utilities has not objected and agreed in principle to a sewer connection Access Acceptable to the Highwa y Authority with appropriate conditions Archaeology An archaeological evaluation has been considered by the county archaeology with no necessary preservation of Roman or medieval features required. A watching brief is recommended.
Proposal
Outline application for the erection of two detached dwellings considering the principle of development, drainage and the access from the public highway. All other matters are reserved.
Page 43 Site
The site comprises agricultural, greenfield land adjacent to the public highway with a hedgerow enclosed frontage.
Undeveloped agricultural land is noted opposite to the east and to the north and west of the site. Existing residential development is noted adjacent to the south. The Papcastle bypass is noted 120 metres to the rear of the site.
The proposed site will be adjacent to an existing dwelling known as Belle Mount being the last dwelling on the edge of Papcastle. The site is detached from the hamlet of Belle Vue 100 metres to the north; separated by a gap of undeveloped greenfield land.
Relevant Policies
Allerdale Local Plan (Part 1) Adopted July 2014
Policy S1 - Presumption in favour of sustainable development Policy S2 - Sustainable development principles Policy S3 - Spatial Strategy and Growth Policy S5 - Development Principles Policy S7 - A mixed and balanced housing market Policy S27 - Heritage Assets Policy S29 - Flood Risk and Surface Water Drainage Policy S30 - Reuse of Land Policy S32 - Safeguarding amenity Policy S33 – Landscape Policy S35 - Protecting and enhancing biodiversity and geodiversity Policy DM17 - Trees, hedgerows and woodland
National Planning Policy Framework
Relevant Planning History
2/2014/0649 Withdrawn
Representations
Parish Council – Refuse for the following reasons
Unacceptable ribbon development The development is not infill or rounding-off appropriate to village form and character and the definition within the Local Plan Potential joining of settlements with the open space between Papcastle and Belle Vue substantially reduced by a half. Inappropriate house and plot sizes Lack of detail at Outline application stage
Page 44 Impact on local character Approval would set a precedent for further undesirable development adjacent and opposite Sewage plant at capacity
United Utilities – No objection in principle subject to conditions
County Archaeologist - No objection in principle subject to conditions
Highway Authority - No objection in principle subject to conditions
Environmental Health – No objections
Allerdale Conservation Officer – Objection regarding impact upon traditional settlement character, landscape character, setting of Conservation Area and Roman Fort.
The application has been advertised on site and adjoining landowners have been notified. Three letters of objection have been received regarding the following.
Inappropriate infill or rounding-off Ribbon development Danger of joining of settlements Inappropriate plot sizes Sewage system at capacity Precedent for further development
Assessment
Principle of Development
The focus of this application is regarding the basic principle of development and the Council’s strategy for housing growth.
The site is on the edge of the built form of Papcastle.
Papcastle itself is classed as an Infill and Rounding Off-Village within the settlement hierarchy of the Local Plan where only very small-scale development may be appropriate to respond to local needs and to contribute to the vitality of rural communities. No settlement boundaries are proposed for villages within this tier of the settlement hierarchy; development being directed by a number of criteria outlined in Policy S5 for very small scale rounding off and infill plots.
The site is clearly not recognisable as an infill plot, and nor does it ‘round-off’ the village as such. The term ‘rounding-off’ is not formally defined within the Plan although it is reasonable to consider that ‘rounding-off development’ would be sited within the confines of the settlement, defining and completing the boundaries of the village. The supporting text to Policy S5 clarifies that infill and rounding-off development sites would be within the existing built fabric of the village, confirming the criteria within the Policy which states
Page 45 that in-fill and rounding-off development must respect the appearance and the character of the settlement, must be within or well-related to the form of the settlement and to existing buildings within it, and protect, maintain or enhance the local distinctiveness, character and landscape and historic setting. In addition, development must not exacerbate the adverse effects of ribbon development, result in further sporadic development in otherwise open countryside, or result in settlements joining together.
Although adjacent to the existing village, development of the site would only serve to extend the linear group of existing dwellings at Belle Mount with a harmful impact upon historic settlement character resulting in the threat of joining settlements; linking Papcastle sequentially with the hamlet of Belle Vue. A chain of ribbon development will be created harmful to settlement character.
The applicant has argued that the ribbon development is marginal and a green space is retained as a separation buffer. It is also claimed that Papcastle cannot link ultimately with Belle Vue due to the constraint of an underground sewer.
Planning Officers would comment that the buffer between Papcastle and Belle Vue would be reduced by half to just 50 metres. The visual separation between the two settlements would be significantly diminished, to the detriment of the character and appearance of the locality and contrary to Policy S5.
Furthermore this remaining land could also come under pressure for further development as underground services need not be a constraint with negotiated diversion and/or easements with United Utilities.
This 0.2 hectare site is not considered one that would be considered very small scale; it would be able to accommodate more than the two dwellings shown. Further applications may follow should the principle be established with an outline approval, irrespective of the indicative layout at this stage. Although new development needs to be of an appropriate density to integrate well with its immediate locality, the scheme as shown illustrates two large dwellings on very large plots. Whilst Officers’ consider that this is an unsuitable location for new development in principle which does not accord with Policy S5 as outlined above, the proposals also represent an inefficient use of land (Policy S2), and exhibit the aspects of development which are most unsympathetic to the settlement form.
The application does not fall within any class of settlement within the hierarchy and is essentially greenfield, agricultural land where the only exception for housing is with regard to an essential need for a rural worker as defined under Policy S3 (a). The application has been submitted with no such need.
In conclusion, the site cannot be considered as infill or rounding-off and therefore contrary to the criteria of Policy S5 where the development would ‘exacerbate the adverse effects of ribbon development’ and would result in further adverse effects of areas of sporadic development beyond the settlement’. The application does not qualify as an exception as defined within Policy S3.
Page 46 Access
The applicant has committed to a new access from the public highway at this outline stage. An amount of hedgerow will be required for removal that will have minimal impact on visual amenity and biodiversity.
The Highway Authority has responded with no objection and with standard conditions.
Drainage
Foul drainage is planned to the main sewer. Surface water drainage is planned to a soakaway.
Limited information has been provided with a drainage strategy detailing discharge rates. A supporting letter from United Utilities accepts foul and surface water to the main sewer in principle subject to connection points and discharge rates. The applicant owns and controls a large amount of adjacent land. In that regard the applicant has realistic options for sustainable drainage solutions that can be conditioned accordingly should the application be approved.
Archaeology
The applicant has provided an archaeological evaluation. It concludes the remains of a historic track and agricultural workings. The County Archaeologist has responded and does not rule out these remains as Roman in origin or possibly medieval. However, he comments that they are not of such significance to warrant preservation at the site. The impact on the setting of the Roman Fort has been referred to English heritage who have not replied to date.
The County Archaeologist concludes that any development should be accompanied with a watching brief by condition.
Hedgerow Assessment
A hedgerow assessment has been provided that concludes that the hedge on the frontage of the site is classed an Important Hedgerow’ by virtue of its mix of species and historic context as field boundary. The amount of hedgerow removal is judged to be of around 10 metres. This is considered insignificant in terms of impact although consent under the Hedgerow Regulations will be required.
Mitigation is recommended to minimise hedgerow removal, improve existing hedgerow with appropriate species and restrict groundworks with a 3 metre buffer.
Ecology
A scoping report has been provided that concludes that the development will have no significant impact upon any protected species. A mitigation strategy to safeguard wildlife is recommended with regards to good working practice and the timing of hedgerow and vegetation removal. The site has no unique habitat characteristics or statutory designations and there are no roosting bats at the site.
Page 47
Residential Amenity
With design and appearance a reserved matter there are no concerns over residential and amenity at this stage.
Landscape Impact and Conservation Area
Allerdale Conservation Officer has objected to the proposals. The development is considered to have a detrimental impact upon the traditional character and form of the village as a Conservation Area; elongating the more recent linear form of the village with the potential of joining settlements together. Views into and out of the village will be affected eroding the landscape surrounding Papcastle that helps to define its strategic location and setting of the Roman Fort.
It is therefore considered that the development will have an adverse impact upon the character of the Conservation Area and setting of heritage assets
Local Financial Considerations
Having regard to S70 (2) of the Town and Country Planning Act. There are local financial considerations relevant to this application with regard to the New Homes Bonus. This has carried no weight in the determination of the application.
Conclusion
The development is clearly contrary to Policies S3 and S5 of the Local Plan regarding the settlement hierarchy and strategy for housing growth. The site if developed will only serve to exacerbate and extend the ribbon development that has already impacted upon the traditional settlement form and landscape character with the danger of joining Papcastle settlement together with the hamlet of Belle Vue. The proposed housing does not qualify for any exceptions at this location beyond the settlement. There is no demonstrated local or agricultural need and with no benefit to the local community. There are no benefits from the development that would outweigh such harm.
Page 48 Annex 1
Reasons for R efusal
The proposed site is considered poorly related to traditional settlement form and character and not considered to constitute as infill or rounding-off as defined within the Allerdale Local Plan and contrary to Policies S1 S2 S3 S5 and S27 of the Allerdale Local Plan Adopted July 2014 ansd Para 55 of the National Planning Policy Framework.
The proposed development constitutes non essential residential development in the open countryside and is not considered to qualify as an exception for housing outside of the settlement and contrary to Policy S3 of the Allerdale Local Plan Adopted July 2014.
The proposed site area is considered to exacerbate ribbon development having an adverse impact upon settlement form(including the Conservation Area), landscape and rural character of the open countryside and with the detrimental result of joining a settlement to a hamlet contrary to Policy S1 S2 S3 S5 S27 and S33 of the Allerdale Local Plan Adopted July 2014.
Notes to Applicant:
Page 49
Page 50 Agenda Item 8
Allerdale Borough Council
Planning Application 2/2015/0012
Reference No: 2/2015/0012 Valid Date: 07/01/2015 Location: Site Adjacent to Borriskill Ellenborough Maryport Applicant: Mr M Scott
Drawing Numbers: MS-B-01 - Site plan MS-B-02 - Location plan Coal Mining Risk Assessment received February16 2015
Proposed Outline application for the erection of a dwelling house Development:
Recommendation: Refused
Summary/Key Issues
Issue Conclusion
Principle of The application site is located in the open countryside outside the Development defined settlement limit. The proposed dwelling represents an inappropriate form of development in the open countryside contrary to the provisions of Policy S3 of the Allerdale Local Plan (Part 1). Access The site is served off a private lane which is part restricted in width and has little in the way of suitable construction. The access lane would also require capping to mitigate against previous coal mining activities. Drainage It is considered that drainage details can be adequately controlled by condition. Other Issues It is considered the proposed development will not adversely affect the amenities of the occupiers of nearby residential properties. Planning decision An outline application for a dwelling with stabling on the opposite in locality side of the lane was recently refused 2/2014/0560 refers. The reason for refusal was that the application site was located in the open countryside outside the defined settlement limit. The proposed dwelling represented an inappropriate form of development in the open countryside contrary to the provisions of Policy S3 of the Allerdale Local Plan (Part 1).
Page 51 Proposal
This outline application is for the erection of a single dwelling on land at Borriskill at Maryport. The matter of access and layout is to be considered at this stage, with matters relating to appearance, landscape and scale to be dealt with as reserved matters.
Site
The application site is located to the east of Maryport beyond the defined settlement limit. The site is used for an agricultural field and is located between the lane and two existing houses. There is an agricultural building on the opposite side of the road.
Access is via an unmade track and bridleway from the A594 which also serves a small number of dwellings located to the west and north of the application site.
The applicant has set out that the proposed house would be for the applicant’s mother who currently lives within the locality and the current dwelling is unsuitable because of the layout. The new development would provide ground floor living and a family member would reside at the existing cottage at Borriskill to enable support for family care arrangements. Relevant Policies
National Planning Policy Framework
6 - Delivering a wide choice of high quality homes 7 - Requiring good design
Allerdale Local Plan (Part 1) – Adopted July 2014
Policy S1 - Presumption in favour of sustainable development Policy S3 - Spatial Strategy and Growth Policy S4 - Design principles Policy S7 - A mixed and balanced housing market Policy S22 - Transport principles Policy S29 - Flood Risk and Surface Water Drainage Policy S32 - Safeguarding amenity, Policy DM14 - Standards of Good Design Relevant Planning His tory
Outline planning permission was refused in 1995 for a dwelling on the site due to there being no justification for a dwelling at the location ref 1995/0382. Also in 1995 a change of use was granted for an outbuilding to be used for storage in association with the owner’s electrical contracting business. This is still in operation, although the business has reduced in scale.
The site is currently under consideration as part of the Allerdale Local Plan (Part 2) Land allocation process.
Page 52 An outline application for the demolition of an agricultural building and replacement with a dwelling and stable (2/2014/0560)on the opposite side of the access lane was refused on the grounds that it was located outside the defined settlement limits. This application is presently the subject of an appeal.
Representations
Councillor Call In – Cllr Kendall – To consider whether the development within or the relationship with the adjacent settlement.
Maryport Town Council - No objections
Cumbria County Council (Highways) - The site is served off a private lane which in part is restricted in width and has little in the way of suitable construction. If Allerdale BC are minded to approve the scheme it is recommended the driveway, parking area is suitably designed, drained and surfaced and that gates only open inwards. The applicant will need to ensure that the public right of way BW226015 remains open and unobstructed at all times.
Environmental Health - No objections in principles, however as the site is within 250m of known ground fill that an infill ground advisory note is put forward. Arrangements for foul drainage require clarification.
Coal Authority - Comments on the submitted Development Risk Assessment are awaited and will be presented to Development Panel.
The application has been advertised by site notice and adjoining owners have been notified. 3 letters of objections have been received that are summarised as follows:
The area is a small hamlet in open countryside, with a bridle path for access, there is enough traffic accessing the lane. Concern about foul sewage disposal, road maintenance, loss of view, will affect the amenity of neighbours. The applicant is in breach of his planning consent to run his business which was only a 2 year consent. The family already live close to each other. Many people live in houses that do not suit their needs. If 24 hour care is needed there are other facilities to accommodate needs.
There is one letter of support as the proposal will not have a negative impact on the area.
Main Issues:
Principle of Development.
The application site is located outside the settlement limits for Maryport as defined in the Allerdale Local Plan 1999. Although the Allerdale Local Plan (Part 1) which replaces this plan has now been adopted the settlement limits defined in the earlier plan are retained until reviewed by the emerging Allerdale Local Plan (Part 2 – Site Allocations).
As the application site is outside the settlement limits Policy S3 of the Allerdale Local Plan (Part 1) requires that proposals should be limited to:
Page 53 a. Housing essential for rural workers in the operation of a rural based enterprise; b. Housing following the rural exceptions policy; c. An appropriate diversification of an existing agricultural or land based activity; d. The optimal viable use of a heritage asset or appropriate enabling development to secure the future of heritage assets; e. A recreation or tourism proposal requiring a countryside location; f. Facilities essential to social and community needs; g. The replacement of an existing dwelling; h. A suitably scaled extension to an existing building; i. The conversion or reuse of a suitable existing building; j. Other development requiring a countryside location for technical or operational reasons.
The proposed dwelling does not satisfy any of the above criteria and therefore must be considered to be contrary to the provisions of policy S3and S5.
Although there are a small number of existing dwellings this does not provide a justification for the grant of planning permission for the further proliferation of residential development in what must, in both planning policy and functional terms, be considered to be an open countryside location. Furthermore, the Council can now demonstrate the availably of an adequate supply of housing land taking into account the 20% buffer required by the NPPF in the light of previous delivery rates.
Drainage
Foul drainage would be via a new package treatment plant which would be shared between the proposed dwellings (at the existing Borriskill houses). The applicant has stated that this would resolve concerns about the existing septic tank arrangement causing overflowing to the nearby culvert. Surface water would be taken to a nearby field drain. This matter could reasonably be dealt with by condition.
Coal Mining
The site falls within a defined coal mining Development High Risk Area. The application site and the surrounding area have coal mining features and hazards that need to be considered, specifically a thick coal mine seam outcrop through the site that may have been worked within the past. The Coal Authority objected to the planning application as the required Coal Mining Risk Assessment report, or equivalent had been not been submitted as part of the application. A Coal Mining Risk Assessment report was later submitted and with mitigation taken into account to include reinforce capping of the road construction with geogrid, the following risks were concluded: Recorded workings – negligible Mine entries – negligible Un-recorded shallow workings beneath the proposed area and north eastern section of the access road – negligible Un-recorded shallow workings beneath the south western section of the access road – Low (negligible if recommendation for road capping complied with) Opencast workings – negligible Spontaneous combustion - negligible
Page 54
Comments are awaited from the Coal Authority on the findings of the Coal Mining Risk Assessment.
Other Issues
There are other properties in the locality however these are separated by gardens and fields and it is considered that the proposal is unlikely to have an adverse impact on the amenity of the occupiers of these properties by way of overlooking or loss of privacy. The limited increase in the use of the shared access lane is unlikely to lead to an unacceptable level of noise and disturbance to the occupiers of nearby properties.(This did not constitute a reason for refusal on the earlier refused outline application) The matter relating to the personal need for the development on health/ age grounds in the open countryside is not a material consideration.
Financial Considerations:
Having regard to S70(2) of the Town and County Planning Act 1990 (as amended) the proposal could attract New Homes Bonus.
Conclusion
The proposed dwelling is considered to be contrary to the provisions of Policy S3 of the Allerdale Local Plan (Part 1).
Page 55 Annex 1
Reason for refusal:
1. The Local Planning Authority considers the proposed dwelling constitutes an inappropriate non-essential form of residential development in the open countryside outside of the defined settlement limit for Maryport and would therefore be contrary to the provisions of Policy S3 of the Allerdale Local Plan (Part 1) Adopted July 2014 and the principles of the National Planning Policy Framework.
Application Refused Without Discussion
The Local Planning Authority has acted positively and proactively in determining this application by identifying matters of planning policies, constraints, stakeholder representations and concerns with the proposal and determining the application within a timely manner, clearly setting out the reason(s) for refusal, allowing the Applicant the opportunity to consider the harm caused and whether or not it can be remedied by a revision to the proposal. The Local Planning Authority is willing to meet with the Applicant to discuss the best course of action and is also willing to provide pre- application advice in respect of any future application for a revised development.
Notes to Applicant:
Page 56
Page 57 This page is intentionally left blank
Page 58 Agenda Item 9
Allerdale Borough Council
Planning Application 2/2014/0544
Proposed Erection of a 1½ storey dwelling (as amended by plans received Development: 20 February 2015 and email received 27 March 2015) Location: Longwood Garden Centre Wigton To Silloth Via Abbeytown Silloth Wigton Cumbria Recommendation: Refused
Summary/Key Issues
Issue Conclusion
Principle of Notwithstanding the location of the site outside of the defined development settlement for Silloth in the open countryside, there is an extant consent for a dwellinghouse and therefore the principle of residential development at this location has been established.
However as the proposed dwellinghouse occupies a different site the Local Planning Authority (LPA) would, in the event of planning permission being granted, to wish to take appropriate measures to safeguard against a scenario of both dwellings being able to be constructed.
On this basis, in the event that the planning permission for the proposed development being granted, officers would advocate the use of a Section 106 agreement containing a clause that would annul the extant planning permission upon implementation. Occupancy The applicant wishes the proposed development to be restriction considered subject to a local occupancy condition.
In the absence of an obligation to a condition limiting occupancy to a person working in agriculture or the qualifying business enterprise, officers consider the proposed development would constitute non-essential residential development in a location outside of the defined settlement for Silloth in the open countryside contrary to Policies S3 and S5 of the Allerdale Local Plan
Page 59 Proposal
The application seeks consent for the erection of a dwellinghouse on a site located at Causewayhead; a linear rural hamlet arranged along the B5302 located approximately 1.5 miles beyond the current defined settlement limit for Silloth.
The proposed dwellinghouse constitutes a 1½ storey building with domestic accommodation at both ground and first floor levels, with a footprint measuring 17.5m wide and 8.9 deep and a ridge height of 6.9m. The external appearance would comprise of rendered elevations and white uPVC windows/doors underneath a grey tiled roof.
Local ground conditions render the use of soakaways and SUDS infiltration systems impractical. Therefore it is proposed to discharge surface water to a local watercourse. Foul drainage would be disposed of via an existing non-main drainage system that serves the business.
The dwellinghouse would be sited adjacent to the former Longwood Garden Centre, which now trades as the Causewayhead Country Store. Access would be obtained via an existing junction from the B5302 serving the business with the dwellinghouse served by a private driveway that would be segregated and screened from the visitor car park by a low wall and landscape planting along the western boundary.
Planning permission has been granted for a two storey detached dwelling on a site directly adjacent to that proposed, in a location closer to the existing Garden Centre/Store building. The approved dwelling was subject to a condition restricting occupancy to either an employee of the garden centre or an agricultural worker. This permission has been commenced, with the foundations and base clearly visible and therefore is valid in perpetuity.
The submitted Design and Access Statement (DAS) states that the applicant is seeking a revised location for the proposed dwellinghouse to ensure that there is adequate land for future expansion of the business, particularly the Centre/Store building. The DAS contends that the scale and appearance of the proposed dwellinghouse would be more consistent with the properties immediately adjacent.
The applicant would not accept a condition restricting occupancy of the proposed dwellinghouse to either an employee of the garden centre or an agricultural worker - as per the extant planning consent for the commenced dwelling. Alternatively, the applicant proposes that a local occupancy condition be applied.
Site
The site lies adjacent to the former Longwood Garden Centre and associated tea rooms. Prior to its recent purchase by the applicant the business had ceased operating but has been reopened and now trades as Causewayhead Country Store. The garden centre element of the business has contracted with the tea rooms currently constituting the principal enterprise.
Page 60 The site forms part of the agricultural field that separates the business from the residential property ‘St Helena’ located approximately 80m due east along the B5302. The field has a relatively flat topography, enclosed by hedgerows to the north, south and east and by stock fencing to the west.
The site is equidistant from the business and the St Helena, located to the rear of the field close to the southern boundary. The existing hedgerow would be retained as a means of enclosure. The northern and eastern boundaries of the site would be defined by a combination of new hedgerows and supplementary planting. The western boundary would be defined by a low wall and landscape planting as described earlier.
Relevant Policies
National Planning Policy Framework (March 2012)
Achieving Sustainable Development (Paragraphs 6-17) Chapter 6: Delivering a wide choice of high quality homes (Paragraphs 47, 49-50) Chapter 7: Requiring good design (Paragraphs 60-61, 64, 66) Chapter 10: Meeting the challenge of climate change, flooding and coastal change (Paragraphs 99-103) Chapter 11: Conserving and enhancing the natural environment (Paragraphs 109, 111- 112, 117-118, 120-125)
Allerdale Local Plan (Part 1) Adopted July 2014
Policy S1 - Presumption in favour of sustainable development Confirms the Council will take a positive approach to new development that reflects the presumption in favour of sustainable development, as set out in the National Planning Policy Framework. Policy S2 – Sustainable development principles Seeks to ensure that proposals for new development within the Plan Area both promote and contribute to economic, social and environmental sustainability. Policy S3 – Spatial Strategy and Growth Sets the framework for development across the Allerdale Plan Area and outlines the settlement hierarchy, including the approach to the scale, location and distribution of growth. Policy S4 - Design principles Seeks to ensure a high standard of design within the Plan Area to ensure new development contributes positively to the site and surroundings in terms of visual amenity and functionality. Policy S5 - Development principles Requires that the scale of the development proposed to be commensurate to the size of the settlement and reflect its position within the hierarchy.
Page 61 Policy S29 – Flood Risk and Surface Water Drainage Seeks to ensure that development within the Plan Area is avoided in locations that would be at risk of flooding or where it would increase the level of flooding elsewhere. Policy S32 - Safeguarding amenity Seeks to ensure that development proposals within the Plan Area maintain or improve environmental quality and visual and residential amenity. Policy S33 – Landscape Seeks to ensure that development proposals within the Plan Area protect, conserve landscape character and where possible, provide enhancement. Policy S35 - Protecting and enhancing biodiversity and geodiversity Seeks to ensure that conditions for biodiversity within the Plan Area are maintained and, wherever possible, improved. Policy S36 - Air, water and soil quality Seeks to ensure that air and water quality within the Plan Area are protected and enhanced and that soil quality is maintained. Policy DM14 – Standard of Good Design Seek to ensure that the design and layout of all new development within the Plan Area creates neighbourhoods and areas that are well integrated and compatible with existing development with acceptable arrangements for car parking and access.
Relevant Planning History
The site has a long and complex planning history.
2/1994/0582: Outline application for erection of single dwelling – approved by Development Panel (contrary to officer recommendation)
2/1999/0960: Application to vary condition no3 on planning application (2/94/0582) to extend the time period for the approval of the reserved matters – approved under delegated powers
2/2001/0213: Erection of a coffee shop – approved under delegated powers
2/2001/0724: Outline application for erection of single dwelling – refused under delegated powers
2/2002/0144: Erection of a detached dwelling - approved under delegated powers
2/2003/1234: Erection of storage extension and adjustment of position of proposed approved dwelling (2/2002/0144) – approved under delegated powers
Page 62 Representations
Holme Low Parish Object Council Raise no objections to the principle of a dwelling with a local occupancy clause restriction but object to the scale and massing of the proposed dwelling, which they consider to be excessive and not in-keeping with the neighbouring properties Highways Authority No objections Environment Agency No objections Natural England No objections United Utilities No objections Environment al Health No objections
Main Issues:
Principle of the proposed development
Policies S3 and S5 of the Local Plan seek to direct new residential development to those settlements identified in the hierarchy. Development outside the hierarchy is to be strictly controlled, in line with national policy, and only approved where an essential/location need can be robustly demonstrated – and subject to the requisite occupancy restrictions.
Notwithstanding the fact that the site(s) are located in a rural hamlet outside of current defined settlement limit for Silloth and therefore, in planning terms, located in the open countryside, given the fact that there is a planning consent for a dwellinghouse has been commenced and is therefore valid in perpetuity, the principle of the proposed development is acceptable.
However as the proposed dwellinghouse occupies a different site the Local Planning Authority (LPA) would, in the event of planning permission being granted, to wish to take appropriate measures to safeguard against a scenario of both dwellings being able to be constructed. On this basis, the LPA has advised the applicant that in the event that the planning permission for the proposed development being granted, a Section 106 agreement would need to be signed containing a clause that would annul the extant planning permission upon implementation.
Occupancy restriction
The extant consent is subject to a condition restricting occupancy to either an employee of the garden centre or an agricultural worker, consistent with the approval of a dwellinghouse in an open countryside location for which an essential/locational need has been accepted.
The applicant does not wish such a restriction to be applied to the proposed dwellinghouse and instead propose that it be the subject of a local occupancy restriction. Given the location of the site and the reasons underpinning the previous acceptance of a dwelling upon it, officers consider that a condition similar to that imposed on the extant consent should be applied.
Page 63
Officers highlight that the newly-adopted Local Plan does not make policy provision for local occupancy restrictions. Only two types of occupancy restriction are identified and supported within the policy framework: those applied to affordable units (restricting occupancy to local people that have fulfilled the criteria demonstrating they are in affordable housing need) and essential needs housing (restricting occupancy to the those employment in the enterprise/business upon which the location need has been accepted or a rural worker).
Officers consider that without a condition restricting the occupancy of the proposed dwelling to either an employee of the garden centre or an agricultural worker the proposal would fail to comply with the requirements of Policies S3 and S5 of the Local Plan.
Other issues
Design of the proposed dwellinghouse
Policies S4, S32, S33 and DM14 all seek to ensure that development proposals are of the highest standards of design and will contribute positively to the site and surroundings in terms of visual amenity and landscape impact.
The parish council has raised an objection to the proposed development on the basis that the scale and massing of the proposed dwellinghouse is excessive and not in- keeping with the neighbouring properties. Officers consider that in assessing its appropriateness, it must be compared against the dwellinghouse that has extant consent. This is a substantial two storey dwelling and therefore it could be argued that the proposed building, at 1½ storeys, would be less imposing. On this basis officers raise no objections in this regard.
The original design of the proposed dwellinghouse, as submitted, included dormer windows to serve the first floor bedrooms contained within the roof space. Taking into account the relatively simple architecture in the locality, officers considered these to be non-vernacular design detail. The applicant has consented to their removal and replacement with velux rooflights. Following this amendment officers raise no objections in relation to design and consider the proposed development to be compliant with the requirements of Policies S4, S32, S33 and DM14 of the Local Plan.
Flood Risk
Policies S2 and S30 of the Allerdale Local Plan seek to ensure that development is, where possible, steered away from areas at risk of flooding.
Originally the site was identified as lying within an area with a medium-high risk of flooding. However the Environment Agency (EA) has updated flood mapping within the locality and the revisions have placed the site within Flood Zone 1 – the lowest probability of flooding. On this basis the EA raises no objections and officers are therefore satisfied that proposed development fulfils the requirements of Policies S2 and S30.
Page 64 Drainage
Policy S29 of the Local Plan expects all new developments to incorporate SuDS in preference to discharge to local watercourses or the main sewer. Proposals seeking to discharge surface water to local watercourses or the main sewer will normally be resisted, unless it can be demonstrated that local ground conditions render a SuDS system impractical. Policy S36 seeks to safeguard water quality within the Plan Area.
The applicant has indicated that local ground conditions preclude the use of soakaways and SUDS infiltration systems. Officers from within the Councils Building Control section corroborate this assertion. Therefore it is proposed to discharge surface water to a nearby watercourse. Officers raise no objections in this regard. A pre-commencement condition requiring the submission of technical details could be imposed to ensure a satisfactory arrangement.
The applicant has indicated that an existing foul drainage system serving the business has been identified for use in the development, which has adequate capacity. No technical details of this existing system has been supplied but again, a pre- commencement condition requiring the submission of technical details could be imposed to ensure its suitability. In the event it is not deemed suitable, it is feasible that details could be submitted for a separate private treatment plant. The extant planning permission has such an arrangement and was appraised against the requirements of Circular 03/99 – and therefore the assessment need not be repeated.
Officers consider that the proposal – subject to the submission and approval of technical details – complies with the requirements of Policy S29 and the objectives of Policy S36.
Local Financial Considerations
Having regard to S70 (2) of the Town and Country Planning Act, it is acknowledged that there would be some benefits arising from the proposed development by virtue of the New Homes Bonus scheme. However it is considered that little weight can be attached to this benefit as part of the assessment of the overall planning balance.
Conclusion
Notwithstanding the fact that the proposed dwelling is considered acceptable in terms of principle, design, flood risk and drainage officers are of the opinion that the application should not be supported with it subject to a local occupancy restriction. The policy framework within the Local Plan only permits the approval of dwellings in the open countryside subject to occupancy restrictions limiting habitation to either employees of the associated business or rural workers. On this basis, the application is recommended for refusal.
Proactive Statement
The Local Planning Authority has acted positively and proactively in determining this application by identifying planning policies, constraints, stakeholder representations and matters of concern with the proposal and discussing those with the Applicant. However, the issues are so fundamental to the proposal that it has not been possible to negotiate a satisfactory way forward and due to the harm which has been clearly identified within the reason(s) for the refusal, approval has not been possible.
Page 65 Annex 1
Reasons for refusal
1. In the absence of an obligation to a condition limiting occupancy to a person solely, mainly or last working in agriculture or the qualifying business enterprise the proposed development constitutes non-essential residential development in a location outside of the defined settlement for Silloth in the open countryside contrary to Policies S3 and S5 of the Allerdale Local Plan (Part 1) and the principles of the National Planning Policy Framework
Page 66
Page 67 This page is intentionally left blank
Page 68